So, you're argument is that you think that author is incorrect that Chicago is "next". That is not a ringing endorsement of their viability and really irrelevant. Being the city to fail after the next city fails doesn't matter a whole lot. Dead is dead
My argument is that the author is taking the tone of a fear monger—read this to hear about the next really colossal disaster, when he really has no argument concerning the timing (NEXT) or the extent (DETROIT) of the disaster.
Chicago, and many other entities, will eventually crash, but there is a difference between a fender-bender and hitting an underpass support going over 150 mph.
If Detroit were a car-wreck, it would be this car wreck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG96U8sX1hg
Failure doesn’t always mean death—some bankruptcies allow reorganization and survival. I’m not urging anyone to buy Chicago bonds, but if you live in Detroit, abandoning everything and starting over somewhere else would seem a no-brainer. In Chicago, you can at least hope to sell what you own for some sort of money, and can have a reasonable expectation of finding organized civilization 30 years from now.