This was an absurd piece of legislation and, thankfully, Daley had the foresight to veto it. Daley knows that that you're not going to entice companies like Boeing to the area with a business-hostile agenda. The aldermen got what the wanted: an opportunity to grandstand and appear to be the protector of their local constituencies. I imagine a lot more of them are relieved that this ordinance has died than are willing to admit publicly.
Aaron Krowne
· 3 years ago
Good to see
Noah Yetter
· 3 years ago
All of these facts and arguments were on the table when these councilcritters cast their original votes. It's now obvious (as if it weren't before) that their initial votes were nothing but political pandering and that they knew this was a horrible idea to begin with.
Brian Moore
· 3 years ago
Noah, I think that defines most political decisions. Since you and I tend to make decisions based on the merits of the various choices, we are blissfully unaware of the actual motivations of most legislators.
Even when politicians agree with us and give the same arguments, it's not because they've actually seen the logic of them. It's because they were convinced it was in their best interests to vote that way, and they're just spouting the first arguments their campaign advisors dug up.
Swimmy
· 3 years ago
Even this veto is pandering to Wal-Mart and its supporters. Though I agree with the decision, it is political and therefore by nature nothing but pandering.
johng
· 3 years ago
You guys aren't from around here. Here in Illinois these are known as "fetcher" bills. Usually introduced in an election year to pull in additional campaign contributions.
William Sjostrom
· 3 years ago
I particularly enjoyed the comment by Ald. Solis, who apparently wants lots of dead Chicagoans. "I'm about a living wage, but not if it handicaps the city." I guess he means it is okay if they do not earn a living wage, which presumably means they will be earning a non-living wage, which I guess means they will be dead.
All Comments
This was an absurd piece of legislation and, thankfully, Daley had the foresight to veto it. Daley knows that that you're not going to entice companies like Boeing to the area with a business-hostile agenda. The aldermen got what the wanted: an opportunity to grandstand and appear to be the protector of their local constituencies. I imagine a lot more of them are relieved that this ordinance has died than are willing to admit publicly.
Good to see
All of these facts and arguments were on the table when these councilcritters cast their original votes. It's now obvious (as if it weren't before) that their initial votes were nothing but political pandering and that they knew this was a horrible idea to begin with.
Noah, I think that defines most political decisions. Since you and I tend to make decisions based on the merits of the various choices, we are blissfully unaware of the actual motivations of most legislators.
Even when politicians agree with us and give the same arguments, it's not because they've actually seen the logic of them. It's because they were convinced it was in their best interests to vote that way, and they're just spouting the first arguments their campaign advisors dug up.
Even this veto is pandering to Wal-Mart and its supporters. Though I agree with the decision, it is political and therefore by nature nothing but pandering.
You guys aren't from around here. Here in Illinois these are known as "fetcher" bills. Usually introduced in an election year to pull in additional campaign contributions.
I particularly enjoyed the comment by Ald. Solis, who apparently wants lots of dead Chicagoans. "I'm about a living wage, but not if it handicaps the city." I guess he means it is okay if they do not earn a living wage, which presumably means they will be earning a non-living wage, which I guess means they will be dead.