Editorial: Mayor Brandon Johnson should not veto snap curfews
On Wednesday, Chicago's City Council passed by a vote of 27-22 an ordinance authorizing so-called 'snap curfews,' meaning that Chicago police will have the authority to get teenagers off the streets if they sense trouble is brewing. In essence, police Superintendent Larry Snelling would have the power to impose curfews in specific public areas within Chicago where large, unpermitted teen gatherings are beginning, or expected soon to form. The idea is that police officers would be able to tell those already assembled that they have 30 minutes either to go home or take a walk with just a couple of friends elsewhere.
Mayor Brandon Johnson blasted the ordinance approved by a clear majority of aldermen and said he planned to issue a rare mayoral veto (the first since 2006, the Richard M. Daley era) in coming days.
He should rethink that idea.
We're aware of arguments against giving the police this power, especially given our long-standing interest in guarding civil liberties. We've been concerned about a couple of kids being inside a movie theater, for example, only to walk out onto the street without knowing about any curfew and then finding themselves in conflict with the police. We're also of the view that law-abiding teens must be welcomed downtown and that there is nothing illegal in gathering with friends on a warm summer's night, shooting the breeze. That's why we were against making the existing 10 p.m. curfew for Under 17s any earlier, and why we applaud Jahmal Cole, founder and CEO of 'My Block, My Hood, My City,' who is planning to bring over 1,500 teens, primarily from the South and West sides, into the business and cultural districts of downtown Chicago on July 19 for what he calls 'a day of exploration, belonging and new opportunities.'
This will be the third year the nonprofit organization also known as M3 will have chaperoned an initiative powered by donors and volunteers; we hear Cole expects to have more participants than ever this year. The plan is both to make these teens feel like they belong downtown, as they should, and also to start to shift some negative perceptions among downtown business owners and workers. We hope everyone has a great time together.
But there is often a tradeoff between civil liberties and crime prevention and, where minors are concerned, protection must come first. If it is handled right, this new police power might actually keep kids safer by pre-empting any trouble before it happens. And to think that there is no danger of such trouble when teens gather en masse downtown is to put your head in the sand when it comes to the lessons of recent history, especially as hot summer nights are upon us. Johnson claimed that the ordinance, introduced by Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), 'is counterproductive to the progress that we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city.'
With all due respect, we don't see the merit of that argument. It should be seen as a tool. And let's remember that incidents of violent crime don't just affect tourists or the business district — they're usually worse for the kids caught up in any melee. No parent or grandparent wants a teen to get stuck around a group of hot-headed peers who might encourage them to do things they later have cause to regret and that impairs the progress of their promising young lives. Such scenarios typically terrify a teenager's loved ones.
Perhaps most importantly here, the city's aldermen, many of whom represent the impacted families and know their communities very well, are telling the mayor loud and clear that they this protection, not just for folks downtown but for the kids themselves. And the vote would suggest that these aldermen of the majority, such as Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd), trust Snelling to guard against any problems, which will mean using the ordinance very sparingly, offering as much advance notice as possible and focusing on de-escalation. Snelling already has said in several interviews that he will commit to that.
Good. And if no snap curfew is ever needed this summer, all the better.
Still, whatever his ideological misgivings or sense of being personally affronted, the mayor would be wise to listen to the City Council and add this ordinance to the police's toolbox for keeping everyone safe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
City of St. John's changes policy on naming new streets to avoid 'problematic legacies'
The City of St. John's is changing its street naming policy to no longer allow new streets in the city to be named after people. It's an effort to protect itself from potential problems in the future, according to Coun. Ron Ellsworth. "Naming streets after people carries a number of risks," Ellsworth said during Tuesday's council meeting. "[There could be] problematic legacies, political polarization, disparity in representation and cultural marginalization." To reduce those risks, Ellsworth continued, the city's policy has been updated to remove the option to submit a person's name to the city's reserve street names inventory. On Friday, Ellsworth told CBC News that applications that were already under review ahead of the policy change — of which there are four — will continue moving through the process. Current streets also won't be renamed, Ellsworth said, and the city will still allow the use of surnames because they aren't directly tied to a person. For example, a road could be named Breen Street, but not Danny Breen Street in honour of the current mayor. Ellsworth said there wasn't a single issue that prompted the change, but noted other municipalities have faced challenges in recent years. "If you don't pay attention to your history, you're doomed to repeat your history and repeat the same mistakes. So this is a clarity issue, an identity piece that will, hopefully as we move forward, will create less issues for future councils and the public," he said. "This is not about renaming anything, this is just about as we move forward. New streets, new subdivisions, this is the process we will be using." Coun. Tom Davis said he sees the change as a harm reduction measure. "People can have, you know, history that comes out after the fact. So in particular, I brought up the point about child abuse.… A lot of times, we don't know these people's history because a lot of times they never get brought to justice," Davis said Friday. "There was also, you know, the reflection upon, you know, colonialism and potentially the use of some names. But the main driver was new names that might be brought forward that could end up having criminal or some sort of negative connotation that would end up being a mistake." Ellsworth said there's nothing stopping the city from reviewing street names in the future, should the need arise. Coun. Ophelia Ravencroft also voiced support for the change during Tuesday's meeting. Ravencroft encouraged finding new street names with an Indigenous-first lens. Download our to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Sign up for our . Click .
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Mayor Brandon Johnson should not veto snap curfews
On Wednesday, Chicago's City Council passed by a vote of 27-22 an ordinance authorizing so-called 'snap curfews,' meaning that Chicago police will have the authority to get teenagers off the streets if they sense trouble is brewing. In essence, police Superintendent Larry Snelling would have the power to impose curfews in specific public areas within Chicago where large, unpermitted teen gatherings are beginning, or expected soon to form. The idea is that police officers would be able to tell those already assembled that they have 30 minutes either to go home or take a walk with just a couple of friends elsewhere. Mayor Brandon Johnson blasted the ordinance approved by a clear majority of aldermen and said he planned to issue a rare mayoral veto (the first since 2006, the Richard M. Daley era) in coming days. He should rethink that idea. We're aware of arguments against giving the police this power, especially given our long-standing interest in guarding civil liberties. We've been concerned about a couple of kids being inside a movie theater, for example, only to walk out onto the street without knowing about any curfew and then finding themselves in conflict with the police. We're also of the view that law-abiding teens must be welcomed downtown and that there is nothing illegal in gathering with friends on a warm summer's night, shooting the breeze. That's why we were against making the existing 10 p.m. curfew for Under 17s any earlier, and why we applaud Jahmal Cole, founder and CEO of 'My Block, My Hood, My City,' who is planning to bring over 1,500 teens, primarily from the South and West sides, into the business and cultural districts of downtown Chicago on July 19 for what he calls 'a day of exploration, belonging and new opportunities.' This will be the third year the nonprofit organization also known as M3 will have chaperoned an initiative powered by donors and volunteers; we hear Cole expects to have more participants than ever this year. The plan is both to make these teens feel like they belong downtown, as they should, and also to start to shift some negative perceptions among downtown business owners and workers. We hope everyone has a great time together. But there is often a tradeoff between civil liberties and crime prevention and, where minors are concerned, protection must come first. If it is handled right, this new police power might actually keep kids safer by pre-empting any trouble before it happens. And to think that there is no danger of such trouble when teens gather en masse downtown is to put your head in the sand when it comes to the lessons of recent history, especially as hot summer nights are upon us. Johnson claimed that the ordinance, introduced by Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), 'is counterproductive to the progress that we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city.' With all due respect, we don't see the merit of that argument. It should be seen as a tool. And let's remember that incidents of violent crime don't just affect tourists or the business district — they're usually worse for the kids caught up in any melee. No parent or grandparent wants a teen to get stuck around a group of hot-headed peers who might encourage them to do things they later have cause to regret and that impairs the progress of their promising young lives. Such scenarios typically terrify a teenager's loved ones. Perhaps most importantly here, the city's aldermen, many of whom represent the impacted families and know their communities very well, are telling the mayor loud and clear that they want this protection, not just for folks downtown but for the kids themselves. And the vote would suggest that these aldermen of the majority, such as Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd), trust Snelling to guard against any problems, which will mean using the ordinance very sparingly, offering as much advance notice as possible and focusing on de-escalation. Snelling already has said in several interviews that he will commit to that. Good. And if no snap curfew is ever needed this summer, all the better. Still, whatever his ideological misgivings or sense of being personally affronted, the mayor would be wise to listen to the City Council and add this ordinance to the police's toolbox for keeping everyone safe. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
CBS News
a day ago
- CBS News
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson vetoes "snap curfew" ordinance passed by city council
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has officially vetoed the "snap curfew" ordinance narrowly passed by the city council earlier this week. The controversial ordinance aimed to allow Chicago police to declare a curfew on as little as 30 minutes' notice in an effort to curb teen takeovers. The measure was approved by a 27-22 vote in the council after months of debate on how the city should try to curb the large youth gatherings that have sometimes turned violence. Supporters would need 34 votes to override the mayor's veto. In his veto letter to the city clerk, Johnson wrote, "At a time when violent crime continues to trend down in the City of Chicago, it is critical that we continue our investments in community safety strategies that have a proven track record of success. In two short years, we have seen a measurable, sustained decline in crime and violence in our city." The letter goes on to say that the mayor's administration will continue to partner with community organizations, businesses and philanthropists to invest in youth jobs, safe spaces and menta health care along with effective policing. The letter will be read at the July 16 council meeting. Before the council vote,18 members of the Progressive Caucus urged the mayor to veto the ordinance, all but guaranteeing Johnson will have to votes to uphold his veto. Please note: The above video is from a previous report.
