This ordinance was so bad as drafted, that it apparently needed a second look:
November 19 Commentary in News Gazette.
Ideally, Prussing would have the people most able to help her craft a good ordinance working with her to solve the problem, instead of spending their time and energy having to fight her unreasonable notion of good government.
What if the Chamber of Commerce hadn't rallied the business community? I supect that took time and energy that could have been better spent solving problems and promoting our community. I suspect the proposed ordinacnce would have passed because the city (at Prussing's urging) was hell bent on passing this. The most in depth analysis you might have heard would have been from a local landlord stating, "I have no problems with this."
Where was the Urbana Business Association on this?
After the vote, I was told that Mayor Prussing cancelled a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce once she heard they would be opposing the ordinance in its proposed form. On top that, she apparently ditched a meeting to discuss the ordinance with the Urbana Business Association to discuss the ordinance (at the 11th hour).
Would the city have called a meeting to discuss the ordinace with the UBA unless the Chamber hadn't pushed back? Probably not. Wouldn't it be logically to have your local business group weigh in?
The more I hear about this, the more amazed and amused I become. Thank God for the Chamber of Commerce injecting some common sense into the process.
What if the Chamber of Commerce hadn't rallied the business community?
I suspect the proposed ordinacnce would have passed because the city (at Prussing's urging) was hell bent on passing this.
It still would have failed. Too many persons of too many political persuaions were opposed to it.
I supect that took time and energy that could have been better spent solving problems and promoting our community.
What problems do you believe have been deferred because of this?
After the vote, I was told that Mayor Prussing cancelled a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce once she heard they would be opposing the ordinance in its proposed form. On top that, she apparently ditched a meeting to discuss the ordinance with the Urbana Business Association to discuss the ordinance (at the 11th hour).
Anything reported as "I am told ..." must remain as rumor
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
You may be interested in Illinois Statutes on the subject:
Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 - 720 ILCS 5, Section 37-4 (Abatement of nuisance.)
The Attorney General of this State or the State's Attorney of the county wherein the nuisance exists may commence an action to abate a public nuisance as described in Section 37-1 of this Act, in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, in the circuit court. Upon being satisfied by affidavits or other sworn evidence that an alleged public nuisance exists, the court may without notice or bond enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to enjoin any defendant from maintaining such nuisance and may enter an order restraining any defendant from removing or interfering with all property used in connection with the public nuisance. If during the proceedings and hearings upon the merits, which shall be in the manner of "An Act in relation to places used for the purpose of using, keeping or selling controlled substances or cannabis", approved July 5, 1957, the existence of the nuisance is established, and it is found that such nuisance was maintained with the intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent permission of the owner or the agent of the owner managing the building, the court shall enter an order restraining all persons from maintaining or permitting such nuisance and from using the building for a period of one year thereafter, except that an owner, lessee or other occupant thereof may use such place if the owner shall give bond with sufficient security or surety approved by the court, in an amount between $1,000 and $5,000 inclusive, payable to the People of the State of Illinois, and including a condition that no offense specified in Section 37-1 of this Act shall be committed at, in or upon the property described and a condition that the principal obligor and surety assume responsibility for any fine, costs or damages resulting from such an offense thereafter.
(740 ILCS 105/0.01) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 0.01)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Lewdness Public Nuisance Act.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1324.)
(740 ILCS 105/1) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 1)
Sec. 1. All buildings and apartments, and all places, and the fixtures and movable contents thereof, used for purposes of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, are hereby declared to be public nuisances, and may be abated as hereinafter provided. The owners, agents, and occupants of any such building or apartment, or of any such place shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and may be enjoined as hereinafter provided.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/2) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 2)
Sec. 2. The State's Attorney or any citizen of the county in which such a nuisance exists, may file a complaint, in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, perpetually to enjoin all persons from maintaining or permitting such nuisance, and to abate the same, and to enjoin the use of such building or apartment, or such place for any purpose, for a period of one year. Upon the filing of a verified complaint therefor, in the circuit court, the court, if satisfied that the nuisance complained of exists, shall enter a preliminary injunction, with bond unless the complaint is filed by the State's Attorney, in such amount as the court may determine, enjoining the defendant from maintaining any such nuisance within the jurisdiction of the court ordering the injunctive relief. No such injunction may be entered, however, except on behalf of an owner or agent, unless it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that (1) the owner or agent of such building or apartment or of such place, knew or had been personally served with a notice signed by the plaintiff; (2) such notice has been served upon such owner or such agent of such building or apartment or place at least 5 days prior thereto; (3) such building or apartment or such place, specifically describing the same, was being so used, naming the date or dates of its being so used; and (4) such owner or agent had failed to abate such nuisance, or that upon diligent inquiry such owner or agent could not be found within the United States for the service of such preliminary notice. The lessee, if any, of the building or apartment, or of the place shall be made a party defendant to such complaint.
(Source: P.A. 83‑346.)
(740 ILCS 105/3) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 3)
Sec. 3. The defendant shall be held to answer the allegations of the complaint as in other civil proceedings. At all hearings upon the merits, evidence of the general reputation of such building or apartment or of such place, of the inmates thereof, and of those resorting thereto, shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of such nuisance. If the complaint is filed upon the relation of a citizen, the proceeding shall not be dismissed for want of prosecution, nor upon motion of such relator, unless there is filed with such motion a sworn statement made by such relator and his attorney, setting forth the reasons therefor, and unless such dismissal is approved by the State's Attorney in writing or in open court. If the court is of the opinion that such proceeding ought not to be dismissed it may overrule such motion and may enter an order directing the State's Attorney to prosecute such cause to final determination. The cause shall be heard immediately upon issue being joined, and if the hearing is continued, the court may permit any citizen of the county consenting thereto to be substituted for the original relator. If any such complaint is filed upon the relation of a citizen, and the court finds that there was no reasonable ground or cause for filing the same, the costs may be taxed against such relator.
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 3635.)
(740 ILCS 105/4) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 4)
Sec. 4. The plaintiff at any time before, but not later than 10 days after, the filing of the answer, unless further time be granted by the court, may file interrogatories in writing concerning matters material to the allegations of the complaint or respecting the ownership of the property upon which it is claimed the nuisance is maintained. A full answer to each interrogatory under the oath of the defendant shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days after a copy of the interrogatories has been served upon him or her or his or her attorney‑at‑law. For a failure to so answer interrogatories the court may strike the answer to the complaint from the files and enter an order of default and final judgment, and a rule to answer interrogatories may be entered and the court may punish a defendant for contempt of court for a refusal to obey such rule. No person shall be excused from answering interrogatories under oath on the ground that an answer may tend to incriminate him or her or subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture. The answer may be used as evidence against, but not for, the defendant; it shall not be used against the defendant in any criminal proceeding nor shall he or she be prosecuted or subjected to a penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing disclosed by him or her in such answer responsive to the interrogatories.
(Source: P.A. 83‑345.)
(740 ILCS 105/5) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 5)
Sec. 5. If the existence of the nuisance is established, the court shall enter a judgment perpetually restraining all persons from maintaining or permitting such nuisance, and from using the building or apartment, or the place in which it is maintained for any purpose for a period of one year thereafter, unless such judgment is sooner vacated, as provided in this Act, and perpetually restraining the defendant from maintaining any such nuisance within the jurisdiction of the court. While the judgment remains in effect, such building or apartment, or such place shall be in the custody of the court. An order of abatement shall also be entered as a part of such judgment, which order shall direct the sheriff of the county to remove from such building or apartment, or such place all fixtures and movable property used in conducting or aiding or abetting such nuisance, and to sell the same in the manner provided by law for the sale of chattels in the enforcement of a judgment, and to close such building or apartment or such place against its use for any purpose, and to keep it closed for a period of one year unless sooner released as hereinafter provided. The sheriff's fees for removing and selling the movable property shall be taxed as a part of the costs, and shall be the same as those for levying upon and selling like property in the enforcement of a judgment. For closing the building and keeping it closed the court shall allow a reasonable fee to be taxed as part of the costs. No injunction may be entered against an owner, nor may an order be entered requiring that any building or apartment, or any place be closed or kept closed, if it appears that such owner and his agent have in good faith endeavored to prevent such nuisance. Nothing in this Act authorizes any relief respecting any other apartment than that in which such a nuisance exists.
(Source: P.A. 84‑546.)
(740 ILCS 105/6) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 6)
Sec. 6. The proceeds of the sale of the movable property shall be applied in payment of the costs of the proceeding and of the abatement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other person having an interest in said property.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/7) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 7)
Sec. 7. In case of the violation of any injunction or order of abatement issued under the provisions of this act, the court may summarily try and punish the offender for his contempt of court. The hearing may be had upon affidavits, or either party may demand the production and oral examination of witnesses.
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 3635.)
(740 ILCS 105/8) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 8)
Sec. 8. If the owner of such building or apartment, or such place appears and pays all costs which may have been assessed, and files a bond with sureties to be approved by the clerk, in the penal sum of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, conditioned that such owner will immediately abate such nuisance and prevent such a nuisance from being established or maintained therein within a period of one year thereafter, the court shall vacate its judgment, so far as the same may relate to such building or apartment, or such place, and shall also vacate the order directing the sale of the movable property. This release shall not release such property from any judgment, lien, penalty, or liability to which it may be otherwise subject by law.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1366.)
(740 ILCS 105/9) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 9)
Sec. 9. Whenever a fine or costs shall be assessed under the provisions of this act against the owner of any property herein declared to be a public nuisance, such fine or costs shall constitute a lien upon such property to the extent of the interest of such owner, and an order of execution shall issue thereon.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/10) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 10)
Sec. 10. If any lessee or occupant shall use leased premises for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution, or shall permit them to be used for any of such purposes, the lease or contract for letting such premises shall, at the option of the lessor, become void, and the owner may have the like remedy to recover possession thereof as against a tenant holding over after the expiration of his term.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/11) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 11)
Sec. 11. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act is adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Act, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment has been rendered.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1366.)
(Source: P.A. 83-342.)
Last modified: April 4, 2006
(740 ILCS 105/0.01) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 0.01)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Lewdness Public Nuisance Act.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1324.)
(740 ILCS 105/1) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 1)
Sec. 1. All buildings and apartments, and all places, and the fixtures and movable contents thereof, used for purposes of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, are hereby declared to be public nuisances, and may be abated as hereinafter provided. The owners, agents, and occupants of any such building or apartment, or of any such place shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and may be enjoined as hereinafter provided.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/2) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 2)
Sec. 2. The State's Attorney or any citizen of the county in which such a nuisance exists, may file a complaint, in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, perpetually to enjoin all persons from maintaining or permitting such nuisance, and to abate the same, and to enjoin the use of such building or apartment, or such place for any purpose, for a period of one year. Upon the filing of a verified complaint therefor, in the circuit court, the court, if satisfied that the nuisance complained of exists, shall enter a preliminary injunction, with bond unless the complaint is filed by the State's Attorney, in such amount as the court may determine, enjoining the defendant from maintaining any such nuisance within the jurisdiction of the court ordering the injunctive relief. No such injunction may be entered, however, except on behalf of an owner or agent, unless it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that (1) the owner or agent of such building or apartment or of such place, knew or had been personally served with a notice signed by the plaintiff; (2) such notice has been served upon such owner or such agent of such building or apartment or place at least 5 days prior thereto; (3) such building or apartment or such place, specifically describing the same, was being so used, naming the date or dates of its being so used; and (4) such owner or agent had failed to abate such nuisance, or that upon diligent inquiry such owner or agent could not be found within the United States for the service of such preliminary notice. The lessee, if any, of the building or apartment, or of the place shall be made a party defendant to such complaint.
(Source: P.A. 83‑346.)
(740 ILCS 105/3) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 3)
Sec. 3. The defendant shall be held to answer the allegations of the complaint as in other civil proceedings. At all hearings upon the merits, evidence of the general reputation of such building or apartment or of such place, of the inmates thereof, and of those resorting thereto, shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of such nuisance. If the complaint is filed upon the relation of a citizen, the proceeding shall not be dismissed for want of prosecution, nor upon motion of such relator, unless there is filed with such motion a sworn statement made by such relator and his attorney, setting forth the reasons therefor, and unless such dismissal is approved by the State's Attorney in writing or in open court. If the court is of the opinion that such proceeding ought not to be dismissed it may overrule such motion and may enter an order directing the State's Attorney to prosecute such cause to final determination. The cause shall be heard immediately upon issue being joined, and if the hearing is continued, the court may permit any citizen of the county consenting thereto to be substituted for the original relator. If any such complaint is filed upon the relation of a citizen, and the court finds that there was no reasonable ground or cause for filing the same, the costs may be taxed against such relator.
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 3635.)
(740 ILCS 105/4) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 4)
Sec. 4. The plaintiff at any time before, but not later than 10 days after, the filing of the answer, unless further time be granted by the court, may file interrogatories in writing concerning matters material to the allegations of the complaint or respecting the ownership of the property upon which it is claimed the nuisance is maintained. A full answer to each interrogatory under the oath of the defendant shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days after a copy of the interrogatories has been served upon him or her or his or her attorney‑at‑law. For a failure to so answer interrogatories the court may strike the answer to the complaint from the files and enter an order of default and final judgment, and a rule to answer interrogatories may be entered and the court may punish a defendant for contempt of court for a refusal to obey such rule. No person shall be excused from answering interrogatories under oath on the ground that an answer may tend to incriminate him or her or subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture. The answer may be used as evidence against, but not for, the defendant; it shall not be used against the defendant in any criminal proceeding nor shall he or she be prosecuted or subjected to a penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing disclosed by him or her in such answer responsive to the interrogatories.
(Source: P.A. 83‑345.)
(740 ILCS 105/5) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 5)
Sec. 5. If the existence of the nuisance is established, the court shall enter a judgment perpetually restraining all persons from maintaining or permitting such nuisance, and from using the building or apartment, or the place in which it is maintained for any purpose for a period of one year thereafter, unless such judgment is sooner vacated, as provided in this Act, and perpetually restraining the defendant from maintaining any such nuisance within the jurisdiction of the court. While the judgment remains in effect, such building or apartment, or such place shall be in the custody of the court. An order of abatement shall also be entered as a part of such judgment, which order shall direct the sheriff of the county to remove from such building or apartment, or such place all fixtures and movable property used in conducting or aiding or abetting such nuisance, and to sell the same in the manner provided by law for the sale of chattels in the enforcement of a judgment, and to close such building or apartment or such place against its use for any purpose, and to keep it closed for a period of one year unless sooner released as hereinafter provided. The sheriff's fees for removing and selling the movable property shall be taxed as a part of the costs, and shall be the same as those for levying upon and selling like property in the enforcement of a judgment. For closing the building and keeping it closed the court shall allow a reasonable fee to be taxed as part of the costs. No injunction may be entered against an owner, nor may an order be entered requiring that any building or apartment, or any place be closed or kept closed, if it appears that such owner and his agent have in good faith endeavored to prevent such nuisance. Nothing in this Act authorizes any relief respecting any other apartment than that in which such a nuisance exists.
(Source: P.A. 84‑546.)
(740 ILCS 105/6) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 6)
Sec. 6. The proceeds of the sale of the movable property shall be applied in payment of the costs of the proceeding and of the abatement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other person having an interest in said property.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/7) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 7)
Sec. 7. In case of the violation of any injunction or order of abatement issued under the provisions of this act, the court may summarily try and punish the offender for his contempt of court. The hearing may be had upon affidavits, or either party may demand the production and oral examination of witnesses.
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 3635.)
(740 ILCS 105/8) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 8)
Sec. 8. If the owner of such building or apartment, or such place appears and pays all costs which may have been assessed, and files a bond with sureties to be approved by the clerk, in the penal sum of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, conditioned that such owner will immediately abate such nuisance and prevent such a nuisance from being established or maintained therein within a period of one year thereafter, the court shall vacate its judgment, so far as the same may relate to such building or apartment, or such place, and shall also vacate the order directing the sale of the movable property. This release shall not release such property from any judgment, lien, penalty, or liability to which it may be otherwise subject by law.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1366.)
(740 ILCS 105/9) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 9)
Sec. 9. Whenever a fine or costs shall be assessed under the provisions of this act against the owner of any property herein declared to be a public nuisance, such fine or costs shall constitute a lien upon such property to the extent of the interest of such owner, and an order of execution shall issue thereon.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/10) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 10)
Sec. 10. If any lessee or occupant shall use leased premises for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution, or shall permit them to be used for any of such purposes, the lease or contract for letting such premises shall, at the option of the lessor, become void, and the owner may have the like remedy to recover possession thereof as against a tenant holding over after the expiration of his term.
(Source: Laws 1915, p. 371.)
(740 ILCS 105/11) (from Ch. 100 1/2, par. 11)
Sec. 11. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act is adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Act, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment has been rendered.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1366.)
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
For starters, who's to blame – the tenants or the landlord? What if the city ordinance, as it does in Urbana, prohibits landlords from running criminal background checks on potential tenants?
Well, I guess I was right after all. Next, maybe the N-G will examine the state of affairs leading to:
Popular Neighborhood Bar & Grill for Sale (Urbana IL)
Moëtry in the Potion
"It still would have failed. Too many persons of too many political persuaions were opposed to it."
I think you are wrong. It would have been the Mayor Prussing show and it would have passed easily. Who would been the ones providing real world common sense perspective in that council room? City Staff - no, they were pushing it. Prussing - hell no. You even said you had no problems with it after reading it through. What person was opposed to it that was not tipped off by the Chamber of Commerce who explained? How did the N-G find out about it? How did B is for Business find out about it? Who pointed out the analysis that caused you to change your mind? Who pointed out the analysis that convinced the Urbana liberals how silly the ordinance was?
This time around the N-G isn't printing commentary on actual silliness. Because of the Chamber and business people injecting common sense into the process, we are talking about proposed ordinance and pretending that it would failed because magically people of too many political persuasions would have all come to their senses without any help. That same help that convinced you to change your mind.
Hadn't the council already decided not to pass it a year ago in its previous form, before the CCCC was even involved? The mayor didn't have enough votes to get it through last year, so it didn't come to a vote. Why presume she did this year?
"Hadn't the council already decided not to pass it a year ago in its previous form, before the CCCC was even involved?"
I was under the impression that this was the first try for the ordinance in the proposed format. Can anyone please provide more information on this claim?
You even said you had no problems with it after reading it through.
As the last speaker providing public input on the matter, I stated the concern that the ordinance as written, requires the owner of a property designated as a problem to meet with city officials to make a paln for dealing with the problem, but can hold the property accountable if no agreement could be reached.
Oops!! I forgot to log on before making the above post
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
"As the last speaker providing public input on the matter, I stated the concern that the ordinance as written, requires the owner of a property designated as a problem to meet with city officials to make a paln for dealing with the problem, but can hold the property accountable if no agreement could be reached. "
I'm dissapointed that you could not come up with any conflicts of common sense with the ordiance until the experts pointed them out to you. Thank God for those experts.
I, and most likely all deities (whether or not they have capitalized names), are disappointed and amused that you quixotically and inaccurately dubbed those who spoke before me as experts. None of them displayed to the Council any personal expertise about similar ordinances in other jurisdictions.
Those who spoke before me objected to the ordinance for peripheral reasons, such as (a) three police calls makes it too easy for a property to be declared a nuisance, (b)as property owners, not wanting to be held responsible for behavior of others over whom they have no control, (c) tenants may have no control over visitors who perpetrate criminal acts.
An ordinance that requires a property owner to meet with city officials after three police calls is innocuous. I suggested that any ordinance passed should specify what actions the city could suggest for a plan. If the city and owner agree on actions to be taken, and if the owner does not carry out the agreed actions, the owner should be penalized. My objection was that if the city staff and owner cannot agree upon either the need for a plan or the actions contained within a plan, the ordinance, as written, puts the owner in immediate violation.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
After reading Mr. Pope's letter to the editor which was entered in the record at the meeting, yes, I would refer to him as an expert.
After learning that the Chamber task force included prominent developers and landlords, yes, I would refer to them as experts.
After reading the professional and extensive analysis that was put forth by the Chamber task force, yes, I would refer to them as experts.
After listening the president of the CCCC suggest that the city leverage the Chamber's expertise, yes, I think she made a great point.
While you are trying to narrow down your argument and condition it with "those who spoke", keep in mind the council members indicated (before dicussion even started) that they were pulling the proposed ordiance. I believe it was because of the Chamber and the time volunteered by local experts to point out what was wrong with the ordinance.
Many of the people who spoke in opposition to the ordiance were simply concerned business people who were concerned how the ordinance might impact them.
"My objection was that if the city staff and owner cannot agree upon either the need for a plan or the actions contained within a plan, the ordinance, as written, puts the owner in immediate violation."
I was under the impression that you initially had no problems with the ordinance after reading it. What changed your mind? I'll have to go back and see if I still have the meeting recorded, I thought you didn't have any problems with the ordinance until after the opposition presented their argument. Not that that's a bad thing, I just firmly beleive that this opposition would not have been effective if it hadn't been for the business community proactively fighting a silly ordinance. I firmly believe this ordinance would have passed easily without that opposition.
Yes, Thank God the experts got involved in the process. Hopefully they continue to stay engaged on silly ideas like the vacant building stuff that was proposed in Champaign.
"Hopefully they continue to stay engaged on silly ideas like the vacant building stuff that was proposed in Champaign. "
You mean M2?
Who you call experts, I call persons/groups who have researched an issue enough to express an opinion worth listening to, whether or not one agrees. "Prominent developers and landlords" have no inherent expertise--they are merely a vested interest group
I thought you didn't have any problems with the ordinance until after the opposition presented their argument.
To find out why I changed my mind before the Council meeting, refer to my November 10th, 2009 at 09:43 AM post on the thread "People Commit Crimes, Properties Do NOT!" which you certainly did read. Your sentence (and most sentences) that start with "I thought you ...." is innuendo. Your flippant use of innuendo should make us scrutinize any "facts" or "recollections" you state in subsequent posts on this forum (whichever side of the disccussion you take).
I just firmly believe that this opposition would not have been effective if it hadn't been for the business community
Each of us are entitled to our beliefs. I consider the Chambers' voice just one of multiple voices at the Council meeting which, in the presence of no voices supporting the ordinance, collectively led to the Council's prudent decision to discard the ordinance as it had been written.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
I think readers are smart enough to determine what is fact, hearsay, innuendo, question, statement, etc. Also, the readers are smart enough to understand that someone posting anonymously is posting anonymously.
So basically you came to your senses after Corbin pointed out some major flaws with the ordinance. Thank God the Chamber sent that email to a member, who forwarded it to me, who posted it on the IP, so that Corbin could weigh in, and help convince you. Without the business lobby getting that ball rolling, the city council might have been thinking:
On November 9th, 2009 at 04:30 PM, mjerryfuerst said:
I have read the ordinance. Nothing bothers me about it.
Is it safe to assume that you did not make any statement about the ordinace when you addressed the council before getting up again the second time after everyone spoke?
I was told (that is a third party stating an opinion in case you're not smart enough to figure that out on your own without Mr. Fuerst explaining the obvious to you), that the Chamber played a critical role in all this and made all the difference.
"I consider the Chambers' voice just one of multiple voices at the Council meeting which, in the presence of no voices supporting the ordinance, collectively led to the Council's prudent decision to discard the ordinance as it had been written. "
I wonder how many people from the opposition were there as a result of the Chamber's advocacy efforts? I wonder what the atmosphere in the room would have been like without that advocacy.
So basically you came to your senses after Corbin pointed out some major flaws with the ordinance.
No. Corbon identified how the draft ordinance could, in one way, be misused--which made me decide that it would be better for the council not to approve the ordinance in the form as proposed.
Without the business lobby getting that ball rolling, the city council might have been thinking:
My, or anyone else's initial indifference to the ordinance expressed in the IP forum, assuming such were known to city council members, would not influence any votes one way or the other
I was told (that is a third party stating an opinion in case you're not smart enough to figure that out on your own without Mr. Fuerst explaining the obvious to you), that the Chamber played a critical role in all this and made all the difference.
You've adopted another's most likely inaccurate and specious opinion.
I wonder how many people from the opposition were there as a result of the Chamber's advocacy efforts?
To answer this, those individuals who spoke against ordinance would need to be polled. I suspect we have different opinions on how that poll would turn out.. However, such a poll would most likely neither confirm nor reject the hypothetical "Chamber's critical role," since no speaker supported the ordinance..
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
I think you are failing to see the big picture if you don't think the Chamber played a critical role in this effort. Maybe Corbon can explain it you?
I would bet good money that those who came out in opposition were tipped off by the Chamber or read Kip Pope's (on the Chamber task force) guest editorial in the N-G. You would not have read Corbon's opinion if it had not been for the Chamber.
I think ....
You are what you think (and eat). .
I would bet good money...
This remains speculation.
You would not have read Corbon's opinion if it had not been for the Chamber.
Even if true, this does not establish that either the Chamber's role or my statement before the Council opposing the ordinance were essential to the ordinance's rejection.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
People who talk to people and who can see the big picture "get it". The non-experts you refer to didn't need any help identifying serious problems with the ordinance. When you talk to more people and start to figure it out, you'll come around. I understand your reluctance to trust an anonymous blogger, but get out there and ask around. You'll see.
Again, not everyone needs the obvious explained to them. People can comprehend speculation vs. fact. At some point, you might want to consider giving people credit.
People who talk to people and who can see the big picture "get it".
In this discussion, the only big picture is how the city should deal with the very few properties that become infested with repeated criminal activity.
Please explain your intended meaning of "big picture" and "get it."
The non-experts you refer to didn't need any help identifying serious problems with the ordinance.
This statement contains two questionable assumptions: (a) that the ordinance had "serious" problems and (b) that all those who opposed the ordinance did so without discussions with others.
People can comprehend speculation vs. fact.
In general no. People can identify speculation at the moment the speculation is heard. A person who has been bombarded by fact and speculation aboout an issue, when subequently forming an opinion, will do so using an individually unique concoction of the fact and speculation. If this were not the case, then there would not be self-serving people (and anonymous and pseudonymed blog posters) who spew speculation in the hope that others will lose sight of the facts.
I understand your reluctance to trust an anonymous blogger, ....
Anonymous and otherwise nameless bloggers merit distrust. The only possibly justifiable reason for anonymity on this forum is fear of one's employment. I speculate that this does not apply to B is for Business.
... but get out there and ask around. .
There? Where ? Asking the anonymous and those with pseudonyms are biased sources of dubious "facts."
At some point, you might want to consider giving people credit.
Certainly. In regards to this ordinance, anyone who discussed the ordinance with others (whether or not I agree with their logic or reasons) and those who listened to the various arguments and decided to oppose the ordinance as proposed, including the city council members, deserve credit. The process worked in an ideal manner.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
"Please explain your intended meaning of "big picture" and "get it.""
People who can look at an ordinace and see the obvious flaws with it and people who don't need much help to appreciate the critical role the Chamber played. This example is obvious. People who ask around like I did are going to realize very quickly how right I am. If you pretend that the Chamber was just one voice in this, it is not worth any more of my time trying to convince you.
People who can look at an ordinace and see the obvious flaws. [which seems to be your definition of "big picture"]
Most of the speakers at the council meeting focused on only one flaw which they as individuals, or the group they representd felt existed .
... people who don't need much help to appreciate the critical role the Chamber played. [which seems to be your definition of "get it"]
It certainly is fact rather than speculation that you believe that the Chamber's role was "critical" .
Your answer indicates that you have coined defintions of "big picture" and "get it" unique to this discussion.
This example is obvious.
It certainly is fact rather than speculation that you have convinced yourself that "This example is obvious," although whatever "this" is an "example" of remains unstated by you and is thus cannot be "obvious" to anyone else.
People who ask around like I did are going to realize very quickly how right I am.
Someone who pompously claims to "ask around" should not need to use a pseudonym.
Please describe your definition of and your process of "asking around"
What pseudonym do you use when "asking around?"
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
B is for Business wrote: ...are going to realize very quickly how right I am.
B is for Business has come across in this discussion with mjerry as extraordinarily pompous.
"B is for Business has come across in this discussion with mjerry as extraordinarily pompous."
B is for Business is extraordinarily pompous. Especially when I'm right.
B is for Business is extraordinarily pompous. Especially when I'm right.
We have never doubted that you were Right. Far Right
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Clarification: B is for Business has come across in this discussion with mjerry as having very poor and unconvincing arguments which neither improve nor become valid by his declaring "....I'm right."
And don't you forget it.
The Chamber has more than 1200 business members county wide.
Their Board voted unanimously to oppose the ordiance and coordinate the opposition.
The Chamber met with all the city council members except Mayor Prussing who cancelled in protest.
The Chamber coordinated meetings with the N-G editorial Board.
The Chamber coordinated efforts with the Association of Realtors and Apartment Association.
Kip Pope, from the Chamber Task Force, wrote a guest editorial.
The Chamber sent notifications that were forwarded to me and therefore getting on the Pundit. Thank God Corbon took the time to read and comment.
The Chamber coordinated efforts to show opposition to the ordinance in the council meeting.
The Chamber got through the council members because of their professional analysis and respectful and constructive dialogue.
The council members are setting up meetings with Chamber Task Force members to work towards a solution.
Ok, I'll concede, the Chamber was just one voice and played a marginal role.
Yeah right!
If the Chamber hadn't done all that, I have little doubt in my mind that I never would have heard about the issue until it passed and I read about it the N-G the next day.
If the Chamber hadn't done all that, I have little doubt in my mind that I never would have heard about the issue until it passed and I read about it in the N-G the next day.
As mjerry said, you are what you think. Your suggestion that you, one of our most vigilant followers of local affairs, might otherwise "have never heard about this" is the most absurd of your weak arguments in this thread.
Depsite the Herculean efforts of the Chamber that you allege, but have not ben confirmed, watching the council meeting clearly indicates that the sense of the Council at the meeting's start was to pass the ordinance. Several speakers appeared, none of whom supported the ordinance, the majority of whom had no connection to the Chamber. mjerry gave the most succinct reason why the ordinance should not be passed, and after he spoke belatedly, at least two council members seemd to have an "Aha!!" experience. Since he originally spoke on a different matter, it was an accident that he was even there. So mjerry may have unwittingly been the critical factor.
"Depsite the Herculean efforts of the Chamber that you allege, but have not ben confirmed, watching the council meeting clearly indicates that the sense of the Council at the meeting's start was to pass the ordinance."
So you admit that the efforts I listed should be classified as hurculean. I agree and THANK YOU for pointing this out!
No, the Council was going to pull the ordiance back because of all the work by the Chamber leading up the meeting. They said at the start of the meeting that they were going to take it off the table and bring it back after the holidays. It was not the voices in the room that convinced them or any alleged "a-ha moment". By the time the Chamber went through the process, Prussing's version of a solution was DOA.
If Mr. Fuerst was the indivual who provided the "a-ha" analysis, I'm sure the council is contacting him for his help like they are members of the Chamber Task Force.
Not only did the business lobby take the fight all the way home and impress the hell out of me, the debate now is not whether the role of the Chamber was Herculean in this effort, it is simply being able to prove that what I listed actually happened.
In fairness, I think you point out something very interesting. I think the Chamber membership would appreciate knowing how effective their lobbying effort was. I bet it would attract more members!
There is not too much for a business person to celebrate anymore living in Illinois. This was a very nice and early Xmas present by the Chamber of Commerce.
So you admit that the efforts I listed should be classified as hurculean.
No, it helps if you read the posts of others before responding. I stated that you alleged that the Chambers efforts were Herculean. Actually, as mjerry has ably argued, they were just one of several voices on this issue.
The voices in the room indeed convinced the Council.
....I'm sure the council is contacting him for his help like they are members of the Chamber Task Force.
Speculation on your part to further obsfucate reality. Why do you think it follows that the Council is consulting Mr Fuerst? Have you confirmed your (what I think is a bizarre) pronouncment with anyone other than your own imagination?
... and impress the hell out of me
You are the only one who has been impressed.
I think the Chamber membership would appreciate knowing how effective their lobbying effort was.
Considering the discussion here, you will be the sole member of the appreciation delegation.
The council indicated at the start of the meeting that they were going to pull the ordinance at the very beginning of the meeting, before any public input on the subject. This is easy to prove by watching meeting footage. At the end of the meeting, they ended up agreeing to do what they said they were going to do at the beginning of the meeting, before any public input.
"The voices in the room indeed convinced the Council."
Considering it's so easy to prove you wrong on this, is there anything else you'd like to debate? I prefer a challenge.
I prefer a challenge.
You have so far failed to demonstrate your original premise that Chamber of Commerce played a "critical" role in the proposed ordinance's failure to pass.
Then by judging from what you can see clearly from meeting footage, you should at least be able to conclude that feedback provided to the council members before the meeting influenced them to pull it off the table. If you can at least admit to that much, then all you have to do is determine who was lobbying the council beforehand.
Feel free to pretend that the following was not critical:
- The Chamber met with all the city council members except Mayor Prussing who cancelled in protest.
- The Chamber coordinated meetings with the N-G editorial Board.
- The Chamber coordinated efforts with the Association of Realtors and Apartment Association.
- Kip Pope, from the Chamber Task Force, wrote a guest editorial.
- The Chamber sent notifications that were forwarded to me and therefore getting on the Pundit. Thank God Corbon took the time to read and comment.
- The Chamber coordinated efforts to show opposition to the ordinance in the council meeting.
- The Chamber got through the council members because of their professional analysis and respectful and constructive dialogue.
- The council members are setting up meetings with Chamber Task Force members to work towards a solution.
Sorry B... Helpful, certainly important, but not critical
- The Chamber met with all the city council members except Mayor Prussing who canceled in protest.
Others met with the council.
- The Chamber coordinated meetings with the N-G editorial Board.
Irrelevant. The Urbana Council does care what the N-G says
- The Chamber coordinated efforts with the Association of Realtors and Apartment Association.
Those groups would have spoke out independently
- Kip Pope, from the Chamber Task Force, wrote a guest editorial.
Given the poor quality of his argument, he's lucky the Council did not pass the ordinance.
- The Chamber sent notifications that were forwarded to me and therefore getting on the Pundit. Thank God Corbon took the time to read and comment.
Why are you so obsessed with Corbon and your Deity ? Unless you tell us how many council members saw Corbon's comment, this had no effect
- The Chamber coordinated efforts to show opposition to the ordinance in the council meeting.
This is vague and appears to be a summary of your previous speculations
- The Chamber got through the council members because of their professional analysis and respectful and constructive dialogue.
Speculation
- The council members are setting up meetings with Chamber Task Force members to work towards a solution.
Council members are also talking to others. This relates to the future, not to the Council's recent discussion of this issue
Your arguments still fail. To establish that the Chamber's alleged action(s) were critical, you need to establish that the actions by the Chamber you allege actually occurred, and that without the Chamber's alleged actions the ordinance would have passed.
In this case, an appropriate definiton of critical is that the Council would have passed the ordinance as written had the Chamber had not taken the actions you allege it did. Sorry B is for B. You have fallen far short in arguing this successfully. There was too much other opposition.
Addressing the items in your most recent post
- The Chamber met with all the city council members except Mayor Prussing who cancelled in protest.
You are the only source of this. You
You regularly mix hearsay into your posts.
Confirmation beyond your declaration is needed.
- The Chamber coordinated meetings with the N-G editorial Board.
Please explain wat you mean by "coordinated"
The Urbana City Council could care less what the N-G editorializes
The N-G would have taken the same position without Chamber involvement
- The Chamber coordinated efforts with the Association of Realtors and Apartment Association.
Hearsay, for now.
- Kip Pope, from the Chamber Task Force, wrote a guest editorial.
He is lucky that his weak arguments did not entice the Council to pass the ordinance
- The Chamber sent notifications that were forwarded to me and therefore getting on the Pundit. Thank God Corbon took the time to read and comment.
Posts on the Pundit have no effect on Council member thinking.
- The Chamber coordinated efforts to show opposition to the ordinance in the council meeting.
We have no idea what this entailed. The Council's decision would not have changed with a deity's intervention
- The Chamber got through the council members because of their professional analysis and respectful and constructive dialogue.
Your opinion
- The council members are setting up meetings with Chamber Task Force members to work towards a solution.
Applicable to the future, not to the vote that was taken