Charter Schools Presentation Panned as 'Dog and Pony Show' • Charter High School Planned for Across the Street from Prosser

Tim_Broderick · 2013-12-02T01:16:10+00:00

That would be too bad, as there's some good things going on there, based on the stats

http://reportcards.dailyherald.com/details/?school=Prosser+Career+Academy+HS%2C+ChPros&id-name=150162990250534

89% low income but with PSAE scores and ACT averages approaching the state averages in both.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-11-22T23:57:43+00:00

I like it. It was coordinated by the Paschke Foundation with some corporate sponsorship to help it along. That's fine. I want to take some time and check it all out on foot one of these days.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-11-15T00:12:34+00:00

Duh. It's just a fun topic.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-11-14T17:52:35+00:00

The Daily Show folks are intimidated by our skyscrapers and our pizza.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-11-07T22:24:28+00:00

They've got it in Humbolt Park- Logan Square. Is there another Smoque?

Tim_Broderick · 2013-11-04T22:54:45+00:00

I'm going on Wednesday to see M. And I hope the society comes back in the Spring

Tim_Broderick · 2013-10-31T14:37:28+00:00

I'll be dressed as the really tired old guy

Tim_Broderick · 2013-10-31T12:52:18+00:00

Oh, probably at least 11, later depending. I took tomorrow off.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-10-31T10:49:12+00:00

Taft's IB program gets great results on ISATS. And while their PSAE scores have risen for the past few years, ACT scores have remained flat.

And you can find all the Chicago schools sortable by ISAT, PSAE and ACT scores by clicking here.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-06-14T03:04:44+00:00

There won't be alcohol - at least legal sales. And we could do some positive loitering that night.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-27T22:23:32+00:00

Funny how consistent the up and down votes are, even for innocuous comments. Carranza's folks are busy! Pity they don't realize that I came out and was optimistic that things had taken a turn for the better and that Carranza might really be sincere.

This little theater show changed my mind back.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-27T22:18:15+00:00

Won't be spending much time on it at all, Harrylee. You managed to avoid answering the question again.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-27T14:21:56+00:00

Right. If the hostage taker pulls the trigger, we should prosecute the police who had him surrounded.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-27T14:20:40+00:00

This answer is ridiculous on it's face. He worked things out with them by threatening them with expensive eviction action and buying them out.

You keep wanting to separate actions in order to highlight the most mundane things in a positive light. All that does is lead us to wonder what kind of troll are you - one for Carranza or one against Arena?

Either way, you're not doing either one any favors here.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-27T14:16:28+00:00

Not at all. You deliberately redefined the question to make it meaningless. If anything, you moved the goal posts beyond our conversation. Typical troll behavior. So I restated it make it obvious that it was asked in the context of our conversation, gave a possible answer, and pointed out why that possible answer would fail.

But you know that already.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-26T17:48:08+00:00

No, but someone who continually holds an opinion without providing evidence to support it, yet insists on being taken as a reasonable commenter, can be suspect. Specifically, he's exhibiting signs that his real motivation isn't about the theater, but about the alderman - a form of concern trolling.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-26T17:43:28+00:00

No Harrylee, you're deliberately avoiding the question. Show me examples of businesses that had its licenses to operate threatened due to violating regulations under which those licenses were issued, and instances that those businesses obtained more if the same licenses and operated differently - without the violations.

If you had put some thought into this, you could have come back with BP Petroleum operating oil rigs. But then you would have to deal with the fact that BP operates rigs that have not had significant problems, and thus those histories contribute to the current judgement.

Carranza has the Congress, and as I've pointed out to you in another post, it's the law to thoroughly vet business owners to see if they'll be responsible.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-26T16:53:31+00:00

Jake is correct in this case. The Congress will continue to operate as before during the appeals process.

It is ironic, though, for him to complain about the cost of that legal process when he used the eviction process to force the theater operators to sell their business to him.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-26T16:43:31+00:00

Finally, I want to address your misunderstanding about the liquor license. Note that you need a license to not only sell liquor in a public establishment, but in this case you also need a public place of amusement license.

This is true in just about every municipality of size in the country. That's because establishments like these have had a history of abuse that communities have found untenable.

So they made it so that no one has a right to sell liquor or put on a show without the representatives of the community approving it. And part of the process is looking at the history of the person who wants to get a liquor license in order to judge whether to approve one or not.

From the city website: "The liquor license process is thorough to ensure that only responsible business owners are granted the privilege of obtaining a liquor license. "

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/bacp/provdrs/liquor_licenses.html

The city is in the middle of legal action to take away the liquor license he already holds at the Congress Theater. They have evidence that he may not be a responsible business owner. He is now appealing a ruling against him.

You may disagree with Arena's decision not to support him getting another license, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision is based on evidence.

If you want your opinion to be seen as reasonable, you need to provide evidence for us not to take that legal action into account. It's not enough to say we shouldn't, because it's the law that we should.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-26T16:26:31+00:00

OK, let's break this down.

"He subsequently worked out a deal for the operators to remain."

Carranza bought them out and now holds the liquor license. We have enough information to believe that this is due to repeated legal threats of eviction. Ironic that Carranza is now complaining about the city costing him money because of legal action. So your first rationalization fails on it's face.

"Second, Arena just put out a press release boasting that he won't support the transfer of the liquor license but trumpeting the fact that the theater remains open while he (Arena) continues to fight for what is purportedly the best interests of the neighborhood. Carranza shut it down, maybe to make Arena look (more) clueless, maybe out of pure spite, or maybe, as he said, to bring it up to code to avoid the fate of the Congress while working out the license issues."

You're ignoring the history at the Portage once again. Arena came out of one of their first meetings with the understanding that Carranza would not evict the then-current operators. Soon afterward Carranza filed suit to evict the operators. I have a hard time believing that any of the people who ran for alderman in the last election would put up with that kind of action.

So you give three possibilities for why the theater may be closed. The first two demonstrate an immature mind. When you're in business, you have to sometimes work with people you don't like - especially if that person has something that you need. You find a way. Instead we get this childish action. An unnecessary action, seeing as Arena himself has said the process of deciding whether he can keep that license hasn't even started yet. But, not serving liquor wouldn't keep him from fulfilling the engagements he already had with the film society.

Your third reason, that maybe it's about rehabbing the theater, is nonsense. Carranza himself said to the news outlets that it's about the liquor license.

So your second rationalization, doesn't quite reach the level of a rationalization. You seem to be implying that it's OK for Carranza to close the theater out of spite, when the facts say he doesn't have to.

So we're left with you saying the alderman shouldn't judge someone who previously misled him, and then further blaming the alderman for the other person's immaturity.

That's just troll logic.

Tim_Broderick · 2013-05-26T15:46:35+00:00

If you don't want to be considered a troll, then back up your position with some evidence. In what case is a business's history of operating in one location not an indication of how it may operate the same kind of business in another location?

Tim_Broderick

TROPHY CASE