in public way is now called to order.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Will the aldermen please make sure their microphones are unmuted.
Please note that your yes or present response will be deemed to be a yes vote
when the quorum roll call is used as reference vote for later items. Thank you.
Chairman Mitchell, present. Vice Chair Vasquez?
Present.
Alderman Conway?
Present.
Alderman Irvin?
Alderman Fuentes? Here. Alderman Gutierrez?
Alderman Harris?
Here.
Alderman Hopkins?
Here.
Alderman Moore?
Walking into the building.
Alderman Nugent?
Alderman Rodriguez?
Here.
Alderman Waguespack?
Present.
Alderman Yancy?
There are eight members present, we have a quorum.
Alderman Nugent, Alderman Ir-
Present, Chair.
Alderman Nugent, Alderman Irvin, Alderman Moore,
Alderman Yancy, and Alderman Mosley have requested
remote participation under Rule 59 of the
rules of order and procedures of the city council.
Alderman here.
All right. Can I get a motion to allow remote participation of these individuals?
Chairman, Alderman Gutierrez as well. Alderman Conway so moves.
On the motion, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Chairman, I believe Alderman Gutierrez is trying to add herself.
And I would
respectfully make the motion to add her, same.
Acknowledging Alderman Gutierrez, and on the
motion by Alderman Conway for remote participation
under Rule 59, can I get a motion?
So moved.
All those opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the
ayes have it.
Mr. Chairman, this is Alderman Irvin.
Thank you. I can
Audrey
Moore is here, getting an elevator.
All right.
Yancy's here.
All right. At this time, I will begin-
Thank you
... the public comment period. Out of respect for everybody's time, public comment
will be limited to 30 minutes, and each speaker is limited to three minutes.
Speakers, in accordance with Rule 58 of the City Council Rules of
Order, please refrain from profane language, obscene
conduct, and disruptive comments.
Our first witness is Zoe Lee. Where is...
I thought I saw Zoe. Okay.
Better get up out of here,
because I got some stuff for... Oh, you don't want to talk? You don't want to talk?
Oh, okay. All right. Well, I'm going to just tell you all then.
I'm going to just tell you all. So,
I know Jessie Fuentes. Happy Pride, Mom.
Right? And we hang with the same people.
And when I was 17 weeks I was protesting outside, and I was going to
wait until she was going to finally say something to me and see what my
problem was, because gay solidarity.
But instead, her and her wife, Becky Medina, that I know
very well,
decided that she wanted to laugh at my little post that says, "Black
America, boycott. Boycott the Democratic Party.
Boycott media outlets and journalists who refuse to address all issues
affecting our communities. Boycott businesses that show no respect
for our communities or our economic power.
And stop wasting time arguing with people who
don't share your values or goals. Focus on organizing, building,
supporting one another, and creating economic and political influence."
We ain't going back and forth.
Now-Because she voted for all illegal immigration money
and said in 2023, "Like it or not,
the buses are going to keep coming."
So they then flooded all the illegal Venezuelans
into the South Side and West Side, and it's a shootout,
while she bringing in Narcan vending machines
in Humboldt Park
because her and her crew from the Puerto Rico Culture
Center
is laundering a lot of money.
And that's what y'all continue to do,
because y'all keep that
Puerto Rican Culture Center full of grant money for
HIV and AIDS, because that's the scam. That's the LGBTQ scam.
That's how they scam.
Okay.
Because for Pride Month, for this one week that's coming up, y'all have
reckless sex, so HIV be out the corner.
Oh, we do.
Bath houses, all that s**t. One night stands.
We are the
kings and queens of one night stands.
So then y'all get all this HIV money, and then put stupid
commercials out for Truvada, making, trying to normalize it.
And then you sit up here and don't do no work.
The City of Chicago is taking Black people's property.
But because it don't have nothing connected with HIV
grant money, y'all don't
care. You're going to be the first Latino Puerto
Rican gay alderman to go to jail.
See you later.
Our next public speaker is Q. Shore. No, I'm sorry.
Q. Shore Harris?
Shawna. Hi.
Oh, hey.
Hey, Alderman Gregory Mitchell.
And my name is Qashanna Harris, and I'm here today.
I'm the founder and executive director of the Chicago Shower Association,
a new initiative focused on access and sanitation to
individuals experiencing hardship.
I want to talk about the importance of hygiene, health, and
transportation. These three factors are deeply connected.
By providing hygiene access, we empower individuals with
confidence to take the next step toward stability.
As they reenter public spaces, we see
cleaner, safer
transportation services.
When people can move forward with dignity and care, we all benefit, our
streets, our buses, our city's future, by ensuring that everyone
has a chance to be clean and most importantly, visible.
We break down barriers. This allows them not only access
to jobs and housing, but also to fully participate in
public life, creating a ripple effect,
where healthier public spaces are fostered, more equitable
mobility for all.
We must captivate transparency in public way planning
by ensuring that these spaces are accessible,
inclusive, and safe for everyone.
When we are open and accountable for how we design and maintain these routes,
we build trust, ensuring that every pedestrian has a clear and
dignified path.
I ask for your support today in developing this new initiative to
reshape all of Chicagoland by giving individuals access
to proper services, creating stronger communities.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Taiwan Sims.
I thought I saw... Okay.
Good morning, committee. This morning I have
a question concerning an incident that took place
May 19th
over at 555 West Harrison with me. So May 19th, I went
to attend a vacate motion hearing at 555 West
Harrison.
Only after the hearing, I do not know what
happened. I ended up in chains at Stroger Hospital.
I was in so much pain that I couldn't speak.
I just don't know what happened.
I had blood in my eyes, impact wounds.
I was given the extensive exams, MRIs,
trauma
exams, and a host of things. There are two narratives given.
One of the narratives is that after leaving the hearing, I got on the
elevator, I ended up outside, pulled my pants
down, and was in a violent encounter with either police
or sheriffs. Not sure. So I was having a mental
issue, or a mental health crisis, which
only landed me beat up.
When I got to the hospital, I was then, once I was able to
speak,
adamantly refused the medication that they wanted to give me.
It was still administered intravenously.
I was sexually assaulted also by one of the nurses, who
administered a genital and anal exam.
All of this occurred in a public way, for whatever
reason. So I'm assuming that individuals who are having mental
crisis in transition, whether they be on
CTA or public trans, or just walking down the street, are
attacked instead of aided.
I want to understand this, because in that timeframe
from 11:00, I got to the hospital, it's in my
documentation, at 12:00. So within that 30 minutes, all of
this took place, and the only thing that I got was trauma,
assaulted,
no answers. And also, I was charged.
I was charged with obstruction and resisting.
I was charged with-... what is it? Disorderly conduct,
and I was also charged with trespassing.
This comes from the second narrative.
The second narrative says that I stormed the state's attorney's office,
for whatever reason, I don't know.
I was there to hear a motion to vacate, in which I put in.
After the motion to vacate, I was coming here to the Human Rights Committee to
speak about inhumane treatment that I've been receiving.
So I would like to understand, and I'm not asking for adjudication, I'm
simply asking that you all look into this matter as a mental health
crisis, and how individuals, whether we ride in transit, whether in a
public way or on CTA, are treated when they are having a mental
health crisis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sims. Our next speaker is Jessica Jackson.
I first want to say
thank you to the alderman for using an
organization, Clean Slate, to clean up South Shore.
I've seen them out there a few days, and I saw them out there this morning across
the street from the Metro when I was coming here.
And it's another organization that starts with an S, but I
can't think of their name. But I want to thank you for caring
enough about South Shore and our community to keep it clean.
Now, I understand that the residents have a
responsibility to also not litter and not
throw trash in the streets and all of that.
That's the responsibility of the private citizen.
But when we have aldermen that are attempting to do the
right things, we need to let that be known.
So I want to thank you, Alderman Mitchell, for trying to clean up our
neighborhood, because I live in South Shore, and I'm
so sick and tired of the filth over there.
I'm sick and tired of the dirty lots, the dirty abandoned
buildings over there, because we all know that South Shore has
not always been like that.
But now with that being said,
the aldermen, the Hispanic aldermen that were in here at the
onset of this meeting, public speaking, they
all got up and left because they don't want to hear
public speaking. Yet our tax dollars are
paying for their salaries,
and I'm sure every citizen in this room can agree that
we don't agree with our money going towards a bunch of illegal
immigrants. But yet our money goes towards it, and we
have to just be subjected to it. But yet they don't have to be
subjected to public speaking? They can just get up and leave?
When you have a sorry, no good for nothing,
what is it? Chairman of Public Safety, Brian Hopkins, who needs to
be in here because of all the violations and
hazardous that take place on CTA.
He's not even in here. How in the world is he allowed to still be a
chairman? What is it? Michael Rodriguez,
Vasquez, Fuentes, the biggest champions for illegal
immigration.
But yet they can get and walk out of here and not show no
concerns when other people are talking about something that's not
benefiting them? Well, make sure they hear this, Alderman.
Yesterday, shout out to the Republican Party, Mike Johnson,
they passed a $70 billion bill
yesterday to say that ICE would have funding
for the next three years. Come on. The
Republican Party did it. So as mad as
them Hispanics want to be, it don't stop the funk.
Trump is sending ICE agents.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
God have sent these new activists.
I'm an old one.
I couldn't move the needle like they can move it.
I did not move the needle like these
ladies and gentlemen. I'm old school.
Now,
guess what they-- See how she moved the needle?
She said, "They gone," and you don't have a quorum here.
That they gone. And one,
two, three, it's four. How many
people do you have to have present to have a quorum?
So Michelle Harris, you're silent.
And Mitch, the chairman is
silent. And
now we got three. One. No. Is he going to stay?
All right.
This is ridiculous. And
let's not beat up on
the Hispanics. Let's beat up on the Black ones.
They allow
this.
All right now. Don't you know they...
Oh, for the people.
Proud. Proud. Proud
night.
What makes them silent?
They see the same thing, perhaps.
Absolutely.
Development. And,
but, but, but if
youThey work together in
their interest, but black folks do not.
Something happened on the planet Earth.
The miseducation of Black people.
Something is wrong here. That's why I get up on this
thing. Getting to know you, black ones.
Name them one by one. Point them out.
Michelle,
Richard,
this man right here, Moore, Dale Sanders.
They're the ones that are supposed to check these nests in Puerto
Rico. We paying them. They represent us.
Can't you see? You black like me.
Can't you see that? Don't you know race, sister?
Each one of you all know. You're not a white woman, Michelle.
You know you got that hair straight, that Hispanic,
and you black.
You are identifiable black. We, the
broken-nosed Italian. Check yourself
because you're wrecking yourself.
You're wrecking yourself. We have no black
leadership. Not now. No
black leadership. That's why I have a rundown
here.
Man. That's why I called the police.
I want them. God damn it.
Sorry.
God damn it here.
I'm going to make a motion to accept
item as a substitute on-
No.
Okay.
Go on.
I'll do that right before we get to his number. Yeah.
That's why I made it fair.
All right. That concludes the public comment period.
I want to acknowledge David Moore in person, for purposes of quorum,
and Ronnie Mosley,
Alderman Ronnie Mosley.
All right.
First of all, I move to approve the Rule 45 report for the Committee on
Transportation and Public Way meeting held on May 13th,
2026. Can I get a motion from Alderman Harris to approve
this item?
So moved.
Alderman Harris so moves on the motion. All in favor say aye.
Those opposed, no. Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Today, we have five items on the agenda.
Going out of order, on page four, item seven, eight,
and nine are direct introductions for miscellaneous items.
Can I get a motion from Alderman Conway to
accept the direct introduction to committee?
Alderman Conway so moves. On the motion, all in favor say aye.
Those opposed, no. In opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Page two, item one, amendment of municipal code Title
2,
9, and 11, ordinance
2026-0024966, an
amendment of the municipal code regarding fines for illegal
dumping and adding a new section,
2-14-132, authorizing
impoundment vehicles used in fly dumping.
Okay.
I see.
All right.
For this item, we have today here with us,
we have from CPD, Lieutenant Sean Cho,
Deputy Commissioner Mike Lococo, Traffic Services, and Deputy
Commissioner Debbie D. Lopez, Street
Operations.
And also here to ask any questions, we have
our attorney,
Ray Santos online.
All right.
To head it off, I would pass this over to Lieutenant
to lead this off.
Hi there.
Good morning. My name's Lieutenant Sean Cho with the Chicago Police Department
Bureau of Patrol.
Lieutenant, yeah, I liked it. Yeah.
Is this better?
Yes.
Hi. Good morning. Sorry about that.
My name is Lieutenant Sean Cho with the Chicago Police Department, Bureau of
Patrol.
Today, I was asked here to speak about
ordinance 728-390 and 728-440,
which has been amended to authorize the
impoundment and seizure of motor vehicles found to be fly dumping either on real
estate or the public way,
and to apply the seizure and impound of the motor vehicles to
on-scene seizures and seizures when they have
fled the scene and make good their escape.
All right.
Deputy Commissioners, do you guys want to add anything at this time, or are you
just waiting?
Mike Lococo-
Mm-hmm
... Department of Streets and Sanitation.
This ordinance does give us the ability, Streets and San, the ability
to tow the vehicles. That's what we need.
That gives us more bite-
Yeah
... for these vehicles to help stop the fly dumping.
So that's why this would be a good amendment. Thank you.
All right.
Do we have any questions for this? Alderman
Moore?
Talk to... Yep.
Help me walk through this. And I appreciate you all for being here
and helping address this. So
if I have a ward sup who sees somebody,
and they get the license, because I heard you say even if they
flee, what happens in that situation?
Because we're trying not to put them in too much danger.
I know one time a ward sup blocked a man, tried to call the police.
Police didn't show up in time because, I guess, a priority call, right?
So what happens in that situation if that person
either drive off or whatever, but the ward sup gets the license
plate?
Hi, again, this is Lieutenant Cho, Chicago Police Department, Bureau of Patrol.
It would be treated as any other in-progress call.
So police will be dispatched to the scene, assuming a 911 call was
made, and then the license plate would be given to the officers on
scene. Depending on whether or not it's feasible or possible
to... catch up to the vehicle, or whether the vehicle will be on scene
or another location, then we would be able to get our strategic decision and
support center to monitor pod cameras if they do, for a direction of flight,
because the initial call would probably only include the initial
direction of flight.
So officers on scene could then make a determination as to whether or not they
would conduct a further sweep, or whether it's feasible to
contact other districts who are bordering in case the vehicle continued their
flight outside of the district.
Okay.
So there would be communication.
So
no pursuit. We don't catch up with them because I
think our
WAR soup are quasi,
help me with the right word, think judicial representatives or something
like that. They were, and them getting
that license plate number
cannot
take that further if,
for us to do something, even if that vehicle gets away?
Well, under the proposed ordinance, my understanding would be that, and the
way that it would work with the Chicago Police Department, is that would be treated
as a fleeing, or similar to a fleeing eluding vehicle, and the policies we
currently have under that particular policy.
So, there's a due process and probable cause determination made within 14 days.
The notice is given to the owner. That's where the license plate would be
essential, because a license plate or a VIN number would need to be identified in
order for that process to work itself out.
Once the Department of Administrative Hearings makes a determination of probable
cause, assuming there's no challenge to that particular notice or order, then
that vehicle that's identified would be entered into what we call the
hot desk, and then it would be in our data system.
It would be available to impound immediately after the 14 days, any time period
after the-
Okay, so I can fully understand. Do they have certain ticket
books for this, and do they write that ticket?
Then from there, who do they turn that ticket in to so then
it gets to CPD?
Okay.
Debbie De Lopez, Department of Streets and Sanitation.
Yeah, they would fill out a report, and they would give that directly to the police
department. That's once they see that and they're on site.
Are you saying a police report, or is there a separate report that
they're trying to fill out? Is it a report when the police show up at
that time? Or is that a-
No, it's going to be on our end, a report that we're going to fill out, and we're
going to give it to the Chicago Police Department.
Got you. Got you.
And then, but if the police catch them, then at that
immediate time-
I don't remember the word
... we can tow the vehicle. The person may not get arrested.
I'm not sure if there's an arrest situation in there, but at that immediate time,
you can tow the vehicle. So I need to understand that part.
The-
So, police on the scene, that person dumping,
catch the vehicle. Is there an arrest, or is it just a towing
of the vehicle?
It's eligible for arrest, but it would be
eligible for field release under the Safety Act.
But at the very least, that person will be cited for what we call an
administrative notice of ordinance violation for the fly dumping, and then
the vehicle, under this proposed ordinance, would then be seized and impounded.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Alderman Mosley.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for working on this.
Can you share with me what level priority
would this call fall under?
You mean once it's dispatched?
Correct.
Well, it would be under a in-progress call, but it would determine, it would be
based on tally of circumstances that the driver or that the caller would've
gave to the dispatch. OAMC would make the classification for priority.
And so on average, where would you see this falling?
For a fly dumping?
Yes.
Ordinance? If it's purely fly dumping, it might be a priority two for an
in-progress call.
So I just, I mean,
this is great, but I want to make sure that it's in force.
And so I know oftentimes,
police respond to calls based off of priority, and my concern is
that there are going to be other priority calls to respond to,
and so we don't often see the action of the police arriving on
scene, ticketing, towing, et cetera.
And so talk to me more about what tools we have in the toolbox to
actually have this be implemented to the
effect that we would like to see.
I can't speak to any hypothetical situations, but once a
call is dispatched to an officer, officers are required to immediately
arrive to that scene location, speak to a witness or locate the vehicle.
So that would be under any preliminary investigation.
Let me ask, is this a level two,
a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle, the
ambulance has already responded and so forth.
At that point, what is it for Chicago Police Department?
Which level?
No.
A pedestrian hit by a vehicle would be a priority one-
Okay
... where we have a citizen injured.
But once the ambulance or even once the first responders
respond and have treated, maybe even taken someone
to the hospital or so forth, that falls to
what priority? What level?
No, that would still be a priority one, because an investigation on that particular
incident where a person was struck by a motor vehicle would have to be
investigated.
Hmm. Okay. I'm not familiar with that.
I'm familiar with my local police department telling me that once
medical treatment has begun, then a officer
can or will still arrive. And I'm just saying that
because that's a timeframe that I know could take
45 minutes plus. And so again, if someone is fly
dumping, they're not going to be there 45 minutes later.
And so I want to make sure that we have real enforcement
here in wards like mine that may have some other priorities
for our men and women in blue, and
making sure that we are going to get these vehicles actually are-Some
enforcement that changes the behavior and culture that we're seeing now.
Yeah, that's what this ordinance will do.
It will allow the ward superintendent to report it to the police, so that way they
can impound the vehicle. We've also looked
at upping the fines, which would also make an impact on the fly
dumping.
So when a ward sup writes a report,
is it then at a later point in time that police can seize the vehicle,
or is it only when the
progress is in action?
So the police will be able to seize the vehicle anytime it's located after a
probable cause determination has been made by the Department of Administrative
Hearings.
Great. I feel much more confident about that. Thank you so much.
That was my question, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Irvin?
Got you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say this.
I want to just thank
Mike and Debbie for the work that they're doing in Streets and
Sanitation.
To the extent that this provides them additional tools to go after people who are
fly dumping in the community, we definitely need to support
this effort.
They both know I'm probably in their emails,
if not daily,
every other day with various items of concern
regarding fly dumps. So whatever we can do to help them be successful in
their work and catch some of these clowns that are continuously dumping in the
community, it'd be greatly appreciated, and I support the ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Irvin. Alderman Rodriguez?
I would certainly concur. Debbie and
folks, just tremendous response.
I just appreciate the work that you do with city
residents and city bureaucrats getting things done for us.
I do have a question in the lines of Alderman Mosley.
By the way, I've read the ordinance.
I think
my colleagues should know that there are enhanced penalties
on fly dumping of greater
values. So if you're dumping things that are over $25,000 worth
or $50,000 worth, you would have enhanced penalties.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
From personal experience, I remember a guy dropping a car
off at an empty block of mine. I'm like, "What the hell are you doing?"
And he brings an interpretation device, I don't know what language he spoke, and
ends up taking the car away. I'm just curious, in those
instances, are we using video evidence? Photo evidence?
Is it just the ward sup that it's limited to as far as city workers are
concerned?
Yeah, so all of those things would apply.
If there is a witness, though, that gives a license plate number with a make,
model, color of vehicle, that would also apply.
Probable cause determinations would be made by the
Department of Hearings. But
as far as an in-progress call, then that witness would be
vital, whether they have a camera or video
or any type of photographic evidence as well.
Yeah, my assumption is the use of this ordinance is probably on the latter half of
this enforcement. I just doubt, as Alderman says again,
that we're going to have a police
presence. This is probably post-fact.
We've got a neighbor with a Ring video who gives us that video.
We've got video footage from our camera systems or something of that.
In fact, a neighbor who brings us a picture.
This happened with someone who got fly dumped behind their garage.
They brought me a picture, I was able to give it to the police.
They were able to enforce. This essentially would enhance their enforcement of
that situation. So I think that makes sense.
This is congruent to the
infractions, so I'm supportive. Thank you so very much for this.
Alderman Conway?
Yeah, Lieutenant Cho, if you could walk me through, you said it a few times, the
probable cause determination by Administrative Hearings.
Why does it require that as opposed to the police department doing it or-
Well, I-
... a warrant or something? Yeah.
Yes, Alderman. I think there's two processes here that we're talking about.
Right.
One is during the in-progress commission of the offense, when the police would
respond and the vehicle would be on scene, or the offender would be on scene.
The other would be if they happen to flee.
The part where they flee would be essential here because if they
aren't on scene and the police don't arrive on time, then we'd have a mechanism in
place, which doesn't exist for this particular ordinance, prior to the
passing of this ordinance, where we would be able to go ahead and
run this through the due process and probable cause considerations that we have.
The Department of Administrative Hearings would have to make that probable cause
determination after we submit our evidence to them, and then
generally what occurs under this proposed ordinance, there would be a notice of
intent to impound the vehicle sent to the owner, the registered owner of the
vehicle based on that license plate or that VIN number.
And then that registered owner would then have 14 days to either contest or not
respond to it at all. And then in that 14-day period, then the
Department of Administrative Hearings can make that probable cause determination
based on what they have.
Are there other offenses where Administrative Hearings does this probable cause
determination?
Yeah. This is likely going to mirror the impound and seizure of
vehicles for drag racing or fleeing or eluding the police.
So this particular ordinance would be unique in that it
matches those particular requirements.
Okay. So we already do have this probable cause determination from Administrative
Hearings and other impoundment
procedures.
Right. It seems, based on what I'm reading, that at least mirroring
those enforcement options was contemplated
to match with this fly ordinance.
No, thank you, because I was not aware of a probable cause determination by
a quasi-judicial body like that. That's what threw me a little bit, but
that sounds
like it adds some due process, but doesn't have to go to the level of going to
26th Street to get a warrant or something.
So,
I think that-Sounds like a good balance there, and
I appreciate all the hard work of everyone to move this forward. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Harris?
Thank you.
And I want to thank Chairman Mitchell for pulling this ordinance together.
It is truly necessary, as just this morning I'm out in my
ward and I got three fly dumps and one
grit.
And I want to thank Debbie De Lopez, who is extremely helpful, and Michael
Lococo, who has been a great community partner for me and my community.
I kind of want you to walk me through the entire process, because I'm going to go
back and ask Bakari, A, B, C, D. So say
Mrs. Smith has a fly dump
behind her house. She then calls our office.
She gives it to us. We take her information down.
But then walk me through what we do next.
Do we then report it to the district?
Do we then report it to 911? What's the process that
happens as we walk through it when the public's calling?
Bakari's got the process. He'll know what to do.
But the public is what I'm concerned about, which they often call
saying, "I got a picture of somebody who just fly dumped, I was out there, and I
got 20 pictures for you."
Yeah, so if it gets reported to us by the citizen with a video
or a photographic evidence, then we in turn, turn it over to the police department,
and then I'll let lieutenant speak about what they do from there.
Then that report would be
created because we would have to attach the inventory for that piece of
evidence to a report, and then the investigation would take place.
And this is all speaking hypothetically because obviously the
impoundment for this particular
ordinance isn't one of the municipal code violations that are currently
impound eligible. But once it is, then we would run through that process for
impoundment, the same process that I was speaking about with the 14-day
hearing.
And so should we email you the information, so that
you will not be bombarded,
creating some kind of streamlined process?
Maybe not necessarily today, but how you all want us to get it to
you, that it should it be emailed or...
Yeah, you can email it. As long as you give me the video evidence,
or the photographic evidence, we'll make sure that it goes to the
proper area of CPD.
Thank you. Thank you both.
Alderman Mosley with a follow-up.
Thank you so much, Chair. I want to ask about
cameras. I know we talked about pod cameras and so forth early.
At one point in time, the city used to have cameras in hotspots of
fly dumping areas. Is that something that we're looking to bring back,
maybe some similar technology as pod cameras?
Yeah, we're looking to update the technology to get that more
updated so that we can
go in areas where it's a problem and see
what we could catch. But we're working on that right now, to see what's out there.
Great, and will we also pair with maybe license plate readers could
be applicable here?
We can look into that, yes.
Perfect.
And does this help you at all, Debbie?
I don't know how, but you could even get better at high lift
response times, but now that we have a
newer addition to this process, how does this help your
response for high lift?
Our response time is always going to be immediate, especially when
it's in an area where it's happening a lot.
But hopefully what it will do is help deter some of the fly dumping.
That's what we're hopeful. With increasing the fines and being able to now
impound the vehicle, we're hoping that those tools will help deter some of
this once the word gets out that this will eliminate some of it.
And if that happens, this may not be needed, but cost
recovery just has put us in a
situation where we are closer to recovering the cost that
we spend on things like high lift.
Yeah, it would definitely. With cost recovery, obviously it's always going to
be helpful with all the
jobs that we take care of.
Perfect. And then my last question is just companies that have this
consistent behavior. What are we doing about those?
Are we creating a registry of these folks?
Are we requiring other things of them to
change this behavior?
We haven't looked into that, but that's something we can definitely look into.
Thank you so much. And thank you, Chair, for this ordinance. Thank you.
Point of information, Alderman Moore.
Alderman Ronnie Mosley, question on the recovery part.
So sort of like when there's a car that gets booted, and
that car gets booted and towed and ticketed,
in the end, you do not get that vehicle back unless you pay all of that,
including tow, the boot, and the ticket fines.
So is the cost recovery included in them
having to get their car back, or are we giving their car back and then
expecting to get our cost recovery?
Can you speak to that?
Yeah.
All right. Hi, thanks for the question.
So there are administrative penalties assigned to all of these ordinance violations
under the ordinance, and then there are also towing and storage fees that are
assessed on the-
I get that. That was not my question. I know it may have fees and towing.
I'm strictly talking about what Alderman Mosley brought up
about if there's a cost for the high lift, because all that's going to be a part of
that deterring. I don't think it is, so we need to go back
and try to
fix this and include that because it's not enough for
me to come and get and pay for the tow or a ticket.
It's paying that cost of that recovery at that time in
order to get my vehicle back. So I just want to make sure
that, because I don't want to try to go back to some people afterwards.
We'll never see that money
Yeah
... and it wouldn't be a good deterrence.
When you add all that in, it's costing us a lot, and it'd be a
great deterrence.
So you're talking about the labor cost, the high lifts, plus the
cost of equipment?
Absolutely.
Okay. Yeah, it's definitely something we can look into.
Okay.
We can work with Law and look into that.
Thank you.
All right. Are there any more? Okay.
Before
I pass this item, I
want to acknowledge,
earlier Alderman Harris gave me the credit for
the genesis of this ordinance and the evolution of it.
I cannot take credit. My ward superintendent, who is here today, Marcelo
Siggers, has championed this from day one.
He has been relentless, not just with this, but with other
ordinances. He comes to me a lot, got a great ward superintendent,
comes to me a lot with issues. And my charge to him was, "Well, let's figure out
how we change things." And he has hit the ground running to change
things. I'm sitting here with pride that
this man works as hard as he does for my ward.
He is a shepherd dog for the Eighth Ward, also the 10th
Ward. And I had to take this opportunity to acknowledge, because we would not be
here if it was not for Marcelo Siggers, the Seventh Ward
superintendent. So, if you would indulge me, I
want to give him a hand clap for his work.
He works extremely hard. And of course, I want to thank
Mike Lococo and Debbie. You guys worked with him, and
work with him, and work with him. And between me and him, you got
two stubborn men who are relentless to get things done, and I appreciate you guys
doing that. And Lieutenant, thank you for stepping in, because this,
from where it was to where it is today, this is helping all
50 wards.
I think Alderman Moore has already
recommended some change, but we'll get to that later. An addition.
So,
guys, I ask for your favorable consideration.
And with that said, I want Alderman Harris to renew a motion for due
pass.
Alderman, I got a quick question.
I'm sorry.
Alderman Harris-
Yeah
... Irvin.
Previously, we had the reward on the fly
dumping.
And,
I didn't know if that was something that was considered as a part of this
conversation as well.
I think there was an expiration of that.
We gave rewards to individuals who turned in people
for fly dumping. And since we're on that subject, we may want to
consider that as well.
All right. Thank you,
Alderman Irvin.
Yeah. Your ward superintendent, he all right.
I'm going to just-
That is just, it's not something that we do anymore. He's right. It expired.
It's not something that we've done, so that wasn't part of this
discussion.
Okay. So that's something we discuss later along with
Alderman Moore's addition. All right.
With that said,
on Alderman Harris' motion to move do pass, all those in favor say
aye. Those opposed, no. Any opinion of chair, the ayes have
it. Thank you. Thank you, guys.
Yep.
All right. Where we at?
All right. Moving along. Page two, item two.
An amendment of municipal code section
8-4-350- ordinance
20260023173.
There is a substitute ordinance. Can I have a
motion to accept the substitute
from Alderman Conway?
Alderman Conway so moves. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed, no. Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Now we have the substitute ordinance before us.
On this substitute ordinance, we
have non-member and Alderman
Jim Garden, who's the
sponsor of the ordinance, who would like to speak on it.
Thank you, Chairman.
What I am introducing is just, for over a year, I've been
attempting to shed some light on the CTA and
crime that is occurring on our CTA.
As a lifelong Chicagoan and regular CTA rider, the
feedback that I get from riders and CTA workers especially, has
never been this concerning.
CTA workers, women, people who are handicapped,
are being targeted at alarming rates.
Just two weeks ago,
a 57-year-old CTA bus driver was
kidnapped at knife point on the bus route
number 53, the Pulaski bus in Logan Square,
was taken six miles off her route. Luckily, she was able to escape this
individual.
There was another incident in December of 2025 where a 35-year-old woman in a
wheelchair on the Jackson Red Line elevator was pushed into
an elevator and sexually assaulted.
In February of 2022, two 45th Ward residents in where I live
was followed. They were both 72 years old.
They were followed by a 28-year-old male from the Blue Line station,
where eventually he confronted the couple and beat
the woman so severely, he broke her jaw, and she's had to have
multiple surgeries
to try to alleviate this. What I'm trying to do is up the
ante on the penalties for individuals who choose to target
individuals who are taking our CTA, whether
buses or whether on trains.
We see it over and over and over again.
These incidents keep occurring. And what I am trying to do and what
I'm trying to raise attention is, is that these individuals who
choose to commit crime on our
CTA-are going to be
severely punished, whether it be
financially or whether it be time in jail.
And what I'm trying to do is diminish any chances of
this occurring. And even if this could
prevent this from happening from one other individual, I think
it would be good on all of us
to vote in favor of this. We see the CTA working to
combat crime, CPD, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, and other
government agencies, including the sheriff's department.
And I think we, as elected officials, should do our part
to let individuals know that this type of
behavior is not going to be allowed on our CTA.
Thank you, Alderman Garner.
Alderman Rodriguez?
A couple things. Thank you so much.
And Alderman, I know your true intent is to create more safety on
our CTA public transit system. So
I've got nothing but respect for
that interest. However, I just got some questions here.
One, first of all, is the substitute, has that been emailed to us or
passed out to us so we can take a look at it?
Yes.
Okay. I just don't have it then.
On your desk.
Could you just maybe summarize the substitute,
what some of the changes were
to what's online?
Sure.
Justin,
if you'd like to
explain some of that.
Sorry.
All right.
All right, counsel, can you state your name for the...
Of course. Justin Edge, Department of Law.
Thank you, Alderman.
And thank you for your question. Yes,
I can summarize the changes for you.
And real quick, is the incarceration taken out?
No.
Okay.
However,
I think the most important thing to keep in mind about the
sentencing, so we'll just start there, is
providing for more judicial discretion.
The biggest change is changing the ands to ors,
essentially.
Sure.
So if you look at that section, this is page two.
It's the underlined section. It's the only added language that's adding into the
code. Four, as you see it there. It
changes to or under A,
B, and C,
first offense, second offense, third, and subsequent offense.
So it changes them to or, or both.
And the key being that this would allow a judge to
have more discretion, obviously.
Work within that range on each one of these.
There's always a risk when you
increase
penalties substantially that if a judge does
not
see them to be proper for some reason, whether it be
for constitutional reasons, because they possibly violate
a state or federal law, or just because they don't believe it's right,
they don't have any option to go below minimums that are stated.
So they'll often end up just tossing the case.
Right.
So providing discretion works to the benefit of
actually seeing this
be effectual in practice.
And the folks that are outlined in section two that are going to carry out some of
the subsequent actions to this ordinance, are they all in
favor of this ordinance? Have they been consulted on this ordinance?
I do know that they have...
Now, specifically, we're talking Chicago Police Department and the
Gender-Based Violence Task Force.
I know that they have both been consulted by IGA,
and that they have seen this substitution.
The mayor's office's official position is not support
for this ordinance, and I've been asked to point that out.
But they have seen this,
and
as we all know, he will-
But we've got bill sponsors.
Correct.
Is the CTA supportive of this?
The CTA is here.
If they would like to speak.
Okay.
I cannot speak for the CTA myself.
Yes. Alderman, we do have CTA here, so if you would like.
Yeah.
Sam, can you come?
And please state your name.
Sure. Sam Smith, vice president, government and community
relations at CTA.
In terms of the position on the ordinance, CTA has taken no
position on this ordinance.
Okay.
Alderman, have there been any
groups that work in criminal justice reform or juvenile justice reform
been consulted on this effort?
I have not contacted any individuals.
What I am basing this off of, as I said earlier, is just
as a lifelong Chicagoan, somebody who rides the CTA on a
consistent basis. I rode it today.
And the concerns that I hear from not only
riders, but people who ride on the CTA or work for the
CTA,
the occurrences that are happening are more prevalent, and they're
getting more and more violent. And again,
what I'm trying to do is deter anybody from continuing
doing these actions that are impacting not only riders, but the CTA
employees as well.
Chairman, if I may?
Yes.
I just wanted to finish real briefly, since you asked me to summarize the
changes. Two other quick things to point out.
They're not significant in comparison to that.
But
you asked about if the departments mentioned
were aware of this and had seen the
substitution, and I pointed out that the two that you see on the sub in front of
you, CPD and the Gender-Based
Violence Task Force had.
What has been removed from the original is Department of
Family and Social Services and the Mayor's Office for People with
Disabilities. That's because they were not
consulted. I don't know why that was
or if there just was not time. But they obviously may
have some great insight on this. And so as you can see, it says any other
applicable city agency. So they certainly can be included, but they were
removed from mandatory participation because there was not time to run
this by them.
Look, I don't have any issues with the sincerity of the bill sponsor in trying to
make things safer. I appreciate that. I know you're committed to that.
I just don't think this is it.
And let me give the broader context.
In the '80s,
the president at the time created an agenda that he
called the War on Crime, which ended up being a war on inner-city communities.
It essentially led from those being incarcerated,
about 500,000 at the time,
to tough on crime policies that led to millions of
people being in our state and federal penitentiaries,
with no drops in crime during those times.
As a matter of fact, that increased crime.
These types of enhanced penalties,
without consultation, without support from a broad set of
individuals,
actually does more harm than it does good.
This is putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound,
and then
adding the exit wound.
This actually doesn't help create safety.
It enhances
not safety. And look, we can form ways to address
safety. There are ways to create presence,
to create alternatives, to make sure that we hold people accountable.
I think council just talked about ways we can hold people accountable
that are effective. Just this effort here is not that,
and I will not be signing on to something that's not
ready,
and that, to be quite frank, I don't think that's
based in any evidence and any data.
I will not sign on to something that mandates incarceration.
So I'm going to ask to hold this item, and I'll move that.
I take that under advisement.
Alderman Fuentes, I got you.
Got you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Look, this is the first time I'm looking at this ordinance.
I haven't been roll called or briefed on this ordinance, and
so I too would ask for this to be held.
I'm not prepared to support this.
State's Attorney
Eileen O'Brien has taken a position on the
safety of CTA just this month. She
announced a task force, she announced increased penalties,
she announced increased detainment.
She's taking the approach of tough on crime on CTA.
While I don't agree with it, it is within her jurisdiction, and she gets to
do that. And so I think what
Alderman Gardner is trying to achieve here, I think the state's attorney is
already doing. I am concerned about the city
taking an approach for incarceration.
Look, I think crime on CTA has gone down by
22% as of May this year in comparison to what
crime was on CTA last year, and I think CTA is
doing a great job coordinating with CPD, making sure
that any security officers, caseworkers that are working on the train lines
and the bus lines are doing their work.
I think we should continue to think about the ways that we're investing in those
programs so that we can continue to reduce crime.
And then the other piece is that violent crimes like AG
背 , kidnapping, attempted murder, those all carry
heavy-weighted sentencing, right? Those are felonies.
And so
is this looking at lower level
charges to enhance penalties and detainment?
Because then I would be concerned with that,
and that could be for legal or for the ordinance sponsor.
Is what we're looking at here low level
charges to increase penalties and fees?
Or walk me through all the
acts that would increase penalties and fees here.
Would you like me to take it? All right. I will take that.
Yes.
The
list that you see at the head of
subsection four there,
you can see that they're just all listed out by section numbers.
Okay, so I'll just go ahead and read through those in order here,
and then maybe make a couple notes once we're done.
Threats or intimidation in public places.
Threatening a community policing volunteer.
Assault against emergency workers.
Assault against city employees, officials, and contractors with
enforcement authority.
This one has a confusing title.
But what it effectively is, is an
aggravated assault
provision for assault against a person who is elderly,
developmentally disabled, or handicappedThat's,
84080.
The next is bullying and harassment.
The next is hate crimes, which again, is a complicated one.
It includes several things I could go through if you'd like me to after this.
Unauthorized video recording or live
transmission, upskirting, and other related offenses.
And the last one is cyberstalking and cyberflashing.
Now, each one of those has different levels
of sentencing as their base level as defined in each one
of those sections. I can answer your questions on those if you'd like,
or go into more detail, but those are the sections.
So let me take cyberstalking, for example.
Someone recording another individual on public transportation?
So cyberstalking is essentially the use of
electronic devices for harassment.
And
for it to be considered cyberstalking, there needs to be two
instances of it, and that's when it rises to the level of being a
cyberstalking violation.
And do you want to know the penalties as well, or just the definition?
Currently, if someone's doing cyberstalking on CTA, what are the current-
Cur-
... penalties for a charge like that?
First offense, fine of up to $500. Second and
subsequent offenses, fine of up to $1,000.
In addition,
may incarcerate up to 90 days
or up to 1,500 hours of
community service.
Okay. And
so I'm just not understanding why we believe increasing
the fees by a couple hundred dollars on first offense and
then increasing the incarceration a couple days will change the
behavior rather than allocating more resources to the
problem.
Alderman Gardner, I'm interested in your take here.
You're the ordinance sponsor.
Have we taken the approach of looking at the issues that we see on
CTA and trying to figure out how we allocate more
resources? These offenses, I believe, already have some
severe consequences.
I don't know if adding a couple more days and a couple more hundred dollars
is going to change the behavior that we're currently seeing on public
transit.
Okay, that's your opinion. I understand that.
What's your opinion? That's what I'm asking.
My opinion is it would be, because if we start taking these offenses
more seriously, as I just described earlier,
I think that individuals, the word is going to get out that individuals
are having to pay heavier fines or whether they got to stay in jail longer, as you
just said, and that individuals are going to be less motivated to do crime
on our CTA. That's my opinion.
All right. I would love for it to be backed by data.
Look, if 90 days is not enough to deter someone, I don't know if
120 makes the difference, right? I don't want to
be creating an environment where we are changing
legislation to have a tough on
crime approach, and what we're doing is impacting
folks that are the most vulnerable.
Look, people utilize their cell phones to harass me every single
day in this building.
And I'm not sitting here saying we need to have heavier
consequences. I think we just need to be able to solve for the
issue. If we are watching
individuals we physically harm, and I'm acknowledging that we have some issues
on public transit. Look, I take the bus and the Blue Line every single
day. I know the issues we have on public transit.
I think we need to be talking about how we're allocating more
resources instead of enhancing penalties
here.
Chairman and ordinance sponsor, I can't support this.
All right.
Okay. Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Conway?
Yeah.
First off, I would say I
have more appreciation, I think, for this ordinance than some of my
colleagues, as someone who has
more L stops and CTA bus stops probably than any other ward, certainly
on a per capita basis. And additionally, as someone that was a criminal prosecutor
for a long time, I think there is some deterrence benefit
to punishment. But a question I would perhaps have
for
the sponsor is,
the classic case where you have someone on the CTA
punches somebody,
which I think is kind of what you're getting after, as we've seen a lot of those
incidents, high profile.
That person's going to get charged with...
And it's been a while since I was a prosecutor, Justin, so if I screw up
the things, think. So that person would be charged with at minimum
a...
They'd get battery, and then it would be aggravated
because it's on public transportation, and depending on harm level
or weapon use. So that, at minimum, would be a class three felony,
punishable by two to five years
and a fine of up to 25 grand in that
situation.
You know better than I, Alderman.
So I think-
I would say, think that the-
I believe those are the numbers
... important thing that you're pointing out, though, is that that person would,
in
nearly every single situation, be
cited under the Illinois State Criminal Code of 2012,
not under the municipal code. So that you are correct in what you're
referring to, and that is not a municipal ordinance.
Well, and so that's what I'm getting at.
So when
people start screwing around on the CTA, I think we got toMake sure
we're sending a strong message that that's not to be tolerated, which I'm pretty
confident that is the motive of your ordinance here.
But
based on perhaps the overlapping
nature of this, along with state criminal statutes, I didn't know if
there was an instance where you would think
this would have particular value where the state one doesn't.
Now, I know you did go through the laundry list, Justin. I forget your last name.
Edge. E-D-G-
Mr. Edge.
But
I didn't know if there was a specific thing that either Alderman Gardner would like
to speak to or Mr. Edge would like to speak to with regard to perhaps
the unique,
when this would be used. And if there's any idea, by the way, you may know this,
Mr. Edge, of how often do we use this statute, noting that probably
a lot of it does overlap with
the Illinois Criminal Code.
I know I threw out a jump ball for you guys.
So a portion of that
I will need to leave for Alderman Gardner because I did not
write this.
Okay.
I made
a handful of technical corrections after providing some
suggestions to Alderman Gardner, which we discussed, and
he
allowed me to help with. So I did not
draft this, pick these charges, pick these levels, anything like that.
So setting that aside,
is your question about
its comparison to the state criminal code generally?
My question is when would this
be charged versus the state
code?
Sure.
Like, why would corporation counsel charge this?
Right.
Or the state's attorney's office charge this when-
I can absolutely answer that.
Okay, yeah.
I'll give you the technical answer, and then
I'll give you the quick take.
So
we look at the quasi-criminal code sections
of our code.
They're quasi-criminal because that's how they are addressed in state
administrative procedure. That's why they're called that.
We have the ability as
a city under the state constitution to incarcerate up to six
months, et cetera. And so we work within that.
But functionally, what it ends up doing is working as a gap filler is the way that
we explain it sometimes. And that would be if we have some unique
circumstances here in the city that aren't addressed well
by the state criminal code,
or that are just not being charged regularly,
and charges are not being brought by the state's attorney.
Then in those situations,
we
could have our city prosecutors bring
charges through DOAH. If it involves
incarceration, they would need to bring it in
courts. And then that's when we would rely on
this. It's a backup. The way the city prosecutor described it to
me once is that our charges are always subsequent
to state charges in all those senses.
And then just to round it out,
I did ask for the city prosecutor's input on this when
I first reviewed it, and she said that
these sections are rarely used.
Thank you.
I believe that's a direct quote.
I didn't know if Alderman Gardner had anything you wanted to add to that or not.
Again, what I'm just trying to,
I guess, emphasize was the amount of women, the amount of seniors on
our CTA, and individuals with disabilities who are being
targeted by individuals who are seeking to either rob,
sexually assault, or verbally abuse these
individuals. Those were the individuals that I'm trying to protect
on this, but I understand your question and I appreciate it.
All right. Thank you. Alderman Mosley.
Thank you so much, Chair.
Mr. Edge, can you tell me
about jurisdiction here and who enforces?
Who would enforce this?
Sure.
It
kind of goes back to my answer for
Alderman Conway,
when I referred to it as subsequent to state
charges.
What we would typically be looking at would be a scenario, this is a
hypothetical, but probably the most common way it would come about from
the way it's been described to me,
wherein a
person is
cited
for a violation of the state criminal code,
and for one reason or another, it doesn't
stick. Either it doesn't stick because the prosecutor
decides the case isn't strong enough, it isn't a priority, whatever it might
be.
But then we, as a city, decide that it
is a high enough priority that we want to devote resources to it,
and then our prosecutor would work with
CPD on gathering evidence and deciding whether or not
to bring charges under the municipal code.
So that's how it would work.
Then generally,
everything that can be dealt with in DOAH is dealt
with in DOAH. That's one of the other benefits of the
structure of using the disjunctive, the ors,
is that if
the
prosecutor
was not planning on bringing incarceration or
suggesting incarceration in any way, they could bring it through DOAH, which
can allow for fines, for instance. Right?
But any time that there is going to be incarcerationThen
even potential incarceration,
then the city prosecutor would need to bring it through the court system,
which has added time and complexity and
expense.
And the Safety Act, how does
the Safety Act impact enforcement of
these laws?
Well,
I don't want to
speak beyond what I know well here.
So I can only really speak to this generally.
I'm not really a criminal law specialist.
But
the Safety Act
touches on lots and lots of different-
We can come back to it later
... areas. And if you could narrow the question down a little
bit, I think I would be able to give you a better answer.
Perfect. I will, but just not at this time.
Okay. Great.
Let me ask,
how can we give
CTAs, law enforcement, security
representatives,
access to enforce our codes?
Similarly how we would give or have given University
of Chicago
the ability to enforce the city municipal codes.
I ask that question because I understand that CTA
itself doesn't have a lot of
teeth in its enforcements, right?
Like when individuals are acting
against their rules and procedures, really the only thing they can do
is ban someone from the service. And so
I think there's alignment, or I believe there's alignment of
the culture norms that we have set forth throughout our codes,
and if CTA had the ability to help enforce
those norms, that this could get to some of the
things that the bill sponsor is looking to achieve.
It's a novel idea, and
there's nothing that comes to mind immediately for me
that
sticks out to make me think that it's not possible.
Because they are, we call it a sister agency, but truly we are
completely separate-
Mm
... as we all know.
And so it would involve an intergovernmental agreement.
So it would involve negotiations between the two bodies,
intergovernmental agreement,
an ordinance on our end,
and then
on their end as well, they would probably be looking to
formalize some administrative procedure as well.
So it would be quite a process to negotiate it, work it out, but I don't
see... We can look into it.
But that's obviously not the ordinance that's in front of us today.
Understood.
I
hear you on that point.
And yes to your point,
the way that it has been
described to me, I believe their maximum fine is
$300.
To your point about their charges not having much teeth,
and I don't know about their success with banning individuals from the CTA,
but I imagine it would be exceptionally difficult.
Got it. I know
my colleague, Ms. Rory, has made a motion earlier.
To my other colleague that sponsored this bill, I would love to work with you
some more on this.
I want us to get to the point where we are meeting public expectations.
And there's too many times where residents call
us, and we then turn to whichever
governing entity that is supposed to create a difference, and they
don't see that difference. And that's where I believe,
my colleague, Alderman Garner, is working from, and that's
something that I want to help and be a part of as well. So...
Thank you. Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Irving?
You called me?
Irving. That one.
Irving?
Yep.
Chairman?
Yes.
Did you call my name?
Yes.
Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
This is a little bit concerning.
In the corporation council, could you correct me?
The charges that you have listed in this ordinance are
charges that are applicable under state and current local ordinances,
correct?
Alderman, was your question directed at me or at
Alderman Garner?
Are you a corporation counsel, right?
I apologize.
Okay.
So,
the question was, are
all of these existing charges already essentially in the code?
In the municipal code and under state statute.
I do not know the state criminal code
like the back of my hand, to be honest.
But
looking through these charges, as you heard me read them off
earlier, I believe that without
exception, every one of these would be able to be addressed in one way or
another through the state criminal code.
So if that's the case, then what is the purpose of this ordinance if
these items are already addressed
via state statute? We're not a criminal
charging organization. That's a job for the state.
I'm just trying to understand, the enhancements would
do what?Are we trying to
reopen a municipal court? Are we
framing more work for the city prosecutor?
Help me to understand what this would do
other procedurally than what we're doing today.
I can say that if this did in fact
lead to a significant number of
citations under this section, then yes, that would absolutely
require more resources of the prosecuting division
of the Department of Law,
particularly if charges were focused on
incarceration. With incarceration, then they're going through the
entire process through the court system rather than
through DOAH. So, those are particularly resource
intensive.
But as I mentioned earlier, the city prosecutor did say that she
rarely saw charges brought under these sections.
So currently the cost is quite low.
And as I said,
it would be a pretty, not an extreme situation, it would
rarely come up that we would see these charges brought.
So we don't anticipate a
need for a flood of additional resources as a result of this.
But the more that we saw charges brought under this,
we absolutely could.
And to the sponsor of the ordinance, is that your desire to
see more charges
brought
under this particular code in the
ordinance?
Yes. Thank you for the question, Alderman.
My desire is simply
to help individuals, primarily not only our riders, but our
CTA employees,
as I said earlier, who continue to receive acts of
harassment, acts of assaults, and
that was the goal, to try to enhance penalties so it would
diminish individuals who are motivated to go on our CTA to commit further
crime.
But those
rightfully would either be
incarceration or more fines. Is that a fair
statement?
Correct. Fines.
And back to Corporation Counsel,
all of these items
can be prosecuted in state court.
Why, in your opinion, is it necessary for us to
become a prosecutorial arm
for
the sake of this when there's already a path that that can occur
with currently?
That is not my position, Alderman.
I will tell you that in practice, though-
It's
the treatment
... when asked,
when it becomes a priority from
direction by City Council or direction down from
Corporation Council, our city prosecutor looks to bring charges where
they haven't been brought previously.
They end up being quite specialized.
For instance, you might remember an ordinance that we passed last year,
that focused on threats and violence against public officials.
So
there are unique times in which
we step into that role, but you're right that it is
not generally our job. I point out, for
instance, that the person that I've referred to as the city prosecutor multiple
times wears other hats as well. She runs the division that does
lots of other work other than prosecutions.
So it is not a large part of our work and,
generally, it eats up quite a bit of resources if we
began doing a lot of it, and we would need to take that
into consideration in budgeting and staffing.
And also, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the
penalties under state statute higher than what are
being proposed here under this substitute
ordinance?
I cannot speak to that. I did not pick out any of these
enhanced values.
They
were in the introduced version that I worked from
the sponsor. So,
I cannot speak to that myself.
But it is generally known that the city of Chicago does not have
the ability to incarcerate anyone.
Is it greater than six months or 365 days?
That's correct. Six months.
Okay. So
based on what you're reading,
it would seem like these penalties under state
statute would be greater than
what we could impose locally.
I mean, cyberstalking, I think,
Member
Conway stated was a class two felony.
Sounds like all of the items that you are mentioning are
felonies under the criminal code.
Certainly many of them are, particularly ones that are
in an aggravated
charge. For instance, I mentioned assault against a person who is
elderly, developmentally disabled, or handicapped.
So when you have aggravating instances such as
crime against, or for instance, assault
againstCity workers, lots of different things.
The victim, the
place in which it happens, lots of things can lead to aggravated
charges, which yes, frequently step up into assault
territory even on the first instance.
Or, I'm sorry, step up into the felony space even on the first
instance.
And so yes, you're correct.
By the basic definition of a felony, we can't have
felony
violations in our code because we are capped at that
six-month value.
So ultimately, we can't enhance beyond the
six-month
penalty.
It seems like the
proper venue for everything that you guys are laying out here is really
in state court and not in the municipal setting.
Because it seems like the penalties and everything are
greater in state court versus
local court. So then I'll go back to the
maker of the ordinance here. What is it that we
ultimately are trying to do locally that either
can't be handled in state court
or...
I'm just a little lost here, because if the goal is to
do something, then the venue to do that in is not in the
municipal court, it's at the state level.
And quite frankly, the state is probably more, is better equipped
to handle the prosecution of these matters and
to provide the resources for those individuals who may need
assistance other than incarceration.
Understood, Alderman.
Okay. With that being said, I'm finished with my
questions and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right, thank you.
Vice Chair Vasquez?
Thank you very much, and I appreciate the dialogue.
And I guess,
for counsel, you kind of mentioned something,
before I get to my questions, like that there aren't that many charges that come up
anyway based on what's defined here.
Is that your kind of perspective on it?
When I first reviewed this ordinance after it was
introduced,
we analyze all aldermanic introductions.
I contacted the city prosecutor, and we
discussed
what was included here,
a number of things about it, and she said that
it was rarely used. This section, this enhanced
section, as well as many of these charges-
Oh
... individually.
Yeah, so straight,
plain spoken, just so I understand, we're increasing penalties for
something we're not charging people for that much anyway?
That was being proposed, I guess.
I don't have the data, but-
Okay. Through the chair, if you could provide data or whoever could, that would be
helpful to understand how often are these things coming up as issues, what
charges are actually happening.
Because there are times, and not in this in particular, but I've had
enough instances where people
work on things in good faith trying to do something, but it's not actually
changing much, because if there aren't any charges and you're increasing penalty,
you're just saying you increased the penalty when there's no one being charged for
anything,
which doesn't accomplish much. So one, just the efficacy,
and like I said, I've seen it in other instances.
So I think for me, knowing how much is this actually used, how many charges
apply based on what's being discussed.
I got other questions more related to
unhoused populations, folks suffering from behavioral
health issues or substance use disorder.
How would this apply? If someone's viewed as harassed, are we charging somebody
that doesn't have a buck, 5,000 bucks?
The
penalties, as you'll see there,
are
listed as a minimum and a maximum.
Right, minimum 1,000.
Even at the lowest level. Yes, right.
Minimum 1,000, maximum 5,000.
Yes, on the first offense.
So somebody who can't afford a sandwich, we're going to try to get 1,000 bucks out
of them.
What do we do then?
What's the penalty for somebody who can't afford it?
Yes, I mean-
Is that a rhetorical... Anybody who can answer it. Anyone.
Those are great questions. Hold up, hold up, hold up.
It-
These... I'm taking it.
Excellent discussion on this ordinance.
In hearing everything and in consultation with
the sponsor, we're going to hold this item for further discussion.
Yeah, and
I don't mean for it to be a gotcha, but in reality, we have penalties now for
people who are unhoused who don't have the means to pay for it.
So what happens next? I just don't know.
And so I think having an understanding on how often people are charged
and in instances where they can't afford to pay, how does that play out?
Because depending on what we're talking about as a charge, let's say it's
harassment from someone who's got, again, somebody who's being asked
for change could say they're feeling harassed.
If then that escalates, how does that play out in the system?
Because I think even with the best of intentions, not knowing
how all the different permutations of this will play out, I think it's just
something we should all be aware of before we're figuring out how to decide on it.
So I think
I appreciate it being held, still have the same question of how does this play out
with someone who can't afford it or has got those kind of issues based on what
would be the charge and,
yeah, I just don't know how we deal with it.
So yeah, that would be my general question. If no one has it right now, great.
Through the chair is fine. I just think thatIf we're coming up with something
that's increasing penalties, we don't do that many charges for it, and then when we
do charges, we have to at least know how that plays out if someone can't afford it.
So that's all I have. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to ask councilor as well as the sponsor,
Alderman
Gardner, would you continue to work on this, and we'll have
further discussion on this?
Absolutely. And again, I'm just going to reiterate, and I encourage everybody when
you are taking the CTA, I know there's people who say they take the CTA, please
talk to one of these CTA employees. Talk to them, ask them about their experiences.
Yeah.
I encourage people
to get a firsthand conversation with people who are working on the CTA, the
majority of which are Black and brown individuals, who will tell you firsthand
what is going on in the CTA.
So this ordinance is, I get where
individuals are talking about and advocating for homeless individuals or
individuals who may have
mental challenges. But at the same time, there's individuals who are
trying to go to work either 9:00 to 5:00 or the midnight shift or whatever it
is, and they're trying to make a buck and feed their family.
And at the same time, they're continuously getting harassed.
All right. Thank you.
I'll give a liberty for a follow-up question to the vice chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, and I appreciate it. I think you raise an absolute
fine point. People are working, they have to make sure it's safe.
At the same time, I think what I'd like for members of the council who
care about safety on CT, I think we all do, to equally
put forth effort on supporting folks who are unhoused and have those issues so that
they're not just on the trains, right? Because it's not like they're...
I think you articulate something that I agree with.
If there's folks who intend to do those things and come to CTA and make it rough
for everybody else, they should be held accountable like everybody else.
I think there's folks who, when they're suffering
different kind of trauma, it's not their intent to do so, but the result might feel
the same way. And so I think putting the same kind of resources to make sure we
have services and can reach out to folks that
I promise you don't want to live on the train, right?
I think there's ways to couple those things together so that we're doing both.
We're providing resources for folks who need it, while also holding people
accountable if they're intentionally violating the law and making life rough for
Chicagoans just trying to live their life.
So like I said, I appreciate the general spirit.
I think there's definitely things that we can all find agreement and work on.
So thank you, Chairman.
All right. Thank you, Vice Chair.
As I stated earlier, this item will be held in committee for further discussion.
All right, moving along. Pages three through five include
25 ordinances and one amendment for the miscellaneous items introduced by the local
alderman from Wards 17, 18, 19, 23,
25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32,
33, 38, and 39. Can I get a motion from Alderman Harris to
recommend approval of these items? On the motion, all in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed,
no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Page six, item one.
Item one, Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad, closing of
public alleys in the area bounded by West 69th Street, South
Bell Avenue, West 68th Street, and South Hamilton Avenue.
The property is located in the 16th Ward.
Here to speak, we have witness Brett Garino,
project manager, design and construction.
Do we
hear Brett? Oh.
Good afternoon.
Good after- You're Brett?
I am Brett, yes.
Nice to meet you, Brett.
My name has been met with challenges throughout my lifetime.
As you mentioned, I am a project manager for CSX
BNOCT here in Chicago,
managing a series of projects, most notably our
P3 and GS19 projects, which are part of
the CREATE program here in Chicago.
For those who may not be familiar, that is a public-private partnership
with the
Class One railroads,
Amtrak, Metra, CDOT, Cook County Department
of Transportation and Highways, IDOT, and then the USDOT.
And what brings us here today is we are
seeking the closure of the alleyway that is east
of Bell Avenue, west of our existing rail corridor, between
69th and 68th Streets,
for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall and
maintenance access ramp up to the grade-separated railroad right
of way.
All right.
All right, thank you for that information.
Do we have any questions from members of the committee?
No questions? All right. The committee has received and reviewed a letter of
support from Alderman Coleman. There is no compensation due for this
project. Can I get a motion from Alderman Moore to recommend approval of this item?
Alderman Moore so moves. On the motion, all in favor say aye.
Opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Thank you.
All right.
There being no further business before the committee, can I get a motion to adjourn
by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine quorum?
Alderman Fuentes so moves. On the motion, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The meeting of the Committee on Transportation and Public Way is adjourned.
Thank you, everyone.