By Wayne Horne
How well government works is often in the eyes of the beholder. If you are for a decision that a government body makes you will probably believe at that moment that it woks well. If the decision goes against what you believe are your best interests, well you know the answer to that. This week’s Joliet City Council meeting had elements of that kind of debate. Public comments provided the fodder for the council to chew on. Public comment also invited some confusion.
Public comment at Joliet council meetings is divided into two parts. At the beginning of the meeting, public comment is restricted to only the agenda items for that meeting. The second public comment session occurs after agenda items are voted upon. The second public comment session is often a time for citizens to express grievances or commentary relevant to that individual’s preferences. In this instance, a couple of candidates in the upcoming election managed to express why they would be desirable elected officials. Not much credible comment there. But I digress.
Public comment on this week’s agenda was both confusing and balanced between those who opposed and those who favored two of the agenda items. One item up for a council vote was a rental inspection ordinance that included, for the first-time, single-family homes. The opposition came from two factions. One faction, mostly landlords, objected to the possible increased costs associated with inspections that might result in repair expenses. Bingo! That’s why inspections are being required. Of course, most landlords rent a quality property, but that is not always evident from the curb, even if they mow the lawn. Those that favored the rental inspection ordinance were owner-occupied residences that experienced neighborhood issues with rental properties. The ordinance passed six for and one against.
The other agenda item was a resolution regarding the controversial SAFE-T Act law that takes effect January 1, 2023. The purpose of the resolution was to let Illinois legislators know the Joliet City Council objects to the passage and implementation of the new law. Resolutions generally have no legal impact; they just express a preference. Councilman Cesar Guerrero made a point that the Resolution being proposed was vague as to its purpose. He agreed the law needs adjustment but the resolution did not say that. The reference “throwing the baby out with the bath water” comes to mind. Councilman Larry Hug made a vague attempt to “school” Guerrero on the finer points of the resolution. Sticking to your own points and not contesting another’s point of view seems more appropriate.
The confusing part of Tuesday’s public comment on agenda items was twofold. One part of the confusion was both agenda items had commenters coming to the podium expressing pro and con. The clerk identified the speaker by name and the number of the agenda item. It’s always confusing when government folks speak in identifying numbers and/or initials. But I digress again. The other point of confusion was discussed above.
No ordinance or resolution put forth by a government entity will ever satisfy all concerned no matter which side of an issue you stand on. Both agenda issues seem to be resolved satisfactorily because all concerned were either satisfied or unsatisfied in whole or in part. There is an old saying that I once heard that stated If nobody was happy with a decision, then it was a successful conclusion. I can live with that. Can you?
Stay tuned…
Comments welcome at www.wayneswords@thetimesweekly.com