Before we begin, I want to take a moment to recognize the confirmed passing of Mark Fitzgerald Armstrong,
a Chicago native journalist and member of our City Hall press corps.
My heart goes out to his loved ones and to everyone who knew and worked with him over the years.
I'd like everyone to just join me in a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Mark Armstrong.
Thank you very much.
Boy, are we going to miss his cauldron of sources.
With that, I'll take questions.
Good afternoon.
Just wanted to get you out of the gate here on your opinion on the vote today about the parking meter deal.
You have sort of played your cards close to the vest.
What do you make of this now that it's a done deal?
Well, first of all, I'm grateful for the cooperation that city council demonstrated,
Working with my Department of Law, our finance team, we obviously brought Stone Peak to the council to have a direct conversation.
This is a stronger agreement than what was there before.
And, you know, at the very least, Chicagoans were at the table.
That did not happen before.
And so I'm grateful again for the leadership that city council displayed.
And, you know, unfortunately, there are a number of bad deals that the city has had to endure.
We've inherited quite a few of them, and we're working hard every single day to show up on behalf of working people of this city.
So it's a stronger deal than what was there before, and I'm grateful for the collaboration.
So it has your support?
Well, from the very beginning, I provided the Department of Finance, the Department of Law, brought Stone Peak to them.
We've always wanted to make sure that city council had the support that it needed to be able to deliberate, you know, over what was obviously the worst deal in our lifetime.
And so there's some stronger provisions there that did not exist before, and I'm grateful for the partnership.
How's it going, Mayor Johnson?
Pretty well, thank you.
Your ally, Jason Irvin, argued on the floor that aldermen should have held off, held out for a better deal,
and found a way for the city to purchase this asset,
which is something I know your administration had looked into before abandoning some months ago.
You think the council should have held off on this to wait for a better deal?
Look, I think Alderman Irvin has every single right to ask as many questions as not.
necessary. This is what the city council came up with, and the vast majority of them agreed to it.
Alderman today also approved a measure that requires a larger vote margin for the city to
borrow money in the future. There have been opponents of that that suggest it's a limit on
the power and the ability of future mayors. What's your view about that, and what will happen when
that hits your desk? Well, I mean, first of all, you know, we use bonds to invest
on the west and south sides of Chicago in particular, right? And so the issuance of bonds
have been a long practice for city government to be able to respond to the dynamic needs that
the people of Chicago face. And from the $1.25 billion economic development bond, which
is the largest investment in the history of Chicago, it's investing in small businesses.
Our economic corridors are stronger as a result of this investment, building affordable
homes. In fact, we use $135 million of this economic development bond to introduce green
Green social housing, which will allow us to stabilize rent and to build housing that is environmentally sound without having to rely upon the federal government.
And that economic development bond allows for us to have a revolving loan to continue to build green social housing.
$300 million that went to 15 different projects that will deliver conservatively 1,200 affordable housing units.
So we have seen multiple examples of how these economic development bonds have invested in the day-to-day experience of working people.
Now, what I do find ironic, though, is that there are members who led this three-fifths compromise who voted to borrow debt to close the budget deficit.
Right. So, you know, look, I don't find this to be a useful way to grow our economy.
The last thing that people want of government to get in the way of itself.
That's why I initiated the red tape, cutting the red tape initiative that streamlined the process.
So economic development can happen with greater frequency, particularly in places in the city that have historically been neglected and denied opportunities for growth.
So there are definitely major concerns there, and I will address it accordingly.
Amir, aldermen are also working on, I guess, companion legislation that's being described as
that would set future parking meter rate increases, potentially tied to inflation,
also discussing ways in which Chicagoans would pay less,
either through a surcharge on others or just a lower rate for Chicagoans.
Is that something you support?
You know, listen, I need to better understand how that would work.
I mean, it sounds like there's some level of speculation around what could be made possible here.
I'm always going to support measures that will provide a fairer structure on how revenue is generated.
It's why I've put forth multiple budgets that challenge big corporations and the ultra-rich to pay their fair sharing taxes.
The burden, the cost burden on working people is quite severe.
But, again, that's something that I would have to take under review.
And on Thursday, there's an ethics committee hearing where one of the items is a hearing about the world business Chicago spending on videos that some have claimed appear to be political ads for you.
Will you, or not yourself, or the administration participate in that hearing?
Will WorldBiz be here for that on Thursday?
Well, first of all, let's just name this important fact that the whole job of WorldBiz of Chicago is to promote the city of Chicago.
One of the reasons why I believe that there are more people who are betting on Chicago is because they have seen my investments.
Again, going back to the economic development bond, when private entities see that the government is willing to put skin in the game,
that gives confidence to corporations that the city of Chicago is good ground to invest in.
And we've seen that, right?
$2 billion of investments on the west side of Chicago, $2.6 billion on the south side of Chicago,
$1.8 billion in our downtown economic corridor.
World Business Chicago's job, and as the chair of World Business Chicago,
our collective responsibility is to always promote the city of Chicago.
It's why we are the top destination for corporate relocation.
It's why the Magnificent Mile is back.
It's why, you know, we're using economic development bonds to invest in our airports,
which now O'Hare is the busiest airport in the world, right?
So every time I get an opportunity to promote the city of Chicago, we need to do that.
Because as the global capital of the world, attracting more business, growing our economy,
putting more people to work, and making sure that it's affordable,
That is the vision that I have, to build the safest, most affordable big city in America,
and I believe we should always promote that.
Hey, man.
Hey.
Alderman stalled on votes on the renters' ordinances today.
What changes from the other side do you want to see in the ongoing negotiations,
and what are you not willing to back down on?
Well, listen, you know, this ordinance has not been updated in over 40 years, right?
So it's long overdue.
It's why I set the table by introducing PRO.
And I'm grateful that people are coming to the table to this incredible feast to make the city of Chicago a more friendlier place for renters.
Over half of the people of the city of Chicago are renting.
And the fact that it has taken this long to move on updating our rental protections, it's a shame.
To be perfectly frank with you, listen, we cannot roll back protections.
around junk fees. We have to make sure that there's a renter's registry that works for the
benefit of the landlord as well as the tenant. And we cannot row back the gains that were made
40 years ago. That's what the coalition has made very clear. And it's my responsibility
to make the city of Chicago more affordable. And that's what my commitment has been the moment
that I took office to build the safest, most affordable big city in America.
And I believe one of the ways in which we can move with greater urgency around affordability
is making sure that the people who overwhelmingly make up the city of Chicago
and make the city of Chicago run, that we're providing protections on how people are able to live.
So again, junk fees, can't roll that back.
Making sure that there's a rental registry there that's fully funded, by the way, as well.
And then, of course, rolling back any of the gains that were made under the original ordinance is just non-negotiable for me and the coalition.
I want to follow up on, Jeff, on what you just called the three-fifths compromise.
Who does it hurt when it's harder to raise that revenue with debt for the city?
And will you veto the bond threshold ordinance?
Well, listen, as I said before, you know, the investments that we have made overwhelmingly with these economic development bonds have benefited working people.
I mean, that economic development bond has allowed us to grow small businesses.
The economic corridors, whether it's in Little Village or whether it's in Austin,
Chicago Avenue or 22nd Street, Cottage Grove, right,
there are the top employer outside of government of the neighborhood are black and brown business owners, right?
And so what's interesting, though, too, is that the individuals who are leading this,
have voted for bond issuances on a consistent basis under previous administrations, right?
And, in fact, one went as far as to just simply ask for a bond in debt to be taken out to be able to close the budget deficit.
We have taken an incredibly insightful, collaborative, and thoughtful approach to how we deal with the financial mess that I inherited, right?
Look, this is not passing the blame, but the fact of the matter is, for multiple years, for decades, our pensions weren't paid into, for decades.
And now we're faced with the harsh reality of having to respond to decades of negligence.
And I'm going to take that responsibility seriously.
I'm going to make sure that when my daughter is able to vote for me and she's 12, that she doesn't have to go to the voting booth and say, Dad, how come you all did not rectify, you know, the wrongs of the past?
I want to give that to her and the generation that is coming alongside of her.
You know, so, you know, again, it's clear that the economic development bonds have used been used to grow business, to build more affordable homes.
Heck, to even deal with the infrastructure needs.
Right.
$830 million that we were able to, one, save the taxpayer dollars
and then invest in the infrastructure like what we're doing on the west side of Chicago
to mitigate flooding.
Right now we don't even have the infrastructure underground
to be able to handle the amount of rain.
And so we built new structures in the 37th Ward on the west side of Chicago, working in partnership with the Water Reclamation District of Cook County to be able to build essentially the tanks and the basins that allow for water to be caught and then it doesn't back into people's basements.
It creates this brand-new form of technology that allows for water to be ushered back onto the streets
so families don't have to worry every time it rains that they're going to have to clear out their basements.
Those are the people who will be impacted by such a threshold.
And so what decision I make in the near future, I'm going to make a decision that benefits the very people
who need this type of investment to work, and those are the families who live on the west and south sides of our city.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
Ahead of the hearing on CARE this Thursday, could you give us a preview of what updates we might hear?
And why do this now and not earlier when there was more consternation over how the program was maybe being run?
Well, first of all, this is an exciting moment for the city of Chicago.
We are developing a brand-new entity of government.
Our first responders are expanding beyond police and firefighters, right?
And so this care is providing relief to our first responders.
And so individuals that are trained to handle mental and behavioral health crises are now able to show up.
The goal, of course, is to continue to expand the services.
And so we've done that around the city to extend the hours so that, you know, there's coverage throughout the day and going into the evening.
But keep in mind, this is a brand new entity of government.
There will be some hiccups along the way.
You know, as much as I would love for things to be perfect all the time,
trust me, my wife would prefer that too in our marriage.
But, you know, she doesn't get that all the time.
But it doesn't have to be perfect all the time in order for it to work.
And so what we are experiencing is a work in progress,
and we're going to continue to invest in mental and behavioral health care.
It's why I passed the first of its kind, the Social Media Amusement Responsibility Tax,
so that the people of Chicago know that there's a dedicated revenue stream
by taxing the big corporations to invest in public mental health care so that folks cannot interrupt that care.
So listen, I think that the hearing is the right time for it,
and I'm looking forward to how this entity of government will continue to sharpen and grow over time.
To put a finer point on that, I saw a recent stat that said 127 calls in the last four months.
You know, certainly an improvement from this spring,
But, you know, at its height, we were seeing that amount in one month.
Do you think that ahead of your next budget introduction that care will require more investment to get back to those heights?
Well, listen, when we reopened the three mental health clinics, there were people who were concerned whether or not people would take advantage of that service.
660,000 appointments have been made since 2023.
There clearly is a need here to interrupt support for mental and behavioral health care.
Not only would that be irresponsible, it would place a greater burden on police and fire.
Forty percent of the 911 calls that come through are mental and behavioral health crises.
When we have a trained professional team to show up to these crises for intervention, it frees up law enforcement to respond to the other critical needs that do exist.
I don't believe it's a coincidence that crime is going down as we expand more opportunities for the public good.
Right now, there are folks who try to dismiss these investments, individuals who have been responsible for failed policy over the course of decades in this city.
We're not going to turn back the hand of time and go back to a dark period where disinvestment was the prevailing form of governance that led to crime, closures, death, and disinvestment.
We are well beyond that point.
And so the goal of these interactions is to find the mechanisms that work effectively so that the people of Chicago can benefit from these investments.
Mayor Johnson, how are you doing?
I'm doing well, thank you.
Good.
So in the city council meeting, Alderman Maria Haddon, she praised the independence of the city council and talked about how, in her experience, a rubber stamp council is not great for the city of Chicago.
Do you agree, and what does a more independent council mean for your administration?
Well, first of all, I can tell you when the city council overwhelmingly voted in one particular direction,
we've seen some of the most egregious forms of governance, right,
whether it's schools being closed and the administration not being challenged in a forceful way by city council,
mental health clinics being closed.
Again, today we're trying to right the wrong of something that happened in 2008.
And I don't know where you were in 2008, but I would imagine you probably didn't have a beard.
I did not.
I didn't think so, right?
And so, look, whether it's the selling off of pensions or selling off of public assets,
course correcting so that, again, my children and their children won't have to be saddled
with the weight of the oppressive form of governance is what our ultimate goal is.
In terms of what that means for my administration,
it means we're building the safest, most affordable big city in America.
Think about how many homes that we're building that are affordable.
Again, green social housing.
Think about the investments that we've made to respond to homelessness in this city.
$40 million that went directly into shelters that needed an upgrade.
You know, you think about how violence has gone down in the city of Chicago.
And so I think a more cooperative government provides benefit for everyone.
But again, I believe what's most important here is that I set the vision for what the city of Chicago needs to look like in the future.
And my vision is to build the safest, most affordable big city in America, and I'm prepared to partner with whomever, whether you call yourself an independent, a democratic socialist, a traditional democrat, or maybe you're even more conservative.
Whatever political affiliation you subscribe to or declare to be, if you're committed to creating safer and more affordable communities, you'll have a partner on the fifth floor.
alternatively we may be jumping ahead of you a little bit but this group of 29 aldermen
put out their uh lines in the sand so to speak when it comes to uh the upcoming budget for the
year um they had a few things in there in your early look of it do you see anything that you're
willing to come together with them on or any moments of agreement when it comes to these
proposals? Well, first of all, this budget deficit that we're dealing with, it's less than what we
initially projected. And here's why it's less. It's because every single budgetary proposal that
I put forward for structural progressive revenue, it has overperformed. And that's a good thing.
So I at least believe that there's agreement that city council is not going to propose
fake revenue sources, because we know how irresponsible and reckless that is.
And so I think it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that whatever proposals that
we're putting forward, that it's not harming working people.
So it's going to be, you know, I think a real robust conversation, not just with city
council, but with the entire city of Chicago, which direction do we want to go in, right?
Do we want to continue to move forward with progressive revenue, challenging corporations,
Those with means to put skin in the game?
Or do we go back to a form of governance that is speculative and harmful?
And I know that the people of Chicago overwhelmingly are looking towards the future.
That's the future that I'm building is a safer and a more affordable city.
That means more mental health support services.
That means more opportunities for young people.
You know, that means building more affordable homes.
That means stronger protection for the most vulnerable amongst us.
Now, look, finally what I'll say is I'm going to always remain optimistic about city council's desire to work with my administration in a way that they, quite frankly, have not been afforded in the past.
Let's just be honest.
If you think about the daily administration, the Emanuel administration, you don't think collaboration when you think about those two.
You don't.
I mean, maybe some of you might, but, you know, I would argue and I think I would win this argument that that particular style is not only antiquated, but it's detrimental to the growth of Chicago.
And now we're experiencing growth, right?
We're experiencing growth.
Magnificent Mile is back.
There are more people visiting our city.
Our hotel occupancy is at 90 percent.
I had a friend who came in town the other week ago and could not find one room in the hotel.
Now, I told her, you can't stay with me, so you have to do the very best you can.
But as our economy continues to show its prowess, it's why it's so imperative that our budget reflects the values of working people.
And too often, unfortunately, we've had this propensity to acquiesce to corporate-aligned ideology, and that has proven over and over again to be ineffective.
So let's see this as a hopeful sign in the future that independence is not necessarily an automatic opposition to the mayor, that it really has to be.
about how we show up for working people.
That's who I'm showing up for every single day.
Hello, Mayor.
Hello.
I'm wondering if you had a beard in...
In 2008?
I actually had sideburns.
Yeah, sideburns was just goatee right there.
So looking at this letter from the alders,
one of the things we heard from Matt O'Shea in the meeting today
was he is expecting some form of head tax from your administration.
You've talked about the need for progressive revenue.
Will there be or do you anticipate the likelihood of some form of head tax,
even though it was rejected last time around, some modified form that might win more votes in the council?
Look, I'm going to present my budget in a couple of weeks,
and we're going to have ongoing conversations with members of city council around, again,
what's the surest pathway forward to provide the structural investments that are good for working people
and good for the credit ratings, right?
I mean, if you think about just the cost savings, for instance,
that I've put forth over these last three years, almost $800 million in cost savings,
just to make government far more streamlined and to make it more impactful
so the people of Chicago are benefiting from those services
and they don't have to go through a search engine to be able to access government.
In terms of, you know, what we've been able to demonstrate, again,
And if you look at all of the proposals that I put forth around revenue, they've all proven to be effective.
The only misses that we've had over the last three years is when you have speculative revenue sources that not only proven to be ineffective,
they were, I do believe it was immoral, right, to sell off, you know, debt of working people that no one took them up on.
Augmented reality.
I mean, I don't know, maybe in 50 years, maybe.
But what we cannot have is a group of alders who don't show up with any ideas.
At the very least, at least they're not showing up with ideas that have proven to be not only ineffective, but to not pan out.
So, look, my proposal will speak to the needs that the people of Chicago have.
And you know what the people of Chicago want?
They want their quality of life improved.
Now, are we moving in the right direction?
Yes.
Do we have more work to do?
Absolutely.
Did we inherit an incredible mess?
Oh, my gosh.
Absolutely.
We did. But yet somehow we're managing to pull ourselves out of this this weight, this burden that, quite frankly, has been quite oppressive to the most vulnerable in this city.
So I'm going to remain strong. And I hope that, you know, whether it's the alder that you named or any other alder, that they're committed to signing up for working people to to to to protect the interests of corporations at this particular moment and treating them like they're human beings.
It's a corporation. It's not a person. And it appears that you have individuals on city council that are more aligned and more willing to defend the rights of a corporation than defend the rights of working people.
Your budget chair, Jason Irvin, said that he would be against any kind of property tax increase. That was also part of the letter.
Where do you stand on a property tax increase? Are you taking a stand against that? Not going to go for that?
Well, listen, look, I don't believe that's the pathway to balance a budget.
Look, I've made it very clear that the structural changes that we have to make to our budget have to be progressive.
And again, I want to go back to our smart tax.
It's overperforming, even our own most modest projections here.
Here's the point, though.
It's proof, though, that when we tax those with means, we're able to deliver a better quality of life for working people.
That's the end game here.
You know, if we can make sure that no matter where you live in this city, no matter who you are, what zip code, whether you're rooting for the Cubs or Sox tonight, y'all know who I'm rooting for.
Regardless of your political position or affiliation, does your quality of life improve?
Are your schools better resourced and funded?
You know, do we have access to public goods?
Right.
Do people who are unhoused have a pathway to find housing and stability?
Small businesses, individuals who want to start their small business
and have the entrepreneur spirit that this city was established by,
do we have mechanisms to support them?
And especially when I think about these economic corridors and enclaves
on the west and south side, southwest, northwest sides of the city of Chicago,
again, the top employer outside of government of people of color and working people
are other people of color and working people, right?
So the budget really has to reflect those needs,
and that's what I put forth over and over and over again.
And I'm counting on the people of Chicago to stand shoulder to shoulder,
to push their alders, to make sure that the ultra-wealthy and the...
This city and this state pay their fair share in taxes, if we can pull that off, I am confident that not just Chicago, but the state of Illinois can be a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
Hello.
Hello.
Going back with the park meters, we can say in a certain way that selling OmniAir was key for the agreement.
How the city will ensure that in the future, Stone Peak won't acquire another airline or any other company that have any agreements with deportations and ICE?
Yeah, that's a that's a great question. I mean, that's something, you know, that I you know, I worked hard with my executive order through procurement to create stronger standards that if you do business with the city of Chicago, you cannot simultaneously harm the people of Chicago.
If taxpayers are going to, you know, provide businesses with incentive to work on behalf of taxpayers,
they cannot turn around and use those dollars to harm working people.
This is something that I believe that the city council has to continue and to remain diligent around.
But in terms of mechanisms outside of the procurement process that I've established,
there is no ordinance that's in place that I'm aware of.
But again, I think it's going to be incumbent upon all of us is to hold these corporations accountable.
Thank you for that question.
Good afternoon, Mayor.
We also heard Alderman O'Shea today say –
Now, I know you didn't have a beard in 2008, or did you?
No, I haven't.
Okay, you did not.
All right.
Your beard is very full, too, by the way.
Thank you.
Alderman O'Shea today also mentioned that he thinks that your administration will back off the advanced pension payment.
Now, I know the $882 million projected gap factors in that payment.
Yeah, so what is he talking about?
Has something changed or no?
I mean, that's a good question you should ask for him, right?
You know, because we've been very clear that, you know, generating progressive revenue to deal with the structural damage that he's very familiar with because he's been here during that time.
So if anybody would know, it would be him.
but you know this idea that we are going to you know interrupt our flow of work again i don't
know what he's projecting all i can say is this that i've made a commitment to not just hold on
to the statutorily obligated payment but to also pay the supplemental one as well and then on
Alderman Quinn's debt threshold ordinance, the proponents, some of them say that this would lead
to better structured, more responsible borrowing because the mayor would have to get a greater
consensus from Alders. Do you think that there's merit in that argument? And even if you do veto
this, is there an intent maybe to engage with those criticisms? Look, I think we can always
find ways to make government more responsive and transparent, right? Listen, I've said this to you
all in multiple occasions that the government that I inherited will not be the government that
I pass on to the next generation, right? This is not our four parents' government, right? There's
big democracy, big D, and there's small d democracy where people want to sit at the table. It's one
of the reasons why we earmarked the social media amusement responsibility tax so that people know
exactly where those tax dollars are going, and we're holding ourselves to that standard.
Think about how many times when we talk about education funding, if you're over a certain age,
you'll always hear this statement, whatever happened to the money in the lottery, right?
You hear that, and so having grown up with that experience, of course, I believe that transparency
is critical. In terms of a threshold, that's why we call it the majority, right? 26 votes is the
majority. And, you know, I believe that we can still have a robust conversation around how we
issue bonds, you know, without getting in the way of government. What we don't want is to make
government more bureaucratic, right? Because we've also seen the flip side of it. When you have
government that is overly bureaucratic, then it slows down progress. And I'm trying to move with
expediency. There are people in the city of Chicago who are hurting, and I'm with them every
single day. And all they want is a government that's going to be responsive to their day-to-day
needs to improve their quality of life. Some things is as simple as, can I count on my tree
being trimmed? Can we make sure that our alleys are supported? Can we make sure that we're creating
jobs for people you know can we open up ways in which housing can be more affordable those are
the things that they want so people want these investments and what we don't want though is a
city council that's stingy you know i grew up in the in the you know the 80s and the 90s and
if you want to piss off somebody from gen x a stingy
The person every time, which is just it's very provocative, right, especially when we have means in which we can deliver for people.
And so it's not going to be enough to create another layer of bureaucracy.
No one says that when I'm talking to people across the city.
No one stops me and says, hey, Mayor, I believe in order to build the safest, most affordable big city in America, we have to have more bureaucrats to be more bureaucratic.
Let me tell you how much we've streamlined the process, over almost $800 million that we've saved.
You know, there are fewer people who are working for the mayor's office than previous, previous administrations, I can tell you that.
And so we should not get in the way of growth and development.
We should do everything in our power to expedite development.
And I don't believe that what just happened in city council is aligned with what the people of Chicago are desiring from me as their leader.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
There are widely sponsored resolutions from both Chairman Daley at the county and Alder Lee here at the city to oppose the Amtrak deal at its current proposed location and to call for hearings on its impacts.
Are you opposed to the current Amtrak deal?
And if so, what are your concerns?
Well, the concerns that the people in the neighborhood have raised are concerns that we all should be paying attention to.
In terms of the power and the authority that the county and the city has, you know, around, you know, this federal operation,
I mean, that's something that, of course, you know, we should explore.
You know, but again, I believe it's incumbent upon the federal government, Amtrak, you know,
as well as all of the parties that are interested in helping us grow our economy,
they have to get down with the community is the bottom line.
Debates about Amtrak and data center regulations have been a wedge between Democrats and major unions.
To what extent are trade unions or the CFL pressuring you on either of those issues?
Well, listen, my responsibility in this moment is to make sure that, you know, development happens in the city of Chicago the way it's happening, but it cannot come at the expense of working people.
Right. And I don't believe that we have to trade the health and safety and security of working people for economic development.
I personally don't believe that we have to do that.
And so that's why I've put forth an executive order with stronger regulations around how data centers are explored.
Do I support a moratorium? I do.
I believe we should have a pause at least for the next year to unpack and to uncover the things that perhaps were not as readily available three, five, ten years ago.
It's clear, though, that at a time in which the city of Chicago is being celebrated
as the most resilient city on the planet, we want to protect our natural resources.
When you have 20 percent – that's not even a mic drop.
Hold on a second, Heather.
I didn't even get to the punchline yet.
But when you have 20 percent of the world's fresh water in your front yard, you want to protect that.
And the valid concerns that you raise even around Amtrak that the local community has,
Why does this not apply to the local community on the southeast side of Chicago that is overwhelmingly made up of people of color as well?
So if we're going to apply a standard where we're going to pay attention to the community concerns, then that should be applicable no matter where you are in this city.
That's the type of equity and justice that my administration is bringing along.
And for some, you know, that's an adjustment for some.
And I get that, right?
Listen, you don't overcome 40 years of gross negligence in three and a half.
You just don't.
I wish that were possible, but the harsh reality is that when you've had systems in place that have overwhelmingly only, they only speak to one entity, that's not fair, right?
And that's an imbalance there that we have to address, right?
So, look, I don't take it for granted that people want to see more development.
So do I.
And that's why on the southeast side of Chicago with the $1.25 billion economic development bond is why we're building a hospital.
It's why that campus there has the potential to really bring back a community that has had, you know, 32 years of just political structures ignoring them.
But we have to do it responsibly.
The city of Chicago is open for business.
We're not for sale.
And economic development will not come at the expense of working people, not under my watch.
Oh, gosh.
You don't broke the mic.
You know, you handle that mic.
Works them joy.
Blakemore. Yeah. My apologies. Sorry, I thought that was funny.
You use the three fifths compromise, which, of course, is a reference to the original
Constitution, counting only three of every five enslaved people as residents. Do you believe the
measure that would raise the threshold to borrow money to 30 votes on the city council or three
fifths is racially motivated in some way? Listen, I can't speak to anyone's motives.
The only thing that I can say is, because this is what was asked, who would be impacted?
And I can tell you, you know, the families on the west side of Chicago that want to see more investment
to mitigate the harms of 100-year rainfalls that continue to happen, those families would be impacted.
The small business owners on the west and south sides, southeast, northwest side of Chicago
that have received an infusion of government support to grow their businesses.
these are the people who will be impacted.
The thousands of thousands of affordable homes that we're building
to make sure that working people can live in the city of Chicago,
those are the people who will be impacted.
And so you can't have it both ways.
You can't support the very measures during previous administrations
that got us to this harm,
and now that we have a more responsible, reasonable approach
to not just issue these bonds for investment,
but we're finding ways to reconfigure them
so that we can save the taxpayers' dollars.
That's the responsibility that I believe that I bring to leadership.
And, you know, again, I can't speak to anyone's motives.
I can only speak to the impact.
And the impact would be severely detrimental to the most vulnerable, the least of these.
And those are the folks who can least afford government to get in the way of itself.
Changing topics.
The Civilian Office of Police Accountability published documents last week
that showed that an officer should face firing for what investigators found
was for raping, beating, and holding his then 19-year-old girlfriend against her will.
It took seven years for that recommendation to be made and to be made public.
Is that timeline acceptable to you?
And what do you say to the people of Chicago who question why this officer
is being paid more than $100,000 every year?
Well, first of all, to the family that was impacted by a public servant who should always work to gain and maintain the trust of the public, to the family, we are deeply sorry.
and to families who have been impacted by public servants who have breached their oath.
In terms of the timeline, I do believe that's something that we should take a deeper look at.
Quite frankly, any type of investigatory process should not leave people in limbo for an extended period of time as such.
But one of the things that we have been pressing hard is ensuring that the consent decree is implemented.
In a couple of months, all of you will be briefed on the progress that we've made to ensure that constitutional policing becomes the prevailing form.
I know that we have grown considerably over the three years since I've been in charge.
You know, and again, I do believe that we have to look at all of our processes,
especially when it comes to public servants and maintaining the public trust.
Thank you for raising that.
Hi, Mayor.
Hi.
Could you talk about the role you're playing in negotiations on PRO and FAIR?
Have you talked to Alderman Gilbert Villegas, or are you at the table on negotiations?
Well, I set the table, right?
Remember, you know, PRO was what was initiated by my administration working with a coalition, right?
And I'm grateful that, again, as I said earlier, that all of our alders have rolled up their sleeves and they're engaged in this process.
Look, there are some good people who have come to the table to help, you know, move the conversation along further.
But the most important group that's at the table is the coalition.
One of the things that the coalition expressed to the other proposal that was a reaction to ours, that they didn't consult with them.
Remember how you all asked me questions about who I spoke with and who I didn't speak with?
Here's a question that I believe that should be answered.
Why do we continue to allow corporate lobbyists to have unfettered access to decision-making
and then we ignore the voices of working people?
That's the question we should be asking.
That's the question that I've answered.
I've always said that we have to prioritize working people in this city.
There's no, you know, I don't apologize for that, right?
And it doesn't mean that it's exclusive.
There's always a seat in a room.
at the table. And so I'm going to continue to work with the coalition and all of our members
of our city council to ensure that, again, we pass an ordinance that reflects the values of
working people. We cannot roll back junk fees. We have to make sure that there is a registry there
that benefits everyone. We cannot roll back the gains that were made 40 years ago. That's the
bottom line here. And I'm going to continue to show up every single day on behalf of working
people. Do you think that, as it stands right now, that the rules included in FAIR, like the
rental registry, could be adequately enforced without a source of revenue to fund enforcement
positions? No, I don't. I mean, that's why I said it has to be funded. I'm sorry, I didn't mention
that in that last riff there, but it has to be funded. Otherwise, now you have an unfunded
mandate. We know how detrimental and harmful unfunded mandates are. We're dealing with that
with the pension crisis that I've inherited.
No real dedicated progressive revenue stream that's coming out of Springfield
to address age-old problems.
And that's what we're moving away from.
The people of Chicago have rejected that form.
And so to have individuals who are committed to just simply introducing the status quo,
i just i think we can do better is the bottom line and i'm going to remain hopeful
all right is that everyone okay hey mayor um so open ai what's your name
cade with block club block club okay i'm not normally here yes yes but you got a beard which
is important yes thank you keep them here as long as you can is uh open ai recently accessed uh
city websites, but no sensitive information was accessed, but what can you share about what was
accessed, what site, and what type of information, and is the city's tech infrastructure, you know,
prepared for AI agents and other bots that are potentially looking to access confidential
information? That's about eight questions, Mike. Well, first of all, it is my understanding,
And as you indicated, that the open AI that was made aware that it did not, you know, access unauthorized or sensitive information.
In terms of the department's capability, you know, as we move along, you know, Nick Lucius is a very capable leader of this particular division of government.
It's a strong, talented team that is constantly working to make sure that our sensitive information is protected.
And so this is going to be an ongoing effort, not just for the city of Chicago,
but for all of the globe to be far more diligent around protecting these forward-facing data spaces that are public.
So, again, I'm not aware of any sensitive information or unauthorized information being released,
and our department is going to continue to work hard to protect the people of Chicago.
All right, thank you all very much, and it should be fun tonight.
Go Cubs, and let's go get them socks as well.