That Gary “Gotti” Roberson, 40, and Joseph “Troubles” Matos, 41, will stand trial for the brutal, nonsensical slaying is a good thing. But this comes after nearly three years, even though evidence linking at least one of the suspects to the crime reportedly was in the hands of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office soon after the killing took place. The office of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx determined at the time there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute despite the pleas of Carvajal’s family and Chicago police.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago now is prosecuting the case, now considerably more complex given that the violation of federal law must be invoked to put the evidence before a jury. That’s because the feds can’t just charge someone suspected of murder with the crime of, yes, murder. That’s the state’s job. If the feds are to put someone on trial for killing another human being, there must be special circumstances attached, such as the murder of a federal official or the act taking place on federal property. Lacking those specific circumstances, federal prosecutors must convict a suspect not just of murder but also of committing the act while also doing something else that violates federal law.

In the case of Roberson, who is in custody and has pleaded not guilty, and Matos, who is subject to a warrant and at large, they are charged with racketeering. The drive-by murder of Carvajal they’re alleged to have committed a little after 1 a.m. as he was walking to his car to get something while attending a Fourth of July weekend party with his girlfriend was in furtherance of their gang activities, according to the May 14 indictment. So prosecutors must prove not only that the two reputed gang leaders killed Carvajal; they also must show that the reason for the slaying was to “maintain and improve” their leading positions within the Milwaukee Kings.

Of course, it would be far simpler and more straightforward to prove the facts surrounding the slaying itself. If the Cook County state’s attorney’s office had brought the charges, that’s all they would have to prove.

For Carvajal’s family, the delay in justice for their loved one has been excruciating. Here was a 19-year-old son of Chicago, spending time with his friends and family after completing National Guard training and just before deployment, a young man whose future was bright. “He was working to become a … police officer as well,” Carvajal’s sister Jennifer Ramirez told WTTW a year after his killing. In a swipe at prosecutors, she said, “He was going to serve and protect your city. The least you could do is bring justice.”

Chicago police who worked on the case were upset the state’s attorney’s office wouldn’t proceed. Ald. Gilbert Villegas, 36th, in whose ward the killing took place, tweeted at the time that police provided local prosecutors with three eyewitnesses and video evidence, according to CWBChicago, a news site that tracks Chicago crime news. “This family deserves justice as well as the hundreds of families who have unsolved murders pending #pleasedoyourjob,” Villegas tweeted.

Additionally, Chicago police provided evidence that the car and phone of one of the suspects was at or near the crime scene at the time, according to CWB.

It wasn’t enough. In a statement to WTTW in 2022, Foxx’s office said it “conducted a thorough review” of the evidence Chicago police had amassed. “At that time, it was insufficient to meet our burden of proof to file murder charges,” the office said.

A family friend, Marcos Torres, who was working to prod Foxx’s office into action, told WTTW, “What is the message we are sending to our citizens here in Chicago if you are doing the right thing, if you are serving your county and you get killed right here in your own streets and the people who are in charge to prosecute, don’t prosecute.”

Indeed. From what we’re told by those with extensive courtroom and law enforcement experience fighting gangs in Chicago, this isn’t an isolated case. In Chicago — more often than people might like to admit — the feds have to intervene in what probably ought to be a locally handled prosecution if justice is to be served. These sorts of examples occurred regularly before Foxx’s time as state’s attorney as well, we’re told.

Prosecutions of gang members can be difficult, no doubt. Legitimate fears of retaliation often require police and prosecutors to provide assistance to witnesses, for example, in the form of finding new housing outside the neighborhood the gangs in question terrorize. The feds working in Chicago do that kind of work a lot.

But even when the feds step in, there’s a price to pay for local reluctance to prosecute in the absence of overwhelming evidence. The FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office surely have compiled more evidence in this case during the intervening period. But they also have had to build a separate racketeering case against the two murder suspects and have had to work to prove that the killing was done for the purpose of solidifying the position of the two within their “enterprise.” Additionally, in a case like this, the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago must get approval from the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., to proceed. Such bureaucratic processes are time-consuming even when a case is straightforward.

Small wonder it’s taken nearly three years to bring this relatively bare-bones indictment.

Since 2021, a family has had to wait and fret about whether action ever would be taken, all the while knowing the identity of at least one of the suspects. Since 2021, two purported gang members have been free to continue to do what gang members so often do.

Are there victims of other crimes who would have been spared had prosecutorial action been taken sooner?

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

But beware of being hung on your own petard.

That’s one lesson from the speedy conviction Tuesday of Hunter Biden, the 54-year-old son of President Joe Biden, on all three felony charges related to his purchase of a revolver in 2018 after he had said on a mandatory gun-purchase form that he was neither using nor addicted to illegal drugs. Despite the political furor surrounding the case, coming hard upon the felony conviction of Donald Trump, the former president of the United States and presumptive Republican nominee for a second term, this really was an open-and-shut case.

(So, for that matter, was Trump’s, which explains all the focus on whether the novel charges should have been brought as distinct from, say, whether or not Trump actually did that which he was accused of doing. The jury did not have a difficult job when it came to the actual evidence).

Biden admitted to an addiction to crack cocaine in his 2021 memoir, “Beautiful Things,” contemporaneous to the era when he filled out the form and bought the gun. Thus, the jury in this case had Biden’s own words to use in its process toward finding him guilty, especially since he had also helpfully recorded his own audiobook, adding to the vividness of those declarations. All the prosecution had to do was play the tape and hear the defendant’s voice.

This same issue may yet come back to bite Prince Harry, who also confessed to copious amounts of drug use in his own memoir, “Spare,” a lucrative bestseller. The problem there is that most U.S. immigration forms ask applicants about their drug use, which can make them ineligible for entry or residency in some circumstances. The Heritage Foundation sued to find out whether Harry lied on any form, and a federal judge got involved some weeks ago. In the unlikely event that any of this would go to trial, the British prince might well be put in the unenviable position of having to deny something he wrote himself. That’s a heavy lift in front of a jury, as Hunter Biden discovered.

Prosecutorial discretion is a fact of legal life, past mistakes should not always be determinative of a person’s future, and a case can be made that both Biden and Harry are being subject to the kind of politicized pursuit that would not befall a regular Joe or Jane. No question. On the other hand, an argument could be made that such scrutiny comes with privilege, even if that privilege is only of birth. And let’s not forget, both of these men have sought an ongoing place in the public discourse. Nobody forced them to open up their past lives for scrutiny.

The moral of these cautionary tales for the rest of us? Either use personal discretion or tell the truth across all platforms and be prepared to face the consequences.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

But in too many parts of the city, the picture-perfect conditions belied harrowing periods of violence and fear.

Ten people were shot and killed over the weekend in Chicago and more than 30 were wounded by gunfire, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report.

The mayhem wasn’t concentrated in a few particular neighborhoods; it was widely dispersed, from the Far North Side to the Far South Side and places in between. It was the third weekend in a row, beginning with Memorial Day weekend, that more than 30 people suffered gunshot wounds.

We’ve heard much so far in 2024 about how murders are down. Through June 2, the decline compared with the same period last year was 15%.

But this past weekend reminded any of those who needed reminding that violent crime in Chicago continues to be a scourge and that victory over this plague is very far off indeed. It is said that no one celebrates summer more joyfully than Chicagoans. How distressingly ironic then that over the past several years virtually every summer weekend in Chicago has become effectively a set of tragedies in waiting.

People are being shot attending backyard barbecues. People are being shot getting a nighttime bite to eat at fast-food restaurants, including two men eating inside a Loop restaurant a little after midnight on Saturday who were hit by someone shooting from outside the eatery. People are being shot driving on the expressway.

Mayor Brandon Johnson says Chicago can’t “arrest its way” out of the crime epidemic and espouses attacking the “root causes” of violent crime, saying that investing more in low-income neighborhoods will give potential criminals more enticing alternatives to a life of crime. But even a mayor who in his previous career espoused “defunding” the police knows now that law enforcement has its role to play. Most reasonable people can agree that both stronger enforcement and more resources for deprived parts of the city must both play a role in improving this deplorable situation.

In the meantime, though, all Chicagoans should be able to agree not to rationalize or make excuses for those who make our summer weekends something to be dreaded rather than celebrated and savored.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Arch-competitor United Airlines went a different way after the pandemic, retaining those screens and upgrading the entertainment you can watch on them. Delta Air Lines did much the same. Most low-cost carriers aren’t in this business, but United says it now has 100,000 screens across its fleet.

Now the Chicago-based airline has discovered a happy consequence of its decision: an ability to target ads, screen by screen, to whoever happens to be sitting in front of them.

So if there’s a business traveler who enjoys going abroad in seat 4B, ads could show her pictures of the beach in Aruba. If that’s a senior citizen in 11C, he might like to know about luxury retirement communities. And if that’s a little kid in 11B, a candidate for screaming and fidgeting all the way to Orlando, he could be shown cool toys available at the airport when he arrives.

“Kinective Media by United Airlines is the only media network that uses insights from travel behaviors to connect customers to personalized advertising, experiences and offers from leading brands,” United said in a creepy news release Friday. The airline said a “formal commercial launch” was planned for the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, a fancy name for an advertising conference, slated for the French Riviera next week.

There was more: “The airline expects its MileagePlus members will receive additional value through more personalized and real-time offers and experiences that drive even greater loyalty.”

Hmm. Would the average MileagePlus member see such ads as “additional value”? Questionable.

Railing against precisely targeted advertising can seem Luddite, given the extent to which we already are exposed to it. Sophisticated targeting is how social media companies have (so far) won the battle of the internet over traditional news organizations. Almost everyone has seen Facebook ads appear after joining a particular Facebook group, and Google ads drawing from search results. TikTok doesn’t just know what content you like, but what stuff you are likely to buy.

These platforms only appear to be free. You give up masses of personal information, and that allows them to bypass the wastefulness of old-school advertising, which inevitably reaches the uninterested along with its targets. We may one day rebel against this as a society (and we already see signs of this happening with kids and phones) but for now these practices are ascendant.

Like social media, airlines collect reams of data: United not only knows your origin and destination, which tells the airline plenty all on its own, but how much you paid for your ticket and what kind of credit card you used, offering clues as to your level of disposable income. The airline knows your home address, phone number and date of birth. Assuming you are using your frequent flyer number, now the best way to access TSA PreCheck and other crucial services, United also knows your past travel history. And that’s hardly the full suite of information.

Our specific beef with airlines following social media’s lead is that a good chunk of this information is compulsory for government safety reasons. You cannot travel anonymously; the last name on your ticket must match your ID or you will not be allowed to board. You must also provide your gender and date of birth, unless you want to be subject to egregious secondary searches at security. Other information might be theoretically voluntary, but the airlines have in effect made it obligatory for anyone seeking a stress-free experience. And when it comes to international travel, your passport contains your citizenship and place, as well as date, of birth.

Those who push targeted ads usually trot out the line that consumers find them helpful. Not at 30,000 feet, they don’t. Not when they’re stuck in a middle seat, they don’t.

United says its travelers can opt out of any such use of their data, although that arrangement should be one of opting in, not having to opt out. We went to United’s suggested opt-out page and found very squirrely language for anyone who does not live in one of the handful of states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia and Utah) with strong data-protection laws: “United will evaluate the request in light of the requirements under the laws of that state if applicable.”

Here’s a suggestion for alternative language: “United will let you sit in anonymous peace if that is what you wish.”

If United or any other airline wants to profit from such shenanigans, then they ought to compensate customers. If travelers can sign up voluntarily for a reduced fare in return for watching seat-back commercials targeted just for them, fair enough. We don’t doubt there would be takers.

But leave the rest of us alone to watch our plane move on that little map, round and round the airport.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

One of the few they haven’t pursued yet is a fee on vehicles in crowded parts of the city, an idea previous mayors have considered and shelved. Ald. Andre Vasquez, 40th, has filed a resolution calling for a subject matter hearing in City Council on so-called congestion pricing.

Vasquez, an avowed progressive who hasn’t always toed the mayor’s line, is doing Johnson a solid here. It’s not much of a leap to expect this hearing to morph quickly into an action item for this cash-hungry bunch.

Past Mayors Rahm Emanuel and Lori Lightfoot looked at congestion pricing. But they did so in the context of a far different city. Before the pandemic the Loop indeed in some years was choked with traffic. Just before COVID struck, in the first year of Lightfoot’s single term, the situation was arguably worse than it ever had been, mainly due to the proliferation of Uber and Lyft drivers in addition to the cabs that served the downtown area. She considered congestion pricing for the Loop in 2019 before opting for less dramatic measures to close what at the time was a budget gap exceeding $800 million.

Then the pandemic struck, and much of what we’d come to think of as fixed reality about downtown Chicago, work life, public transit and, yes, automobile traffic changed overnight.

Today, four years later, the Loop most of the time remains eerily bereft of significant traffic, particularly on weekdays and especially south of Madison Street. Likewise, Michigan Avenue and River North can hardly be described as bustling much of the time, unless there are construction zones.

Yes, there’s traffic congestion in Chicago. But it’s focused on expressways and major diagonal arteries feeding into and through downtown, and DuSable Lake Shore Drive. The West Loop, too, has grown clogged at times as Fulton Market, one of the few economic bright spots right now in Chicago, has become a nightlife magnet.

So the previous justifications for charging people when they drive into the Loop — alleviating central business district traffic jams — aren’t valid anymore. Will those conditions return in the future? Maybe. But for the time being, policymakers ought to be cheering for more Loop action (including the return of our lost old-school taxis) rather than trying to discourage workers and visitors from coming downtown.

The reasonable rationale for congestion pricing, which exists in various forms in other parts of the world, notably London and Singapore, is that promoting alternative forms of city transportation is good for the environment, reduces wear and tear on roads, and enhances pedestrian and cyclist safety. But it’s still a hard sell, even in places where it more obviously makes sense than in Chicago. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently shocked lawmakers and others in her state when she reversed course abruptly on plans to impose congestion fees in Manhattan, which is far more clogged than Chicago likely ever will be.

Why? Surely for political reasons (she feared voter backlash) and likely for policy reasons too. Hochul saw unintended consequences likely to be felt in other NYC boroughs not subject to the fee and in what would become a traffic-choked part of Manhattan north of the toll divide. Plus, the governor also heard from less affluent tradespeople for whom an additional toll every time they crossed into most of Manhattan, coming in addition to the existing cost of the bridges and tunnels, would render their trips worthless, even as richer entities just sighed and carried on.

Take a cue from New York, Alderman Vasquez and fellow progressives. For multiple reasons, now is not the time for congestion fees in Chicago.

First is that the city isn’t healthy in many key respects at the moment. Any policy that dissuades people from visiting downtown or city neighborhoods and patronizing businesses and generally adding some needed street vitality should be a dead letter.

Second, even if the above weren’t true, the state of public transit in Chicago is abysmal: unacceptably infrequent trains and buses and justified concerns about public safety on the “L.”  Until the Chicago Transit Authority is returned to an acceptable level of service, congestion pricing should be off the table.

Third, there’s no reason to feel confident a city government that has stumbled badly when confronted with unexpected challenges could manage the logistical complications inherent in any congestion-pricing scheme . Such a program likely would involve urging drivers to procure E-ZPass transponders used by those who frequently drive the tollroads, backed by a system of cameras to track the license plates of those who drive into affected neighborhoods. Drivers without the transponders then would have to pony up online after returning home, and the city would have to set up an enforcement apparatus to force compliance. You think the backlash to red-light cameras was bad? Wait until people — which would include Chicagoans, not just the suburbanites Vasquez is targeting — get “pay up” notices in the mail.

For all the talk of the environment and promoting public transit usage, let’s be honest. The primary reason the Johnson administration and its progressive aldermanic allies find congestion pricing intriguing is the revenue such a charge might raise. The mayor’s many efforts to boost resources for his programmatic visions have come to naught thus far. Most dramatic was voters’ rejection in March of the Bring Chicago Home referendum that would have quadrupled the tax on sales of most commercial real estate in order to fund homelessness programs. But that’s not the only instance. Gov. J.B. Pritzker and lawmakers in Springfield have rejected out of hand suggestions such as taxing trades on Chicago’s futures and options exchanges. Johnson’s trial balloon to bring back the so-called head tax — a levy that used to be paid by employers for each worker they employ, a colossally counterproductive idea — has gone nowhere.

So Vasquez’s move to get the ball rolling on congestion pricing isn’t surprising, and the motivation is clear, even if you hear protests to the contrary. It should join the dust heap of this administration’s other failed cash grabs.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took flack and was forced to apologize for leaving Normandy early to do, of all things, a TV interview on the pending British general election, a boneheaded fail for a British politician from the Conservative Party. The Republican Party’s Joe Biden sleuths who scour video footage for weaponizable evidence of presidential mental decline were clueless enough not to take the day off. What folly.

Meanwhile, first lady Jill Biden ping-ponged back and forward and back again across the Atlantic as she tried to show up for the veterans and her husband while also maintaining her presence in a Wilmington, Delaware, courtroom to support her stepson, Hunter Biden, as he faced gun charges. It was quite the feat from the first lady and her office, and all Americans should be able to appreciate that, regardless of their opinion of the Hunter Biden matter. Or so we can hope.

The veterans, of course, deserved no less than a day of uncommon unity, especially since we are coming to the end of the era of having the ongoing benefit of those who were there and who are now 99, or 101, or even 102. Delta Air Lines and others have been flying veterans to Normandy for commemorations every five years, but, given our shared mortality, it was impossible not to think about how the stately procession of wheelchairs will be far shorter in 2029, if it exists at all. Although one never knows, given that these are some mighty tough old soldiers.

They came back one last time this past week, mostly in their wheelchairs or supported by canes, from residences and retirement homes all across America, Britain and Canada, some stooped, some proudly upright, all living representatives of the roughly 4,400 Allied troops who died on the beaches of Normandy. Many remain mentally sharp and shared vivid memories of June 6, 1944, even though it was estimated that around a half of them had not been back in this old theater since they rose up out of the water on Omaha Beach or one of the other landings where free French children now play. Thousands of French citizens came out to see and thank them; that once-occupied nation has never forgotten their saviors, the soldiers who finally pushed the Nazis out of France, gave the French back their country and sealed Adolf Hitler’s fate.

We were inestimably inspired by the moving exchange between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a man we’ve long seen as rich in emotional intelligence, and Melvin Hurwitz, a 99-year-old World War II veteran from Frederick, Maryland. We’ve played the footage several times, after finding the most revealing angle. Zelenskyy is introduced to Hurwitz by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who says “he is still fighting now.” Hurwitz, lighting up like a firefly at the sight of the Ukrainian leader, kisses his hand and calls him “the savior of the people.”  Zelenskyy is having none of that, moving in for a bear hug, well before the exchange is broadcast on the event’s big screen. “No, no, no,” he says to Staff Sgt. Hurwitz, who flew on a B-17 with the 863rd Bomb Squadron in the 493rd Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force and then reportedly spent the 30 years after the war working in his father’s watch and jewelry shop in Baltimore.

Hurwitz grew up in Maryland, but his parents were Russian immigrants. It goes without saying that Vladimir Putin was not invited to the ceremony, having now firmly positioned himself on the wrong side of history.

“You saved Europe,” Zelenskyy said. “I will pray for you,” Hurwitz said. “Thank you,” said Zelenskyy.

Efforts were made Thursday to honor the role of women who were part of the war effort: A 103-year-old British naval officer named Christian Lamb — a member of the Women’s Royal Naval Service (colloquially known as the WRENS) who became an “official plotting officer,” using data from radar stations and working on ships’ trajectories — was awarded the Legion d’honneur by French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron noted that Lamb first did this work even as her own fiance was sailing on one of the warships relying on her group for its safe passage, oblivious to his own wife’s role. Macron then explained how Lamb plotted D-Day logistics from Winston Churchill’s secret London bunker.

“You were not there in person but you guided each step they took,” Macron said. “You set us an example which we will not forget.”

Such was the whole day. We’ll just add that we know some other living women who were there for D-Day but did not plot maps, nor break codes, nor rise up from the waves. Their role was on the home front, tending to small children, perhaps, or keeping households together as husbands and brothers went off to fight on the beaches of Normandy, many never to return.

These women replaced men in factories, tilled fields, pushed office paper, sang for the troops, worked behind the counters of stores. Women as a whole live longer than men, so it is probably fair to say that there are more of them still alive in the nations that made up the Allied effort in 1944. Should you be lucky enough to know one, you might ask them about June 6, 1944.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

This food would be fresh and healthy fare produced by “socially disadvantaged” local farmers across the state, the governor said. And the federal government would be picking up the program’s nearly $30 million tab.

“Illinois Eats is lifting up both ends of Illinois’ food supply chain — from our farmers to our most food-insecure residents,” Pritzker proudly proclaimed.

Maybe he should have called the program Illinois Dines and Dashes. More than two months after Pritzker made his promises, and locally produced food started flowing under the program, the state still wasn’t paying.

As the Chicago Tribune’s Karina Atkins reported, one local food organization that had given away hundreds of pounds of produce every week from small-scale Black growers was still struggling to get paid as of early June. The group’s organizer told the Tribune, “It’s been a crunch. It’s been a lot of out-of-pocket money.”

Feeding the hungry is getting increasingly difficult in America, and not only because of high grocery prices. On the national level, a political consensus between the left and right that worked for 50 years is falling apart. That could leave local groups to pick up much of the slack — and sometimes front the money — even as food insecurity increases.

Exhibit A of the broken coalition is the federal Farm Bill. Once considered must-pass legislation, especially ahead of a close national election, the Farm Bill is languishing. The political right wants to cut programs for feeding the poor. The left says to forget that, and gripes about the GOP promoting corporate-farming interests. As with many other lower-profile legislative initiatives, there’s little sign of compromise.

The 2018 Farm Bill expired last year, and Congress couldn’t get its act together then on a five-year extension. So it extended farm programs for another year. That year is almost up, and with political divisions so deep, it will be no surprise if Congress again comes up dry.

At first blush, some Americans might be OK with scrapping the Farm Bill altogether, especially given its mammoth $1.5 trillion cost over 10 years. In the past, rural lawmakers voted “yes” mainly to secure fat government checks for wealthy farmers in their states, among other agriculture-related subsidies, while urban lawmakers voted “yes” to fund programs like SNAP, also known as food stamps, as well as conservation measures.

Today, House Republicans have advanced a draft Farm Bill that would cut $30 billion from SNAP programs over a decade, while increasing subsidies for producers and landowners. As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack accurately observed, the GOP bill would undermine the farm-food coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and raises “the real possibility of being unable to get a Farm Bill through the process.”

Tempting as that might sound, the 900-page legislation covers programs that it’s hard to imagine America going without. Besides farm subsidies and food stamps, would America really be better off leaving its farm sector unprotected from catastrophes? Or eliminating international food aid? Scrapping research into food production? Protecting its forests and other vulnerable land?

How about funding farm credit and marketing? That might not sound so enticing, unless you’re Gov. Pritzker. It was, after all, through a U.S. Department of Agriculture program that Pritzker got the federal grants to move forward with his Peoria dream come true.

According to the feds, the state is supposed to be using the money to purchase food from socially disadvantaged farmers at fair market value, then distribute it through food banks and other nonprofits to communities in need at no cost. Indeed, at his Peoria event in March, Pritzker gave thanks for “the cooperation and support” of the Agriculture Department.

After that, all he had to do was start shelling out the federal cash. Instead, Illinois has been putting on a show of inefficiency.

As the Tribune reported, the Agriculture Department is funding similar programs from coast to coast, in every state except Wyoming. Most have had their programs up and running for a while — and that includes distributing the promised funds.

Wisconsin, for example, announced a funding agreement with the federal government in August 2022 and by the end of last year it had delivered $1.4 million worth of food.

Illinois reached a funding agreement only two months later than Wisconsin, the Tribune reported, but it didn’t finalize contracts with food distributors until this spring. And then it expected them to pay out the money before eventually getting repaid. Nothing like an IOU from the Land of Lincoln to fill a vendor with confidence.

Further, the delays tripped up the Black, first-generation and veteran farmers who had ramped up production in anticipation of Illinois’ overdue announcement. As the Tribune reported, food was left to spoil and hungry families to wait.

At the rate Illinois is going, dysfunctional federal lawmakers might just get their act together and pass a new Farm Bill before the state finally gets this program fully in gear. Get a move on, Governor.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

“I still have my own questions as to what happened,” LaVitola told the business publication, painting himself, the founder, as just as confused as all the staffers who lost their jobs without notice, the landlords who lost a tenant and all the suppliers whose bills went unpaid. Let’s just say he should have been in a position to know more than most.

This and other following rosy stories also said that LaVitola was “working to repair relationships with vendors and employees,” which sounds good but sure is ambivalent language given that Foxtrot stiffed a whole bunch of small suppliers. Does “working to repair” mean making them whole? He does not seem to have been asked, but we doubt it.

LaVitola also said he’s “hoping for familiar faces when the stores reopen and familiar merchandise on the shelves.” We’d advise anyone with a brain attached to one of those familiar faces, or anyone who makes said familiar merchandise, to proceed with caution. There appears to us to be more going on here than the sunrise art you can find on the Foxtrot website.

C-Store Dive, a publication covering the convenience store industry, raised some serious questions about how the assets of Foxtrot were sold at an auction handled by J.P. Morgan Chase, where Further Point Enterprises, already an investor in the chain, acquired Foxtrot’s assets, for just $2.2 million. C-Store Dive’s headline called this a “completely ramrodded” auction and cited other attendees as believing that the intention was only ever to obtain one bid, even though $2.2 million did not seem like much for “Foxtrot’s inventory, intellectual property, accounts, chattel paper, documents, furniture, fixtures and equipment, general intangibles and goods.”  Indeed not, especially given the Chicago media’s remarkable affection for these stores.

David Magruder of Further Point Enterprises is working with LaVitola, the front man. People are, of course, allowed to form new businesses from the same-named shells of old bankrupt entities, something that happens all the time, but various lawsuits in this case might further extend LaVitola’s heartbreak.

Donald Trump, a man familiar with bankruptcy, famously said that he had “used, brilliantly, the laws of the country” to his advantage. LaVitola would not be so crass, we assume, since that surely would offend the affluent young urbanites who patronize his high-end stores.

But what’s the difference, exactly?

Worryingly, we’re seeing more signs of that phenomenon in Chicago, with three separate episodes over the last weekend in which would-be victims proved to be both armed and willing to fire at their assailants. Four people who police said were attacking these concealed carry holders were shot and wounded, all of them critically, according to a report by Block Club Chicago.

The three incidents took place in various parts of the city. One was in Belmont Cragin on the Northwest Side at 11:30 p.m. Friday, where three assailants were shot by a man they attacked, according to police. All four were injured critically. Four hours later, at around 3:30 a.m. Saturday, a concealed carry holder fired at three men attempting to steal his car in the Irving Park neighborhood on the Northwest Side. Nobody was reported injured. Then, in the early hours of Sunday, another concealed carry licensee shot a 50-year-old man trying to break into his home in Chatham on the South Side, according to the report. The would-be burglar was transported to University of Chicago Medical Center in critical condition.

We’ve seen more of these cases since 2013 when Illinois first allowed people to carry guns in their cars or concealed on their person once they obtain a license to do so. The licenses cost $150 and require applicants to take a 16-hour course on how to use a gun. There are about 450,000 concealed carry license-holders in Illinois. That’s a lot of armed Illinoisans.

Here’s the situation: People who go through a relatively minimal process can legally defend themselves in their homes or even on the city streets with a gun. More and more of them are doing just that.

Some applaud, saying it’s a positive that more people aren’t accepting the risk of being victimized as the price of day-to-day life in Chicago. In addition, this line of argument goes, would-be criminals might think twice if more of them believed there was a good chance their targets could respond with deadly force. Perhaps.

But the majority of Chicagoans, we’re convinced, don’t feel any safer when they read stories of good-guy-with-a-gun responses to street crime. They may feel some satisfaction when street criminals feel the same level of fear their would-be victims do. But overall, it’s not a healthy environment in a city — where by definition people live close together — when gun-packing citizens become more the norm than the exception.

This is not to pass judgment on those who for their own protection go through the steps necessary to get a concealed carry permit and then take advantage of the legal rights that license gives them.

It is to say that it’s the job of the mayor, the Police Department, the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, judges and all involved in the criminal justice system to make it so that those prone to crime feel there’s a decent chance they will be caught, prosecuted and punished if they commit those acts. For several years now, it’s fair to say, the risk-reward calculation has been far too heavily weighted toward the reward side for street criminals in Chicago.

Chicagoans considering whether to purchase a gun and get a license to carry and use it aren’t likely to be dissuaded from doing so when, for example, the Cook County state’s attorney says she favors simply not prosecuting those accused of gun offenses when illegal guns are discovered during a police stop of a car for a minor violation. They can be pardoned if the thought occurring to them when reading stories about that prosecutorial policy is that they better get a gun because those tasked with combating the scourge of illegal firearms say they won’t take action when they get the opportunity.

It would be unsurprising as well if residents mulling carrying a firearm for self-defense felt more convinced to go ahead and do so when they read that the mayor of Chicago disagrees with his police superintendent on continuing to employ ShotSpotter, the gunshot detection technology that enables faster police response to the scenes of shootings.

On social media accounts dedicated to public safety reporting, stories abound, too, of criminals victimizing people while on supervised release as they await charges for similar offenses.

Surely, it doesn’t help the narrative, either, when the Chicago Police Department has more than 1,000 openings for officers that it’s struggling to fill, in part because the job has become so controversial amid stark divisions within the city over the role of the police.

And, no, the statistics don’t show a significant decline in overall crime. While year-to-date homicides as of June 2 thankfully are down 15% from the same period last year, robbery, aggravated battery, burglary and theft remain at levels ranging from 20% to 77% higher than in 2021, according to the Chicago Police Department. Public safety fears are not all in people’s minds.

Surely, our public officials, no matter what side of the criminal-justice-reform divide they’re on, can agree that the growing risks of more ordinary citizens taking responsibility for their own safety at the point of a gun isn’t a healthy development. They ought to think of an ordinary Chicagoan, maybe right now mulling whether it’s a good idea to carry a firearm as they head to the store, and prove to them there is no need. For crime in this city won’t be allowed to pay.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

The news of the school’s closure sent shock waves through America’s arts communities and also through those who care about downtown Philadelphia, where the school had an extensive Center City campus. Generally speaking, the dominant emotion among stakeholders was sheer amazement that an institution of higher education could effectively go bust and offer only days’ notice, even though it had just recruited a fall class of incoming students. This hardly was an overextended convenience store: Universities are expected to be there forever, allowing graduates to hold reunions year after year.

Precisely what happened is not entirely clear, and a last-minute rescue plan may yet emerge from other schools, but the crisis revolves around two factors: the so-called enrollment cliff of fewer college-bound 18-year-olds in coming years, and money, or the lack thereof.

“UArts has been in a fragile financial state, with many years of declining enrollments, declining revenues, and increasing expenses,” said the school’s president, Kerry Walk, and the chair of its board of trustees, Judson Aaron. “With a cash position that has steadily weakened, we could not cover significant, unanticipated expenses. The situation came to light very suddenly. Despite swift action, we were unable to bridge the necessary gaps.”

Clearly, University of the Arts had serious, singular issues, not all of which have yet come to light. But many small private colleges are anticipating similar enrollment drop-offs while contending with increased expenses stemming, among other things, from broad unionization efforts. These trends have a way of compounding into full-blown crises given that students have many choices when it comes to college. Tuition at University of the Arts has been $51,130. By point of comparison, Pennsylvania State University charges less than half that amount. It hardly needs stating that artistic professions offer no guarantee of financial return even though training schools nurture crucial cultural talent that the nation needs.

What are the broader lessons for cities like Chicago, where several private institutions of higher learning heavily invested in arts education anchor its downtown area, including Roosevelt University, DePaul University, the School of the Art Institute and Columbia College Chicago?

The universities have to be lean and fiscally prudent to get through this era, something that unions and their memberships have to understand. But then so do administrators who have increased in number, often at the expense of full-time faculty, and typically are paid high salaries. Those in a position to give philanthropically should know that the need for their support increases as demographic trends inevitably lessen enrollment. And the city as a whole has to keep careful watch: The tough situation in Philadelphia is a reminder that schools can and do go out of business and their loss can seriously wound an urban core.

We should remember that much of the Loop renaissance in the Daley era came from investments by those schools, which filled downtown streets with residences and students, bringing street life and vital economic activity.

Once there is a crisis like the one at University of the Arts, it’s too late.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.