Conduct
for public meetings 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or
any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are
subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal
canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags, and
sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color that do
not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace, pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated,
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere
with the ability of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to
adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of
armsThrowing any item, whistling, booing,
shouting, or other loud utterances are not permitted when, in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms,
such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the
meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazard, as determined by the
sergeant at arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal
canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags, and
sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do
not exceed 12 inches by six inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace, pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated,
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere
with the ability of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to
adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the sergeant at arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the sergeant at arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose. Or three, when
asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms, may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances, are not permitted when, in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazard, as determined by the
sergeant at arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large
bags, and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in
color, that do not exceed 12 inches by six inches by
12 are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace, pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in
a manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these
rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the
meeting by the sergeant at arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the sergeant at arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering-
Thank you for your patience, everyone.
We have one more member for quorum, and she is on her way to the chamber,
so we'll begin the meeting momentarily.
Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Public Safety is hereby called to order.
We'll have a roll call to establish quorum.
Chairman Hopkins present. Alderman Yancy has a Rule 59
request. Alderman Chico.
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Curtis. Alderman Tabaras.
Alderman Cincho Lopez. Alderman Fuentes.
Alderman Talia Ferro.
Alderman Srizzato.
Alderman Vasquez has a Rule 59 request.
Alderman Knutson has a Rule 59 request. Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Martin.
Alderwoman Minna Hoppenworth.
Alderwoman HaddenAnd Alderwoman Silverstein.
We have a quorum, and we will entertain a motion for Rule 59
participation for Alderman Vasquez, Knutson,
Yancy,
and Taliaferro, and also Alderman
Hall, who is a non-committee member but does have a update and request
for participation. Do we have a motion?
Alderman Sposato, are you making a motion or opposing?
You're against the motion. Okay.
Does anyone
want to make the motion that Alderman Sposato will vote against?
Moved by Alderman Mennahappenworth.
Hearing one objection, which is noted for the record, the motion carries.
We have a number of matters before the committee.
Two items that we do not anticipate will be voted upon but will
be held. The first is the curfew ordinance, which is being
held in committee for revisions. Many of you have probably
noticed the teen trends that we have been experiencing here in Chicago
are now a national phenomena. They're happening across the country.
In recent days, they've occurred in Memphis, Nashville, Miami,
and they're spreading. And we're looking at the best practices for some of these
other jurisdictions and the dispersal techniques that police
departments are using successfully to quell these
events. We had one here in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, and the
curfew enforcement, when it kicked in at 10:00 PM precisely,
was successful in bringing the event to a conclusion.
So we're working closely right now with the mayor's office, the law department, and
looking at these other jurisdictions.
We expect to have a revised ordinance that will be
used to disperse these teen trends, and that will be presented before this
body at the next Public Safety Committee meeting.
Also, we have an update from Alderman Hall, who is currently out of the country in
his capacity as a minister on a mission in South America,
but he wanted to provide an update on his current negotiations
with social media companies. He has had several conversations, and he has
another meeting scheduled. He is making progress, and he wanted to update this
committee on where he's at with that.
So we will see if we can get a signal from him down in, I believe, in South
America. Alderman Hall, do you have a signal?
Yes, I do.
Okay.
Thank you so much, Chairman, for allowing me this space, and
thank you to my colleagues. As such, I just wanted to share that
Monday at 1:00 we're going to meet with Meta.
Meta has essentially heard our request to
meet with, and in the preliminary meeting we had was just to
understand framework, and the framework is simple.
We want them to adhere to their safety guidelines, as we just saw in the last teen
trend. Things got out of hand again, and it was one of the
tools that they used to organize some of the mischief and things that
we saw. And in the spirit of love and unity towards our young people,
we want to make sure that they're safe while using these devices.
And so Monday, this upcoming Monday, myself, Chairman Hopkins,
and others will be meeting with them to hear their perspective in more
detail and also presenting to them
an ordinance that I believe is fair, accountable,
and non-threatening. Moreover, to, again, make them do their
job, which is to keep our children safe.
So upon this meeting, I definitely look forward to reaching out to all of you all
on committee so that you all can see what we have
worked through, and then hopefully, soon and very soon,
especially at maybe the next committee meeting, you all will be able to vote on it.
But Monday at 1:00, they'll be sitting at the table to hear our
expectations as a city and our concern as a city, and then we will be
responding to what they put on the table.
So again, thank you all, each of you, for the journey with, and
again, I look forward to presenting you all a comprehensive
ordinance that protects our city, protects our young people, supports our
parents, and supports the mission of our city. Thank you all so much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman Hall. Questions for Alderman Hall?
Okay, hearing none, have a safe journey home, Alderman Hall.
We'll see you next week.
Thank you so much.
Let the record reflect the participation and presence of Alderwoman
Dowell as a non-committee member.
Before we vote on approval of the March 26 Rule 45
report, we did have one public speaker registered, but I don't see him.
He stepped out of the room?
Is he...
Oh, there he is. Okay. I didn't see you. You're hiding behind the pole there.
George Blakemore is our only registered public speaker.
Thank you.
Reading is fundamental.
Reading that these fines will be $200 or
something, up to $1,000. Also
listening. You said there will be no vote here.
It's just information only. You already got the information.
Now nobody is here. So that's a reflection on
all the aldermen, not only, excuse me, on Alderman
Hopkins.
Your job as aldermen is to educate and inform your
constituents. I think we got about 20
people here.
So evidently,
you're talking about the young people have failed,
but they are a reflection of these old political hacks.
The young ones, they watch you,
and
they see you. So perhaps
it should be a fine-
Yeah
... on you all-
Get them involved
... for 200 up to $1,000 when you don't have these meetings on
time, when you don't involve your constituents with
government.
Your job is to have people here.
You get paid. That's why some of them want me to move and do all kind of dirty
things to me.
There's something inherently wrong with the system.
Not with our youthNot with our
Black youth, these old Blacks,
these sellout Blacks,
these ain't your mama Blacks, these in
Blacks.
And no other ethnic group, and it's because
they
are a product of slavery. They're children
that their ancestors have been enslaved.
They never had a head start.
You taking up for them, Mr. Blakemore? Yes, I am.
Yes, I am with our Black youth.
So if our Black youth fail, our Black elected officials
fail.
The county,
we got a Black mayor,
got a Black Cook County, we got Black aldermen.
Perhaps they should fine each one of you
$200 up to $1,000
for being a no-good
alderman.
So that's why it's very, very important for a man of Mr.
Blakemore's caliber to come here
to speak up on the behalf of this community.
Poor education. You go to the ghetto, our
children are being miseducated. But are you
advocating for excellent school, Mr.
Hopkins, in the Black ghettos? Are you advocating
for that?
When you know better, you do better.
Ma'am, thank you.
We did have one additional public speaker who just signed up after the
deadline, but I will allow it. Jermaine Anderson?
Good morning, Chairman. Jermaine Anderson.
I serve as the chairman of the board for
MBK Chicago, which is My Brother's Keeper, and the Brilliance and Excellence
organization, which is powered by the Obama Foundation.
And certainly, our organization is a conglomerate which represents more
than 240 youth-facing organizations here in Chicago.
And we just wanted to be present today to make sure that this body knew that we
are in place to help facilitate the conversation with other youth
in our city, along with youth-facing organizations.
About two and a half years ago, we did present a proposal
to Alderman Hall so that it could be shared with Mayor Johnson at
the time, so that those of us who have leverage and
influence with the youth in our city and youth-facing organizations
can be boots on the ground when these trends happen, along with law
enforcement and some other city stakeholders, so that, again, these young people
who ultimately have trust in those of us who are
mentors and youth-facing leaders before they
participate in some of these teen takeovers.
So again, MBK Chicago, powered by the Obama
Foundation, we want to be a part of the conversation and involved to be boots
on the ground when some of these teen takeovers and trends take place in our city,
and even the conversations on how to protect our youth.
Thank you, sir, for that offer. We will be in touch with you to accept your
assistance. We appreciate it.
The next item before us, we do have a substitute.
You should all have it before you. Please indicate if you do not.
This is Alderman Mosley's ordinance,
ordinance number 17561.
I believe he's on his way into chamber to make a
presentation. In the meantime, we can have a motion to substitute by a committee
member.
Moved by Alderwoman
Gutierrez, hearing no objection, so ordered.
Oh, yeah, and please add Alderman Curtis for purposes of
quorum.
I believe Alderman Mosley's in the next meeting, so he'll be over shortly.
Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman. While we're waiting for our colleague, may
I refer back to something that was previously on the
agenda?
Sure.
Thank you.
So I know that our colleague
gave a
brief summation of what he's working on with regards to the
social media platforms, correct? And we're going to revisit that at a later point?
Yes. He anticipates
after his meeting with the social media companies on Monday, he'll have an
agreement where they will actually be supportive of his ordinance.
So there are two things that I want to just kind of throw out there while we're
waiting.
One,
we saw,
yet again,
numerous street takeovers, numerous drag racings
throughout the city of Chicago. We saw a mayor
who very loosely
said to parents, "Know where your children are."
And we saw a reference to a
platform that
singularly proposed
a puzzle match at midnight at the Park District as a
way to
dissuade youth from engaging in any of those activities.
Additionally, we also saw in the
last week,
court cases that have stated that
social media platforms like Meta and YouTube and others
engage in highly addictive and dangerous activity in
what they are presenting to our youth.
My only question to you, Chairman, would be,
are our efforts
heregoing to absolve them of any
liability if we are working with them from the
financial harm that they have caused and wrought on our city
because I, for one, don't want to necessarily give them an inch when
there's possibly an opportunity for our corp counsel
and others to engage in a potential
class action lawsuit against them for what they have done and
allowed and created within the city of Chicago.
So, I don't see anybody here... Well, I see someone
here from law.
I feel like I'm always putting you on the spot, Chris, but
perhaps that's something that when we engage in this conversation
next month with whatever
the good alderman of the Sixth Ward is engaging in, can we ensure
that we have the law department here as well to comment
on any of that? Because I
can't imagine a scenario where we would have
worked with cigarette manufacturers and said, "Let's willingly change your
product and forego any kind of legal settlement for your
marketing to our children." Or, "Let's forego any kind of
settlement against opioid
manufacturers who openly targeted people
to get them hooked on those kind of narcotic drugs and turn
a whole generation into addicts." We have
multimillion-dollar settlements that fund many things because of
those
opportunities where corporations
and organizations profited from
manipulating our residents. So I just want to make sure that we're not
signing ourselves up to say, "Oh, we are absolving you
of all of your negative crimes and manipulations just
for the ability to work with you in the moment moving forward
possibly."
Yes. Alderman, your point is valid, and I do know that the law
department staff has been looking closely at litigation
around the country, frankly.
Mm-hmm.
There's quite a bit of it on this topic of harm caused by
social media algorithms. That's a larger topic than I
think this committee has jurisdiction to address, not that it isn't
important. But we will make sure that the representatives of the law department are
prepared to respond to that and put whatever the final version of this
ordinance is in that context. I'm assuming it wouldn't preclude us
from doing anything additional. But we are focused on a much more
granular level with this ordinance.
It is looking specifically at promotion of teen
trends and the role social media plays in allowing these large
groups to form
with the click of a keystroke. So we're going to try to limit the-
Sure
... the language of the ordinance to just that phenomena, but it's impossible to
ignore the larger issue that you're bringing up, and I'm sure the law department
will address it at the appropriate time.
And then as well, if the Chicago Police Department can join us because they
are the ones that track this, they are the ones that are aware.
And even as we were talking before the start of this meeting,
oftentimes, we know our police officers,
our social media units, and all of them are tracking
these events.
Even the mayor referenced that there were five that he was aware of this past
weekend that were potentially happening.
I'd like for them to expound on what they're doing to pursue charges against these
individuals, and how they would execute something like this that is being proposed.
Because at the end of the day, one more law on the books doesn't mean anything if
we're not able to show how we're going to go after those individuals, who by the
way, oftentimes don't even live in the city of Chicago, who are
manipulating our own youth from their vantage point in
Kankakee or Joliet or far suburban
municipalities and just encouraging everyone here to come
here to do these acts. So, okay. Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman. And yes, representatives of the Chicago Police
Department will be present to speak to this issue at the next meeting when we're
ready to vote. Please add Alderman Central Lopez to the roll call for purposes of
quorum. Alderman Moseley, your item is before us now.
We have voted to substitute it, so the substitute is
before us, and you're free to present and answer questions.
Thank you so much, Chair, and good morning to my
colleagues. In the summer, I came before you with this ordinance
to start figuring out what we can do from the city
perspective to get a better hand about the criminal trespassing squatting
situation that has ran rampant throughout the city.
We did make some gains, and we paused on this item,
one, to really see as the state
brings forth or enacts this legislation, the impact that it will
have. And then also, we wanted to take a little bit more time
and adjust to what we were seeing. So before you
today is really just a cleanup of what was
passed and held in committee this summer.
The biggest thing here that it deals with is the cash for keys
situation, where folks are criminally
trespassing. When the owner engages with them, they say, "Oh,
well, you give me X amount of dollars, and I'll give you the keys
back to your property." This does not
fully resolve the issue of criminal trespassing or
squatting. We will be coming back with another measure
on that.
There's
some collaboration that needs to happen between or really with
our local law enforcement. They want to be sure that they have
the right to restore property at those times.
So we will be coming back on that end.
But specific to this substitute ordinance that's before us today,
it deals with the cleanup from the summer, and most
notably, tackling the cash for keys issue that we've seen in the city.
Would ask for your favorable consideration, and happy to take any questions.
Thank you, Alderman Moseley. Questions for the
sponsor?Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and again, good morning members of the committee.
I want to thank my colleague
for his efforts. We've seen where this has become a growing issue
throughout the entire city.
Twofold, because I think we have contradictory policies that we keep trying to push
here in this body.
Today, we are trying to eliminate
squatters to help property owners,
oftentimes who are just our
seniors who have two flats, or individuals who aren't
multimillion-dollar development conglomerates.
These are the people who own the two flats and three flats in our neighborhoods.
While simultaneously,
yesterday, we took a very different vote
that would almost seem to run afoul of what this is trying to do.
So,
I think this is the right
ordinance,
but I'm curious as to why we are not able to address the
Cash for Keys issue simultaneously, one, and
I'm happy to let you expound on that, other than we're coming back to that.
But then also,
state law has changed as well, as we are all aware,
because we know that we've seen multiple media reports,
many of us have dealt with this routinely, where
individuals
plant their flag on someone else's property, and now we have
to go months, if not years, to try to get them out.
Does that law
in any way, shape, or form supersede what we're doing?
Or is this a complement to that effort at the state level?
Alderman Mosley.
Thank you, gentleman from the 15-4.
This is more of a complementary
ordinance,
specifically about restoring property.
Deals with the fact that at times, individuals may
produce false documents.
These documents sometimes are
presented knowingly,
or meaning that the individual that presents them
crafted them on their own, and other times, it may be a
victim of a circumstance where they may have social media
engaged with someone and entered into a lease that
just was not proper.
That is the crux of what we have to solve for next.
The state did not solve for that yet.
We have some ideas about what we can do here at the city level,
but who's caught in the middle is law enforcement.
They want to enforce the law,
but they want to make sure that they are not putting us and the
taxpayers at risk by doing wrongful
evictions or so forth. So,
in working with the law department here, this ordinance is
not the vehicle, or the section of the code is
not the vehicle that we
want to utilize to go forward.
If we do, we would lose some of the things that have been helpful with this
section, and so that's why we're coming back with another one that
will deal with another section of the code.
And
has the law department been assisting in this?
They have.
Because I have a question for the law department, if you're able.
Because the issue that I, as well as many of my residents
who oftentimes find themselves in this situation, is how does someone who is
squatting have standing from an eviction?
How does someone who has no legal claim whatsoever, we're not talking about
someone whose lease has expired, we're talking about someone who literally went
into a building that was empty and decided to
proclaim themselves as the tenant.
How is it that they have any kind of legal standing when they have been
trespassing from day one? And I think that is what I'd
like to have clarification on, because I think that is what I
think is stopping our officers,
is preventing them. And I feel like we're dancing
around the main issue, which is that we have individuals who have never had
a legal claim to a unit
trying to BS their way into one,
and we are
unable,
yet still,
to deal with them in the very direct way that we need to, which is to say, "You
have no standing. You have no authority to be here," and there should
be zero protections in that regard.
So-
My friend, before you give it to law, let me just respond and say that you are
right. We are treating criminal trespasser squatters
as tenants, and that is the problem.
It's going to take a little bit more folks coming to the table, utilities
as well. Squatters have become very crafty.
They know the law. They exploit the law.
Yeah.
They will reinstate utilities
in the name of sometimes even folks, the previous owner, who may now be
deceased. And so it is those things, and
sometimes paired with a lease that is, I'll say,
questionable, that allows them these tenant
rights
that then drags out the process and cloaks them
under the protections of tenants when they are squatters. Turning it over to law.
Yeah, we do have a representative of the law department here.
Please state your name for the record, and then
Alderman Sposato, you'll be recognized for a question.
Good morning. Christopher Kolb, Assistant Corporation Counsel with the Department
of Law. And just as a clarifying point, Alderman Mosley worked
with my colleague, Justin Edge. He is in the other meeting, so we're going to try
to grab him. But I do think I can respond to your question, Alderman
Lopez.
This is actually an issue that the state was attempting to address with the recent
Senate Bill 1563That was
actually a clarification of the law rather than a change in the law,
and that clarification
made clear that police are allowed to remove
individuals from a property that are committing trespass,
and that that process does not need to go through the actual eviction
process. Because the issue that was presenting itself was
these unlawful occupants were stating
that police need a court order in order to remove the
occupants. That was not the law. That was never the case.
But this new change at the state level makes that
clear.
The issue is that law enforcement does not
always have the ability to evaluate whether
a lease, for example, is falsified.
That would need to go through a process in order to
determine whether
the claims of tenancy are valid or not.
So that is an ongoing issue that I
think
requires input from the police, requires input from our subject matter
experts that litigate these cases in the Department of Law.
But I hope that provides a little bit of clarity regarding
the current status of
these occupants and the process that they're subject to.
So if I may, and forgive me, Nick. So,
and again,
I love the effort because we're all dealing with this.
But if the state clarified
that
a squatter is basically not a tenant, correct?
Correct.
Will this clarify the issue for CPD?
And what do we need to do to clarify that?
So for example, if we have a living--
And I know there's going to be an issue between a deceased property owner and a
living property owner. Focus on the living one at the moment.
If we have a living
property owner who says, "You are not my tenant, you are a
squatter,"
is that a full stop for us now to be able to send in the
police to extricate that individual from the
property?
My friend, unfortunately, if that occupant
presents any documents that gives them
some type of potential claim to be there,
it does not give the police the authority to go in.
That has been the hold-up and stop that
our kind of top brass of our local law enforcement has been
concerned of.
I've had direct instances where an owner
has
been there, showed their deed,
showed even they were listing the property.
And again, the occupant was able to produce some documents
that
gave the police pause. And unfortunately, this
individual was committing more criminal activity,
and it was because of that additional criminal activity that law
enforcement was able to restore the property.
So I think
that is what worries me,
is because the state has said, "You are a squatter.
We do not have to treat you as a tenant." We
know that we have a property owner who's saying, "You're not my tenant,"
and yet somehow that individual or individuals,
right on cue,
still has
the ability to put the brakes on all of this.
And in the example you just gave, to now
turn a bad situation into worse because now you have made
that into a troubled building with the criminal activity that you're allowing to
transpire, and now putting that owner
behind the eight ball
as a slumlord,
even though they have done everything in their legal power to try to get rid of
that person. So,
whatever we could do to make steps in the right direction.
But I think that we can't dance around
what we know is going on.
And whatever stakeholders are standing in the way, we need to know
because all of us know exactly what we're trying to deal with
in addressing the situation.
We're not trying to throw out
or gaslight each other because we know
what the real problem is, we know what the real answer is.
And clearly, we have partners who are trying to do that, but we need to figure out
how to take away any doubt because
what happens is the crime,
the fires in the community as buildings burn to the ground,
and people who are being targeted
for inspections because they're trying to get individuals who have no claim on a
property out. So,
let me know how we can all work on that regard. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Esposito.
Thank you, Chair.
Alderman Mosley kind of answered my--
Gave the same answer I was going to give.
So these people have become very sophisticated.
These are professionals that do this. They know what they're doing.
They put utilities in their name. They come up with a bogus lease.
That's why law can't come there and just say, "I'm just going to
believe you. You say you're the landlord." They got utility bills.
They got a license that says they live there. So it's become very complicated.
These people know they could stretch it out six to nine months or whatever.
And also, there's a reverse on these squatter things.
There are people that rent out apartments and say, "I'm renting you an apartment,"
and they rent it to somebody somehow, some way, a vacant building, only to find out
months later that
they're renting an apartment and paying somebody who's not even the rightful owner
of that building. So it's gotten very complicated.
It's very unfortunate, especially for owner.
I mean, you could literally go on vacation and be away from your house for a couple
weeks or a month, and somebody could be in there, and you're going to have a hell
of a time getting them out of there if they're living there.
So it's hard to believe, butThese people know what they're doing.
It's very complicated. That's why it all becomes a civil matter to be heard in the
courts. I wish there was a simple thing.
I had a couple of these issues early in my career.
I had one recently that just a girl that works in my office, her
and her husband saw a couple looked a little on the black, didn't know what's going
on, and they went and approached them, said, "Hey, we live on the black.
Can we help you with something?" They said, "Yeah, we just rented this house over
here, and we paid him..." I forgot what the amount was, 1,000, 2,000.
"We're supposed to meet him to get the keys, and he never came." Well, it was
obviously a bogus scam. So those are people that just got scammed by
somebody claiming to be the owner.
But many a times, these people get in these things, like I say, right away, they
put the utilities in their name, they change their license, and police
officer comes there, and he says, "I'm John Smith, this is my address." And
then you got to go to court. So it's complicated.
I don't have an answer other than we should be the one setting
best practices, not following other
municipalities, I think. So they should be following us, not us following them.
But we'll see. We're trying to chip away and help legal,
rightful owners of these properties. Thank you.
Chairman Dowell.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the attorney,
I see you have here either oral or written
notice.
Oral notices, where is that typically
utilized?
And how do you hold somebody accountable for that?
Because it's basically
a
squatter's word against an owner's word.
I was just wondering why that language was here.
Yeah, please state your name for the record.
Yes, Justin Edge, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Department of Law.
Been working with Alderman Mosley on this for a few
months now at this point.
Chair Dowell,
would you please tell me which section?
I heard everything you said, but would you please direct me to it?
8-4-050 (1)
and
A2.
I-
And A3.
I won't go into the very interesting history lesson on this.
But this language dates back to 1968
in preparing for the DNC
convention that year.
So you'll notice that
a lot of this language is not changed.
But if we are interpreting what's written there, so either oral or
written,
what we're talking about there is...
Well, I'll just note that
this is the language that was not sufficient to meet the need here
and why we added language below.
So what we're actually looking at up there is more of a situation
where a person has been warned not to enter,
say, a security sensitive area, say, for
instance, our own DNC that we hosted here recently.
An area that's gated off on several sides, so they can be either
warned verbally or perhaps there's some signage, or perhaps they're actually
given written notice. It just covers all the bases.
Did that answer your question, though?
Basically, it does. It means that this is
antiquated language,
and you are not going to be able to hold
accountable someone who's given an oral notice.
That's what I'm walking away with.
Written notice, I understand-
Well-
... because you have something. But an oral notice, to
me, when I
think of a squatter situation, it's basically, "Well,
I told you this" and the squatter would say,
"No, you didn't. We never talked."
Well, I would just say this, that where
that is a
one party said, other party said situation, obviously there
could be
some issue around that, around proving out the fact.
But-
No, I agree
... and this could also--
What I was going to say is this could also include, for instance,
law enforcement actually stating that.
And I just think back to my first
clerkship when I was in law school, when a judge that I was working for told me,
"If it's between he said, she said and a police officer and somebody who we
think broke the law, I'm always going to believe that police officer." So where
there are issues of fact and credibility, they could
actually
need to be worked out in a court or something like that.
But,
yeah, ideally, we're going to be trying to get record of something.
So if a landlord wanted to best protect their interest, they'd be doing that in
writing.
Thank you.
Can you elaborate, Counselor, on the state definition of
trespassing in the state criminal code and how this interplays
with that state definition?
That's a great question, actually.
Because
it goes back to
how police are trained from the very beginning of their careers on.
They are almost always going to be
citing people for violations of the state criminal code.
Almost always. And so when we
talk about our quasi-criminal
section of the code, of the municipal code here,
we-Usually are looking at it as a gap filler
for problems that aren't unique to the city of Chicago or unique urban
problems, for example, but also just where we have recurring problems that aren't
being addressed, obviously, by the state criminal code.
So the state trespassing definitions,
it's a long section. It has lots of different
types that can create aggravating circumstances and different things.
And so, this is a gap filler in a way, and
even back to its origins, that was the idea, to create
something in case a
citation for violations of the state criminal code by a police
officer aren't pursued by the state's attorney for some
reason, or
for whatever reason, the elements aren't met, we have this to fall back on.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you. If I may, just as a quick follow-up.
So,
which section of the municipal code does
section 8
deal with?
Or chapter 8, excuse me.
For the law department, please.
Or Title VIII.
Title VIII is where we have this entire, as I said,
quasi-criminal section of the code.
So all of these different types of violations, they're broken out into chapters by
different types.
So Title VIII, for everyone's edification, is
offenses affecting public peace, morals, and
welfare. Usually where we have the crimes by minors and
other things.
May I ask why
we did not amend-
It's already substituted
... Title V,
particularly chapter 5-12 of the municipal code,
which deals with
residential landlord and tenants' rights as it relates
to squatting and evictions?
Justin Edge, Department of Law.
It
proceeds from the definitional basis,
I think,
because early on, and please correct me, Alderman Mosley, if I
misstate this, but the way that the problem was
described to me early on when working with Alderman Mosley was
people in homes
asserting tenants' rights when they are not lawfully tenants.
So I would say that if you're talking about, there are a couple different
sections within Title V, but 5-12, for instance,
the residential
landlord-tenant ordinance.
We didn't make changes to that because that is landlord-tenant law,
and we are trying to address a situation where people are
occupying premises who are not tenants.
So I would assume,
and possibly even suggest, that we address this
matter as well within the landlord-tenant
ordinance, because we are in fact dealing with situations,
as we just heard described to us, where there's a question of whether or not
someone actually has a legal right
as a tenant, even if it's a tenant in question,
to be at a property.
We've allowed
the rental agreement section
of the municipal code to go unedited to address this scenario.
We've allowed the issue of subleasing, which is also in the
municipal code, to go unanswered in this situation.
And we've also allowed landlord remedies to
go unanswered, which is also, again, part of this section.
So I think that it would really strengthen
the true victim's hand
if we were to amend these various subsections of the municipal code,
120, 130, and 140, as well as 150, which deals with
retaliation and retaliatory conduct against the landlords,
or by the landlords,
as well as by the tenants,
if we incorporate that in our
landlord-tenant ordinance.
Additionally,
I think that we also need to look, Chairman, at
revamping and strengthening the Troubled Buildings Initiative.
Which many of us were here when, I think the last time we strengthened this was
under the Emanuel administration, which was to hold
property owners
accountable when they have certain criminal behavior.
I think we need to tweak that ordinance and look at that as well, because if you
have individuals who should be held harmless because they can't get rid of the
individuals, even though they knowingly are working and begging and pleading for
help, then we need to also strengthen that ordinance to make sure
that there's no
wiggle room for people who oftentimes know the law better than the 50
people in this room. Thank you.
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman. Can I offer a suggestion for the follow-up meeting?
I really feel that the police should have been here to let
us discuss with us how to handle these things because they're no
strangers at this. They get put into these predicaments.
So I know we're not voting on this, so maybe when we do decide to vote, or we have
the final draft, I would just like to recommend that CPD is here
to let us know how they handle these things or what goes on in these situations.
So just a suggestion. Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah. Alderman Mosley, was your intention to call for a vote today, or you want to
delay this?
I am calling for a vote today, my friend.
And we have worked with law enforcement on this.
They are comfortable with this. The Chicago Police Department is comfortable with
this and have committed to working on another item
to get the results that we're looking for.
Good. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, we will entertain
due pass motion on the second substitute to proposed ordinance
17561.
Move.
Moved by Alderman Sposato. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Thank you, Alderman Mosley.
Thank you, Chair, and my colleagues.
The next matter before us, and Alderman Villegas is here to present,
is proposed ordinance
21698, amendment to the
municipal code regarding enhanced penalties for offenses committed in
student safety zones and playgrounds. Alderman Villegas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my intention is not to call for a
vote today, as we are working with all of the stakeholders to try to
address this issue. I have provided the administration another
30 days to help come forward with a remedy. But Mr.
Chairman, all this ordinance does is take a look at expanding the boundaries
for enhancement. As we know, with the decriminalization of
cannabis, we have seen open-air drug markets
throughout the city of Chicago, and as a result of that, we are seeing
parents have to dodge these
drug dealers on a daily basis. And CPD's hands are tied given the
fact that the only consequences that could move forward are citations.
And so we're working closely with the General Assembly, as well as the state's
attorney's office and CPD to try to figure out a
strategy to address this issue that I think the General Assembly
needs to take up given the fact that they took those steps to
decriminalize cannabis. So Mr. Chairman, holding this for
another 30 days in an effort to try to come forward
with a better strategy, and working closely with the General Assembly to see if
they can get something done prior to their end of session on
May 31st.
Okay. Alderman Villegas, do you anticipate then a substitute will be
presented at some point on this matter?
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be working closely with the stakeholders to find out
what that looks like,
and trying to come back with a solution that
my colleagues can get around, because this will be a citywide ordinance.
Okay. Questions or comments on the matter for the sponsor?
Okay, hearing none. Thank you, Alderman Villegas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We look forward to that substitute when you are ready to proceed.
There being no further business before the committee, Alderman Sposato moves
adjournment. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Thank you, everyone.