Category Archives: State Legislation

City of Peoria, Peoria County, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Smoking prohibited

6 Comments

This week’s Word on the Street column reports that the City and County have been doing smoking ban stings lately: “The county performed 203 compliance checks and wrote 45 tickets. The city performed 123 checks and wrote eight tickets.” And, “The effort was funded by a [$15,000] grant the Peoria City/County Health Department received from the state Department of Public Health.”

Meanwhile, there’s a new documentary miniseries premiering in October on PBS about Prohibition. Promotional material for the new film by Ken Burns describes the Prohibition era: “The culmination of nearly a century of activism, Prohibition was intended to improve, even to ennoble, the lives of all Americans, to protect individuals, families, and society at large from the devastating effects of alcohol abuse…. Prohibition turned law-abiding citizens into criminals, made a mockery of the justice system … permitted government officials to bend and sometimes even break the law, and fostered cynicism and hypocrisy that corroded the social contract all across the country…. The film raises vital questions that are as relevant today as they were 100 years ago – about means and ends, individual rights and responsibilities, the proper role of government and finally, who is — and who is not — a real American.”

File the modern, popular smoking bans under the heading, “History Repeating Itself.”

State Legislation, State of Illinois

Quinn says time limits on campaign signs violate free speech

1 Comment

Following up my last post, I ran across this press release from Governor Quinn’s office explaining his support for HB 3785:

Governor Quinn Signs Legislation Protecting Free Speech in Illinois
Municipalities Cannot Restrict Political Signs on Residential Properties

CHICAGO – June 3, 2010. Governor Pat Quinn today signed a bill into law that prevents municipalities throughout Illinois from restricting the display of political campaign signs on residential property at any time.

“Government has no place restricting free speech,” said Governor Quinn. “This bill will protect the First Amendment rights of residents across Illinois and strengthens participatory democracy for us all.”

House Bill 3785 prohibits Illinois’ municipalities from restricting the display of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property during any period of time. Under current Illinois law, municipalities may pass and enforce local ordinances establishing time periods during which residents or landowners may display political campaign signs on their property. Under the new law, municipalities may still place reasonable restrictions on the size of such signs.

The new law brings Illinois into compliance with several court cases, including City of Ladue v. Gilleo. The 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed that outdoor political yard signs are protected First Amendment speech and municipalities may not prohibit their display on residential property.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Michael Tryon (R-Crystal Lake) and Sen. Pamela Althoff (R-McHenry), passed the Illinois General Assembly nearly unanimously and was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois. It takes effect on January 1.

In a statement filed with the Illinois House Elections and Campaign Reform Committee, the ACLU of Illinois stated that, “yard signs are a traditional, effective and protected way for home owners to communicate with their neighbors and passersby about political elections and public issues.” The organization also argued that municipalities should not be able to prohibit the display of such signs at any time since many political candidates announce their candidacies long before an election takes place.

If you’re interested, you can read the 1994 Supreme Court ruling by clicking here. It seems odd that this ruling has been around for 16 years, but Illinois is only recently concerned about complying with it.

City of Peoria, State Legislation, State of Illinois

State eliminates time limits for campaign signs

16 Comments

Roof-top signs, “floppy-man” signs, and temporary banners were just some of the signs discussed at Tuesday’s Sign Review Committee meeting. But one thing the committee can do little about is political signs.

A new Illinois law set to take effect January 1, 2011, limits the city’s home rule authority to limit how long political signs can be displayed. HB3785 “[p]rovides that a municipality may place reasonable restrictions on the size of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property,” but also “[p]rovides that no municipality may prohibit the display of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property during any period of time.” The bill was passed unanimously by the Illinois House and Senate and signed by the Governor on June 3. The city currently requires that political campaign signs “be removed within seven days after an election.” That will have to be changed. Apparently, campaign signs can be left up year round starting next year. Won’t that make the city look fantastic?

Most of the discussion on other temporary signs revolved around how better to enforce the current ordinance during a time when the city is cutting staff. Ideas included lowering or eliminating the fee (currently $75) to apply for a temporary sign license (to improve compliance), utilizing city workers who are already driving around the city (such as police or public works employees) to call in violations to the sign ordinance when they see them, and partnering with printers and sign companies to educate those purchasing signs about the city’s rules.

The committee also recommended permitting inflatable signs so they can be approved administratively through the licensing process instead of through the Zoning Commission via the special use process. However, if permitted in this way, the change ordinance would add size limitations and prohibit “floppy man” types of signs (here’s an example).

State Legislation, State of Illinois, Traffic

Red-light camera update

12 Comments

Illinois State Sen. Dan Duffy may not get his wish for a complete ban on red-light cameras in Illinois, but he says “there’s more than one way to skin a cat.”

A special subcommittee on red-light cameras met Tuesday evening and heard testimony on both sides of the issue. Many citizens and experts, including the Illinois Policy Institute, spoke out against the cameras. Law enforcement representatives spoke in favor. In the end, a “shell bill” was passed out of committee:

A shell bill or vehicle bill is essentially a blank bill passed out of committee that allows lawmakers the flexibility of cobbling together a coherent bill, without the pressure of legislative deadline. In this particular case, because there were a total of five bills containing RLC [red-light camera] reforms, senators will have to work together to find agreement on a single, comprehensive bill on this issue.

What measures might make it into the shell bill?

The next step for anti-red light camera activists is to push legislators to include any and every measures possible that improve safety and decrease red light running. This includes mandating an increase in yellow light timing to 4 or 4.5 seconds, increasing the use of an [all] red interval, and eliminating RLC enforcement [for] right turns on red.

Short yellow-light intervals create what is known as a “dilemma zone.” The driver is too close to the intersection to stop without slamming on the brakes, but too far from the intersection to make it through before the light turns red. By increasing the yellow-light interval, the “dilemma zone” can be eliminated. This change in itself lowers the number of red-light running violations by giving motorists ample warning to stop. Some cities with red-light cameras have been caught deliberately shortening the yellow-light interval (or varying it) in order to induce more tickets. In Peoria, the yellow-light interval is three to four seconds, depending on the size of the intersection according to Public Works Director David Barber.

An all-red interval is the period of time that traffic traveling in all directions have a red light. In other words, once a light changes to red, the cross-traffic doesn’t immediately get a green. There’s usually a one- to two-second delay during which all lights are red before the the cross-traffic light turns green. This allows more time for the intersection to clear before allowing cross-traffic to proceed, which improves safety. In Peoria, signalized intersections have a one-second all-red interval.

Turning right on red is legal at signalized intersections unless they have a red arrow or are otherwise posted with “no right on red” signs. Because of the geometry of the intersections, it’s often necessary to pull up past the stop line in order to see around traffic in the forward lanes. In communities that have red-light cameras, a lot of their revenue is generated by giving red-light citations to drivers who pull up in order to turn right on red in this way.

“We want to put in every reform possible,” says Scott Tucker, GOP nominee for state representative in the 11th district and organizer of a road trip of citizens to the hearings. “So many sensible reforms will kill the cameras over time because there will not be enough revenue to operate the cameras.”

In most cities (perhaps all–I haven’t done an exhaustive search), the police department doesn’t buy the red-light cameras, but instead contracts with a third-party vendor. The vendor installs and maintains the cameras, and in many municipalities, actually sends out the citations to violators. Other municipalities have an officer review the violations and send the citations out from the police department. The vendor gets a cut of the fines imposed on violators. If there are fewer violators, there will be less profit incentive for the vendors. And if that happens, you won’t need a ban on red-light cameras because simple economics will drive the vendors out of business.

State Legislation, State of Illinois

Red-light camera subcommittee to meet March 2

4 Comments

State Sen. Dan Duffy’s bill to ban red-light cameras in Illinois (S.B. 2466) was assigned to a special subcommittee earlier this month. Now a date has been set for the subcommittee to meet: next Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at 6 p.m. According to a recent Christian Science Monitor article, “State Sen. Dan Duffy (R) says the bill could move to the Senate floor in two weeks.”

The bill currently has fifteen co-sponsors, including gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady.

State Legislation, State of Illinois, Technology

Texting while driving? How about reading Electronic Billboards?

2 Comments

Reading through the new Illinois law set to take effect next year, I got to wondering, will it be against the law to read electronic billboards?, a car wreck attorney could be useful if you have any problems with the law in regards this matter.

The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year. Nearly 390,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving. 1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving. Learn more via localaccidentreports.

“Electronic communication device” means an electronic device, including but not limited to a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, or a portable or mobile computer while being used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message, but does not include a global positioning system or navigation system or a device that is
physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle.

“Electronic message” means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. “Electronic message” includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, or a command or request to access an Internet site.

(b) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message.

An electronic billboard (EBB) is an “electronic device” by the statute’s definition, and an “electronic message” is certainly being transmitted from the advertising agency to the EBB. Such devices are used by persons operating motor vehicles on roadways to read electronic messages. Hmmm…. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I’d take a chance next year. Keep those eyes on the road.

Admittedly, I’m saying this partially tongue-in-cheek. But on the other hand, we really should follow the logic on this one. Why is texting while driving bad? Because it causes “distracted driving.” And distracted driving is bad because it takes a person’s attention off the road, which is self-evidently dangerous when you’re propelling a 4,000 pound piece of machinery down a ribbon of road up to 65 miles per hour.

In fact, the New York Times reported just a couple weeks ago that a new Virginia Tech study “found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting.” I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Now, think about EBBs. What is their purpose? As a Federal Highway Administration report put it, “Commercial EBBs are designed to ‘catch the eye’ of drivers.” In other words, their purpose is to distract drivers from focusing on the road and instead focus on the EBB for some period of time. The report states, “Their presence may distract drivers from concentrating on the driving task and the visual surrounds.” If distracted driving is dangerous (which is the basis for the no-texting-while-driving law, mentioned at https://www.hornsbywatson.com/injury-law-blog/night-driving-accidents-in-alabama), these billboards put the motoring public at risk by design. Those who got injured in truck accidents may seek truck accident law services to help them fight for their rights and get the compensation they deserve. A wrongful death lawyer, on the other hand, can help whose lost a loved one in a fatal road accident.

A 2006 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report found that “glances totaling more than 2 seconds for any purpose increase near-crash/crash risk by at least two times that of normal, baseline driving.” Presumably, the longer a driver is distracted, the higher the risk. So how many seconds does a person spend looking at an electronic billboard?

Critics point out that the brightness of EBBs add to their distraction, because the human eye is naturally drawn to the brightest object in its field of vision. This and the constant changing of images makes EBBs more distracting than regular billboards. More research is being done, and we’ll no doubt see calls for curbing these devices in the future.

The funny thing is, outlawing EBBs would actually do something to reduce driver distractions, whereas banning texting while driving will not. Why? Because the texting ban is completely unenforceable. For instance, it doesn’t apply to global positioning systems, so if you have your trusty iPhone with a texting app and a GPS app, how is a policeman supposed to prove you were texting and not just getting directions? He would have no way of knowing. The only time fines will be meted out for this new crime is after an accident has already occurred and transmission records get subpoenaed, which is to say, it won’t actually prevent an accident from happening. navigate here to find a lawyer that will stand by your side and defend your rights.
So what’s the point of passing this legislation? Why, because it feels good! Don’t you feel better knowing it’s illegal? Our legislators sure do. And they hope you’ll feel so good about it you’ll forget that they weren’t able to pass a balanced budget or do any number of other things they were supposed to do down in Springfield.

Museum Block, Peoria County, State Legislation

Museum tax strategy revealed in latest telephone poll

73 Comments

Regular commentator Mahkno has left a most interesting comment on the Peoria Pundit website that I’m going to shamelessly steal and quote in its entirety here:

Museum folks ran a very push orientated poll this eve. Had a good 30 second to full minute intro about how great the education benefits would be, how much revenue it would bring in (14 million), how many jobs it would create ([250] union jobs), its 86% paid for so far, and how low a burden it would be (25 cents per…).

Would you support a sales tax increase? Mmm no.

What if it were tied to other public service like firefighting and police? Mmmm… no.

What if the tax were only temporary, to expire at some point? LOL… Civic Center? … MMmmm No…

Done.

The statute under which this tax referendum falls is called the “Special County Retailers’ Occupation Tax For Public Safety, Public Facilities, or Transportation” (Sec. 5-1006.5). This statute has been around a while, actually, except that it used to be just for public safety and transportation. The legislature recently amended it to include “public facilities” for the expressed purpose of helping the museum project go forward.

Since the tax can cover not only facilities, but safety and transportation too, it looks like the county and museum officials are contemplating a common political strategy. It happens all the time in Congress. For instance, say you have a pork-barrel project that doesn’t stand a chance of getting through Congress on a pure up-or-down vote. What do you do? You put it in, say, a veterans hospital bill as an earmark. That way, in order to vote against the pork, representatives have to vote against veterans. No one wants to vote against veterans (and certainly no one wants to be on record as voting against veterans), so the bill passes, pork and all. Voila!

The county is at least contemplating the same strategy here. They have an unpopular sales tax referendum for an unpopular museum project, so how do they get residents to vote for it? Of course! Pair it with something people will be reluctant to vote against — like public safety! Who wants to vote against firefighters or police officers? Then they can market it as a public-safety tax instead of what it really is — a museum-funding tax.

Expect the museum-backers to pull out all the stops in this campaign. They’ve already started behind-the-scenes efforts to silence their critics (like me) through intimidation tactics. I suppose I should be flattered that my little blog is perceived as such a big threat.

Museum Block, Peoria County, State Legislation, State of Illinois, Taxes

Who’s afraid of the big bad economy? Not the museum!

10 Comments

From the Journal Star:

With little debate, the Illinois Senate today voted 51-4 to send Gov. Rod Blagojevich a proposal to let Peoria County ask voters to OK a special sales tax to help pay for the Peoria riverfront museum.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1290, passed earlier in the House of Representatives. With Blagojevich’s signature, it would become law, and the question could be put to voters in the February or April municipal elections.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the bill allows increases in 1/4% increments, and could be used toward any “public facility” (e.g., Belwood Nursing Home), not just the museum. The way it will likely read on the ballot is:

To pay for public facility purposes, shall Peoria County be authorized to impose an increase on its share of local sales taxes by .25% (.0025) for a period not to exceed (insert number of years)?

This would mean that a consumer would pay an additional 25¢ ($0.25) in sales tax for every $100 of tangible personal property bought at retail. If imposed, the additional tax would cease being collected at the end of (insert number of years), if not terminated earlier by a vote of the county board.”

A quarter of a percent increase doesn’t sound like a whole lot, does it? But consider that, if this referendum were to pass, you would be paying .25% more on things that already are highly taxed — like restaurant food (which would go from 10% to 10.25% in the city). Is that going to make Peoria more or less competitive than East Peoria, right across the river? How many people do you think will come to see the museum in Peoria, then go have lunch in East Peoria?

And what about the economy? Is this the time to be increasing taxes when there’s plenty of unemployed people? What is the city’s solution on how to decrease the unemployment rate?
Consider these other items in the news as of late:

  • “[T]he effects of the economic crisis are being felt beyond Wall Street as charities locally and nationwide report increases in basic needs and decreases in donations to provide those. Some of the people who used to be donors are now asking for donations…. Nearly 90 percent of Catholic Charities nationwide report more families seeking help, with senior citizens, the middle class and the working poor among those hit hardest by the downturn…. The Salvation Army already has seen between 15 percent and 20 percent more need than last year in its first week of assistance applications received for the holidays…. The Friendship House scaled back the number of families this year allowed into their Adopt-A-Family program to ensure they could fulfill the need.”
  • “Fiscal restraint was the guiding principle in crafting next year’s [Peoria] county budget, which represents a 6 percent overall decrease over last year’s budget. In what is being described as a ‘maintenance budget’ with no new taxes or fees and no spending cuts, preliminary figures show spending requests at nearly $122 million while the county expects to bring in about $119 million in revenues. The approximately $3 million deficit – mostly in the capital fund – will be covered by reserve funds that sit at nearly $74 million, said Erik Bush, Peoria County’s chief financial officer….. The county expects to collect $25.5 million from taxpayers, about $1 million more than what was collected in 2007. Although the tax rate will drop 1 cent to 81 cents per $100 assessed valuation, property values are projected to increase 5.4 percent, so homeowners actually will pay more taxes to the county. The owner of a $120,000 home, whose value increases the projected 5.4 percent will pay $341.50 in taxes to the county, or $13.50 more than last year.”
  • “In total, the city’s staff whittled a $2.2 million budget deficit down to $117,771, an amount that some council members praised. ‘We asked an unbelievable task of our staff,’ Mayor Jim Ardis said. ‘Without cutting any positions or having any tax increase.’ …Finance Director Jim Scroggins said the biggest savings comes from the city’s health care costs, reflected in a substantial difference between the 12 percent budgeted increase for 2008 and the actual increase in health-related costs of only 4 percent…. In addition, the city plans to scale back on parking deck repairs ($300,000), repairs to some of its buildings ($200,000), delay repairs to police headquarters ($25,000), and reduce the neighborhood signs program ($68,662).”
  • “Illinois’ backlog of unpaid bills has hit a record $4 billion, and Comptroller Dan Hynes said Thursday the situation is ‘potentially catastrophic’ if allowed to continue…. Earlier this week, Blagojevich’s office said state revenues will fall $800 million short of projections because of the recession. The Senate Democrats’ top budget person, Sen. Donne Trotter of Chicago, said borrowing money right now may not be a good idea because of interest costs. He said the state should tap into its ‘rainy day’ fund first. Hynes said money in the rainy day fund was used in July. Trotter’s Republican counterpart, Sen. Christine Radogno of Lemont, also didn’t think much of borrowing money. ‘That’s exactly what’s gotten us into this problem,’ Radogno said. ‘Continuing borrowing is not a good idea. They’re going to have to look at making cuts. The wiggle room is gone.'”

It’s time to use all that advertising money to come up with another plan — one that doesn’t involve raising taxes.


Museum Block, before it was turned into a temporary parking lot
State Legislation, State of Illinois

Smoking ban unenforceable

7 Comments

The Smoke Free Illinois Act was so poorly drafted that courts have ruled it cannot be enforced.

The decision by Associate Judge Cornelius Hollerich, combined with the rejection of proposed regulations for the statute by the state earlier this year, appears to leave no recourse for the prosecution of smokers cited for lighting up indoors in public places. […]

Alexander’s lawyer, Peoria attorney Dan O’Day, said the ruling has immediate, far-reaching implications for the smoking ban. “This ruling, if it’s correct – and we think it is – is that there’s no way to enforce the Smoke Free Illinois Act right now,” O’Day said. “There should be no more arrests for smoking.”

Yet another example of Springfield being broken. I didn’t favor this bill (because I believe it tramples personal property rights, not because I’m pro-smoking or anything), but if a bill is going to be passed, it should be well-written and able to be enforced. This was a failure on the part of lawmakers to write good legislation, and it makes one wonder what other unenforceable or poorly-written laws have been put on the books.

State Legislation, State of Illinois

Park advocates to rally against budget cuts

Leave a comment

From a press release:

Park Advocates To Gather at Jubilee College State Park
To Send A Message to Springfield:

Save Our Parks – Stop the IDNR Cuts!

Cuts Take Effect Thursday Unless Springfield Acts

What: A press conference to protest cuts made by Governor Blagojevich to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources that threaten to close state parks, eliminate outdoor recreation opportunities, and hurt the state?s ability to protect wildlife and the environment.
Who: Illinois Sierra, Heart of IL Group Sierra, Nature Conservancy and other groups
When: 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008
Where: Jubilee College State Park, Quail Meadow Picnic Area
(go 3.8 miles west of Kickapoo on Rt. 150 to the main park entrance; stay on main park road past the Park Office, and turn right at the next corner)

BACKGROUND
On July 9th, Governor Blagojevich cut $14 million from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources? (IDNR) budget, decreasing by another 20% the general fund budget for an agency that has lost a quarter of its staff from budget cuts since 2001. This will undoubtedly force the department to close some facilities for lack of staffing, comes at a time when our parks continue to experience increases in attendance by outdoor enthusiasts.

The cuts will take effect Thursday, July 24th unless both the Illinois House and Senate act to override the Governor’s cuts.