Editorial: Yes it's obnoxious, but the sign on Chicago's Trump Tower should stay
The Chicago City Council is considering an ordinance that would allow for the removal of the sign on Trump Tower erected in 2014 on the former president’s downtown hotel. While the sign has been criticized for its size and garishness since it went up, Trump’s offenses as president are fueling a new movement to remove his name from buildings and structures nationwide.
The ordinance, sponsored by Ald. Gilbert Villegas, 36th, would ban “any person convicted of treason, sedition or subversive actions from doing business with the city, including having a sign permit.”
Villegas told the Tribune: “That may allow us to take the sign down finally. The sign just doesn’t represent Chicago’s values.”
Chicago values? Are freedom of expression and private property rights also Chicago values? It’s Trump’s building, and he should have the prerogative of stamping his name on it. The city once conceded as much.
The Trump sign got greenlighted by the City Council years ago. The alderman of the ward where Trump Tower is located, Brendan Reilly, at some point signed off, as did the city’s former zoning administrator, Patricia Scudiero. While the sign and its size were not part of the original proposal for Trump Tower, the issue eventually made it to the city’s Department of Planning and Development — where its size was, actually, reduced during negotiations.
Yes, Trump wanted it bigger. No surprise there. In a 2014 interview with former Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, Trump said the sign would “be like the Hollywood sign.” He said critics would come to appreciate it: “People were saying, ‘Don’t put a sign up,’ Now, they’re saying, ‘We love the sign.’”
In a June 2014 op-ed for the Tribune, Trump wrote that he had “great respect for the city of Chicago and its citizens. I think this is made clear by the amount of time, energy and money I put into constructing a building that has won the highest acclaim on every front since it was built.”
But changing the sign, he said, would be reneging on a deal. “I received all of the necessary permits from the city of Chicago for the sign. If the city wants to pass legislation prohibiting future signage on new buildings, that is up to them. My sign was fully approved. The response has been extremely positive, other than from a chosen few,” he wrote.
Besides, the sign’s backlighting would make it more “subtle” at nighttime, the former president promised at the time.
Kamin wrote: “Subtle? This thing? As subtle as Godzilla.” He called it a “poke in the eye.” In an editorial, we described it as a “tattoo on a baby,” spoiling the sleek, pure design of the skyscraper.
But by time the sign went up, Trump had cultivated several influential Chicago connections. He had been hiring the property tax law firm of Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, to shave nearly $12 million off his property tax bill during a six-year stretch, an investigation by the Chicago Sun-Times found. Trump also had donated $50,000 to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign and donated $5,000 to Reilly’s.
Are those the Chicago values to which Villegas was referring?
Aldermen and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot obviously are tempted to get swept into anti-Trump fever and chest-thumping about taking down a sign. But they also would be reneging on an agreement; they would be inviting a lawsuit that the city could lose and would be costly to defend; and they would be trampling on private property rights. They would be wise to swallow their distaste and leave the sign alone.
___
