U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley

Success in business and in politics and in life is about the ability to have relationships. And it's based on trust and an understanding and a mutual respect. That will get you a lot. Hi, everybody. I'm Fran Spielman. If there is a bigger Cub fan in the whole wide world than I am, it just might be my guest this week. Congressman and mayoral candidate, Mike Quigley. Welcome back and thanks for joining us. Good to be here. Good to be on a Cub winning streak. Be honest, how many games have you been to this year? Two, and that's a result of spending much time in D.C., but also much time on everything going on in Chicago. But we'll try to make a few more before it's over. The Cubs are on another role in this rather streaky season where they've been devastated by injuries, particularly to the pitching staff. The Brewer's division lead is now down to three games. Are we going to catch them? I think we're going to catch them. This is one of those seasons when the American League is very weak and the National League is up for grabs. So buckle your chin straps. It's going to be a bumpy flight, but it's going to be fun for the next two months. You think they will catch the Brewers. I do. Then anything can happen. What we've learned in baseball the last few years is you have to make the playoffs. And then it's a real crap shoot. But I like our odds after the trade deadline deals that we made. Yeah. And the first round by would really mean a lot. Absolutely. And then as soon as that's over, here come the Blackhawks. So I've a lot to look forward. Oh, that's right. You're the hockey guy. That's right. You still play? I still play. Got a game this Saturday. Still playing once or twice a week. How many teeth have you lost? Just two. Just two? I've been lucky. Two teeth to hockey, seven surgeries, but they're going to have to drag me off the ice. The fact is, at some point, you need a rabbit to keep you going. You must know that you can't sit on a treadmill and watch the news and force yourself to be competitive to really... press yourself to be in good shape. You know, whether it's hockey or basketball or volleyball or whatever, I encourage everyone to stay in their sport, to stay in shape. It's also an extraordinarily healthy distraction. You know, on Saturday mornings, I can go run into somebody, not getting trouble, get my frustrations out with Speaker Johnson in a lawful and healthy way.

I played tennis for years and now I'm playing pickleball, but I do walk on a treadmill every single day while reading my iPad. I'm still hearing. Yeah, pickleball seems to be having more injuries than tennis. I'm not sure, but the orthopedic surgeons are probably sponsoring pickleball tournaments. Before we get started with the more serious questions, Mike, I want to ask you about something you did this week to get attention on social media. You apparently jumped into Lake Michigan wearing a suit. I did, and it's meant to make a point. We are under some sort of monsoon season. And as a result, there's a real risk to the environment. And as you know, before we had deep tunnel, before we had the reservoirs, billions of gallons of, disgustingly, raw sewage would go straight into the river. and the lake, and you couldn't swim. There were fecal count numbers reported on the radio every morning. I was able to lead the fight to get the money for the metropolitan water reclamation district's reservoirs, and they're almost full. That's scary, but the good news is that was billions of gallons of... sewage that would have gone into the lake and the river. It's one of the things I'm most proud of. So today, the message was, I'm going to wear a suit and jump into the lake because the lake is the key to our success. It's our greatest natural treasure, but key to our environment, key to our economy. It's beautiful. Those who live in the southwest are starving for water. We're going to be where you need to be when the climate crisis really hits. So my message today was, this is fun jumping in the lake. But the serious part of it was protecting the lake. And I was proud to lead the house when we got the money for those reservoirs. The MWRD is the least known agency that does absolutely critical work. Happy to partner with them, we've got more work to do. Yeah. And didn't New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani do the same thing? You know, I think he did. And I don't know what his point was. Mine was. that we have to restore the lake. We also got money for restoration, protecting our shorelines, keeping the invasive species out, Asian carp with a barrier along the river farther out. If those invasive species get into Lake Michigan,

It will be the end of our commercial fishing industry, which is a billion dollar industry throughout the Midwest. So my message is, enjoy the lake. It's serious business protecting it. The challenges are going to become greater with climate change. But as mayor, it's going to be top of the agenda because how important it is to Chicago. After 17 years in Congress, you are finally running a mayoral campaign that you've been flirting with for years. Four years ago, you begged off citing the war in Ukraine. In the cycle before that, you said your family wasn't willing to make the commitment to the mayor's race. You endorsed Chewy Garcia, who finished fourth. You also thought about running in 2019 after Rahm Emanuel bowed out. Why now are you prepared to make a commitment you weren't willing to make before? And what changed about you and about the political circumstances? Yeah, circumstances change within your own life, but within the city. I would say we were never in this great of a crisis. It begins with a city in a fiscal crisis, which is obvious when over 40% of your revenues are going to debt and pensions. We also have a housing crisis where, you know, the average age used to be 28 to buy a first home. Now it's 40, but for many Chicagoans, They're unable to even find affordable rental housing, much less that first. We're in a public safety crisis. Our public schools are in crisis, and I'd like to bring the experience I have because I honestly and definitively can say two things. I have spent decades solving these hard problems and for fighting for what's right. And that just was politically popular or convenient. That was evidenced by 10 tough years at the county board where we passed reforms, beat back unnecessary taxes, but still did a lot of progressive things. And I would, this is. my last and biggest fight. I'm not going to run for anything else after this, right? I've already had my dream job. I'm not going to run for governor or president. I'm running for mayor because I honestly believe I'm the only person's position to create lasting progressive change. Again, because this is the last job and I have nothing to lose. I'm only in this race for Chicago. Well, you have a race to lose if you could lose it.

Look, there are worse things that happen than losing a race. I'm very optimistic about this race. And as you recall, when I ran for Congress, I was in a crowded field. I was outspent 10 to 1, but I felt I could do the best job and I think that was borne out. It's critical that the next mayor has to be willing to risk that job to save the city. The reason we are in this predicament. This crisis is we've had too many electeds in the state. and in Chicago, whose primary concern was getting reelected. I could hear what folks were saying. I was hearing those discussions. Just get me past this budget. Just get me past the next election. Forever refusing to make the tough choices. You have to be willing to say, this is going to be my last job. You have to be willing to risk it all because we're out of runway. The city is really on the precipice. It has everything. It needs to succeed. It's people. It's water. It's extraordinary locations, airports, cultural, educational institutions. The list goes on. But what we've lacked is a willingness to say, tell the truth to the people and let them know exactly where we're at and what we have to do. Together we can get past this and the city has all the potential in the world. Mayor Daly, Richard M. Daly, who I covered from start to finish, used to say that you have to have the fire in the belly to run for and be mayor of Chicago. So I ask you the same question that I asked Alexei Junulius. If you have that at this most difficult time, why are you then playing it safe by running for two offices at the same time? You know, it's a dilemma that... Harold Washington, this, Danny Davis, Bobby Rush, Chewy Garcia, right? the House races and the mayor's race run on different timelines, but run right up against each other. When the congressional ballot was set, I hadn't made that decision. You got to remember, that was over a year ago because we have very, very early primaries in Illinois. By the time I decided to run for the mayor, that ballot had been set. And to be clear, if I had dropped out, either now or even back then, who decides who's the next congressman? A handful of ward commitment in a closed-door meeting on a Saturday afternoon would have picked the next congressperson, not the people of the district. And I'm not comfortable for that. Isn't that what happened with you and when Rom dropped out, when Rom left office? Well, to be the chief of staff?

Rom left and then there was a special election. I don't remember exactly what happened. You weren't picked by ward bosses. No, I was a special election with 23 people. So, but if I had. Even the lack 10 months ago had said, I'm not going to do this. A handful of people would have picked me, picked the replacement on the ballot. We have had recent controversies where the public didn't like the fact that the committeemen would make the decision. Chewy Garcia. Those are decisions others made. But the fact of the matter is, this was, again, the same dilemma that. Mayor Harold Washington had to face. He got reelected. And then the next year, months later, he was elected mayor of the city of Chicago. And Richard M. And Richard M. Daly did the same thing with state attorney and all that. Yeah. We've seen that, we've seen that, that dance in Chicago many times. But people really don't love it. I get it. Why haven't you transferred the $1.1 million in your congressional campaign fund to your mayoral campaign fund? That doesn't sound all in either. Lord knows you need the money. You know, we're not going to be spending that money now. There's no particular need to do it. We're raising money as it is needed. You only have raised $376,000 for your mayoral campaign. No, we've raised almost $800,000, as you'll see. Is that going to be enough? I mean, Alexei Junilius has 22. He's blanketing the airwaves with ads, and he did that before he even got in. You know, the question is not, are you going to have as much? The question is, are you going to have enough? And again, when I ran for Congress in a crowded field, I was outspent by one candidate 10 to 1 and another 11 to 1, right? The people of Chicago get this. And what happened in the last primary? Right here in Illinois, the top money raisers did not win many of the elections. The last two races for mayor? The top two fundraisers lost. The race for mayor has an extraordinary high profile. Right. People are going to have the opportunity to delve into all those details and learn everything about those. Right. But you have to break through a field of a dozen or so. Sure. And we're going to have. what we need somewhere in the range of four to five million dollars that is enough according to our pollster get to that point well i'm already at two between the two accounts oh between the two counts but you haven't transferred it in why haven't you transferred that money in there's absolutely no reason to do it yet because we're not going to use paid media until after the november election

I'm going to file 42,000 petitions. I'm crisscrossing the city. We're talking about this. I am all in. The fact that money is in one account or two accounts means absolutely nothing until November. And that's when, you know, this next election, the general election is over for the state races. And then that's when this sprint happens for mayor of Chicago. I'm all in. I'm excited about it. I've got a absolutely crack campaign team that's a veteran inexperienced. I've been in tough races before. I'm really good, I think, at press and media. And we're going to give every citizen of Chicago a chance to talk to us. Now, you've been Chief of Staff to a Lakefront Alderman where I met you during the battle over Lights at Wrigley. You've been a county commissioner and a congressman for 17 years, but you have never run an office with more than a handful of employees. And Chicago has already had... two straight mayors who had the same problem and struggled to run the multi-billion dollar corporation that is the city of Chicago and its many agencies. Why should Chicago voters take a chance on strike three with you? Right. I think what the next mayor has to do is have to have the knowledge. to understand the complex policy issues and the experience and the willingness to make really, really tough choices. Again, at the county, I risk everything to make those choices. I also issued complex policy documents, reinventing Cook County, which is a blueprint that Ernst & Young, I would suggest, tried to copy with their reports. How do you reinvent streamline and consolidate local government? My master's in public policy at the University of Chicago taught me how to manage, how to work with large forces. And as a member of Congress, I was part of the investigation team on Trump's first impeachment. As you know, I played a high profile role on some of the nation's most complex, political, governmental, and financial issues. The moment was never too big. If anybody's ready to pop into this spot and be ready to be bold and do what's right, it's me. But running for and being mayor of Chicago is not like any other job you've had before. The problems are enormous. No good answers, no easy solutions. Powers greatly diminished by the elected school board, civilian oversight over the police department, the new Northern Illinois Transit Authority, left-leaning city council, more independent than ever. Why do you even want this job at this time of such diminished power?

because families are paying more and getting less every dollar that we are wasting is a dollar we can't spend on housing public safety parks mental health our kids and this government's cost are higher every year and they're delivering less to the people who pay for it every year And I don't believe working families should keep paying more while government keeps working less. I love this city. I can't watch the crisis that's taking place and not try to take the helm to lead us forward. So what would you cut? What would you change to cut these costs that you say are so high that we're wasting money? Where are we wasting money? Well, our headcount, as you know, went well up during COVID, and it never went back down. The government of the city of Chicago hasn't been restructured in over 100 years. What the Ernstead Young report showed was a whole book. of analysis of how costs could be cut. They didn't even get into the structural changes. And I suspect that's coming next of what can be moved and improved. Well, the structural changes can only be done by a city charter, I believe. Would you see that? And what structural changes? Could we, for example, get rid of a lot of agencies and consolidate them? And what could we get rid of and restructure? When we talk about reinventing government. The reports I wrote that Tribune, sometimes cranes lauded when I was a county commissioner, they're still valid today. The bottom line is, if you were to start over as a region and government, what would you do, how would you do it, and who would do it? So the very thing that you mentioned, the transportation bill that passed that consolidated the transit agencies, is what we should do with every issue. This is obviously going to take help from Springfield. But much of the things that I talked about as a county pension are still problems today. There's overlapping government. There's duplicative government between. School districts, county board. Let's not talk broad strokes. What could we get, come on. Other people tell you broad strokes or you know I wrote the reports on this. So there's county, there's county roads. Some of the major agencies that we could get rid of. Go ahead. No, you're consolidating them. You're not doing rid of the issue. What would you consolidate?

The same way that we consolidated the transit agencies. We didn't eliminate PACE. We didn't eliminate the CTA. We didn't eliminate Metra. We put them under one governing agency and afforded them the opportunity. So when we do this along the issues of... housing and along the issues of transportation. I mean, you know there's, what, 200 miles of county road in the city of Chicago? None of this makes sense. So again, there's hundreds of pages of the details that I wrote just on this. The issues in this. The type of work that's done between the city and county are very, very similar. So the idea is to say, what are the issues that we're dealing with? How can we like the transit bill as a model, do it with all the other issues that we care about? But I have to add that this isn't just an issue of consolidations and efficiencies. It's about how we build the revenues. We cannot tax our way out of this. We are going to have to grow our way out of it. And there, we have as many specifics as you could possibly want. The affordability issue in our region begins with housing. Again, when I was, when I got out of college, you could buy your first home at 28 today. It's 40. I mean, those are pretty dramatic issues. There's a real shortage of rental housing. There's obviously a homeless crisis in the city. but we aren't building. The next mayor, and if you want something laid out today, the next mayor has to commit to building 50,000 new affordable housing units. And for those who might scoff at that, New York had 38,000 units of housing approved last year. Last year, Chicago, 4200. This year, on a pace for 3,700. You know, if more units means more revenue without hiking taxes. With what money? All the taxes. First of all, you remove the barriers to bill, which doesn't cost anything. Fast tracking permits. The governor of Pennsylvania said if we don't get permits. completed within the prescribed time, we're going to refund the application fees. They dramatically reduce this. So it shouldn't take a year to get a building permit. We also have to update our zoning, allowing for more density, especially near transportation stops. We have a lot more work. The mayor says he's done that and he's got that green social housing bond issue and the $1.25 billion bond issue. What has he done wrong? What has he not done?

He hasn't done any of the things that we've actually talked about. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had 4,200 permits only. We also have to use the innovation of leveraging modular housing with those. We need to update our building code. He has not even thought about doing that. We can make it cheaper to build without. while still ensuring safety. We also have to align the prevailing wage with other progressive states like New York and California paying a residential rate for a single family or smaller projects rather than the commercial rate. You can build a lot more housing. The city should also reduce the prevailing wage and have two levels of it. Well, that's what 43 states, including New York and California, do. That's what Davis-Bacon, the federal law does. Illinois and six other states are the only ones that have it. They're still getting paid. What is our goal? Our goal is to provide affordable housing, which is critical for safety, generational wealth for people who have never had that. The fact is unions in 43 states, and again, progressive states like New York and California, have that. residential rate. So I think the unions would understand that. If not, we've got to ask ourselves, what is our primary purpose here? A primary purpose here is to help the people of Chicago. who are paying more and getting less. We also have to expand the pipeline of workers who build this. And, Fran, as you know, we've been around. You know that access to those trade jobs have been limited. We can use a process of thinking of this as K through 14, not through K through high school, right? And have a goal, have ourselves, save ourselves. Can we? create and train 10,000 new electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians, and carpenters. Finally, we can develop very creative ways to finance affordable and missing middle homes. The first step here is for the city to reform its low-income housing tax credit program to use the cost per unit from close to $700,000. What the public doesn't necessarily know is when you look at this overall, In Chicago, today, it costs more to build an affordable unit than market rate. So we're building a couple thousand units a year in neighborhoods with rows and rows of vacant lots.

The next mayor has to be bold. The next mayor has to be willing this. I think Mayor Johnson is sincere. I know he loves the city. So how has he failed? What has he done wrong in your opinion that we should throw him out of office? It's what he hasn't done. I mean, I just listed 12 things that we need to do to solve a housing crisis. Some of those aren't easy. But you say. all the time that we have to make these tough choices and some politicians aren't willing to do it right now the number one thing the mayor can do a mayor could do the number one thing i'm going to do is mayor is to throw down the gauntlet of saying we're going to build 50,000 units in the next four years with a plan to double that in the next 10 since 1950 The city of Chicago has lost one million people in population, and the number is growing. We're moving in the wrong direction. And on housing, somewhere between 500 and 600 units a year. are being abandoned. So the money that can, you're not going to need money necessarily for the city to do these things. You need to get out of the way. And when you do need some money, it should be used, the TIF money should be used for this. It shouldn't be swept, as this mayor has done. to just pay general expenses. That money, by its statute, by its purpose, was to help the least fortunate. Again, the report I wrote, Tale of Two Cities, talked about the lack of transparency in TIF. And the fact that it isn't used for that second city for those who need it most. Okay. As your campaign announcement at the uptown theater, you portrayed yourself as that rare politician with the courage to make tough choices to solve the budget crisis and the pension crisis. What tough choices are you prepared to make to solve the... 36 billion dollar pension crisis that will be made worse by the pension sweetener that the governor signed and that is in jeopardy now where you have police and fire pension funds and even the municipal fund hovering close to bankruptcy. You've got a casino that's that shut down portions of construction. You got a battle going on about video gaming. What would you do about the pension crisis? Yeah, let's start with the schools. And my top priority in helping the schools is to help get the public involved with... Well, let's talk about the pension crisis first. No, no, no. What would you do there? Because...

Let me talk about the pension crisis as it relates to schools. So the first thing we have to do is get the public to focus on electing a school board this November that gets that is going to do something. And the gimmicks that they're using now is only going to make it worse. Right now, the state pays the full normal and legacy pension costs for teachers in every district except Chicago. The state covers only 35% leaving the city and its residents. paying the year out of 65 or 663.6 million annually. My goal would be to get the members of the General Assembly in Chicago. to say to the governor, we're going to treat CPS the same way as every other school district. That 668 million can be directed each year to addressing its structural deficit. So when we talk about pensions, it's not just the city ones that we care about. Obviously, it's the public schools because it's a drain on the same tax base. Okay, but what about the city pensions? Yeah, number two, the General Assembly, the alders, and the mayor have to with one voice. Say to the General Assembly, no more sweeteners unless you pay for it. These are irresponsible unfunded mandates. Whether you agree with the policy or not, what it does is just accentuate the fact that for decades, we made promises we couldn't keep. We lied to the public and we just kept putting this off. So I get it. The Constitution. No, it's right now. 36 billion. No, but it's right now. We're telling them that they can't. Sweeteners. I'm saying, I'm asking you, even if we have no more pension sweeteners, we have one already. It's coming. It's going to add $11 billion to a $36 billion crisis. What do you do right? now about this crisis in the city pension funds. First of all, the first two things I talked about are about right now. Number three, I recognize that the state constitution makes it very, very difficult, if not impossible, to force the issue. I think what the mayor has to do, again, with help from the General Assembly and the Alders, is to say to our union partners, We're not going to take away your pension, but it will fail. When the property tax bills were delayed, The city was advancing this money. Yeah, they're still doing it. There's a slight blip in the economy. And this wrong or wrong, drags us down, drags us right under. We could be to the point where we're not making those payments. That's correct. So what do you do? You call the unions in and say what? You call the unions in and tell them exactly that. And then you sit down and say, look.

I want you to come to this meeting and I want the word yes in your vocabulary. And in the net, we want to make you whole. But in the final analysis, if we don't have some honest tradeoffs here, and there are tradeoffs, there are things that can be offered to make this better. The pension buyouts only do a little bit. But if we don't do this, there's not enough revenue out there. Okay, so what will you ask them to do voluntarily to save their pensions right now? We're going to have to renegotiate these deals. Now, we're not talking about somebody who's already retired. We're talking about people still in the field. And I think you're going to have to make tradeoffs. You're going to have to make this offer. The alternative, it's this bad, is we can meet. in rooms and talk about this and negotiate and make it fair and equitable as we can. Or at some point, a federal judge will make these decisions. And we have to remember the federal judge in Detroit said, I have to treat debt like debt and like any other debt. There is a very real. possibility with a market turn down and we had one not that long ago as the Obama administration was starting where all this was in peril. So I'm telling you the truth. Mayor of the city of Chicago cannot force them to do this, but can publicly and personally engage with them and say, these are our choices. He can ask them and say, look, guys, your pensions are going to fail. If we don't do X, Y, and Z voluntarily. So what voluntarily would you ask them to do? This involves restructurings and there can be give and give and takes. Like what? Give me an example of the given case. Well, how much people pay in when they can start collecting, how much the city participates, what else they can offer, you know. There's a reason that. There are negotiations between governments and unions. What can the city give them to entice them? Other than saying, if you don't do this, we're not going to have a pension. Look, there's any part, there's dozens of parts of union contracts. And there are things that you could offer to give and take between the benefits they give, they get, and what the city can offer. Can you give me an example of what the city could offer in return? For higher contributions and later. There are dozens of things that governments offer pensioners in terms of other aspects of this. Everything from work conditions to pay conditions to all the other benefits that you think that any worker gets. And some of that is just a give and take. I'm not saying that anyone's going to be happy with that, but we didn't cause this problem. The fact is, this was caused decades ago by an unwillingness to face those challenges. So there's a whole slew of, the shorter answer is all the benefits that any worker gets.

and all the things that they offer in exchange, all those things have to be on the table. For me to suggest one or the other, I don't want to preclude something that they may well come to us and say, no, this is more important. My point is you've got to do this. You've got to come to terms. You've got to have a finance team of actuaries that get this. And let me add this. The city council's role in all of these financial decisions is critical. And you mentioned this as a, I think you called them a leftist, more active city council. I see. Yeah, more independent than ever more. Yeah, left leaning. Yeah, but look, that's a, that's a positive. I think the next mayor needs to use the extraordinary skill set. That's in the city council. They have to be part of all of these decisions and they can be a great asset in getting it done in helping the public understand the circumstances. Again, this isn't Richard J. Daily Times or even Richard M. Daily Times. The city council is not going to go back to be a lap dog anymore. And that's good. That's why relationships matter. Why the next mayor. I will be a mayor that will work with every member of the city council in every neighborhood. And will you let them choose their own leaders? Absolutely. I think, and I support a city charter and I have posted that on social media. I want the next mayor to have less power. Because if you go into it with the other attitude, I think you fall into the trap that the last couple mayors have had. And that is open, constant friction and confrontation with the city council. My attitude is when an older votes the other way on you, you should pat him on the back and say, I hope you're with me next time. What will it take? I think a mayor should sit in every ward office in the city. and take calls and travel through the area and understand those issues. It's not a monolithic council. It's really diverse, but it's like the city. And the next mayor has to get that, has to be able to work and play well with others. Because again, you know, these are tough choices, but Chicago can get out of it. Now, what about the budget crisis? We have a $90 million mid-year shortfall because some of the revenues that were substituted for what Mayor Johnson wanted, including his corporate head tax that was stopped, have fallen short. What would you do about that? And what would you do about the $1 billion crisis next year? You know, and I go back to...

It doesn't help much, but this is what I've been talking about since I was an elected official for 10 years at the county board and 17 in Congress. We have to restructure and streamline government now. Again, the head count is higher than it was. Before COVID, it never came back down. And they've never been able to tell us why that's why that's the case. Back to families are paying more and they're getting less. And the structural deficit, because no one wants to really address the reforms that Ernst & Young talked about. Right. So what would you do, fire thousands of employees and go back to the old headcount before? Well, we're going to have to move in that direction. The alternative is dramatic property tax increases. And there's a spiral here, Fran. The fact of the matter is we continue to. With the structural deficit, think of the city as an old model car. And we don't change the car. So every year we're taking pieces off the car, cutting irrationally. At the same time, we're paying more for it. Families are getting less. They're paying more. You've got to redesign this car. It's got to be consolidated, not just within the city, but across the region with the county and the state. You can have efficiencies. You're going to have to get the head count back where it was and below. You're going to have to use everything at your disposal to make government operate more efficiently. Not because you don't love what it does. I learned in my earliest times here, local government is critical, but it has to and it can be more efficient. The alternative to that, oh, my, you're not going to make cuts. The alternative is, New taxes that will push out more public. People will continue to leave the city. Businesses will continue to leave the city and it contracts. So that burden. is on fewer and fewer businesses and fewer and fewer people. And that spiral will take this city down. So obviously these are tough choices, very difficult. But by not doing anything, by being the ostrich and what's taking place on the fifth floor right now, you're really not helping anybody. You're making this much, much worse for everyone involved. You're not being benevolent. You're actually hurting the people of Chicago, all of them. Now, like Alexei Junilius, you have also offered to work with the elected school board and community leaders to sensitively close what you have called wildly underpopulated Chicago public schools. Mayor Johnson.

is trying to portray Junulius as the second coming of Rahm Emanuel, who closed schools and mental health clinics in a less sensitive way, 50 at a time with schools. He will undoubtedly try to paint you with the same brush if you make a blip on the polling in the mayor's race. How will you handle that? I think if you read what I have published, I said, The vacant schools in Chicago are surrounded by vacant lots. You have to fill the vacant lots if you want to fill the schools. And we can do that. Again, New York, 38,000 new housing permits in one year. Chicago can at least do 50. I think you give people a realistic hope because there is a tremendous demand for housing everywhere in the city of Chicago. I think you can grow your way to fill these local schools. There are a few. But you would close schools in the meantime, right? I think there are a schools in the meantime. I think there are a few schools that run the end of their useful life in terms of the structure. There's like a hundred and forty five that have fewer, you know, more empty seats than students. You know, it's hard to tell a people who live in those neighborhoods unless you net this out in a positive way. that we're being fair with them because of decades of disinvestment and redlining and restricting and segregation, the most segregated city in the United States. I think you move. There's a few schools. that structurally and my population are nearing the end of the useful life. But I think what happens with the board is they're going to have to work with those communities and there needs to be a net gain and community participation on how that works. To the extent that works and can be extrapolated to a larger number is going to be based on the involvement with the community and the elected school board. Mayor Johnson talks constantly about the need to tax the rich. His $300 million corporate head tax was rejected. He's almost certain to try that again. The need for more revenue is obvious for the city and the schools. The schools are counting on $450 million in city and state money that they don't have. So where would you turn for revenue? And do you believe that millionaires need to be taxed?

First of all, when the Trump administration passed the big, ugly bill, they did the opposite. That's what put us in this difficult situation, right? I firmly believe millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share, and they are not. And the Trump administration basically gave billionaires tax cuts by cutting everybody else's health care. That's where the most... significant gains can be made. And when we get the gavels back, I'd like to think that we can get to that point. And when we change the White House, I think the problem with, I think the problem with the mayor thinking he can tax the rich in Chicago is forgetting the realization that they can move to Highland Park. These folks, it's not really hard for a very wealthy person and they are moving out of Chicago. So you actually can have diminishing marginal returns. And you probably would. So you don't think it should be done at the city level. It should be done at the state level. It's going to have to be done at the broader the area that it can be done. The more likely it is to succeed. Illinois is losing population. Illinois is losing millionaires. It's losing its wealthiest people, you know, for those tax reasons. I think we're forgetting here is we can dramatically increase our revenues by growing this city, right? More cranes, more conventions, more corporation. So you would not raise any local taxes at all? I think what you've got to do is, I think what you've got to do. It showed the people of Chicago that you get their pain, right? This mayor didn't cut anybody in the middle of a financial crisis. He refused to even consider any cuts despite the fact that the headcount, the city workers, went up. pretty dramatically during COVID. So to say that there's no fat in city government is a lie. And the public doesn't believe that. I've got to stick to the core fact here. With government, families are paying more, they're getting less. And we are wasting dollars that we can't spend on housing public safety parks. So the knee-jerk reaction is always, we got to maize more revenue. Well, we have to make the government way more efficient before we look at doing that if we want to be fair and honest and make tough choices. You represent a very vote-rich lakefront district dominated by progressive voters who are likely to decide the mayoral election. In fact, Mayor Johnson won these voters over last time and now is going after those same progressive voters by proposing things like rent protections, a data center moratorium, affordable housing, promises to revive his failed head tax and tax the rich. What will you offer to hold on to this progressive vote?

Yeah, Fran, I've been elected here 28 years. I think it's because they know I have their progressive values, but they also understand that I'm fighting for fiscal responsibility. I was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal. As a county commissioner, I was called the greenest local elected official in the country. I've been blunt and honest about the impacts we're still feeling from Chicago's original sin of redlining, segregation, disinvestment, predatory contract sales. As you know, I'm in the LGBTQ Hall of Fame. I passed the first legal protections for trans-Chicagoans when I was a county commissioner before the city or state did. I brought the money home to extend the red line. because there was a disadvantaged community there that needed our help. I got the money for the reservoirs. I have a 95% union voting record. So a pretty clear progressive background, but I think it's exactly what the city wants now. And the people on the lakefront want because they keep bringing me back to serve them. And I appreciate that. And that is you can have a progressive agenda and extraordinary accomplishments. and still be fiscally responsible. Alexi Junilius has $22 million in his campaign war chest. Will you attack him and some of the negatives about him? Will you make an issue, for example, of Broadway Bank, the bank that once was owned by his family with alleged ties and loans to alleged organized crime figures? A whole generation of voters probably haven't heard of it. Look, I'm not here to talk about the other candidates. I'm sure all these issues are going to be brought back before. Not by you. I'm going to be focused on what Chicago needs and the core messages that matter to them, that this is about public safety. It's about affordability. It's about bringing our city out of the crisis. I would ask them to compare our records of accomplishments and what we've been able to do and the courage that we've had in leading these fights. It amazes me sometimes that. We talk about coalition building. I'm not sure anybody contemplating a run in this race has ever had to build coalitions to accomplish these things. I sponsored and passed the Act for ALS. and got it reissued, reauthorized. It is the largest reservoir of money to research neurodegenerative diseases in the history of the United States. I got a unanimous vote on that, not because it was easy, because I know how to build coalitions. So I'm sure that they're unique coalitions to.

do some of the things involved with license plates, but I'm not sure how. But I'll let the public, these issues will all be borne out and talked about, and that's fair. But we're going to focus on what we've done and what I'm going to do as mayor. Mayor Johnson has a very contentious relationship with the city council getting worse by the day. He has a frosty relationship with J.B. Pritzker. He's gotten little or nothing done for the city in Springfield. Is that been his biggest failure, do you think? Is that why he should be replaced? Or what is the biggest failure for him? Look, putting him aside for a second, relationships. We can't really. You have to make the case against the current incumbent. He's holding the office right now. I think the people of Chicago have made up their minds about this mayor. I think that right now. And what have they decided that he's what? That he's ineffective, that he hasn't been able. I, I, again, I think he's very sincere. I think, unfortunately, he's inept. And he can't get things done. I think relationships are a big part of that. I think we've had a couple mayors in a row that have had bad relationships with the city council. And again, as I said before, the next mayor, I will have a relationship with every member of the city council and the general assembly that are involved at all with the city Chicago. You need to have the best staff. You need to have a relationship with the governor, his staff, the General Assembly, their staff, and have a crack team constantly working in Springfield. Not where it's a novelty for you to go down there. And oh, by the way, when there's a crisis, you go down there. An ongoing relationship where the members are on your speed dial and you know each other. I think success in... business and in politics and in life is about the ability to have relationships. And it's based on trust and an understanding and a mutual respect. That will get you a lot. Who had that? Did Rahm Emanuel have that? He was pretty successful in Springfield, even though he was mayor during a time of Governor Rounder who started out as his friend and wasn't a friend at all. Yeah, look, these mayors have had varying degrees of success in these relationships. Who do you model yourself after? Who would you like to be like as mayor? You know, I'm not going to say that because I think that we haven't had a mayor who has really come to terms with our core financial problems. They have. made horrible mistakes that I will face as the next mayor. And so I think they've had strengths and weaknesses, but the fundamental weakness of our mayors and governors have been. They have made promises they can't keep, and they haven't.

varying degrees they've tried, but they haven't really come to terms with all of this. So now when people say, what are you going to do? A lot of this is we are paying for the sense of the fact that we had people that we kept getting, we kept electing who weren't willing to make those choices. I am the only one who has a history of making really courageous decisions. As you know, first guy to tell Biden he's got to step aside. The stuff I did at the county before anyone else was there risking my political future is evidence I'm willing to do it again. And more importantly, I'm not running for anything else. This will be my last job. I'm not running for governor or president or anything else. I think we get in trouble when our electeds want the next job because they're afraid of making tough choices because of who might alienate. I don't have that problem. This is going to be it for me. I love my city. I'm willing to risk it all. The mayor likes to talk about historic reduction in violent crime and a homicide rate that's lower than it's been in decades. That's happening all over the country with cities. But homicides are ticking back up this year. People don't feel safe. And the mayor has used his first three budgets to shrink. the police department by attrition, to the point where we have nearly 2,000 fewer officers than we did a few years ago. Will you fill those vacancies and maybe even add to that? Well, first, you're right. It's way too early. Take a victory lap on better public safety reports. The fact of the matter is the public doesn't feel that way. The numbers are ticking up. But when you compare Chicago homicides per capita, in 2025, we were higher than New York, L.A., Houston, Boston, Philadelphia. four or five times higher than New York City. So I think what we have to do first is use the officers better that we right now have. And I do care about them. I worried about mental health issues and stress of our officers. I got them 2,000. Use them better how? Well, I think you begin with using them where they're needed most. And the fact is we still have more than 600. sworn officers who are doing work that doesn't require a badge. They're doing jobs that civilians could do. An issue we'd never seem to have gotten over. We also need to deploy officers where they're needed most. You know, we need a transparent staffing formula that guarantees every district a minimum level of service, but directing officers to the neighborhoods days and hours where the greatest violence occurs. Today, 14% of the shootings in the city occur between midnight and five. And this gets real wonky, but you got to be wonky as the next mayor. Only 3.8% of the patrol hours overlap with that time. You got to balance experience officers across the city.

and, you know, measure this in terms of safety, not police activity. And then I think that's the traditional means, you know, and you start amping up the numbers of officers back to the way they were. But, Fran, that will take time to get those numbers up and to pay for them. But in the meantime, you know, we've got to start treating this as a public health issue. Right. There's a whole bunch of things that we can do that we just haven't darted. You know, the anti-violence programs. that are already working in Chicago, need to be expanded, groups like Arnie Duncan's CRED and Cease Fire. Those are all things. The investing in behavioral modification, like programs that I watch personally, bam, becoming a man. These are all things that have shown that they can work. Summer jobs, apprenticeships, really amazing numbers, putting mental health care back in the neighborhoods. You know, much of the hospital-based violence intervention programs will seem to improve better lighting seems to improve. So there are things that don't cost a tremendous amount of money that have shown some reasons of success, but it can't just be doing what we've always done. And just having more officers won't solve what is basically a public health crisis. It's a combination. Three agencies of local government with the greatest impact on African Americans have been neglected by Mayor Johnson. The CHA, the CTA, the school board have had either, you know, temporary leadership, no leadership. a fight over Martinez, who the mayor kept at the school board and then fired because he wouldn't go along with the pension payment. What does all of that neglect say about Mayor Johnson's leadership or the lack of it? Yeah, look, you have to surround yourself with the absolute best and brightest, right? There's talent here in Chicago. You can do nationwide searches, but, you know, What I think Superintendent Snelling taught us was that the rank and file reads some real talent there, but throughout, you mentioned a couple agencies. Let me just talk about the CHA, which has been an amazing, spectacular failure. most of our lives. And, you know, don't take my word for it. You know very well that the residents are protesting, the fact that they haven't kept up maintenance, they're mismanaged, they have vacant properties, they have vacant land. It should be an extraordinary asset because we're in a housing crisis and they can play a critical role. So,

The most important thing the mayor can do is surround themselves with the absolute best and brightest. It doesn't have to be and shouldn't necessarily be people who just agree with you. Who understands these issues the best? Who's the best at managing? Those are the folks that you have to. And you can't wait to put people in place. You can't neglect it. It shows an indifference that I think. hurts the issue as much as anything else. And finally, as we close, who will you rely on if you are elected mayor for advice, both inside government and outside? Who are your key people? Look, I think it's your closest staff and advisors. Who? And name some names. Who do you value and rely on? You know, look, currently what I would do, when I'm in D.C. is when there's a complex issue, I go to the chairman of that committee and their staff. I'm talking about his mayor. No, I'm talking about the same thing. You go to people who are experts in any of those fields. And I think, as I said, the city council and the general assembly and the governor's office and the governor, they have tremendous expertise. It is such a wide swath. And it depends on the issue. But I rely on friends and foes. I'll often talk to the Republicans because I want to understand. You have to have empathy to be the next mayor. So I think you're going to have to go to people in a wide cross section of this great city, from educators to clergy to public leaders. I think just relying on a few trusted people. complicated situation that I will face as mayor is really a disservice. I think it's going to be a wide, broad swath of folks with experiences and expertise. We need to, if we do anything in the city, is to start. understanding through empathy, the world through others' eyes. Why are they saying what they're saying? What has been their experiences? What can we glean from that? You know, the country's polarized. The city is siloed into so many different groups. And the antagonism there is unnecessary because as John Lewis taught us, we may have come over here in different ships, but we're certainly in the same boat now. Mike Quigley, thanks so much for joining us. And let's hope that you're right about the Cubs catching the Brewers and winning the division. And then it's onward from there. And we'll see you all next week. Thank you.