Latest news with #ChicagoCityCouncil
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Chicago City Council takes radical step to fight against ‘teen takeovers'
A last-minute curfew designed to keep 'teen takeovers' at bay has been passed in Chicago , but it's expected to be vetoed by the city's mayor. The city council measure passed 27 to 22 on Wednesday, according to ABC7. Mayor Brandon Johnson called the ordinance a 'politicized knee-jerk reaction.' It's unclear if council members have the necessary numbers to override a veto. "Offering up police power, extended police power without any check or balance has not bode well for Black people and brown people in this country," said Johnson. If enacted, the measure would give Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling the ability to implement a last-minute curfew to disperse teenage gatherings across the city. Snelling would also need to consult with the Chicago deputy mayor of public safety before issuing a curfew. Police would be able to enforce the restriction for gatherings of 20 people or more starting 30 minutes after a curfew is issued. "I have a 17-year-old daughter that I have restricted, 'Do not go downtown.' She's not going downtown because it's safe. She can't go because it's unsafe," Alderwoman Monique Scott said, according to the outlet. Ahead of Wednesday's debate, demonstrators protested outside City Hall. Many young people said they were concerned the ordinance would unintentionally target them. Others said such a measure is unconstitutional and could result in the criminalization of teenagers and young children. "We say no to the snap curfew because again it defunds our youth, criminalizes our youth and destroys our narrative and perception of this city," said Commissioner for Public Safety and Accountability Abierre Minor. Brian Hopkins, Public Safety Committee chairman, told the outlet, the intent behind the ordinance was to keep everyone safe during the summer months. "The intent of this ordinance is to prevent teen trends. How long does it take to prevent a teen trend? However long it takes, the more opportunity we have to prevent it, the better off it is, and that's what the superintendent is going to do," he said. "This will be used in a constitutional and effective manner, and all the notice requirements that are in the ordinance will be adhered to... No one here thinks it's perfectly acceptable for large groups of teenagers, some as young as 12, to gather anywhere in the city, downtown or anywhere, and get out of control and to take guns out of their backpacks and to engage in violent behavior and mayhem and chaos." Local governments are dealing with similar issues in other parts of the country. Last month, officials in Charleston, South Carolina, entertained the idea of implementing a curfew to lower violent incidents downtown. This week in Washington, D.C., officials considered a 7 p.m. curfew for teenagers in certain parts of the city. Emergency legislation would need to pass the council to take effect.
The Independent
15 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Chicago City Council takes radical step to fight against ‘teen takeovers'
A last-minute curfew designed to keep 'teen takeovers' at bay has been passed in Chicago , but it's expected to be vetoed by the city's mayor. The city council measure passed 27 to 22 on Wednesday, according to ABC7. Mayor Brandon Johnson called the ordinance a 'politicized knee-jerk reaction.' It's unclear if council members have the necessary numbers to override a veto. "Offering up police power, extended police power without any check or balance has not bode well for Black people and brown people in this country," said Johnson. If enacted, the measure would give Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling the ability to implement a last-minute curfew to disperse teenage gatherings across the city. Snelling would also need to consult with the Chicago deputy mayor of public safety before issuing a curfew. Police would be able to enforce the restriction for gatherings of 20 people or more starting 30 minutes after a curfew is issued. "I have a 17-year-old daughter that I have restricted, 'Do not go downtown.' She's not going downtown because it's safe. She can't go because it's unsafe," Alderwoman Monique Scott said, according to the outlet. Ahead of Wednesday's debate, demonstrators protested outside City Hall. Many young people said they were concerned the ordinance would unintentionally target them. Others said such a measure is unconstitutional and could result in the criminalization of teenagers and young children. "We say no to the snap curfew because again it defunds our youth, criminalizes our youth and destroys our narrative and perception of this city," said Commissioner for Public Safety and Accountability Abierre Minor. Brian Hopkins, Public Safety Committee chairman, told the outlet, the intent behind the ordinance was to keep everyone safe during the summer months. "The intent of this ordinance is to prevent teen trends. How long does it take to prevent a teen trend? However long it takes, the more opportunity we have to prevent it, the better off it is, and that's what the superintendent is going to do," he said. "This will be used in a constitutional and effective manner, and all the notice requirements that are in the ordinance will be adhered to... No one here thinks it's perfectly acceptable for large groups of teenagers, some as young as 12, to gather anywhere in the city, downtown or anywhere, and get out of control and to take guns out of their backpacks and to engage in violent behavior and mayhem and chaos." Local governments are dealing with similar issues in other parts of the country. Last month, officials in Charleston, South Carolina, entertained the idea of implementing a curfew to lower violent incidents downtown. This week in Washington, D.C., officials considered a 7 p.m. curfew for teenagers in certain parts of the city. Emergency legislation would need to pass the council to take effect.
Axios
2 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Chicago Mayor Johnson plans to veto new curfew ordinance
The Chicago City Council voted 27-22 Wednesday to expand police curfew powers, but less than an hour later Mayor Brandon Johnson announced he would veto the measure. Context: The move marks Chicago's first mayoral veto since Mayor Richard M. Daley nixed big box legislation in 2006. Why it matters: The veto could drive a deeper wedge between the mayor and the majority of the council — along with police superintendent Larry Snelling — who supported the curfew plan. What they're saying: "I will veto this ordinance because it is counterproductive to the progress that we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city," Johnson said. "It would create tensions between residents and law enforcement at a time when we have worked so hard to rebuild that trust. Now is not the time to introduce new measures that could undermine those hard fought gains." Catch up quick: Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd) first floated an 8pm downtown curfew in March in response to a shooting near the AMC Theatres in Streeterville after a teen gathering. In the intervening months, the downtown alder tweaked the proposal multiple times, expanding it from downtown to the whole city and allowing Snelling to customize the curfew start time depending on the situation. How it would've worked: The measure would have allowed the superintendent, in consultation with deputy mayor of community safety Garien Gatewood, to organize preventative curfew plans days before an event they believed would lead to violence. Between the lines: Johnson played down his split with Snelling on the issue saying, "the superintendent was selected by me and brought before the City Council by me. It's not policing alone that brings down violence in the city." The mayor repeatedly recommended that critics read "Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America," which examines on how anti-crime policies in Black-run cities unintentionally resulted in more Black incarceration. "Why on God's green earth would I actually repeat the sins of those who came before us?" Johnson asked during the press conference. The other side: Supporters of the ordinance, including Ald. Monique Scott (24th) characterized the measure as preventative rather than punitive.
Chicago Tribune
10-06-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Alderman seeks power to ban short-term rentals from Chicago precincts
If a Far Northwest Side alderman gets his way, Chicago City Council members could gain the authority to block short-term rentals like Airbnb's from popping up in their wards. Ald. Anthony Napolitano, 41st, is pushing forward legislation that would give aldermen the ability to unilaterally ban new rentals on a precinct-by-precinct level. The rental companies could overturn the bans by collecting signatures from 10% of the precinct voters, around 150 to 200 signatures, he said. Napolitano, whose ward includes Edison Park and surrounding areas near O'Hare International Airport, argued the amendment he seeks is about 'being able to advocate for your residents when it becomes a problem,' citing party complaints in particular. 'Because it doesn't exist right now,' he said. 'We can't advocate for them at all.' The City Council's License and Consumer Protection Committee is set to consider the legislation Wednesday. If it advances, it could face a full City Council vote next week. Airbnb criticized the proposed ban, arguing in a statement it threatens to destabilize short-term rental tax revenue earmarked to fight homelessness and aid domestic violence survivors. 'The proposed ordinance amendment is an unnecessary violation of Chicagoans' constitutional property rights and echoes the city's dark history of 'Restricted Residential Zones,' which once controlled who could visit, travel through, and own homes in certain neighborhoods,' Airbnb Public Policy Manager Jonathan Bucker said in the statement. There has been a 78% decrease in the rate of party reports made to Airbnb in Chicago since 2020, according to the company. Airbnb pointed to efforts to curb parties, among them reservation screenings and support lines. It also touted the $191 million Chicago hosts earned last year, as well as the tourist spending in neighborhoods the company says the stays generate. The city's current short-term rental ordinance allows for precinct-level bans only after 25% of the precincts registered voters have signed a petition requesting the ban. Some aldermen, like Southwest Side Ald. Marty Quinn, 13th, have pushed forward with signature-collection efforts that have blocked Airbnb in large swaths of their wards. Napolitano said his measure 'flips the script' to place the onus on companies instead of residents. He likened the powers his ordinance would grant aldermen to the one they already have over new liquor licenses going into neighborhood businesses: 'Open it up, drop some in and close it again.' He said he would 'look at' a ban in problem areas immediately if the amendment passes, but would leave other spots untouched. Even after aldermen voted last month to require short-term rental companies to share more data with them, Napolitano said the added transparency is not enough because he does not have the power to fix issues 'in real time' when parties happen in his ward's single-family homes. 'It isn't fixed by Friday or Saturday, but they're gone by Sunday, and then the neighbors are left to deal with the problem, and then it pops back up two, three weeks later,' he said. Pre-existing short-term rental units would be allowed to continue operating if rentals were banned in a precinct, Napolitano said. He shared concerns that the rentals drive up housing costs or harm tax revenue brought in by hotels, but added that his goal is 'not to hurt Airbnb.' 'We can't go into this and destroy an industry,' he said. 'It does work in a lot of areas, it does work well, it does help some residents to keep a home because it brings a substitute income.' The one-bed, one-bath Airbnb that Jackeline Torres and her husband rent out from their Norwood Park home would be grandfathered in if Napolitano, Torres' alderman, banned rentals in her area. Still, the City Council effort to control where Airbnb's can go bothers Torres. The paralegal rents out the separate upstairs space to help pay for rising property taxes, she said. Short-term rental bans would be 'intrusive to my privacy' and rights, she argued. 'An alderman shouldn't restrict who I allow into my home and my freedom of allowing people to stay in my home,' Torres said. 'One person shouldn't determine that.' Her unit is rented out over half the year, she said. It's been available for three years. Most of the guests she welcomes are traveling professionals or tourists visiting nearby family. Safety is top of mind for the mother of three young children, and it has never been an issue while renting, she said. 'We always had a positive experience with the people who were staying here,' she said. 'It supplemented our already existing income and gave us a little extra cushion to make sure we were in a better financial position.' Three different guests have even decided to look for homes in the area after their stays, she added. But while Torres said her Airbnb rental has helped keep her in her home, Ald. Jessie Fuentes worries rentals might push her residents out of theirs. Parts of Fuentes' Northwest Side ward include some of the city's fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods, she said. And in pockets of her 26th Ward like East Humboldt Park, where many of the ward's short-term rentals are concentrated, Chicagoans are making the difficult decision to stay and face higher costs or leave, she said. 'When you begin to short up the amount of units in our communities because we're putting so many of them online for Airbnb, it sort of begins to also inflate those prices,' she said. Fuentes added that she gets 'a lot of concerns' from residents about rental parties that are 'disruptive to the natural ecosystem.' 'I am not anti-Airbnb,' she said. 'I just think there needs to be some form of regulation.'
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘A lesson in worst practices': Shocking audit reveals Chicago parking meters have made $2B for private company
Have you ever been strapped for cash? Perhaps you took a payday loan, sold a long-term asset or even made an early withdrawal from your 401(k). And chances are, you've later regretted it. This is the situation the City of Chicago finds itself in — and the cost may have been billions. Privatizing public infrastructure is a growing trend among cash-strapped cities that need fast revenue. Back during the 2008 financial crisis, Chicago was broke and needed to raise money. Rather than make the unpopular move of raising property taxes, then-mayor Richard M. Daley chose to privatize public assets. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) 'If we didn't have money for a long-term debt, you're talking about a serious economic crisis then for Chicago,' Daley said at the time, according to NBC 5 Chicago. So, Chicago City Council struck a deal to lease the city's 36,000 parking meters to investment consortium Chicago Parking Meters LLC, a group of global investors led by Morgan Stanley. The investors paid nearly $1.157 billion to receive the revenue from the meters for 75 years — and the city must reimburse them whenever the parking meters are taken offline, such as for festivals or construction. The deal was essentially rubber-stamped 40-5 in favor by the council, which had only a few days to review it before voting — turning out to be what the Better Government Association later called 'a lesson in 'worst practices.'' Soon after, a report issued by the then-inspector general found the city was paid at least $974 million less than it could have made from operating the parking meters itself over the term of the deal. While an analysis done by 32nd Ward Alderperson Scott Waguespack — who voted against the deal — found the deal could have been worth $5 to $10 billion, reported NBC 5. Now, a 2024 audit by accounting firm KPMG has found that, with another 58 years still left in the agreement, the private investors have already recouped their initial investment. In 2023, the meters generated a record $160.9 billion in income, bringing the total income from the start of the deal to $1.97 billion. 'It's just one of those deals that I would beg people never to replicate anywhere in the United States,' Waguespack told NBC 5. Still, many Americans can relate to the situation that faced Mayor Daley. When we're desperate for funds, we can make rash decisions that negatively affect our long-term financial health. Almost 4 in 10 (37%) U.S. adults would not be able to cover a $400 emergency expense with cash savings, according to the Economic Well-Being of US Households in 2024 report from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And while many of these people say they could cover the expense some other way, such as using a credit card, borrowing from family or friends or selling something, 13% would not be able to pay the expense by any means. About 58% of Americans are 'living paycheck to paycheck and experienced a cash emergency in the past 12 months,' according to The 2025 Cash Poor Report from peer-to-peer lending platform SoLo Funds. Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it These 'cash-poor' Americans may not be who you think they are. Forty percent have a full-time job and one in seven cash-poor households earn more than $75,000 per year. The top unexpected expenses, according to the report, are auto repairs, medical bills and utility bills — common expenses that can happen to any of us. To cover these expenses, some may turn to short-term financing options that could end up costing them more money in the long term. For instance, buy now pay later (BNPL) services come with an average borrowing cost of 23%, according to The 2025 Cash Poor Report, which can increase substantially if the borrower incurs repeat late fees. Another option is a payday loan, which is one of the most expensive ways to borrow. The industry average cost of borrowing for payday loans is 35%, according to the report, but origination fees, late fees and processing fees can push this as high as 49% of the principal borrowed. Increased borrowing and missed payments can also affect your credit score, which in turn can limit your future ability to borrow. People might also look to sell long-term assets such as stocks, bonds or mutual funds, but this too can have long-term financial costs. If you're 30 years from retirement and sell $10,000 of an asset today that's earning 7% per year, then you'll have about $76,000 less when you retire due to the loss in compounding interest. Plus, research has shown that time out of the stock market can be costly — and missing the best days in the market can be devastating to your long-term returns. And, if you make an early withdrawal from a tax-deferred account such as a 401(k), you'll also pay a 10% tax penalty. To avoid high-cost borrowing in an emergency or cashing out long-term investments during a downturn, start by building an emergency fund that could cover unexpected expenses. A rule of thumb is to have three to six months' income in an accessible account, such as a high-yield savings account. While desperate times may call for desperate measures, it's worth consulting with a financial advisor (or a free counseling service) to discuss your options before getting saddled with debt or selling long-term assets. Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
