Editorial: Mayor Brandon Johnson should not veto snap curfews
On Wednesday, Chicago's City Council passed by a vote of 27-22 an ordinance authorizing so-called 'snap curfews,' meaning that Chicago police will have the authority to get teenagers off the streets if they sense trouble is brewing. In essence, police Superintendent Larry Snelling would have the power to impose curfews in specific public areas within Chicago where large, unpermitted teen gatherings are beginning, or expected soon to form. The idea is that police officers would be able to tell those already assembled that they have 30 minutes either to go home or take a walk with just a couple of friends elsewhere.
Mayor Brandon Johnson blasted the ordinance approved by a clear majority of aldermen and said he planned to issue a rare mayoral veto (the first since 2006, the Richard M. Daley era) in coming days.
He should rethink that idea.
We're aware of arguments against giving the police this power, especially given our long-standing interest in guarding civil liberties. We've been concerned about a couple of kids being inside a movie theater, for example, only to walk out onto the street without knowing about any curfew and then finding themselves in conflict with the police. We're also of the view that law-abiding teens must be welcomed downtown and that there is nothing illegal in gathering with friends on a warm summer's night, shooting the breeze. That's why we were against making the existing 10 p.m. curfew for Under 17s any earlier, and why we applaud Jahmal Cole, founder and CEO of 'My Block, My Hood, My City,' who is planning to bring over 1,500 teens, primarily from the South and West sides, into the business and cultural districts of downtown Chicago on July 19 for what he calls 'a day of exploration, belonging and new opportunities.'
This will be the third year the nonprofit organization also known as M3 will have chaperoned an initiative powered by donors and volunteers; we hear Cole expects to have more participants than ever this year. The plan is both to make these teens feel like they belong downtown, as they should, and also to start to shift some negative perceptions among downtown business owners and workers. We hope everyone has a great time together.
But there is often a tradeoff between civil liberties and crime prevention and, where minors are concerned, protection must come first. If it is handled right, this new police power might actually keep kids safer by pre-empting any trouble before it happens. And to think that there is no danger of such trouble when teens gather en masse downtown is to put your head in the sand when it comes to the lessons of recent history, especially as hot summer nights are upon us. Johnson claimed that the ordinance, introduced by Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), 'is counterproductive to the progress that we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city.'
With all due respect, we don't see the merit of that argument. It should be seen as a tool. And let's remember that incidents of violent crime don't just affect tourists or the business district — they're usually worse for the kids caught up in any melee. No parent or grandparent wants a teen to get stuck around a group of hot-headed peers who might encourage them to do things they later have cause to regret and that impairs the progress of their promising young lives. Such scenarios typically terrify a teenager's loved ones.
Perhaps most importantly here, the city's aldermen, many of whom represent the impacted families and know their communities very well, are telling the mayor loud and clear that they this protection, not just for folks downtown but for the kids themselves. And the vote would suggest that these aldermen of the majority, such as Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd), trust Snelling to guard against any problems, which will mean using the ordinance very sparingly, offering as much advance notice as possible and focusing on de-escalation. Snelling already has said in several interviews that he will commit to that.
Good. And if no snap curfew is ever needed this summer, all the better.
Still, whatever his ideological misgivings or sense of being personally affronted, the mayor would be wise to listen to the City Council and add this ordinance to the police's toolbox for keeping everyone safe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
20 hours ago
- New York Post
How Eric Adams can ask NYC for a second chance — and fend off Zohran Mamdani
After laying low during primary-campaign season, Mayor Eric Adams is once again the most important man in New York City. He may have also been the second-happiest person to see Tuesday's shock primary-election results. Faced with the very real possibility of avowed socialist Zohran Mamdani taking the reins of the nation's biggest city, Adams knows that a broad swath of voters will give him a second look — and maybe, after a bumpy term in office, a second chance. For all of Mamdani's impressive success, he collected 432,305 of the primary's first-rank choices (with 93% of the vote counted). But the city has 5.1 million registered voters — and 1.78 million of them couldn't vote in Tuesday's Democratic contest at all. Winning under 10% of the total electorate doesn't necessarily translate to a ringing mandate, or a general-election landslide. In launching his re-election bid, Adams is making the case that he's accomplished more than he's gotten credit for in a distracted media environment. He has a point. Thanks to the vigilance and competence of his police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, the city's murders are down about 27% so far in 2025. If the trend holds up, this year will break records for the fewest homicides in New York's recorded history. Subway murders, too, have dropped to just one so far this year, with total major transit felonies down nearly 4% through May. Adams can also point to some bad hands he was dealt early on, situations that are now mostly gone. He took office amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and just a few months into his administration, busloads of migrants began arriving from the Southern border. New York City's right-to-shelter law — grounded in a 44-year-old consent decree — meant Adams had to find beds for all of them, ultimately costing the city over $7 billion. He couldn't just wave that law away. Modifying it would have required lengthy negotiations and court approval. Should he have done more to challenge the decree in court, given the unprecedented circumstances? Sure. Did he rely too much on questionable emergency contracts? Yes. But the law's the law. Finding shelter beds for thousands of people a week would prove challenging and expensive for even the most able administrator. Adams also managed to secure a key concession: limiting single adult migrants to a 30-day stay, which helped bring down the shelter population from its peak of over 69,000 to about 37,000 today. On housing, the mayor's City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan, passed by the City Council in December, was the biggest change to the city's land-use rules since 1961. It opens opportunities for the private market to build new housing across the city, which will gradually result in 82,000 new units over 15 years. So Adams has a shot in November's general election. After all, he's won before — and he still has the mayor's bully pulpit. But he's going to need to form a new coalition that builds on his success in 2021, when he brought outer-borough black and Hispanic workers together with union workers and moderates worried about crime. Despite Mamdani's emphasis on affordability, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo won the low-income vote Tuesday. Most of those voters will likely migrate to Adams. The mayor will also need to ring up huge numbers in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods — which supported Cuomo by margins as high as 80% — whose residents are alarmed by the prospect of a Mamdani mayoralty. Adams can point to his new Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism as proof he's standing up to protect the city's Jews, using a power only a sitting mayor has. And he'd have to whip up enthusiasm among Asian voters threatened by Mamdani's support for eliminating the SHSAT, the screening exam for the city's specialized high schools. Adams, by contrast, has protected those elite schools and other opportunities for accelerated learning. Yet hurdles remain. Even voters concerned about Mamdani's inexperience and antisemitism may find it hard to forget Adams' federal indictment and the corruption scandals that engulfed his top aides. And the most likely path to victory for Adams relies on other candidates exiting the field so as not to split the moderate vote — which so far is not happening. That means Cuomo would have to refrain from running on his independent ballot line — and Republican Curtis Sliwa, whose prospects are slim despite his personal likability and crime-fighting integrity, would also have to give up his campaign. How? They could move out of the city and declare a new domicile, theoretically disqualifying them under the election law's residency requirement. Gov. Kathy Hochul might also offer Cuomo an interim judicial appointment to clear him from the race. Then it will be up to New Yorkers to decide: Does Eric Adams deserve a second term — or is the city truly ready for socialism? John Ketcham is director of cities and a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
City of Lubbock to host public hearing over proposed changes to citizen's Impact Fees
The City of Lubbock is considering changes to Impact Fees and is seeking public input through hosting a public hearing in July. According to the city, the Land Use Assumptions & Capital Improvements Plan public hearing will be on July 8, at Citizens Tower during the Lubbock City Council's regularly scheduled meeting. Others are reading: Day 5 budget talks: County facing looming federal deadline for ADA website requirements The public hearing is scheduled to start after the council reconvenes from executive session. During the public hearing, the council will consider: The land use assumptions. The capital improvements plan. The imposition of an impact fee. The maximum amount of each proposed roadway impact fee per service unit will be as follows: Service Area A: $1,714 / vehicle-mile Service Area B: $921 / vehicle-mile Service Area C: $1,745 / vehicle-mile Service Area D: $1,283 / vehicle-mile Service Area E: $1,728 / vehicle-mile Service Area F: $2,233 / vehicle-mile Service Area G: $701 / vehicle-mile Service Area H: $0 / vehicle-mile However, the proposed changes from the City's Capital Improvement Advisory Committee are: Service Areas A-F: 50% of maximum. Service Area G: $0 / vehicle-mile Service Area H: $0 / vehicle-mile A second public hearing for the adoption of the Impact Fees will be held on July 22. According to the Texas Local Government Code, Impact Fees are "a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision [i.e., a city] against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development." According to the city, the general public does not pay impact fees, but it's rather a one-time charge to builders constructing a new development. Others are reading: When will 19th Street, Loop 88 be done in Lubbock? Here's what TxDOT has to say This allows for the city to accommodate new growth by having funds to install larger sewer pipes and adding more lanes of roadways. However, maintenance of the installed infrastructure is funded through taxes and user fees. For more information, visit: Mateo Rosiles is the Government & Public Policy reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip for him? Email him: mrosiles@ This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Lubbock City Council to host public hearing on changes to Impact Fees
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
New Houston Ordinance Targets 24/7 Ban On Outdoor Homeless Sleeping
(Texas Scorecard) – During a press conference this week, Larry Satterwhite with Houston's Office of Emergency Management announced a proposed 24/7 ban on sleeping on sidewalks in certain neighborhoods—starting with downtown and the East End. The move would update Houston's existing 'civility ordinance,' which currently prohibits sleeping in public spaces from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., but allows it during overnight hours. That ordinance, first passed in 2001, has gradually expanded to cover more neighborhoods, including Riverside Terrace, which was added just last year. If approved by the city council, the new version would ban outdoor sleeping around the clock in covered areas. 'The mayor is on board. With city council approval, we'll say: Not anymore. Not in this area,' Satterwhite said. While the policy is expected to improve neighborhood appearance and safety, officials emphasized that the ultimate goal is to help individuals experiencing homelessness move off the streets and into safer environments. Satterwhite noted that the city's approach has evolved—where past efforts focused primarily on offering permanent housing before clearing encampments, the new strategy includes offering shelter beds as an immediate first step. 'We're offering them a bed. A place for them to go at night,' he said, adding that limited bed availability is the reason the 24/7 ban will begin with just two neighborhoods. The city is working in coordination with Harris County, METRO, and other partners to raise additional funding to expand shelter access. In addition to the ordinance, the city plans to establish a network of 'hubs'—drop-in sites across Houston where unhoused individuals can access resources and be connected with shelter. 'The plan is to expand,' Satterwhite said. 'As we get more resources, more funding, more beds, more ability, we'll expand that out to the other zones. We'll eventually expand out to the city … We want to solve homelessness.' The announcement came on the same day U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner visited Houston to meet with Mayor John Whitmire and discuss affordable housing, shelter capacity, and disaster preparedness. Following last year's derecho and Hurricane Beryl, the federal government awarded Houston $314 million in disaster recovery funds. Of that, $41 million has been specifically allocated to the city's homelessness initiatives. 'Homelessness drives me nuts. It's not fair to the homeless victims nor the citizens. We are committed to put the homeless in shelters and provide for them,' Mayor Whitmire said. Turner echoed that sentiment, stating, 'We understand you have to put the axe head to the root. Housing is important, but it has to be a holistic view when you look at homelessness.' He also pledged that HUD would partner with the city in 'eradicating homelessness.' Late last year, Whitmire laid out his broader plan to address Houston's homeless crisis, which includes a $70 million annual investment and the creation of a city-managed encampment. 'If you're operating in the City of Houston, dealing with people, you're going to have to contribute and be a part of this collaboration,' Whitmire said at the time. 'We think we can run an annual program of about $70 million … our state partners that are here, it's your problem, too.'
