Barely newlyweds, my husband and I moved to South Chicago with dreams of raising a family here. I love my neighborhood’s proximity to the lake, its diversity and culture of resilience. Yet over the past 20 years, I’ve watched many young people grow up and move away.
Since U.S. Steel closed its South Works plant in 1992, South Chicago lost jobs, entertainment and amenities without gaining the affordable, renovated or new housing we’ve needed. This has left us with 24% less population since 2000.
Recently, my organization, Claretian Associates, helped lead a Quality of Life Plan to support the next chapter of South Chicago, as the Sun-Times reported earlier this year. The plan convenes residents, businesses and community leaders around common priorities. Created by Local Initiatives Support Corporation, or LISC, Chicago, they express what the community wants, so residents benefit from investment rather than being excluded.
Our Quality of Life Plan engaged more than 1,000 community members across 30-plus outreach efforts. Residents identified seven priorities: arts and culture, economic development, education, environment and infrastructure, health, housing and safety —painting a picture of the South Chicago we want, with good jobs, vibrant corridors and amenities that attract and retain families.
Residents have already done the hard work to envision our future. Now it’s time for funders, developers and public agencies to bring those priorities to life. If we get this right, South Chicago can again model how investment strengthens rather than displaces communities —with residents accessing good jobs, affording to stay in their homes and seeing improvements to health, safety, education and infrastructure.
What happens next depends on the choices we make together. We can allow investment to pass through without changing lives, or ensure residents are prepared to participate in — and benefit from — this next chapter. The Quality of Life Plan offers a road map for exactly that.
Angela Hurlock, CEO, Claretian Associates
The tragedy of war
War is often described as a clash of nations, ideologies or histories. But at its core, war is usually the result of something far smaller and far more human: the inability of a few people in positions of power to communicate with clarity, respect or restraint.
The tragedy is that the original disagreement — whatever it may be — almost never affects the leaders who ignite the conflict. Instead, it is women, children, families and entire communities who bear the consequences. They are the ones who flee burning homes, who lose loved ones, who watch their futures collapse in real time. They are the ones who never asked for war, yet are forced to live inside it.
If we strip away race, religion, nationality and all the labels that divide us, what remains are human beings caught in the crossfire of disputes that could have been resolved long before violence erupted. Greed, pride and the refusal to compromise have fueled countless conflicts throughout history. These forces are not abstract-they are choices. And those choices have devastating costs.
The power that humans wield over one another can be breathtaking in its cruelty. When misused, it becomes a cold, calculated force that treats people as collateral rather than as lives with value and dignity.
Many observers have described the current conflict in Iran as senseless, and that word captures a painful truth. The rules that once governed international conduct feel eroded. And while some individuals and institutions grow wealthier or more powerful, ordinary people lose everything.
War has always been a failure of imagination — a failure to envision peace, to prioritize dialogue, to see humanity in the other side. It is easier to destroy than to understand. But the cost of that ease is immeasurable.
If there is any lesson to take from this moment, it is that the world cannot afford leaders who treat conflict as inevitable or violence as acceptable. The people who suffer deserve better. They deserve a world where disagreements are met with diplomacy, not devastation. They deserve a world where humanity is not an afterthought.
War, as the song asks, “What is it good for?” And repeatedly, the answer is still the same: nothing that justifies the price paid by the innocent.
April Jones, Streeterville
How Blackhawks can improve
I have to commend Jeff Blashill and his staff for the excellent job they did guiding the Blackhawks this season.
The staff kept their composure, and approached the 29-39-14 season in a realistic-constructive manner. Of course, there were mistakes galore. But what would you expect with such a young team? Still, there was significant improvement.
Keeping a team focused when the playoffs are out of reach is a herculean task. But the fans pay good money at the gate, concessions and the souvenir stands and at the very least, should get a maximum effort. Some tweaking of the roster by General Manager Kyle Davidson in the offseason should help.
Which brings me to the matter of who the next captain should be. In a radio interview I conducted with the great Jean Beliveau, one of the best to ever wear the “C” in NHL with the Montreal Canadiens, I asked him what it takes to be a good captain.
Jean said you didn’t necessarily have to be overly vocal. You had to lead by quietly setting an exemplary example.
But most importantly, the captain has to stay close to the coach.
Words to live by. If Connor Bedard checks off those boxes, he should be anointed the next captain of the Blackhawks.
Kevin Reid, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia