WTF??? Banning ice cream trucks???

I would certainly call this a very busybody move. Aren't there more important issues to tackle than an ice cream truck. At least they can prove was small plastic baggies can be used for, but this is the floppiest reasons for banning ice cream trucks. From the Chicago Reader blog, The Food Chain:

Lane's explanation? Suspected ne'er-do-wells. She related a story of one dodgy truck. "The truck arrived down the block and its playing the regular ice cream music," she told me. "The kids left the truck and he left the end of the block, and it was like a cul-de-sac where you have to come back around and come back up the same block. And when he got down there he started playing a different tune of music. And I'm sitting down there but I'm writing this. And so then there were guys--people coming out of homes that were going to the truck coming back with something. You see them exchange something at the window of the truck but they didn't have any ice cream. So I assumed that they were dealing drugs. I'm not saying every truck is doing that but I prefer them not to be in the 18th Ward. That way we're sure that they are not."

Because she thought they were dealing drugs? You know shouldn't you prove something before you just plain take action like it's really happening.

SILLY!!!

Crossposted on the brand new Gaper's Block blog Mechanics.

Read more...

Chicago To Eliminate Mini Drug Bags

Remember this headline, "Ban on tiny plastic bags sandbagged"?

Well the Chicago City Council's Health Committee has followed thru on it...

Aldermen have given preliminary approval to an ordinance that would ban the sale or possession of tiny plastic bags often used by drug dealers.
...
The bags are two-inch, sealable, plastic and stamped with little logos, like hearts, spiders or superhero symbols. And 2nd Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti says, in his area, they’re used to hold crack cocaine and heroin. Many are decorated with little logos that police say identify the kind of drugs contained within.

Hmmm, shouldn't the city council find ways to maximize revenue since the Mayor is talking about a partial city government shutdown or laying off workers?

Hat-tip Uptown Update!

Read more...

Chicago aldermen: Who's got what

With a hat-tip to Newsalert. The Sun-Times lists the campaign fund totals of all Chicago aldermen. Ranging from between $8 Million to $0. The man on top is Ald. Ed Burke of the 14th.

Last year when I covered the municipal elections on my own blog, I noted in this post at that time...

Why does Burke have over $6.5 million in his campaign fund when he doesn't even have an opponent?

Ultimately he did have an opponent whom he failed to keep off the ballot and that election turned into what might referred to in wrestling as a "sqaush" match. That race was incredibly one sided.

Still I have to wonder why should an alderman have $8 million in their campaign fund? I suppose for a local office even in a city the size of Chicago to be able to either win or hold a seat shouldn't require that much money, unless we go back to that post at Newsalert...

Very interesting.With $8 million that substantially more money than Mayor Daley's got. Alderman Burke has never had a real campaign opponent. Why would so many connected individuals contribute money to a single Alderman? Here is the proof that Ed Burke is the real boss of The Chicago Democratic Machine. He slates the judges and controls Chicago's tax code. Burke passes out the money and it appears many people want to give him some money.

So all that money has little to do with his position as an alderman. Perhaps it might be his role as the chair of the city council finance committee? Perhaps it might be related to his role as a Democratic committeeman?

Read more...

Aldermen lash out at $75,000 for Stone

From today's Sun-Times...

Chicago aldermen ridiculed and condemned a federal hiring monitor on Friday for awarding $75,000 to the son of the City Council's elder statesman as compensation for a 2003 aldermanic election that was stacked against him.

Federal monitor Noelle Brennan believed Stone's claim that he didn't stand a chance against then-Ald. Ted Matlak (32nd) because Matlak had the support of a political army of city workers commanded on city time by now-convicted former First Deputy Water Commissioner Donald Tomczak.

Veteran aldermen begged to differ. They argued that Stone "never stood a chance, period" because he was a lousy candidate.

By giving Stone $75,000, Brennan deprived more worthy applicants of more substantial settlements, the aldermen said. "We've got potholes to fix. We spend $20 million on snow removal, and the federal monitor decides in her infinite wisdom to give somebody $75,000 because they lost an election? Can I sign up for that program?" said Ald. Tom Allen (38th).

Has Jay Stone ever worked for the city? Should he get a settlement from the city only because he had to face a ward political machine mostly manned by city workers? And why aren't the aldermen trying to go after the corruption that is a cause & effect of rigging city hiring?

I haven't read that Mr. Stone ever worked for the city. Stone surely should not have gotten a settlement for only being a political candidate facing a political machine of city workers. Hopefully someone can provide an answer for the third question I posed, because the best I can do is that the aldermen on Chicago's city council aren't willing to tackle this issue.

Many of the aldermen are correct in opposing this. Indeed a lot of Aldermen are correct that this money could go towards providing services to Chicago residents. Still if the city is tired of these payouts, I wish they could address the underlying causes.

Read more...

On the settlement with Chicago Police Torture victims

The State of..., one of my favorite blogs discusses the news that Chicago's city council settled with the victims of torture by Lt. Jon Burge. Says that Chicago's voters have short memories and that if Mayor Richard Daley (who was State's Attorney in the time period of the torture allegations) could win re-election in a landslide today!

Read more...

Aldermen blast Madigan in tax-cap fight

From Crain's...

The Chicago City Council is jumping into a bitter Springfield political war over property taxes, siding with Cook County Assessor Jim Houlihan and Illinois Senate President Emil Jones against Speaker Michael Madigan and Mayor Richard M. Daley on the question of how much tax relief should be offered to whom.

At a Monday morning press conference, aldermen released a letter signed by 49 of the 50 council members alleging that tens of thousands of homeowners in their wards will suffer under the “weak” relief plan being pushed by Mr. Madigan. The speaker’s bill “is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt at property tax relief and will result in most homeowners seeing increases as great as 40%” the letter states.

But a spokesman for the speaker suggested that the aldermen “are not fully aware of the facts” and that “rich people” do not need property tax relief.

At issue is Assessor Houlihan’s proposal to renew for another three years a measure that has effectively capped property-tax hikes at 7% a year for most homeowners. The law originally was enacted three years ago because the value of most residential property in Cook County has been rising far more than 7% a year.

But Mr. Madigan has argued that such measures mostly favor owners of large homes and result in higher taxes on other homeowners and businesses.

Under Mr. Madigan’s bill, which is awaiting a vote in the Senate, the full tax relief would apply only to those who have lived in their homes for more than 10 years and have a total household income of less than $75,000 a year.

As an aside to this article mentioned Mayor Daley. I wondered why he isn't getting involved in this budget struggle? He is one of the top dog Democrats in the state. Though maybe there are people out there who are glad he isn't.

Back to this article though...

Mayor Daley had been allied with Assessor Houlihan in the tax squabble, but switched sides several weeks ago amid rumors that Mr. Madigan had promised help on some of the city’s other initiatives in Springfield.

President Jones has not indicated whether he will pass, defeat or amend Mr. Madigan’s bill. Meanwhile, business groups say that any reduction in taxes for homeowners forces up taxes on them, and support only a limited cap.

Read more...

Troutman - Dancing with Developers

Giving Chicago Aldermen life and death power over development in their wards has led to many an indictment.

The most recent to succumb to temptation seems to be just defeated Alderwoman Andrea Troutman.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was kind enough to allow her to be arrested before the election. Now, he has charged her with 13 more crimes.

It sounds like a good ol’ Chicago Democratic Party shake-down.

The same dance we have seen before, except this time a female is taking the lead.

Or, perhaps Troutman had a better analogy when she said,

“Well, the thing is, most alderman, most politicians are hos.”

Who says we need a federal Equal Rights Amendment?

So, why isn't some Republican making a big deal about this?

This was published first on McHenry County Blog, where you can find out (probably exclusively) which prominent Illinois Republican is getting out of jail on Saturday, plus the latest in obstruction of justice charges brought by McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi.

= = = = =
The photograph of ex-Chicago Alderwoman Andrea Troutman came from her campaign web site.

Read more...