The Restore Gompers Park Coalition in its letter “Parks shouldn’t be housing sites” (Sept. 24) is right about one thing: Tents in public parks are not a long-term solution. However, blaming park encampments solely on city inaction ignores a hard truth: Encampments are the direct consequence of failing to fund the very systems needed to prevent and end homelessness across our city.
When Chicagoans had a tangible opportunity to establish a dedicated, permanent funding stream to address chronic and acute homelessness through the Bring Chicago Home referendum, voters rejected it by a 54% to 46% margin. We cannot deliberately vote down the revenue required to build deeply affordable housing and provide essential behavioral health and social supports, and then express shock, anger and dismay when unsheltered neighbors have nowhere else to turn.
The coalition notes that 19 residents accepted assistance when Gompers Park was cleared, while others were simply displaced across the street to Eugene Field Park — where even more unsheltered people joined them in the following weeks and months. Indeed, the city’s 2026 Point-in-Time Count shows that the number of people counted living on the streets, in encampments or at transit stations rose to 1,641 — an increase of nearly 25% compared with the 2025 survey. This game of municipal musical chairs illustrates why enforcement and temporary shifts fail every time.
Without a major expansion of permanent, deeply affordable housing (rather than transitional tiny home camps), street-level prevention services and strong wraparound care, people will naturally seek shelter in public spaces. Traditional public shelters are simply not a viable option for everyone, particularly individuals dealing with severe trauma and complex health needs.
If we truly care about clean, safe and accessible parks for everyone, we must be honest about what that requires: funding. Until Chicago taxpayers commit to creating a permanent, dedicated revenue stream for permanent affordable housing and support services, encampments will remain an inevitable symptom of our collective failure to invest in real solutions.
— Monica Dillon, registered nurse, NWS Outreach Volunteers, Chicago
Targeting anticompetitive conduct
Chicago-area rents rose 4.9% over the past year, according to Zillow; it is among the largest increases of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas.
Limited supply is one factor. Chicago has lost a substantial share of its affordable rental stock. But supply is not the only issue. Anti-competitive practices can also raise rents.
That’s why Mayor Brandon Johnson is seeking to pass the Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO), a major overhaul of tenant protections.
Several of the reforms in the bill target well-defined problems. PRO, for example, would create a tenants’ bill of rights that would codify certain protections for renters, including rules governing when they can withhold rent and protections against illegal lockouts.
But there is one area where PRO could do more to protect renters: preventing competing landlords from using nonpublic information to coordinate rental pricing.
Landlords increasingly use software to help determine rental prices. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Pricing algorithms can process large amounts of information and help landlords respond to changes in supply and demand.
But competitors pooling their nonpublic pricing information into the same algorithm can weaken competition and improve demand forecasting. Therefore, the competitive effects depend on how the landlord uses the algorithm.
PRO would require landlords to disclose which third-party pricing software they use and whether it uses dynamic pricing or nonpublic competitive rent data.
Tenants should indeed know when an algorithm plays a role in determining the price they are being asked to pay. But requiring landlords to identify the specific software provider does not, by itself, ensure competitive pricing or establish whether a price was generated competitively. In fact, adding the vendor name to the disclosure could backfire because two landlords could use the same software in very different ways — one relying only on its own and publicly available data and another feeding a system of nonpublic pricing information.
Lawmakers should keep the disclosure that algorithmic technology is being used, while weighing the benefits of identifying the company providing it against any costs, including revealing commercially sensitive information. More importantly, they should strengthen PRO to target anticompetitive conduct by landlords and software providers more directly, while accounting for the benefits of legitimate forecasting and benchmarking.
That approach would complement disclosure with safeguards focused on practices that harm competition.
— Jorge Lemus Encalada, professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
It’s up to voters to decide
Reading the editorial (“Alsip’s mayor championed term limits. Until they limited him,” Sept. 24) concerning the Alsip mayor’s desire to extend his term-limited tenure, I believe the Tribune Editorial Board picked the wrong nit. And the editorial proves my point.
The board quotes the now-mayor as saying in 2016, “I will not allow Mayor Kitching to determine what taxpayers and voters should be able to vote on.” Voters supported three four-year terms. OK, so the mayor (I have no idea who he is — I live in another county) likes the job and wants to continue. Let the voters decide if another term is added to the limit.
Who, other than voters, is best to decide if term limits should be two, three or even four terms? It isn’t, as the editorial suggests, a plea “to hold the same office for as long as desired.” If letting the voters decide by referendum, a concept likely supported by the editorial board, was acceptable in 2016, why not now? The voters wouldn’t be asked to eliminate term limits but rather to add a fourth term.
Let the voters decide.
— Barry Tusin, Wheaton
Voter status wrongly changed
On Monday, I received a communication from the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners alerting me that records indicated I no longer live at my registration address. Checking online, I found that my voter status is now “inactive.”
In fact, I have lived at my current address since 1983 and have voted in every election since. I was being asked to certify under oath and penalty of law that I have not moved.
All Chicagoans intending to vote in November should double-check their voting status immediately.
— Jane N. Winter, Chicago
Streets need more repairs
It is now fall, and we are clearly headed straight into a rough winter in terms of the condition of our streets in Chicago. What happened to the reliable, seasonal wave of city workers and contractors patching potholes and poorly filled utility cuts? I’ve seen very little patching and filling underway throughout the city.
Rather, I see damaged streets that have not yet been patched from the previous winter. While both downtown and the North Side streets need some attention, the condition of the streets on the South, West and East sides is far worse.
I urge the city to ensure all ward office, sanitation and transportation employees are trained and empowered to report the multitude of potholes that need immediate attention. At the same time, we need a new campaign to remind all residents and business owners to call 311 or 312-744-5000 to report all the things they see that need to be fixed, such as dark streetlights, burned-out traffic lights, missing or faded signs, and untouched potholes.
Asphalt plants in our area are closed from November to April. Now is the moment!
— James A. Pierce, Chicago
Preserve what remains pristine
I have nothing but respect for the dedicated staff at the Shedd Aquarium and their efforts to aid the beluga whales that were transported from Canada. This serves as a reminder of nature’s fragility. All species are susceptible to illness and trauma.
And