►
From YouTube: Human Services Committee Meeting 6-6-2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
B
A
Council
member
braithwaite
is
here,
but
in
the
aldermanic
library
councilmember
reed
myself
is
here.
We
have
a
quorum.
First
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
of
the
may
2nd
meeting
moved
by
council
member
revell
secreted.
B
A
Council
member
burns,
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
minute,
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
any
abstentions.
The
minutes
pass.
That
brings
us
to
public
comment.
We.
A
D
A
E
Sorry,
I
just
have
some
concerns
about
an
article
that
I
read
about
some
of
the
proposals
that
alderman
reed
has
put
forth
regarding
the
opening
of
the
parks
for
24
hours.
E
The
fact
that
burglary
tools-
you
can
tell
me
if
this
is
incorrect
or
not,
but
their
burglary
tools
would
no
longer
be
illegal
to
possess
that
children.
I
guess
or
underage
people
will
be
able
to
buy
liquor
and
not
have
any
or
would
attempt
to
buy
liquor
and
would
have
no
consequences.
Maybe
nobody
called
their
parents
or
whatever
it
is.
E
I
just
think
that
some
of
these
proposals
are
sort
of
with
all
due
respect
sort
of
immature,
and
I
would
hope
that
somebody
could
touch
on
some
of
these
questions
that
I've
raised
and
if
you
could
tell
me
if
they're
correct
or
not
like,
I
said,
there's
an
article.
A
Thank
you
with
public
comment.
We
don't
traditionally
respond,
but
but
I
am
hoping
that
you
stick
around
and
watch
the
meeting,
because
all
of
your
answers
or
all
of
your
questions
will
be
answered
and
also
I
will
provide
my
personal
contact
information
to
you.
So
we
can
have
a
conversation
great
okay.
So
that
brings
us
to
folks
who
are
signed
up
online
and,
let's
start
with
the,
I
think
there
are
two
people
signed
up
online,
yes
and
I'll.
Just
wait
for
the
names
one.
A
Second,
if
you're,
if
you're
online
and
you're
signed
up
to-
and
you
would
like
to
speak-
please
unmute
yourself
and
declare
your
name.
F
I
don't
think
my
camera
is
working,
but
it
doesn't
matter
so
I'm
strongly
opposed
to
ravel's
ordinance
19022,
as
it
no
longer
considers
a
public
nuisance
any
loud,
unnecessary
or
unusual
noise,
which
annoys
a
reasonable
person
and
disturbs
injuries
or
endangers
the
comfort
health
piece
for
safety
of
our
hostilians.
F
I
do
not
believe
it
would
increase
disturbances
in
the
park,
since
spark
disturbances
are
largely
caused
by
people
not
aware
of
the
rules
and
rarely
by
those
who
would
disturb
the
peace,
irrespective
of
any
type
of
regulations.
Anyway,
I
want
to
make
clear
that
park.
Noise
issues
after
hours
have
been
a
personal
issue
for
me
and
neighbors,
whose
homes
face
mccullar
park.
Since
the
park's
renovation,
there
has
been
a
substantial
uptick
in
young
people
descending
on
the
now
new
and
unfortunately,
too,
brightly
led
basketball
court.
F
They
don't
do
so
out
of
malice,
but
because
they're
not
clearly
aware
of
the
rules,
I'm
forced
to
leave
my
bed
several
times
a
week
to
point
out
the
hours
of
operation
listed
on
the
park
sign
to
the
noisemakers
once
they
read
the
sign
the
kids
leave,
but
the
sign
should
have
been
placed
on
the
court
itself
where
it
would
be
clearly
legible.
I
believe
an
improvement
in
communication
will
go
a
long
way
to
reduce
these
nightly
incursions.
F
The
city
should
therefore
publish
on
the
site
what
the
rules
are
for
curfews,
park,
courts
and
playground
hours
and
additionally
produce
flyers
just
like
they
did
for
his
cycling
rules
broadcasting.
This
information
would
encourage
compliance
of
the
rules
or
at
least
make
parents
aware
of
them,
and
hopefully
they
might
communicate
these
rules
to
the
kids.
F
F
Please
help
residents
living
next
to
parks
and
courts
by
publicizing
the
rules
for
hours
of
operations
within.
I
also
approve
of
most
of
the
other
ordinances
that
davon
reed
wants
to
pass
because
they
in
the
name
of
equity
in
safeguarding
minorities
rights.
However,
the
only
one
I'm
against
is
55
0
22,
throwing
stones
and
small
objects
from
personal
great
damage
occurred
to
me.
F
Somebody
threw
an
object
at
me
and
I
required
10
stitches.
It
wasn't
a
large
objects
and
I
don't
think
that
throwing
stones
at
cars
or
people
or
buildings
is
a
good
idea.
So
I
I
don't
understand
the
rationale
for
that,
but
maybe
alderman
devon
can
explain
it,
but
the
other
ones.
Yes,
if
you're
going
to
have
an
ordinance
against
showing
breasts,
then
it
should
be
for
people
for
men
and
women
alike.
There
should
be
no
difference.
A
Thank
you.
That
brings
us
to
our
next
public
commenter
doreen
price.
A
A
Oh,
and
I
will
note
that
there
was
a
comment
received
by.
D
A
On
the
record,
okay,
thank
you
very
much
that
will
move
us
to
our
first
order
of
business.
We
will
bring
the
environment
board
up,
but
first
I
just
want
to
deal
with
item
hs2
resolution.
38R22
approval
of
an
honorary
street
sign
name
designation
for
joanne
avery.
A
Is
there
a
motion
so
moved
by
councilmember,
revel
seconded
by
council
member
burns
I'll
just
say
that
this
is
a
great
honor
that
miss
avery?
You
know
this
will
come
to
council
and
I'll,
say
what
I
have
to
say
then,
but
miss
avery
has
touched.
So
many
folks
touched
the
lives
of
so
many
folks
in
the
black
community,
particularly
in
the
fifth
ward.
A
My
mother
was
someone
who
went
to
miss
avery's
programs
and,
and
so
many
other
children
across
our
war
across
our
city,
have
also
been
touched
by
her
her
great
work,
so
just
a
great
honor
for
her
okay.
Is
there
any
more
discussion
on
that,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed.
I
see
council
member
birth
weight
said
I
as
well
on
the
joe
on
every
way.
A
Okay,
that
passes
you
unanimously,
I'm
going
to
do
it,
I'm
going
to
allow
public
comment,
because
I
do
see
that
betty,
aster
and
dorian
price
are
here
so
during
price
you
may
go.
C
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
and
we'll
we'll
get
this
to
work.
Eventually
right
smile,
everybody,
you've
had
a
hard
preceding
few
hours
and
I
admire
the
people
who
are
fighting
for
all
the
good
stuff
for
the
rest
of
us.
So
thank
you.
C
C
It
was
also
the
pride
and
joy
of
the
project
leader
who
was
fearful
that
anything
should
happen
to
it.
This
was
state
of
the
art,
which
means
you
could
have
it
inside
your
house
at
the
time
to
dry
down
my
house
after
the
flooding.
I
had
fans
like
like
crazy.
They
didn't
have
enough
fans.
Initially
they
were
trying
to
get
enough
informa
enough
power
to
my
house
to
drive
down
my
house,
and
it
was
delayed
in
terms
of
not
having
at
the
time
of
fire
engine
who
had
the
ability
to
take
water
away.
C
That
has
since
improved,
which
is
I
I
advocated
for
because
if
you
go
through
something
like
that,
you
don't
want
it
to
happen
to
anyone
else,
and
I
advocate
from
the
heart
that
way,
as
many
of
you
hopefully
know,
and
so
for
this
I
want
to
say:
please
all
emergency
equipment
needs
to
that's
needed
to
rescue
or
restore
residents,
and
their
homes
must
be
protected
from
interference,
and
I
mean
interference
because
there
was
no
leak.
C
There
was
no
ethical
and
moral
reason,
plus
I
own
my
property
and,
and
I
own
the
eastman
around
it
or
co-own
it
and
share
it
with
people
who
take
it
in
terms
of
that's
another
issue,
that
zoning
needs
to
look
at
neighbors
who
take
over
other
people's
property
and
get
at
for
some
reason.
It's
not
caught.
C
So
anyway,
from
my
heart,
I'm
pleading
that
we
listen
to
residents.
We
listen
to
their
information
if
it
differs
from
what
you
know.
Please
investigate
it
and
explore
and
back
up
the
people
going
through
a
trauma,
especially
that
really
hurt
me
a
whole
bunch
and
still
does,
as
you
can
tell
trauma,
is
trauma
and
and
city
of
evanston
has
it
and
we
should
be
more
compassionate
as
a
result
of
it,
and
I've
met
the
most
amazing
people
because
of
sharing
that
it
and
having
something
like
that
in
common.
C
C
Okay,
in
terms
of
the
other
thing
for
future
discussion,.
C
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Last
on
the
list
is
betty.
Ester
is
betty
ester
in
the
call
yet
or
is.
Are
we
still.
G
Yeah,
I'm
unmuted
now
looking
at
the
agenda
and
everything
and
we
have
the
obedience
of
the
police
in
public
place
and
we
you're
changing
this,
and
my
question
is
what
ordinance
that
deals
with
where
people
are
in
everything?
G
A
A
Thank
you.
Continuing
on
with
the
agenda,
we
are
going
to
move
for
move.
The
next
item
will
be
the
hs12
environment
board
report,
since
we
have
folks
who
are
going
to
be
updating
us
on
this,
and
this
is
this-
is
simply
to
accept
and
place
on
file.
So
I'll
ask
for
any
pretty
much.
The
high
level
report
on
this
and.
I
Yes,
shall
I
go
ahead?
Yes,
yeah
hi
good
evening,
thanks
so
much
for
making
time.
I
know
you
have
an
extremely
long
agenda
still
ahead
of
you
and
it's
it's
late
right
now,
so
we'll
be
very,
very
brief,
and
thanks
to
carol
pratt
for
being
here
as
well,
she's
the
primary
staff
liaison
with
the
environment
board,
along
with
brian
zimmerman.
I
So
according
to
the
code,
the
human
services
committee
is
the
committee
to
which
the
environment
board
reports,
but
it's
been
a
little
while,
so
we
wanted
to
catch
up
and
just
gave
you
that
memo
in
your
packet,
that's
briefly
what
some
of
the
things
we've
been
working
on
lately
and
have
before
us
just
to
kind
of
let
you
know
there
are
11
members
of
the
environment
board
and
at
the
moment
we
have
members
from
seven
wards
and
they
include
a
former
epa
official
director
of
sustainability
for
a
corporation
software
engineer
who
does
greenhouse
gas
accounting
work,
a
social
scientist
with
the
forest
service
and
people
with
backgrounds,
in
natural
resource
management,
communication,
education
and
so
on.
I
I
The
one
other
thing
I
will
call
attention
to
is
that
the
tree
protection
ordinance,
we've
provided
advice
recently
to
the
planning
and
development
committee
at
its
request
and
part
of
that
memo
was
background,
was
in
the
packet
as
well.
I
We
we
are
suggesting
in
our
in
our
recommendations
that
we
provided
to
planning
and
development
modeling
what
we
do
after
the
city
of
cambridge
massachusetts,
which
explains
very
very
well,
that
is
a
public
health
matter,
primarily
around
heat
and
heat
island
effect,
so
I'll
just
wrap
up
there,
but
we,
you
know,
we
thank
you
very
much
for
your
support,
we're
happy
to
report
at
any
time
or
or
follow
up
with
you,
and
I
don't
know
whether
cara
pratt
wanted
to
say
something
as
well,
but
I
will
I
will
stop
there.
A
Thank
you,
miss
pollock
and
always
happy
to
have
an
eighth
water
right
on
on
any
committee
and
presenting
here
am
I
incorrect
in
that?
Am
I
misremembering
that
you're
in
eighth
water.
I
A
J
It's
a
comment:
I'm
particularly
grateful
for
this
extended
memo
about
what
we
should
be
considering
for
a
tree
protection
ordinance,
because
that
is
something
that's
coming
back
to
us
very
soon
that
we
really
need
to
be
able
to
move
forward.
So
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
very
helpful
and
I'm
delighted
that
the
environment
board
is
working
on
several
other
really
important
issues
for
us
as
well.
A
D
A
That
thank
you,
miss
pollock
of
the
fourth
ward,
and
thank
you
to
the
full
environment
board
team,
including
cara
for
all
of
your
work
on
this.
With
that,
can
I
have
a
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
accepting
and
placing
this
report
on
files.
D
A
Aye,
all
those
opposed
any
abstentions.
It
passes
unanimously
great.
That
brings
us
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
ordinance
19022
amending
portions
of
the
city
code,
9520
noises
prohibited
and
city
code,
831a
enumeration
of
particular
nuisances.
Is
there
a
motion?
I.
A
Member
revell
moves
approval
council
member
second
council
member
ravel.
J
Okay,
well,
this
is
something
you
all
have
seen
before.
It's
been
amended
one
one
more
time,
which
is
to
specify
a
decibel
limit
that
would
be
measured
at
the
property
line
of
the
property
where
the
sound
is
being
disseminated,
and
so
I
hope
that
is
a
measurement
that
strikes
people
as
both
something
that's
enforceable
and
understandable
and
make
sense
in
terms
of
the
the
sound
level
that
that
is
set.
J
We
had
a
little
council
member
burns
came
out
for
a
sound
test
the
other
day
over
at
canal
shores,
and
we
he
had
the
loudspeakers
going
at
75
dbs
at
the
canal
shores
patio,
and
then
we
walked
away
a
certain
distance
and
it
was,
you
know,
certainly
acceptable
for
the
residents
when
we
got
farther
away
and
yet
75
db's
at
the
patio
itself
was,
you
know,
considerable,
a
good,
a
good
musical
experience.
A
Thank
you,
council,
member
revell.
Whoever
beats
the
simultaneously
almost
council
member
jerry
cares.
K
So
I
did
an
unofficial
test
at
my
house
because
of
I
like
to
when
I,
when
I
grill
out,
I
like
to
listen
to
my
stereo
outside,
and
I
you
know,
turned
my
stereo
up
and
checked
at
you
know
the
the
decibel
reading
and
at
the
loudest
I
would
ever
play.
It
was
80
decibels
like
right
at
the
speakers,
and
it
was
by
the
time
you
got
to
my
property
line.
It
was
well
below
that
and
I
think
it's
a
totally
reasonable.
D
K
B
Yeah,
council,
member
harry
cutters,
his
testimony
provided
some
clarity
because
we
tested
from
the
property
line,
but
the
residential
property
was
much
further
than
a
neighbor
next
door.
And
so
my
question
was:
how
does
this
you
know?
B
How
does
how
does
this
protect,
like
you
know,
in
residential,
dense
residential
areas,
and
so
you
know
you
tested
it,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
have
a
comment
on
that
as
well.
J
Right
well,
I
I
heard
from
council
member
heritage
about
his
sound
test,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
the
that
the
part
of
the
code-
that's
actually
not
anything,
we've
been
looking
at,
would
be
what
would
apply
to
the
situation
for
someone
just
playing
basically
a
loudspeaker
with
their
their
home
sound
system
just
in
their
backyard
and
so
that
go
so
that
we've
been
dealing
with
subsection
f
of
the
whole
gigantic
noise
prohibited
part
of
the
of
the
code.
J
There's
a
then
there's
a
section
g
which
deals
more
with
what
I
would
consider
home
background
backyard
gatherings,
not
something
that
we've
been
talking
about
with
loudspeakers
in
sec,
subsection,
f
and.
J
A
Information,
I'm
looking
at
subsection
g
right
and
it
says
the
presence
of
bush's
weeds.
Are
we.
J
No!
No!
No,
if
you
have
to
be
looking
at
title
ix,
public
safety
chapter
five
general
offenses,
if
you
can
find
the
sec
subsection
f.
J
You're,
probably
okay,
yes,
so
sub
subsection
g
talks
about
radios
and
phonographs,
and
it
sounds
more
like
what
you
might
be
doing
in
your
backyard
as
opposed
to
a
loudspeaker
on
a
patio
with
a
with
an
audience
so
that
that's
to
try.
I'm
trying.
J
Bobby
councilmember
burns
question
about
what
happens
in
a
residence.
B
B
L
B
Right
and
and
f2
still
talks
about
location
within
100.
J
B
J
I
work
on
this
thing,
the
more
frustrating
it
gets
because
it's
it
gets
more
and
more
unclear.
I'm
not
I'm
not
really,
and
what
I
think
is
really
strange
is
in
section
g,
radios
and
phonographs.
It
says
if
you're
going
to
do
any
of
this,
you
need
a
permit.
Well,
we
never
ask
anybody
to
get
a
permit
to
play
their
wreck.
You
know
their
phonograph
in
their
backyard,
so
I
mean
I.
I
think
we
need
to
revise
that
too
yeah.
I.
B
Guess,
but
between
you
know
this
meeting
and
the
next
meeting,
I'm
happy
you
know
moving
along
to
continue
to
work
on
it.
I
think
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
really
bring
g
and
f
together,
because
it
really
is
speaking
to
the
same
issue,
which
is
outdoor
noise
and
and
it's
overly
complicated
at
this
point
and
and
then
once
we
do
that,
I
think
we're
in
that
discussion.
We
need
to
really
determine,
and
then
some
other
questions
to
have
is
is
75
db.
B
D
J
Section
f
really
addresses
using
a
loudspeaker
in
a
setting
where
you're
trying
to
entertain
groups
of
people
so
so
think
about
you
know,
special
event,
concerts
and,
and
so
and
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
and
events
at
fountain
square.
For
example,
they
get
it,
they
get
a
loudspeaker
permit.
So,
whereas
g
would
be
the
more
informal
having
a
bunch
of
friends
over
and
playing
music
in
your
backyard,
you
don't
want
to
have
to
have
get
a
permit,
and-
and
I
guess
the
question
is-
is
you
know
well.
J
J
J
Well,
but
no,
but
if
you're
just
well
because
we've
already
said
you
can't
have
a
special,
but
we
can't
you
can't
have
a
loudspeaker
permit
issued
if
you're
within
150
feet
of
a
residence.
So
we're
already
saying
that
the
loudspeaker
permit
is
really
only
applicable
in
places
where
you're
going
to
be
150
feet
away
from
a
residence.
B
And
so
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
just
to
75
db
is
that
going
to
require
in
any
respect
will
that
require
any
any
permit.
J
A
Point
of
information-
and
I
hear
just
to
cut
through
because
I
hear
what
both
of
you
are
saying
and
I
want
to
let
me
look
back
at
the
code
to
get
this
right,
because
just
by
the
use
of
the
language
I'm
going
to
say
this
is
code
from
some
of
this
goes
back
to
1948.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
So
that's
why
we're
using
language
like
phonographs
and
when
you
say
loudspeaker,
which
is
f
a
bluetooth
speaker,
seems
as
though
it
would
fit
into.
A
In
fact,
even
I
think
the
speaker
on
my
phone.
It's
certainly
not
a
phonograph,
and
so
this
would
count
as
a
loudspeaker,
and
so
I
think
that's
the
clarification
council
member
burns
is
looking
for
to
make
sure
that
when
we
describe
loudspeakers
we're
not
excluding
regular
devices
that
are
used
today,
such
as
bluetooth,
speakers
or
other
portable
speakers,.
B
B
Need
for
a
permit
under
what
decibel,
what
decibel
level
or
what
distance
to
residential
does
it
require
you
to
use
a
permit,
because,
whether
it's
a
patio
or
whether
it's
your
backyard,
if
it's,
we
still
need
to
establish
if
it's
within
a
certain
distance
to
a
residential
or
of
a
certain
decibel
level
or
a
combination
of
the
two,
it
triggers
the
need
to
get
a
permit
and
that's
what's
not
clear
in
all
these
changes,
you
know
what
what
will
you
know
leaving
the
loudspeaker
versus
the
phonograph
aside?
B
D
B
L
And
not
the
device
itself
to
that
point,
though,
what
it
sounds
like
you're
angling
toward
is
regulation
of
the
devices,
because
certain
devices
can
generate
certain
decibel
levels
that
others
cannot,
and
so
you
know
the
example
I'm
thinking
of
in
my
head
is,
if
you
wanted
to
have
like
a
dj
in
your
backyard.
L
L
B
But
if
you
don't
have
a
dj
and
starting
in
a
row,
I
just
want
to
have
a
more
fluid
discussion.
So
you
know.
But
if
you
don't
have
a
dj-
and
you
hook
this
up
to
speakers
that
can
achieve
that
a.
L
L
What
is
that
amount?
Those
same
kind
of
speakers
yeah
that
a
dj
would
use,
is
what
I'm
saying
like
it
sounds
like
you
want
to
regulate
the
actual
device
and,
what's
possible,
of
what
can
be
amplified
by
that
device,
because
certain
speakers
might
not
even
get
to
75
decibels,
while
others
can
do
so
easily.
B
D
B
B
If
we're
the
example
that
the
example
that
the
scenario
that
we
walked
through
at
what
was
the
place
again
in
california,.
J
B
Shores
was
a
certain
was,
was
pretty
far
away
from
residential,
and
so
we
could
say
in
that
situation.
Okay,
even
though
you're
a
certain
distance
away
from
you
know,
if
you're
a
certain
distance
away
from
residential
whatever
whatever
that
is,
you
know
it's
75
db's
from
the
property
line.
L
The
current
draft-
that's
in
the
packet,
you
would
not
be
able
to
get
a
permit
in
a
residential
area,
so
it's
a
non-starter
so
the
to
your
point.
The
measurement
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
75
dbs
55,
dbs,
20
dbs,
because
you're
in
a
residential
area,
you
would
not
be
able
to
get
a
permit
period
for
a
loudspeaker.
A
You
and,
and
can,
if
I
can
jump
in
really
quick.
I
haven't
spoken
on
this
issue
yet
and
then
I'll
go
to
council
member
hedy
curtis.
A
I
support
the
goals
of
this
and
I
appreciate
when
this
was
first
discussed.
I
was
among
the
folks
who
really
wanted
a
hard.
You
know
decibel
line,
and
I
appreciate
that
and
I'm
sticking
by
it.
I
think
that's
a
good
way
to
do
this
and
apply
it
equally.
I
do
wonder
if
you
know
75
db
at
a
property
line.
A
A
L
They're
not
defined,
so
you
would
not
be
issued
a
permit
for
that
loudspeaker.
Whether
you
could
actually
use
it
or
not,
is
an
open-ended
question
at
60
decibels,
because
that
that's
not
contemplated
in
the
code
at
all,
but.
A
L
J
And
I
guess
my
thought
is
that
we
would
try
to
address
the
scenario
you
just
mentioned
in
a
in
a
completely
rewritten
section
g
that
would
talk
about
these
more
informal,
smaller.
J
You
know
picnic
gathering
or
whatever
and
and
not
have
and
no
permit.
But
but
you
know,
some
kind,
probably
set
a
new
decibel
level
limit
for
that
kind
of
a
of
a
setting,
because,
because
I
have
heard
complaints
from
residents
who
live
across
the
street,
from
lakefront
parks
and
particularly
fourth
of
july,
people
come
and
set
up
all
day,
very
loud
music
and
it's
I'm
sure
well
over
well.
Over
75
dbs
yeah.
A
I
am
need
to
say
this
to
council,
member
eighth
ward.
I
share
the
border
with
howard
and
along
howard
street.
I
have
a
lot
of
a
more
and
more.
The
business
district
is
becoming
more
and
more
vibrant.
I
live
on
callan,
near
howard
and
just
the
other
day
package.
Pig
great
neighbors
in
the
city
had
a
an
event
and
they
had
a
jazz
band
plan
and
from
my
apartment
with
my
window
open,
I
could
hear
the
jazz
band.
I
was
delighted
to
hear
it.
A
It
did
not
bother
me
one
bit,
but
they
are
right
across
the
alley
from
an
apartment,
building
they're,
certainly
within
150
feet
of
a
residential
area
and
the
jazz
band
was
louder
than
75
db.
So
would
that
be
allowed.
L
L
The
use
of
a
speaker
requires
they
even
get
the
permit.
Let's
just
start
there
like.
If
that's
why
I
asked
the
first
question,
I
asked
whether
whether
it
was
amplified
by
some
sort
of
speaker,
because
the
the
code
either
currently
or
as
proposed
amended,
doesn't
account
for
playing
live
music
without
amplification.
A
Okay
and
then
last
okay,
that
gets
my
second
point.
The
next
day
right
across
the
street
at
palm
house
same
owners,
another
great
asset
to
the
city.
There
was
a,
I
don't
know
what
kind
of
gathering
was,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
folks
of
latino
and
latino
descent
and
they
had
a
mariachi
band
and
it
wasn't
amplified,
but
it
was
a
trumpet
and
guitars
and
it's
again
beautiful
music.
I
enjoyed
hearing
it
but
fairly
loud
and
so
we're
saying
that
someone
with
a
speaker
can't
play
at
75
db.
J
I
I
would
I
I
would
think
not.
I
mean
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
ordinances
from
some
of
the
other
communities
that
I
sent
around,
I
mean
no
way
would
that
be
allowed
after
7
p.m,
but
I,
I
think,
evanston's
a
very
different
community
from
most
of
our
northern
neighbors,
who
don't
have
these
entertainment
opportunities?
A
A
B
A
A
So
with
that,
I
think
this
really
begs
back
to
what
councilmember
burns
was
saying
that
I
think
we
just
need
to
set
a
decibel
level
that
we
just
it's
unacceptable
to
make
noise
above
this
level,
if
you're
doing
that,
whether
it's
with
a
speaker
or
with
a
guitar
or
a
trumpet
whatever
it
is.
You
just
can't
do
that
so
I'll,
just
throw
my
hat
there
and
then
council
member
jedi
karis,
and
then
I
think
we're
close
to
moving
this
on.
So.
K
One
thing
we
could
do
so
there
was
talk
of
the
outdated
terms.
We
could
change
loudspeakers
to
pa
system
because,
typically,
when
you
have
a
concert,
you
have
a
pa
system
and
you
could
change
the.
K
Article
g
to
you
know
personal
speakers
and
home
stereos.
You
could
also
add
you
know
to
the
ordinance.
Instead,
you
could
say
pa
system,
commercial,
stereo,
and
that
would
eliminate
you
know
your
your
bluetooth,
speaker
or
your.
You
know
stereo
setup
in
your
house.
That
might
be
a
way
to
kind
of
clean
that
up
as
well.
A
Thank
you
and
I'll
just
for
the
committee.
The
definition
general
definition
of
republic
of
a
pa
system
is
obviously
a
public
address
system,
which
means
that
it
comprises
of
both
microphones
amplifiers
or
you
know,
loudspeakers
and
related
equipment.
So
I
think
it
would
require
some
mix
of
those
of
at
least
a
microphone
and
something
that's
projecting,
which
would
be
different
than
just
a
speaker
that
doesn't
include
the
microphone.
But
if
that's,
what
we're
trying
to
regulate?
That's
happy
to
do
that.
A
Okay,
so
are
there
any
amendments
at
this
point,
are
we
gonna
or.
A
So
I
think
we're
gonna
send
this,
so
I
think
I'd
entertain
a
motion
to
move
this
forward
to
council,
with
discussions
between
members
and
council
comings
to
incorporate
a
few
changes
before
it
gets
to.
Council
right
is
that
is
there
a
motion
on
that.
A
L
So
I
just
want
to
get
clarity,
because
we
will
certainly
work
with
the
committee
and
members.
We
have
been
to
trying
to
make
sure
we
get
this
right.
The
motion
before
the
body
is
to
essentially
approve
the
ordinance,
as
is
to
advance
the
council.
My
understanding
is
that
the
next
the
council
agenda
will
appear
on
the
27th
and
between
now
and
27th,
the
law
department
will
have
feedback
from
the
committee
for.
J
A
Yeah,
okay,
it's
been
moved
and
seconded
all
those
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
any
abstentions.
I
also
support
it.
That
brings
us
to
our
next
item
of
business
and
I
just
do
want
to
take
a
quick
moment
as
I'm
introducing
these
items
a
quick
moment
of
personal
privilege,
because
I
was
raised
at
public
comment.
A
It's
been
there's
been
a
lot
of
internet
attention
about
this,
so
I
just
wanna
say
that
there
is
an
article
that
appeared
in
evanston
now
that
grossly
distorts
my
position
on
the
ordinances
that
are
to
follow.
You
know
I
I
give
evans
now
the
same
attention.
I
give
fox
news.
I
engage
only
to
glean
from
it
a
kernel
of
insight
into
the
other
side's
perspective
and
it
feels
unfortunate
that
I
even
have
to
say
this,
but
I
am
not
pushing
for
topless
speeches.
A
A
The
ordinance
relating
to
the
specific
regulation
of
female
breast
in
public
article
1,
section
18
of
the
illinois
constitution,
states
that
no
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
sex
is
allowed
in
illinois.
The
equal
protection-
and
this
is
quote-
the
equal
protection
of
the
law-
should
not
be
denied
or
abridged
on
account
of
sex
by
the
state
or
its
units
of
local
government
and
school
districts
and
we'll
get
into
the
particulars
of
each
of
the
ordinances
as
we
go
along.
A
But
again
these
are
you
know
these
are
the
proposals
are
based
in
in
law
and
interpretation
of
statute,
and
you
know
we'll
discuss
them.
But
and
I'll
say
this,
none
of
the
proposals
individually
are
groundbreaking
or
going
to
have
a
huge
impact
on
the
day-to-day
lives
of
most
residents,
but
collectively
the
packages
of
code
revisions
that
I'm
putting
forward
will
decrease
opportunities
for
negative
interactions
with
law
enforcement.
That's
so
distrust
with
marginalized
communities,
and
you
know
I
just
want
us
to
really
think
about
these
critically.
A
You
know
I
have
I've
felt
slightly
unsafe
in
the
last
few
days
because
of
that
article,
because
I've
received
emails
from
folks
and
and
messages
online
from
folks
that
aren't
from
evanston
that
have
you
know
thin
blue
line
profile
pictures
and
are
emailing
me
about
critical
race
theory
and
equity,
and
it's
it's
somewhat
intimidating
and
it's
a
complete
distortion
of
what's
going
on
here,
and
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
a
robust
debate
about
these
items
and
hearing
everyone's
opinions
on
them,
and
so
with
that
we
will
move
forward,
and
that
brings
us
to
hs3
ordinance,
19022
amending
portions
of
the
city
code
95
or
I'm
sorry,
9,
5
20.
A
A
Seconded
by
council
member
cars,
okay,
so
that
brings
us
to
that
item.
I
will
open
up
this
or
first
I'll,
allow
any
light.
So
if
anyone
wants
to
make
a
comment
on
this.
M
I,
my
response
is
councilmember.
Read
that
you
somehow
branded
yourself,
I
don't
think
you
or
any
other
member
of
council
should
ever
feel
threatened
by
thoughts,
opinions,
legislation,
that's
put
forward,
but
my,
however,
is-
and
I've
said
this
before
I
think,
based
on
experience
and
years
in
council
what
good
legislation
what
best
looks
like
is
one
that's
collaborative
not
only
with
our
staff
and
our
public.
M
M
I
definitely
think
there
should
be
some
collaboration
with
the
police
department
and
with
the
absence
of
the
community
engagement
piece,
you
leave
yourself
open
to
this
time
and
time
again,
I
don't
know
where
this
conversation
is
going
to
go
tonight
with
my
other
members,
and
I
haven't
had
time
to
have
that
conversation
based
on
dealing
with
personal
matters,
but
I
am
concerned
with
the
direction
of
some
of
these
suggestions
and
I
think,
as
a
parent,
someone
who
raises
young
people
and
for
anyone
else
on
this
dais
that
has
kids
for
me
to
read
this
it.
M
M
You
sat
in
on
those
council
burns
council
member
burns,
and
I
don't
know
where
he
is:
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
call
him
call
his
name
because
he
actually
came
to
those
meetings
where
it
took
us
two
years
to
make
changes
to
to
get
the
alternatives
to
rest,
which
I
think
has
had
a
huge
impact
and
will
continue
to
lose
sight
and
why
we
talked
to
our
law
department.
We
spoke
extensively
to
our
police
department.
We
even
had
our
police
detective
bureaus
there.
M
We
involved
members
from
northwestern
university,
alderman,
revell
fleming,
a
very
diverse
group
of
people,
and
we
literally
met
for
two
years
before
we
made
the
changes,
and
here
you
are
that's
we're
just
looking
at
one
specific
target
group,
I
mean
there's
one
two
three
four
five
six
here
and
this
is
absorbing
staff
time
for
what
you
have
our
public
at
face
value
laughing
and
not
taking
this
seriously.
M
M
You
might
want
to
socialize
it
a
little
bit
with
our
with
our
council,
but
a
list
of
these
I'm
not
going
to
support
and
since
you've,
given
me
the
time
to
make
my
comments
I'll
just
vote
no
on
at
the
appropriate
time
and
will
not
second
many
of
these.
If
there
isn't
a
second
and
that
should
be
consensus
to
say
that
there's,
no
one,
that's
in
support
of
them.
Thank
you
for
my
time.
Thank.
A
You
to
this
ordinance
that
is
up
on
the
agenda
or
up
on
the
docket
now,
which
is
obedience
to
police
and
public
place.
So
first,
I
actually
want
to
address
some
of
the
things
you
raised,
so
there
have
been
public
meetings
that
were
scheduled
previous
to
this
meeting,
which
this
is
a
part
of
the
public
discussion
process.
Folks
are
able
to
give
public
comment.
A
This
is
a
part
of
the
normal
legislative
process,
but
beyond
this,
these
items
have
been
previously
discussed
or
and
sent
out
on
a
public
agenda.
In
fact,
this
went
out
on
a
public
agenda
for
the
the
mayor
business
committee.
The
name
of
it
is
slipping
my
mind,
the
reimagining
public
safety
committee,
so
this
went
out
on
a
public
agenda
for
the
reimagining
public
safety
committee.
A
A
So
this
was
pretty
a
minimal
invasion
on
staff
time,
as
I
did
most
of
the
heavy
lifting
to
actually
draft
each
and
every
one
of
these,
including
even
writing
at
least
one
of
the
memos
on
on
this,
and
so
you
know
it
wasn't
a
huge
burden
on
staff
time,
and
I
also
want
to
say
thank
you,
council
member
birthright,
because
the
foundation
that
you
laid
and
that
other
members
of
the
council
laid
with
that
alternatives
to
arrest
committee
work
it
made
this
moving
these
forward
easier.
A
It
answered
some
of
the
questions
that
would
make
doing
this
work
either.
That's
the
point
of
continuous
bodies,
we
learn
from
past
efforts
and
it
makes
future
efforts
easier.
So
thank
you
for
for
taking
that
heavy
lift
early
on
a
few
years
ago
to
this
particular
ordinance,
it's
obedience
to
police
in
public
place.
A
A
So
just
counsel
cummings,
based
on
your
reading
of
that
it's
can
you
maybe
just
does
the
first
sentence.
It
seems
to
me
that
it
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
to
refuse
to
obey
the
commander
direction
of
a
police
officer.
That's
what
is
said
to
be
unlawful.
Is
that
correct.
L
The
the
behavior
that
is
unlawful
according
to
this
the
site,
the
the
code
that
you
cited,
is
refusing
to
obey
the
commander
direction,
the
police
officer,
that's
correct,.
A
L
L
A
A
And
then
I
will
say
section:
11
203
of
the
illinois
compiled
statute,
says
obedience
to
police
officers.
No
person
shall
willfully
fail
or
refuse
to
comply
with
any
lawful
order
keyword.
It
says
any
lawful
order
or
direction
of
any
police
officer,
fireman
person
authorized
by
local
authorities,
direct
traffic,
school
crossing
guard
and
all
these
other
things.
So
the
state
law
on
this
very
same
topic
and
sorry
to
spring
this.
Nick,
it's
65,
ilcs
5-11.
L
That's
seven:
that's
625
on
the
cs,
yeah.
A
And
it
says
obedience
to
police
officers,
but
it
it
doesn't.
It
says
obedience
to
police
officers,
and
it
says
no
person
shall
willfully
fail
to
refuse
or
comply
with
any
lawful
order
or
direction
of
any
police
officer,
firemen
and
so
forth
and
again
the
key
word.
There
is
a
lawful
order,
whereas
our
ordinance
does
not
say
any
lawful
order.
A
It
just
says
any
order
and
I
think
that
the
state
statute
is
sufficient
to
cover
a
lawful
order.
Council
unless
counts
comes,
you
have
something
I'll
go
to
councilman
and
break
through.
It
is
turned
on
his
light.
A
Okay
and
since
councilman
burns
has
not
yet
spoken,
I
will
go
to
council
member
burns.
B
And
I
just
want
to
help
narrow
us
in,
I
think,
on
what
has
one
of
the
cases
that
has
prompted
this.
I
think
it
was
lawrence
crosby
crosby.
I
had
that
name.
Who
was,
I
believe,
arrested
and
charged
for
this.
Yes,
and
it
was
determined
that
he
he
could
not
have
if,
if
the
co,
if
the
ordinance
was
written-
and
I
think
the
manner
councilmember
reed
is
suggesting
any
lawful
order.
B
I
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
determine
council
comes,
you
might
be
the
hell
with
that
is.
Is
it?
How
does
someone
who,
on
the
scene,
it
is
determined
that
they
did
not?
You
know,
and
maybe
this
wasn't
the
case
but
on
the
scene,
if
that
person
was
determined,
that
they
did
not
disobey
that
they
didn't
violate
any
you
know
local
or
state
statute
criminal.
You
know
code
local
criminal
code
of
criminal
state
statute.
B
How
are
they
then
still
charged
with
disobeying
in
order?
So.
L
A
If
I
can
point
of
order
on
that,
because
you're
saying
that,
so
someone
cannot
be,
are
you
saying
that
someone
cannot
be
arrested
for
this
law.
L
A
Then
I
do
have
I'm
going
to
let
that
interim
manager
gandersky
speak,
but
I
want
to
make
one
quick
point
before
you
do.
I
wasn't
done
yet
yeah!
No
and
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
you,
but
specifically
under
this
after,
but
specifically
under
this
lawrence
crosby,
who
was
charged
only
with
this
did
not
receive
a
city
ordinance
ticket
and
please
someone
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
he
received,
he
was
sent
to
skokie
courthouse
to.
A
A
N
Good
evening,
chair
reid
and
members
of
the
human
services
committee
interim
city
manager,
gandursky,
I
have
an
extensive
experience
with
administrative
hearings,
which
is
why
I
wanted
to
step
in
so
when
municipalities
create
ordinances
that
are
for
lack
of
a
better
term
I'll
call
them
quasi-criminal
or
they
fall
under
the
health
safety,
public
safety
sections
of
municipal
codes.
They
do
that
to
provide
this
alternative
to
arrest.
N
Typically,
so
you
can
issue
under
the
code
section
as
it
exists
now
one
could
be
issued
an
ordinance
ticket
where
they
would
just
go
to
administrative
hearings
in
a
non-criminal
setting
maybe
receive
a
fine.
If
you
and
I'm
just
bringing
this
up
it's
up
to
the
committee,
obviously
to
do
what
it
wants
to
do.
If
that's
repealed,
then
the
only
alternative
in
a
situation
of
like
manner
would
be
to
refer
to
the
state
criminal
code
and
that
now
we're
talking
about
an
arrest
where
someone
is
going
to
the
skokie
courthouse.
N
So
it
actually
eliminates
the
possibility
for
someone
to
receive
a
minor
ticket
as
opposed
to
having
to
go
under
a
misdemeanor
ordinance,
violation
and-
and
nick
is
correct-
that
when
you
are
arrested,
you
can
be
arrested
under
an
ordinance
violation
as
well,
but
typically,
what
you
see
with
those
are
state
charges
with
an
ordinance
violation
in
nine
and
a
half
or
nine
point
nine
times
out
of
ten.
The
ordinance
violation
is
dropped
by
the
state's
attorney.
So
it's
usually
they're
arrested
for
a
more
considerable
offense.
B
I
think
what
this
gets
said
is
in
them.
What
I'm
uncomfortable
with
is
you're
being
investigated
for
something,
and
in
the
moment,
not
later
on,
it's
found
that
you
did
not
do
the
thing
that
they
were
investigating
you
for
and
yet
and
still
you're
arrested
for
it,
and
even
though
your
protest
in
a
sense
was
determined
right
then,
and
there
that
it
was,
it
was
what's
the
word,
I'm
looking
for.
A
C
L
B
Sorry,
which
would
tell
me
that
that
we
want
people
during
that
interaction,
whether
you're
you
have
a
justified
reason
to
protest
or
not.
You
are
supposed
to
stay
quiet
and
whatever
the
officers
tell
you
to
do
you
do
in
that
moment
is
what
we're
saying
and
if
that's
what
we're
saying
that's,
that
is
what
it
is,
but
that's
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at,
I'm
not
sure
where
councilman
reed
is
but
lawrence
crosby,
I
think,
is
a
really
good
good
example
of
something
that
was
settled
there
in
the
moment.
I
think
they
verified.
B
The
case,
but
we
definitely
had
the
ability
to
not
charge
them
for
the
the
local
code.
So
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
how
does
that
all
work
so.
L
To
go
back
to
one
of
your
original
points
and
every
talk
that
I've
ever
given
to
young
people
with
respect
to
their
interactions
with
police,
particularly
young
black
individuals,
the
advice
that's
given
to
them,
and
some
of
my
colleagues
that
have
served
as
judges
is
to
you
settle
that
dispute
in
a
courthouse.
You
don't
settle
that
dispute
in
the
street
because
you
will
lose
that
dispute
in
the
street.
L
I
believe
the
city
paid
out
money
to
mr
crosby
as
a
result
of
that
interaction.
1.3
million.
So
you
know
that
was
prior
to
my
joining
the
city.
I
don't
have.
I
have
a
very
cursory
knowledge
of
the
case.
I
don't
know
the
exact
charges
that
were
that
were
brought,
but
I
can
tell
you
that,
from
my
experience
as
a
state's
attorney,
unless,
unless
the
city
of
evanston
is
prosecuting
ordinance
tickets
in
skokie
and
as
the
corporation
council,
I
can
tell
you
we're
not.
L
He
likely
was
charged
with
something
else
that
would
have
taken
him
to
the
states
attorney
and
that
that
is
unlawful
to
obstruct
or
resist
an
officer
trying
to
conduct
their
conduct
their
duties
to
answer
councilman
reid's
earlier
question.
L
L
But
if
you
fail
to
stop,
this
ordinance
allows
that
officer
to
write
you
an
ordinance
ticket
and
pay
a
fine
as
opposed
to
arrest.
You
on
the
scene
book
you
into
holding
and
appear
in
bond
court
in
front
of
a
judge.
That's
that's
all.
A
If
I
can
just
point
of
water
and
then
we're
going
to
go
to
council
member
reveal,
which
is
that
lawrence
krabs
is
an
example.
I
was
an
example.
You
aren't
here,
neither
is
kelly,
but
while
I
was
running
for
city
clerk
engaging
in
nothing
other
than
petitioning
to
get
on
the
ballot
for
city
clerk
four
years
ago,
I
was
arrested
here
in
evanston
and
charged
with
obedience
to
police
in
a
public
place,
and
that
was
my
soul
charge,
and
I
was
going
to
have
to
go
to
skokie
courthouse
to
adjudicate
this.
A
It
was
not
a
municipal
violation.
I
wasn't
going
to
come
here
to
administrative
adjudication.
I
was
literally
arrested
and
removed
from
the
street
and
removed
from
my
ability
to
petition
the
day
before
the
filing
deadline,
and
I
didn't
have
to
go
to
school
courthouse
because
the
charges
were
dropped
internally
after
I
raised
it.
A
I
don't
know
if
that's
even
allowed
or
if
that
should
have
happened,
but
it
happened,
and
I
was
not
an
official
at
the
time,
and
so
I
I
I
want
to
note
that
you
know
that
may
be
a
new
practice,
but
that
was
not
always
the
practice
and
we
have
arrested
people
and
I
get
what
you're
saying
about
young
men
of
color
and
telling
them
not
to
adjudicate
it
on
the
streets
and
after
went
into
the
courtroom.
A
A
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
cleaning
up
these
laws-
and
I
want
to
add
one
statistic,
because
I
foid
this
data
a
while
ago
that
in
the
as
if
this
was
in
2017
so
and
six
years
gone
back
to
2011
so
from
2011
to
2017,
there
were
50
people
arrested
in
evanston
who
were
solely
charged
their
only
charge.
A
A
Six
of
them
were
hispanic.
Eight
were
white.
This
law
presents
a
a
a
clear
outcome
that
is
disproportionately
impacting
folks
of
color,
particularly
young
folks,
councilmember
revell.
J
Early
on
many
many
minutes
ago,
you
mentioned
that
you
had
brought
this
idea.
This
particular
issue
to
the
reimagining
public
safety
folks,
and
I
was
just
wondering
what
the
reaction
was
and
did
they
want
to
take
this
up.
A
It
appeared
on
a
want
to
be
specific
in
my
language.
I
said
it
appeared
on
a
public
agenda.
The
committee
reviewed
it.
We
did
not
make
quorum
that
meeting,
but
folks
were
able
to
provide
feedback,
and
there
was
no
opposition
raised.
J
A
The
committee
wasn't
working
on
that
and
that
wasn't
the
goal
of
taking
it
to
the
committee.
It
was
more
so
just
to
get
some
eyes
on
it
and
have
folks
be
able
to
weigh
in
if
there
are
any.
You
know
things
that
they
really
that
they
felt
were
pressing.
Okay,.
J
And
so
that
the
data
that
you've
just
given
us
goes
back
to
2017,
I'm
wondering
if
chief
eddington
would
like
to
comment
on
more
recent
experience
with
our
police
department
and
the
what
kind
of
record
we
have.
O
Thank
you
alderman.
I
appreciate
it,
mr
sherman.
I
I
want
to
revisit
something
that
I
think
is
critically
important.
If,
if
our
goal
is
really
to
minimize
negative
interactions,
then
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
the
ordinance
be
modified
to
match
state
law
where
we
add
lawful
order,
but
to
create
a
situation
where
we
know.
If
we
have
to
take
this
action,
the
individual
is
going
to
be
booked
for
a
misdemeanor.
O
Now
we're
talking
fingerprints
now
we're
talking
a
mug
shot
most
background
checks
will
pick
that
up.
If
it's
a
local
ordinance,
you
are
going
to
have
to
contact
the
specific
municipality,
and
I
think
that's
an
additional
protection
that
the
way
we're
doing
it
now
affords
individuals
that
find
themselves
in
a
difficult
situation
with
law
enforcement,
and
I
think,
as
we
look
back
at
these
events
and
and
frankly,
I
was
kind
of
taken
by
surprise.
The
the
number
of
ordinances
were
on
this
agenda.
O
I
think,
last
time
when
we
had,
I
thought,
a
robust
discussion
of
burglary
tools.
I
was
able
to
bring
information
back
to
show
how
this
worked
and
to
understand
the
concerns
of
the
council
members
about
the
the
burden
we
were
putting
on
an
individual
to
prove
their
innocence
on
the
street,
and
I
think
that
you
have
a
recommendation
from
the
law
department
that
addresses
that.
So
when
we
had
the
time
to
research
and
look
at
these
things,
we
had
the
time
to
research
and
see
what
the
outcomes
were.
O
O
I
I
think
our
collective
answer
is
no,
and
I
think
we
have
the
tools
to
work
with
that
here,
to
anticipate
that
policing
in
a
free
and
democratic
society
will
be
mistake,
free
is,
is
not
gonna
happen,
it's
how
we
clean
up
the
aftermath
of
those
impacts,
and-
and
so
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
we
look
at
this.
If
we
tweak
the
language,
please
allow
the
police
officers
to
have
the
discretion
to
say:
where
should
this
person
go.
D
O
A
You
council
member
burn,
I
mean
birth
weight.
Thank
you,
chief.
M
For
your
insight-
and
I
would
just
share
this
to-
I
guess-
harry
carson-
would
be
the
only
new
in
burns.
Only
new
committee
member,
what
I
heard
earlier
from
you
council
member
reid,
were
individual
examples
that
have
a
huge
impact,
particularly
on
impact
that
it
took
us
two
years
to
accomplish
with
alternatives.
To
rest,
I
want
to
thank
the
city
manager,
kelly,
gandersky
and
chief
for
sharing
and
as
well
as
the
legal
part
for
weighing
in
here's.
M
What
I
hear,
and
that
is
these
changes,
not
only
were
they
not
supported
by
residents
just
based
on
what
I
the
feedback
on
evans
did
now.
I
also
hear
that
they're
not
supported
by
our
staff,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
regurgitate
what
I
said
earlier,
but
I'll
I'll
close
with
this.
If
I
don't
like
to
taste
the
water,
I'm
not
going
to
call
dave
to
tell
him
to
tweak
the
the
formula.
M
So
I
just
I
want
to
strongly
urge
that
if
you
are
cons,
you
know
if
these
are
things
that
matter
to
you
and
the
people
that
you
serve,
that
you
host
the
public
meetings
and
I
definitely
think
me
for
one.
It's
really
difficult
to
sit
and
watch
like
the
constant
grilling
of
our
staff.
With
a
barrage
of
questions
that
you
haven't.
Given
the
courtesy
to
answer
and
I'm
really
impressed
with
you,
nick
by
your
composure,
I
have
to
say
it
publicly
to
be
able
to
answer
and
respond
to
these
questions
without
losing.
M
M
These
are
important
to
you,
take
the
time
to
talk
to
our
staff
and
then
bring
them
back,
but
the
back
and
forth
barraging
of
our
staff.
You
know
I'm
impressed
with
your
ability
to
read
and
in
your
insight,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'm
going
to
trust
our
staff
and
what
they're
saying
because
they
get
paid
and
they've
been
educated
to
protect
our
corporation
council.
I
do
regret
to
the
members
of
the
committee.
M
A
A
B
It's
I
guess
just
for
I
don't
know
where
this
is
going
to
go
today,
but
I
I
just
for
myself
need
to
know
moving
forward.
Is
there
anybody
that
has
been
arrested
for
merely
for
disobeying,
whatever
the
the?
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
it's
called,
but
the
the
location.
B
Was
arrested
and
and
they
weren't
charged
also
for
violating
state
statute
and
I'm
not.
I
don't
need
an
answer
now.
The
council
member
breakaways
part
I'm
not
trying
to
I
just,
but
I
need
an
answer
for
that
because
that's
where
I'm
coming
from
so
that's
one
and.
A
L
I'm
I'm
it's
not
approved
for
me
to
opine
on
how
evanston
police
should
actually
police
the
community
to
be
fair.
I
can
just
say
that,
in
my
experience
as
a
former
assistant
states
attorney
that,
if
an
ordinance
violation
came
into
my
courtroom,
it
usually
was
accompanied
with
a
long,
a
long-form
complaint
for
a
state
statute.
Violation
in
addition
to
the
ordinance
violation
it
was
rare,
was
the
case
that
I
got
straight
up
unless
it
was
a
cook
county,
sheriff's
police,
for
you
know
having
liquor
in
the
park
or
something
like
that.
L
It
was
rare
as
a
case
that
had
a
municipality
and
at
that
time
I
was
prosecuting
the
southern
suburbs.
It
was
rare
that
any
of
those
communities
would
come
in
with
simply
an
ordinance
violation
and
nothing
else
attached
to
it.
It
used
99
of
the
time
it
was
attached
with
a
state
law
claim
now,
insofar
as
how
evanston
operates,
I'm
happy
to
work
with
chief
eddington
and
the
leadership
in
evanston
police
department
and
the
city
manager's
office.
L
B
Yeah-
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
I'm
I'm
more
so
asking
what
you
know-
our
police
officers
are
allowed
to
do
and
not
allowed
to
do
prior
city
code.
L
So
so,
under
under
the
law
generally,
I
had
to
use
this
lots
of
times
as
the
state's
attorney
defending
the
sheriff
ordinance
violations
can
be
enough
to
for
to
for
an
arrest,
hello.
N
N
It
was
extremely
rare
and
I
will
say
I
can't
even
remember
on
one
hand
if
we
ever
alone
had
an
arrest
just
for
an
ordinance
violation.
It
was
almost
always
accompanied
with
a
state
charge
and
if
the
city
attorney
was
not
there
to
prosecute
the
state
charge
or
the
city,
excuse
me,
the
municipal
charge,
it
was
usually
dropped
unless
the
state's
attorney
would
agree
to
bring
it
forward
for
us,
but
typically
the
judges
had
very
little
patience
for
municipal
charges.
N
Only
so
ordinance
charges
only
don't
really
fly
in
the
criminal
in
the
criminal
realm,
because
council
cummings
is
correct,
it's
it's
most.
It's
meant
to
be
less
punitive
and,
if
you're
just
going
to
issue
some
sort
of
violation
for
a
municipal
ordinance,
it
really
should
go
to
administrative
hearings
unless
there's
an
underlying
reason
for
the
arrest,
meaning
you
know
and
circumstances
vary
and
that's
the
discretion
of
the
officer.
N
L
In
the
specific
example
that
I'm
thinking
of
there's
a
case
law
out
of
the
city
of
chicago,
where
the
person
was
accused
of
burglary
or
robbery
or
something
of
that
nature
and
the
police
had
stopped
him
for
an
ordinance
violation
of
riding
his
bicycle
on
the
sidewalk.
And
the
question
was
whether
that
was
enough
to
establish
probable
cause.
Was
the
ordinance
violation
and
the
court
said
it
was
right.
So
it's
enough
to
even
approach
him
in
probable
cause
to
arrest
him.
While
they
investigate
that
he
was
the
suspect
in
the
burglary.
L
But
the
seventh
circuit
in
and
has
said
that
that's
enough
for
an
ordinance
violation
to
for
arrest,
textual
context
to.
A
B
So,
even
just
pro
just
okay
get
down
and
as
they're
approaching
he's
like,
but
this
is
my
vehicle
like
I'm
trying
this
is.
I
can
show
you
right
now
and
it's
one
thing
if
that
leads
to
a
ticket,
and
maybe
something
else
but
to
lead
to
a
rest,
I
think,
is
what
I'm
trying
to
establish.
If
that
happens,
and.
L
As
opposed
to
just
tickets-
and
the
point
I
wish
to
make,
regardless
of
this
ordinance,
your
fact
pattern-
and
I'm
not
here
to
second
guess
what
happened
in
2017
or
18.,
regardless
of
this
ordinance-
that's
sufficient
under
illinois
law
for
resisting
obstructing.
L
So
that
could
be
an
arrest
for
a
misdemeanor
as
well.
So,
regardless
of
this
ordinance,
they
could
still
be
arrested
for
resisting
and
obstructing,
and
my
understanding
even
of
the
fact
pattern
with
council
member
reed.
There
could
be
obstructing
identification.
There's
also
another
like
refusal
to
give
over
your
id.
L
A
So
refusing
to
give
your
idea
is
not
a
criminal
offense
in
illinois
unless
you
provide
false
or
fictitious
information.
I'm
very
aware
of
this.
I
was
aware
that
before
I
was
arrested
for
it
and
that's
why
I
knew
I
had
the
right
to
uphold
and
not
provide
an
idea
because
it
says
false
or
fictitious
councilman.
I'm
sorry.
B
A
A
I'm
I'm
referring
to
obedience
to
police,
specifically
resistance,
yeah,
specifically
65
or
6
625
ilcs
obedience
to
police
officers.
No
person
shall
willfully
fail
to
refuse
to
complain.
L
B
A
So
I'll
note
haircars
is
next,
but
I'm
willing
to
hold
this
or
table
this
to
the
next
meeting
to
get
more
data,
because
I
think
the
data
is
only
going
to
elucidate
how
important
this
is
and
really
expose
that
what
we're
saying
our
goals
are,
may
not
be
exactly
what's
happening
in
reality.
So
I'm
happy
to
hold
this
and
provide
even
more
information
to
make
the
case
on
this,
to
make
it
crystal
clear
for
folks
as
long
as
we're
able
to
get
that
data
council,
member
haircars.
K
I
was
just
going
to
bring
that
up.
I
don't
have
enough
information
to
make
a
decision
now,
so
I'd
say
that
we
should
hold
this.
I
think
it
would
be
great
to
look
at
all
the
cases
that
we
have
and
see
what
exactly
happened
and
and
have
a
little
bit
more
information,
and
possibly
I
I
do
agree
like
if
you
didn't
do
something
wrong
you
should
be.
You
should
not
be
arrested
for
it,
and
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that.
Legally,
I'm
not
a
lawyer.
A
I'm
making
a
motion
to
table
yeah
yeah
so
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
entertain
a
motion,
a
table,
but
specifically
with
the
guidelines
that
we
received
data
on
between
2015
and
now,
the
last,
whatever
that
is
seven
years
or
so.
How
many
folks
were
arrested
for
this
charge
and
said
chief,
I
think,
do
you
have
something.
O
A
I
hear
that
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
but
I
will
say
that
misses
out
on
some
key
data
such
as
lawrence,
crosby
and
other
cases
that
happened
in
2015,
and
even
you
know,
my
arrest
happened
in
2016,
and
so
it
would
exclude
that,
and
I
think,
knowing
that
this
is
an
ordinance
charge
that
has
cost
the
city.
Its
enforcement
has
led
to
the
city
having
to
pay
out
over
a
million
dollars
and
potentially
putting
the
city
at
more
liability
with
cases
you
know
my
case
could
have
been
a
lawsuit.
A
A
How
many
of
those
arrested
folks
were
given
a
local
ordinance
sent
here
to
administrative
adjudication
versus
sent
to
the
county,
and
I
think
something
even
just
as
important
that
we
don't
really
keep
data
on,
because
it's
held
by
another
unit
of
government,
but
we
can
get
the
data
is
how
many
of
these
were
just
dismissed
outright
in
court.
If
this
is
a
law
that
we're
charging
people
with,
and
it's
just
going
to
court
as
the
council
as
manager
gander,
interim
manager,
gandersky
said
it's
tricky
to
get
the
data
go
ahead.
N
I'll
tell
you
why,
because
a
lot
of
times
these
get
dismissed
so
that
it's
like
it's
like
a
settlement
right,
so
we'll
dismiss
one
charge
and
keep
another
or
they'll
play
in
another.
So
a
dismissal
may
not
mean
that
it
wouldn't
have
gone
forward.
It
just
could
mean
that
it
was
a
settlement,
so.
A
I
think
it
still
might
be
worthy
data
if
we
can
get
it
because
it'll
help
us
determine
how
is
this
being
enforced,
and
I
mean
particularly
if
it's
with
other
charges
that
stuff
we
can
see,
but
I'd
love
to
get
from
2017
to
now.
How
many
folks
were
arrested
with
this?
How
many
of
those
were
adjudicated
locally
versus
into
skokie,
courthouse
and.
B
That's
what
I
mean
yeah,
you
know
and
then
also
just
to
better
understand
how
much
discretion
an
officer
has
around
that
the
state,
the
resisting
arrest,
because
I
heard
you
say
they
can,
but
they
don't
have
to,
and
so
they
don't
have
to.
We
could
write
it
into
our
code
that
they
shall
right
give
a
ticket
in
certain
situations.
So
I
just
want
to
see
how
much
discretion
do
they
have
specifically
with
the
resisting
arrest.
L
So,
there's
nothing
in
the
law
that
says
that
a
police
officer
has
to
arrest
someone
for
violation
of
this
particular
behavior
this
this
offense,
so
that
discretion
is
not
naturally
built
in,
because
the
law
is
written
to
regulate
the
behavior
of
the
non-sworn
personnel.
Now
there
are
laws
that
regulate
sworn
personnel,
but
that's
totally
different.
That's
like
official
misconduct
and
stuff
like
that.
B
I
think
that's
important
for
this
discussion,
because
we
can
build
into
our
local
code
some
clear
direction
direction
as
to
when
it
should
be
escalated
and
when
it
shouldn't,
because
I
think
that's
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here
and
I
think,
with
this
data
it'll,
allow
us
to
know
what
you
know
where
those
where
that
line
should
be-
and
I
obviously
would
would
love
to
to
talk
to
chief
edinson
more
about
this,
to
see
if
this
is
something
that
where
we
can
establish
a
very
clear
line
so
that
we're
not
arresting
people
and
if
we
don't
have
to,
and
if
this
is
a
way
and
alternatives
to
arrests
that
we're
utilizing
it.
B
A
You
it
so
that
has
been
moved
and
seconded.
I
think
everyone
is
clear
on
the
information
that
we
are
looking
for
and
we'll
have
that,
for
this
will
be
moved
on
to
our
next
meeting.
So
all
those
in
favor
of
tabling
this
to
the
next
meeting,
with
the
expectation
that
this
data
that
was
listed
will
be
provided
to
the
committee,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed.
A
No
okay
and
then
any
abstentions.
The
motion
passes-
and
this
will
go
to
the
next
human
services
meeting
with
the
data
provided.
I'd
like
to
move
hs,
8
ordinance,
58022,
making
changes
to
title
9,
chapter
5,
section,
10,
alcoholic
beverages
and
cannabis
consumption,
possession
on
public
property.
Is
there
a
second
second
seconded
by
council
member
burns?
This
is
another
ordinance
referral
that
I
made
here,
and
it
is
really
meant
to
again
just
be
a
cleanup
bill.
A
The
key
changes
with
this
ordinance
and
again
this
is
another
one
that
was
grossly
misidentified
by
evanston
now,
so
what
this
would
do,
is
it
section
it
is
illegal
for
anyone
in
the
city
of
evanston
to
have
in
their
possession
cannabis
or
alcohol
when
in
certain
places
and
in
a
vehicle,
so
both
in
their
possession
and
obviously
consuming.
It
is
also
illegal.
A
Particularly.
The
amendments
here
are
to
section
b,
which
eliminates
the
requirement
it
eliminates
right
now,
section
b
reads:
consumption
in
vehicles:
it
is
unlawful
for
anyone
in
the
city
of
evanston
to
consume
or
have
on
his
or
her
person,
open
containers
of
alcoholic
beverages
or
cannabis
products
in
or
on
any
part
of
any
motor
vehicle
upon
any
motor
vehicle.
That's
you
know
what
it
says
now,
and
I've
also
added
to
the
public
way.
A
The
problem
with
this
is
the
state
law
allows
for
folks,
and
I'm
sure
many
folks
here
have
you
know,
gone
to
a
an
event
at
a
friend's
house,
a
party
at
a
friend's
house.
You
know
you
brought
a
bottle
of
wine
or
and
with
you
or
you
know,
someone
gave
you
a
bottle
of
wine
that
had
been
partially
drunk
while
you're
enjoyed
while
you're
at
a
party,
and
you
take
that
bottle
of
wine
and
you
pop
it
in
your
trunk
and
you
drive
home
with
that
bottle
of
wine.
A
A
Yeah
I
mean
still
yeah.
Dui
law
is
still
part
of
yeah
transporting
it
yeah
just
transporting
a
one
bottle
that
would
previously
been
opened,
or
you
know,
a
cannabis
container
that
had
previously
been
opened,
and
you
are
then
criminalized.
Whereas
again,
state
code
is
very
clear
that
it
has
to
be
in
the
passenger
portion
of
your
vehicle,
and
state
law
would
still
be
in
effect
here
and
would
would
still
would
still
be
the
law
of
the
land.
A
So
people
couldn't
go
driving
around
drinking
beer
or
hanging
joints
out
the
window,
but
they
could
put
it
in
their
trunk
and
they'd,
be
perfectly
fine
under
state
law
and
and
then
also
it
says,
have
on
his
or
her
person
in
or
about
personal
property.
So
it
in
on
your
person
or
in
your
personal
property,
your
backpack,
your
purse,
alcoholic
beverages
or
cannabis
projects
in
a
public
in
public
buildings
parks
or
so.
If
a
resident
was
you
know,
traveling
from
somewhere
in
evanston,
they
stopped
downtown.
A
They
purchased
some
cannabis
from
med
men
or
they
purchased
some
wine
or
whatever
from
the
liquor,
store
downtown,
and
then
they
decided
to
come
here
to
pay
their
water
bill
or
they
decided
to
just
walk
home
along
the
lakefront
or
through
a
park
that
would
be
a
criminal
offense
according
to
consumption
in
public
2
c2.
A
So
why
would
we
criminalize
someone
again
if
someone's
consuming
in
public
if
they
walk
into
the
building
smoking,
a
joint
or
drinking
beer
or
something
they're
still
criminalized
they're
still
dealt
with,
but
if
they
just
have
the
the
product
on
them,
they
will
not
be
criminalized,
and
I
think
again
that
achieves
our
goals
of
lessening
interactions.
A
So
it
makes
it
right
now
our
code
says
that
it
would
be
unlawful
for
any
for
a
2
for
a
20
year
old
to
attempt
to
purchase
alcohol
again.
I
don't
know
if
that's
in
my
opinion,
I
don't
think
that's
something
we
need
to
criminalize.
We
need
to
criminalize
the
adult
who
sells
alcohol
to
someone
who's
underage.
A
We
certainly
want
to
confess
confiscate
alcohol
or
cannabis
products
from
someone
who
is
underage,
but
we
don't
need
to
arrest
them
for
attempting
to
buy
it.
In
my
opinion-
and
also
this
also
adds
you
know
both
alcohol
and
cannabis
products.
So
right
now,
if
someone
under
21
tried
to
buy
cannabis,
they're
perfectly
fine,
but
if
they
try
to
buy
alcohol,
it's
it's
a
no
go,
and
so
this
creates
parity
between
those
two
substances
and
then
presence
restriction.
A
Currently
under
our
code,
if
you're,
19
or
18
years
old-
and
there
is
a
a
party-
and
you
go
to
that
party
and
other
18
19
year
olds-
are
drinking
alcohol
at
this
party
and
you're.
Not
you
can
be
arrested
right
because
any
ordinance
violation
is
an
arrestable
offense.
A
It
seems
to
only
criminalize
people
who
are
actually
doing
the
right
thing
and
not
underage
drinking
and
maybe
even
setting
an
example
for
their
friends
that
hey
you
can
have
fun
without
getting
drunk
too,
and
so
again,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
criminalize
young
folks
for
that
and
then
lastly,
pedestrians
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
or
drugs.
A
A
Scooter
that
we
shouldn't
have
you
on
the
street
operating
that
vehicle,
and
so
because
you
can
both
put
yourself
and
other
people
in
danger
by
being
drunk
and
driving
a
bike
or
being
drunk
and
again
it's
not
just
drunk
it's
not
like
the
the
state
standard
for
driving
it's
without
it's
when
you're
operating
it
with
without
in
a
hazardous
way.
So
it
has
to
be
clear
that
you're
operating
the
bike
or
the
whatever
it
is
the
scooter
in
a
hazardous
way.
The.
A
That
it's
adding
things
like
operating
a
bicycle,
a
motor
scooter
and
other
things
that
currently
aren't
covered
by
state
law
aren't
covered
by
a
code
to
ensure
that
if
you
are
inebriated
to
the
point
of
causing
a
hazard
to
other
people
that
you're
not
operating
those
items
on
the
public
way
all
right,
okay
and
then
well
that
that
is
it
for
this
particular
ordinance.
So,
council
member
burns
has
this.
B
Light
on-
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
to
expedite
this
item-
hear
any
objections
to
any
of
these
from
you
know,
committee
members
or
chief
edinson,
because.
C
B
In
the
way
it
was
described
by
councilman
reid,
this
all
seems
pretty
straightforward
and
non-controversial,
but
I
want
to
hear
from
everyone
else,
so
we
can
see
exactly
which
areas
are
concerning.
A
Thank
you,
council
member
burns,
councilmember
harry
cars.
K
All
right
I'll
go
down
this,
so
the
open
container
in
the
in
the
vehicle,
I
think,
needs
to
exactly
mirror
state
law,
because
the
way
the
way
when
I
first
read
this
a
few,
you
know
read
this
a
couple
times:
it
looked
as
though
we
were
removing
the
open
container
in
the
vehicle,
and
I
think
if
we
mirror
that
it
makes
sense
like
you
have
to
keep
your
wine
your
beer
in
your
trunk
or
in
the
case
of
my
minivan
in
the
non-passenger
area,
stowed
away,
that's
totally
fine
and
it
does
make
sense
to
not
criminalize
having
things
on
you
you.
K
You
know,
I'm
totally
fine
with
that.
Now,
as
far
as
the
presence
restriction
and
the
attempt
to
purchase
you
know,
I
have
kids,
this
is
a
deterrent
right.
So,
like
you,
don't
want
your
kids
to
go
to
the
you
know,
liquor
store
and
try
to
buy
beer.
You
don't
want
them
to
go
to
the
dispensary.
K
The
I
didn't
catch
this
at
through
the
first
read,
but
like
the
age
19,
I
think,
is
a
deterrent
for
high
school
students
to
hang
out
with
college
students.
I
think
that's
totally
fine.
I'd,
I'm
not
sure
I'd
like
to
see
some
information
about
how
often
this
is
used
or
how
often
people
are
arrested
for
this.
K
A
Have
you
know
maybe
the
clerk
or
someone
try
to
reach
out
to
you
and
let
you
discipline
your
child
or
have
your
child
be
arrested
for
an
attempt
to
purchase,
and
I
think
this
idea
that
we
want
to
use
to
you
know
the
threat
of
having
someone
placed
in
a
cage
and
have
handcuffs
put
on
them
as
a
deterrent
to
purchasing
alcohol
when
there's
already
a
very
clear
deterrent,
and
that
deterrent
is
that
anyone
who
sells
alcohol
to
a
miner
can
lose
their
license
to
conduct
business
and
they
will
be
held
accountable
and
then,
lastly,
again
the
same
line
of
thinking
with
the
president's
restriction.
A
Would
you
rather,
as
a
parent,
be
able
to
deal
with
your
19
year
old,
who
maybe
went
to
a
college
party
or
19
year
old
who's
in
college?
Let's
say
who
decided
to
go
to
a
drinking
party
and
they
didn't
drink
they're,
a
good
kid
and
the
police
bust
up
the
party?
Would
you
rather
the
police
say:
hey
your
kid.
Juan
was
at
this
party,
your
kid's,
a
good
kid.
A
They
weren't
drinking,
but
they
were
still
at
this
party
and
they're
not
criminalized,
and
they
don't
get
a
record
for
being
in
a
place
where
other
people
are
drinking
and
then
you
can
deal
with
them
and
discipline
them
rather
than
again
them
getting
an
arrest
record.
So
I'll
leave
it
there.
I
know
you.
B
Was
kind
of
my
my
question
I
wanted
some
time
to
respond
is
I
think
my
concern
about
a
lot
of
this
is-
and
I
would
imagine
chief
valentine
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
this
probably
isn't
enforced
a
lot
if
at
all,
and
because
of
that
any
time,
that's
the
case.
What
concerns
me
is
that
it
opens
up
for
selective
enforcement
and
I'm
trying
to
do
away
with
that
as
much
as
I
can
in
all
areas
of
of
of
our
municipal
code,
and
so
maybe
chief,
you
can
answer.
That.
O
I
think
we
do
need
some
deterrence
for
underage
people
buying
and
it's
not
solely
the
responsible,
the
responsibility
of
the
vendors
and
and
store
owners
that
they're
and
we
didn't
get
into
issues
of
the
false
ids
which
which
are
quite
common,
and
so
I
I
think
that
we
still
need
some
level
of
deterrence
there,
and-
and
is
it
selective,
absolutely
and
once
again
it's
when
we
have
that
party,
that's
really
out
of
hand.
There
has
to
be
something
else
going
on.
O
I
mean
we're
not
it
if
you've,
if
you've
ever
been
to
the
enforcement
of
one
of
these
from
either
side
of
it,
there's
usually
a
lot
of
running
and
there's
not
the
policemen
aren't
going
to
chase
everybody
down,
and
so
I
I'm
suggesting
that
it's
a
tool
rarely
used,
but
it
it
comes
in
handy
rarely.
But
it
it's
a
tool
that
we,
I
would
suggest
that
we
retain
to
a
degree
and.
B
This,
but
that
so
that
that
reminds
me
of
why
we
may
have
the
disobeying
disobeying
a
police
in
a
public
place
or
whatever,
because
we
could.
We
could
exercise
that
in
that
moment,
because
they're
clearly
running
away
from
a
police
officer.
B
I'm
just
saying
that
it
just
feels
like
what's
really
going
on
is
a
person
is
resisting
or
disobeying,
and
not
necessarily
just
that
they're
they
tried
to
buy
alcohol
which,
if
that's
the
reason
why
it's
electively
enforced
it
even
more.
So
you
know
tells
me
that
we
may
not
need
it.
We
may
have
other
code
and
other
things
that
we
can
use
to
address,
somebody
that
is
fleeing
after
they
presented
a
fake
id
or
whatever
or
tried
to
buy.
You
know.
O
Alcohol
and
I'm
suggesting
sir,
that
that
our
ability
to
run
down
teenagers
is
probably
less
likely
to
occur.
I
mean
they're,
I
think
you've
ever
been
in
a
situation
where
you're
scared
and
you're
running
you're,
the
tough
guy
to
catch
yeah.
D
O
So
my
point
is
we
have
an
array
of
deterrents
to
prevent
underage
drinking,
because
bad
stuff
happens
when
underage
people
drink,
and
so
this
is
just
one
of
the
tools.
Is
it
the
be
all
end-all?
No,
is
it
something
we
use
every
week?
No
and
and
once
again
I'm
looking
forward
to
it
at
some
point
having
the
data,
so
you
can
have
it
whether
it's
at
the
council
meeting
or,
however
this
unfolds.
B
Yeah-
and
I
mean
this
is
one
that
I
guess,
I'm
less
concerned
about
in
comparison
to
the
pres-
the
presence
one
where
you're
not
doing
anything
illegal
other
than
violating
this
code,
that
we
have
you're,
not
drinking
underage
you're,
just
merely
in
a
party
where
others
are,
and
you
may
not
even
be
aware
that
you
are
that
one
for
sure
I
think
I'm
comfortable
with
and
would
love
to.
B
You
know
I
don't
see
why
that
person
who's
not
doing
anything
wrong
other
than
violating
this
code,
you
know,
would
be
criminalized
this
okay,
this
person
is,
you
know
in
some
instances
showing
a
fake
id
or
trying
to
present
themselves
as
if
they're
older,
that's
reasonable.
B
Although
again,
I
think
we
have
other
code
that
could
address
somebody
fleeing,
and
so,
if
every
time
we
if
every
time
this
happens,
we're
not
giving
so
we're
not
arresting
someone
or
ticketing
someone
for
presenting
a
fake
idea
trying
to
buy
alcohol
underage,
we
probably
don't
need
it,
and
so
I
would
love
to
see
the
data
if
we're
not
enforcing
it.
Every
single
time,
which
I
think
is
that's
what
I'm
looking
for,
then
we
might
need
to
look
for
another
way.
B
You
know
to
see
if
there's
other
sections
of
our
code
that
addresses
it
so
that
there's
there's
not
this
much
discretion
if
it's
not
necessary.
So
I
would
like
to
see
that
data.
I'm.
A
Going
to
pass
it
to
council,
cummings
and
then
or
council
member
of
valley
delight
on.
I
just
want
to
note
that
15
I'll,
say
ilcs
335
14b
makes
it
illegal
for
anyone
to
knowingly
possess
or
exhibit
a
fraudulent
id,
and
so
the
kid
I
mean
if
you
go
to
the
liquor,
store
you're,
you
know
they're
gonna
id
you,
and
so
that
is
where
we
can
catch
you,
but
simply
walking
up
to
a
clerk
and
saying
I'd
like
to
buy
some
beer
according
to
our
law.
A
L
3-4-11
of
the
city
code
regulates
businesses
against
the
sale
of
alcohol
against
minors,
so
that
that
is
built
in
so
we
have
both
the
folks
under
21
deterrence,
as
well
as
the
business
owners
from
from
not
being
able
to
sell
to
minors.
It
seems
to
me
that
the
president's
ordinance
is
clearly
a
product
of
the
fact
that
we
have
northwestern
in
town.
L
So
you
have.
I
was
a
17
year
old
freshman,
so
you
have
freshmen
and
sophomores
some
juniors
that
are
at
maybe
like
a
fraternity
house
or
something
like
that,
and
you
know
you
have
some
substances
that
are
present
that
are
lawfully
there,
because
there
are
people
who
are
there
who
are
21
and
older
but
they're
there.
So
I
think,
that's
probably,
and
I
don't
know
when
it
was
passed.
I
didn't
look
at
the
history,
but
I
I
feel
like
that's
probably
what
that
is
about.
L
Notwithstanding
those
events
that
are
permitted
so
like
concerts
in
the
park,
or
something
like
that,
where
there's
maybe
like
liquor,
sales
allowed
or
something
of
that
nature,
do
you
want
people
going
to
robert
crown
or
the
civic
center
or
noise,
or
anything
like
that
for
any
other
purpose
other
than
something
that's
allowed
to
go
on
there?
L
Like
an
event,
do
you
want
that
to
still
like
somebody
just
be
able
to
come
into
city
council
with
an
open
container
is
really
the
question,
because
I
feel
like
that's
what
that
language
is
also
meant
to
curtail.
But
if
you
take
that
away,
our
public
commenters
can
come
in
and
smoke
and
drink
in
in
the
council
chambers.
L
B
A
Accurate
description
of
what
can
happen.
B
B
We
could
carve
out
areas
where
it
doesn't
make
sense,
but
I
think
some
of
the
examples
that
councilman
reid
described
do
not
seem
you
know
inappropriate
or
concerning
you
know,
in
terms
of,
if
you
had,
if
you
were
carrying,
you
know
a
you
know
cannabis
in
a
container
or
or
you
know,
alcohol,
but.
C
D
J
Well,
this
is
a
multi-part
problem
here,
so
I
guess
for
the
first
I'd
like
us
to
clarify
that
we
don't
want
the
open
containers
in
the
passenger
yeah
of
the
vehicle.
I
mean,
I
understand
that
that's
in
the
state
law,
but
I
think
it
doesn't
hurt
to
have
it.
It
fits
it'd,
be
really
nice
to
have.
J
Local
code,
it
has
to
be
in
the
trunk
right
right
or.
J
A
I'm
sorry
just
for
clarification.
The
ordinance
still
says
you
cannot
consume
any
of
these
things.
I
know
yeah,
and
so
it
seems
like
you.
The
only
reason
you'd
have
an
open
container
of
alcohol
or
an
open
container
of
cannabis
would
be
to
consume
it,
and
so
it
would
be.
That
would
still
be
criminalized
and
also
I'll
note
that
we
may
have
to
even
come
back
to
the
consumption,
because
right
now
we're
about
to
add
a
park.
A
Arrington
lagoon
allow
folks
to
buy
wine
and
sit
at
that
park
and
and
purchase
and
enjoy
wine,
which
would
be
against
this
code,
as
it's
currently.
J
J
I
guess
it
sounds
like
we
should
keep
the
attempt,
the
attempt
to
purchase
one
pedestrians
under
the
influence
yeah.
We
should
add
that
that
those
new
new
phrases-
so
I
don't
know
if
I've
covered
all
of
it.
I'm
I've
have
mixed
feelings
about
these
some
parts.
I
think
we
should
keep
in
some
parts
I'm
happy
to
go
along
with
the
change
yeah.
A
9510B
consumption
in
vehicles
to
say,
consume
or
have
in
the
passion
passenger
portion
of
a
vehicle
consumer
have
in
the
passenger
portion
of
a
vehicle,
open
containers
of
alcoholic
beverages
or
cannabis
products,
I'm
sorry,
consume
yeah
or
have,
and
his
or
her
person
on
his
or
her
person,
open
containers
of
alcoholic
beverages
or
cannabis
products
in
the
passenger
portion
of
any
motor
vehicle
upon
the
public
way.
Does
that
sound
good
to
everyone
so
I'll
move?
That
is
there
a
second
second.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
that
particular
amendment?
A
All
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed,
any
abstentions
that
amendment
to
section
b
passes
great
then.
The
next
thing
that
was
raised
is
item
two
which
is
have
on
his
or
her
person,
public
property
containers
of
alcoholic
beverages,
councilmember
hericatus.
Are
you
fine
with
that
which.
B
And
just
real
quick,
my
concern
with
this
is
it's
not
realistic
that
especially,
I
think
about
people
who
are
on
bicycles
to
get
move
around
the
city
and
like
they
literally
got
to
go
home
every
time
they
make
a
purchase
and
then
go
to
the
beach,
and
it's
just
not
realistic.
We
know
people
are
doing
this
so
once
again,
it'll
be
selectively
enforced.
B
It
has
to
be
the
young,
you
know
african-american
or
minority,
or
you
know,
person
of
color
who's
got
cannabis
in
his
backpack
and
he's
walking
or
riding
a
bike
it's
enforced
on
him,
but
not
the
countless
people
I
see
even
on
the
lakefront
every
summer,
not
just
with
with
not
just
with
likely.
You
know
alcohol
sealed
but
open.
You
know
contained
openly
and
drinking
right,
so
it
just
doesn't
feel
like
it's.
B
D
B
B
A
Is
consume
or
have
a
person
yeah
or
have
on
his
or
her
person
or
in
or
about
personal
property,
open
containers
of
alcohol
like
beverages.
This
means
that
if
you
again,
you
can't
walk
down
the
sidewalk.
If
you
had
a
bottle
of
wine,
you
just
left
a
party
you're
riding
your
bike
home,
you
weren't,
drunk
you,
maybe
didn't
even
drink.
It's
just
your
friends
gave
you
a
bottle
of
wine
to
take
home
with
you.
It
would
be
against
the
law
for
you
to
walk
to
walk
home
with
that
bottle
of
wine.
K
A
Well,
this
is
fine
with
both,
but
this
is
open
containers.
B
A
Cannabis
or
alcohol
you
can,
you
can
have
your
container
of
alcohol
in
your
backpack
and
not
be
drunk
because
again
we're
adding
a
new
change
here
that
wouldn't
allow
you
to
ride
your
bike
home,
drunk
in
a
in
a
manner
that
causes
a
hazard.
But
you
can
ride
your
bike
home
with
your
bottle
of
wine
and
your
backpack.
L
A
And
number
one
it
contemplates
it:
it
mentions
sidewalks
alleys
highways,
streets,
beaches
parks,
all
of
that
and
two
it
just
says,
as
comes
coming,
said:
buildings
parks
or
beaches.
So
you
can't
contain
a
container
at
all
whether
open
or
closed
at
any
city
building
park
or
beach,
but
you
can
walk.
I
guess
with
a
closed
container
of
of
that,
so
you
can't
enter
a
building
with
a
closed
container.
You
can't
enter
a
building
with
a
closed
container,
but
you
can,
I
guess,
walk
with
a
closed
container.
L
L
B
D
A
B
A
Still
not
fine
with
someone
if
you
have
a
previously
opened
container
of
of
cannabis
again,
you
know
the
way
cannabis
is
sold.
It's
a
big.
It's
usually
in
like
a
twist
some
kind
of
twist
cap
thing
that
can
be
resealed,
but
once
you
open
it,
it's
the
seal
is
broken
and
that's
considered
open,
correct
yeah.
Once
it's
been
opened
once
and
the
seal
has
been
broken,
it
is
now
open,
and
so,
if
you
and
come
on,
if
you
break
the
steel
on
your
cannabis,
you
close
it
back
up.
A
B
D
B
B
A
A
One
is
that
an
open
container
you
can't
walk
down
the
sidewalk
with
the
previously
open
container
of
cannabis,
which
I
think
is
again
that's
going
to
be
very
selective.
I
think.
J
They've
got
their
open
bottle
of
whatever
and
they're
going
to
stop
and
sit
on
the
park
bench
and
have
a
swig
versus
how
many
people
are
truly
just
going
from
point
point
a
to
point
b
and
we're
just
criminalizing
their
walking
home.
I
I'm
anyway,
I'm
I'm
but
yeah.
A
J
A
Not
really,
I
mean
we're
we're
making
it
realistic
that
yeah,
we
trust
adults
who
have
purchased
alcohol
to
know
that
you
can't
drink
in
public
and-
and-
and
I
also
I
mean-
I
didn't-
propose
this
change.
But
what
are
we
so
afraid
of
people
drinking
in
public
people
drink
in
public?
You
can
drink
at
a
bar
on
a
cafe
outdoor
cafe
on
the
sidewalk.
A
J
J
B
Yeah,
I
guess
then,
to
to
councilman
harry
cottage.
I
just
I
again
socially.
I
think
alcohol
is
treated
a
little
differently
that
you
probably
would
keep
that
in
you
know
in
the
you
probably
will
keep
that
at
home.
I
don't
I'm
sure,
that's
not
always
the
case,
but
you
know
for
cannabis
again.
This
is
something
that
very
often
people
are
opening,
bringing
it
with
them
because
they're
going
to
a
buddy's
house-
and
it's
it's
just
it's
it's
the
way.
It's
going
to
happen.
K
Anyway-
and
I
don't
want
anybody
arrested
for
that,
so
I
have
a
question
for
chief
eddington
because
open
container
everyone
knows
what
an
open
container
of
alcohol
is,
but
it
is,
if
you
can
clarify
like
does,
does
a
loose
joint
in
your
pocket.
Is
that
an
open
container?
Is
that
absolutely?
Is
it
like
a
jar,
that's
closed,
but
the
seal
is
broken
because
there's
a
million
things
now
like?
Oh,
do
you
have
a
vape
pen?
Is
your
vape
pen.
A
O
Let's
let
chief
addington
answer
that
all
those
are
defined
as
an
open
cleaner,
except
for
the
joint
that
that's
if
it's
loose
in
your
pocket,
it's
it's
not
anything
you're
in
possession
of
cannabis.
If
it's
a
big
enough
joint,
you
could
get
a
ticket,
but
it's
got
to
be
a
pretty
big
joint,
but
but
I
think
that
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
we're
discussing
tonight
fall
into
the
the
periphery
of
like
one.
In
a
million
I
mean,
I
doubt
seriously,
that
you
have
complaints
from
your
constituents
about
their
backpack
being
searched.
O
A
O
Well,
I
once
again
I'm
I'm,
I
don't
want
to
seem
like
a
broken
record,
but
I
don't
have
the
data
to
share
with
you
tonight
to
to
show
you
the
magnitude
of
the
perceived
problem.
If
I
I'm
not
seeing
it
office
of
professional
standards
isn't
seeing
it.
So
I
I'm
I'm
not
sure
and
that's
why
I'm
I.
If
I
have
more
lead
time,
I
can
get
the
data.
B
Yeah,
no,
I
understand
and
I
and
and
and
can.
L
L
Brown
paper
bags
that
sort
of
thing,
but
also
because
again
we're
a
college
town.
You
have
people
leaving
various
facilities
on
northwestern's
campus
or
maybe
even
off
campus,
where
the,
where
the
activities
have
spilled
outside
on
their
way
home
or
back
to
whatever
dorm
or
apartment,
or
what
have
you
just
to
offer
that
context
to
the
committee?
So
all
of
your
examples
are
well
taken,
but
on
the
flip
side
of
that,
there's
probably
some
reason
why
this
was
written.
B
And
I
just
want
to
make
a
difference
between
like
something
that
is
concealed
and
something
that
is
out
in
the
open.
So
you
could
be
not
consuming
but
walking
down
the
street
with
clearly
an
open.
You
know
bottle
of
wine
and
I'm
not
saying
that
that
should
necessarily
be
allowed.
But
if
somebody
has
it
in
the
backpack
should
that
be
allowed?
Can
we
even
search
the
backpack
anyway,
which
is
a
whole
nother
thing
and
then.
B
In
the
pocket,
which
is
also
more
so,
what
I'm
concerned
about,
which
is
revealed
in
some
type
of
investigative
stock,
we're
doing
a
pat
down,
and
you
know
you're
flipping
pockets,
which
happens,
and
you
see
a
cannabis
in
a
contained
container.
Where
you
can
you
can
charge
somebody
based
on
that
discovery
in
the
moment,
right
or
no,
it
depends.
B
I
would
understand
that
right.
Do
you
have
a
card
etc?
Now
it's
you,
can
you
know
legally
there's
an
adult
use
program
so
as
long
as
they're
of
age-
and
you
find
that
this
you,
you
know
they
could
be
charged
for
it
under
the
current
law.
O
But
once
again,
I
don't
think
we're
levying
that
many
charges
in
these
fact
patterns
that
you're
talking
about
are
our
arrests
for
cannabis.
I
think
the
couple
I
saw
last
week
on
the
bulletin
were
for
large
amounts
of
cannabis
in
a
car.
Clearly,
dealers
or
I
don't
know-
I
don't
have
the
debt
in
front
of
me,
but
I
would
be
surprised
if
there's
a
sizable
number
of
arrests
in
the
fact
patterns
that
you're
talking
about.
A
A
B
B
I
can
have
a
bunch
of
original
containers,
but
I'm
delivering
right
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
concern,
but
I
would
even
be
fine
if
it
was
up
to
a
certain
amount,
but
I
think
there
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
cannabis
that
you
should
be
able
to
transport
in
the
original
packing
packaging
but
open
without
it
being
discovered
and
you
charge
for
it
in
an
investigative.
Stop.
That's
what
I'm
saying
and.
B
It's
I
would
like
to
see
the
data
whether
or
not
it's
happening,
but
almost
the
fact
that
it
could
happen,
especially
in
a
scenario
that
we
know
happens
all
the
time
which
is
young
men,
especially
younger
men
or
any
young
people,
especially
are
you
know,
stopped
often
and,
and
we
know
the
amount
of
investigative
searches
that
happen
to
that
particular
population.
So
this
is
something
that
maybe
it's
not
reasonable
to
expect
it
to
be
discovered
in
the
backpack,
but
certainly
if
it's
in
somebody's
pocket,
which
could
happen
and
that
I'm
sure
does.
A
A
And
it
could
even
be,
as
we
just
said,
if
somebody's
riding
their
bike
on
the
sidewalk
in
a
d1
district
or
something
and
they
get
stopped
for
that,
their
backpack
can
be
searched.
Then
they
can
find
the
cannabis
in
the
backpack
and
it
creates
another
scenario
where
you
know
they
have
an
added
charge.
But
I
do
want
to
continue
on
and
move
down
to
where
there
was
some
disagreement
and
it's
the
attempt
to
purchase.
A
E
A
Yeah,
the
sale
of
cannabis
isn't
covered
in
our
code,
but
or
I
don't
believe
to
my
knowledge-
it's
not
covered,
but
certainly
alcohol
is
correct
and
cannabis
just
isn't
covered,
I'm
sure
it's
covered
by
a
state
law.
A
But
are
you
satisfied
with
the
fact
that
one,
the
attempt
to
that
it's
already
a
criminal
code
for
someone
to
attempt
to
buy
alcohol
in
for
someone
to
sell
alcohol
to
a
minor,
and
it's
already
against
state
law,
for
someone
to
present
a
fake
id
in
order
to
facilitate
that,
so
the
two
things
that
would
be
necessary
for
that
to
actually
happen
are
covered
by
law?
Is
that
satisfactory
to
you.
K
I'd
want
to
hear
from
legal
if
this
helps
adjudicate
like
like
cases
with
minors.
As
far
as
like
using
this
attempt
to
purchase
for
like
a
small
violation
versus
the
state
code,.
L
L
In
theory,
a
turn
alternative
to
arrest,
although
one
can
be
arrested
for
an
ordinance
violation,
but
it
does
provide
an
alternative
to
arrest
to
write
them
an
ordinance
ticket
instead.
A
But
it
doesn't
really
cover
if
someone
presents
a
fake
id,
that's
not
covered
by
our
ordinance
correct,
and
so
it
wouldn't
provide
an
alternative
and
in
fact-
and
it
also
it's
already
covered
by
our
ordinance,
the
sale
of
alcohol.
So
the
only
thing
this
adds
is
it
in
fact
it
doesn't
create
an
alternative.
A
L
Yeah,
so
by
deleting
the
attempt
language,
they
actually
have
to
complete
the
purchase
in
order
for
it
to
be
criminalized.
Yeah.
A
A
B
But
the
attempt
I
would-
and
I
don't
know
a
councilman-
will
agree
with
this
again.
I
think
there's
we
just
need
to
in
some
instances
we
need
to
cut
out
the
discretion
and
just
say
it's
a
ticket
like
we're,
not
saying
there
shouldn't
be
any
like
any.
Nothing
should
come
of
it,
but
maybe
it
should
just
be
a
ticket
and
not
an
arrest.
So.
A
K
B
A
B
L
He
might
have.
I
was
going
to
say
that
I
think
councilmember
burns
point
is
well
taken.
Then
it
raises
other
issues
that
we
can
discuss
out
offline,
that
if
the
point
then
is
to
stop
the
resting
people,
then
you
just
make
it
clear
that
ordinance
violations
should
be
issued
tickets
and
not
subject
to
arrests
regardless,
and
I
certainly
don't
mind
amending
language
and
making
it
clear
more
concise
or
whatever.
L
But
the
fact
of
the
matter
is,
if
you're
trying
to
curtail
arrests
for
ordinance
violations,
the
better
solution
may
be
then
to
essentially
make
the
penalties
for
ordinances
to
be
tickets,
very
specific
and
not
arrested.
A
Such
as
we
do
with
cannabis,
I
will
say
that
these
particular
things,
I'm
not
even
so.
The
main
goal
is
to
prevent
arrests.
There
are
some
things
that
you
should
not.
Government
should
not
be
interjecting
into
your
life,
giving
you
a
ticket
or
anything
for
again
things
that
we
already
discussed,
but.
B
A
Fine,
if
I
will
make
the
referral
tonight
to
create
a
ticket
ticketable
offense
for
any
miner
trying
to
purchase
alcohol,
would
that
satisfy
you?
A
Okay,
but
we
can
we'll
strike
the
er
for
attempting
to
purchase
is
a
ticket
purchasing
would
still
be
a
crime,
but
we
can
eliminate
it
here
and
then
the
final
thing
was
the
presence
restriction
which
we
create
kind
of
a
weird
dynamic,
because
councilmember
revell
said
she
was
fine
with
eliminating
the
president's
restriction,
but
then
not
fine
with
other
things.
A
B
A
L
So
he's
out,
it
would
be
cleaner
if
they
were
separate.
However,
you
know
you
can,
through
parliamentary
procedure,
move
to
adopt
or
recommend
to
council
sections
one
section,
two
section:
three
separately.
A
L
So
just
so,
you
have
a
clean
record
councilman
breed
there.
Well.
K
If
I
find
out,
we
don't,
maybe
if
you
make
it
ticketed,
I
don't
know,
but.
A
Okay,
well,
we'll
we'll
look
to
fix
the
president's
restriction
if
we
need
to
we'll
work
to
get
a
either
referral
to
make
it
a
ticketable,
offense
or,
and
maybe
address
it
better
than
just
19
year
olds
and
to
your
point
you
said
you
don't
want
high
school
students
going
to
parties.
So
maybe
we
make
it
folks
who
are
17
years
and
younger
can
get
a
ticket
if
they're
at
a
party
or
something.
So
we
can
figure
that
out.
A
Okay,
so
seeing
that
it
seems
as
though
all
of
the
concerns
have
been
addressed,
at
least
for
a
majority
of
folks
to
vote
for
it
here
and
so
with.
That
is.
L
What
I
was
going
to
point
out,
you've
already
made
amendments
to
portions
of
section,
one
with
respect
to
the
consumption
in
vehicles
and
then
I'm
not
sure
where
the
committee
is
going
to
land
in
terms
of
consumption
in
public,
but
I
would
just
for
the
ease
of
for
us
to
try
the
law
department
to
try
and
make
sure
this
is
on
the
council
member
agenda
correctly.
Each
section
probably
should
be
parsed
out
and
appear
on
the
council
agenda
separately.
Yeah.
A
We'll
do
that
yeah,
okay.
So
then
I
will
entertain
a
motion
specifically
to
deal
to
adopt.
A
Yeah
yeah
going
forward
yeah
yeah,
so
to
adopt
nine
five
that
what's
presented
in
front
of
us
nine
five,
ten
with
the
amendments
that
were
previously
made,
9510
a
b
c
d
or
really
just
all
of
9510
with
the
amendment.
So
it's
moved,
I've
moved
it
9,
5
10
is.
A
Yes,
yes,
so
with
9510,
we
amended,
what's
here
on
the
language,
to
say
that
you
know
b
to
say,
consume
or
have
on
his
or
her
person,
open
containers
of
alcoholic
beverages
or
cannabis
projects
in
the
passenger
portion
of
the
vehicle.
That
was
the
amendment
there
and
then
everything
else
was
left
the
same.
K
A
Yes,
yes,
yes
for
the
yes,
specifically
the
language
about
passenger
porsche
or
whatever
it
is
in
state
law.
Okay,
so
then
may
have
a
motion
on
item
nine.
Five,
ten.
B
B
A
Okay,
okay,
that's
fair!
Okay,
one
is
still
in
there,
but.
A
In
public
having
open
containers,
so
I'm
going
to
stand
in
the
seventh
ward
outside
of
places
where
they
serve
alcohol
and
start
snitching
on
your
residents.
The
second
they
walk
onto
the
public
street
with
their
container
and
so
we'll
see
how
much
folks
like
that.
So.
A
Yes,
that
was
all
of
it,
so
all
of
nine
five
ten
and
then
we're
going
to
go
to
nine
five.
Ten
one
is
next.
A
Yeah,
all
of
nine
five,
ten
just
separated
out
and
passed
individually,
now
we're
on
nine
five,
ten
one.
So
nine
I
moved
the
approval
of
nine
five
ten
one
which
is
as
it
appears
and
we've
gotten
clarification
from.
A
Yeah
purchase
possession
or
acceptance
of
gifts
by
persons
less
than
21
years
of
age
consumption
by
persons
less
than
21
years
of
age,
and
so
this
would
add
cannabis
products,
so
you
this
would
make
it
illegal
to
give
someone
21
a
joint
under
21,
a
joint
or
some
other
cannabis
product
even
give,
even
if
you
gift
it
to
them,
it'd
be
illegal
to
gift
it
to
someone
under
21
or
to
sell
it
to
them,
of
course,
and
it'd
be
illegal
for
them
to
consume,
and
it
would
be
illegal
for
someone
under
21
to
purchase
alcohol,
and
I
am
going
to
put
in
a
referral
that
makes
it
a
ticketable
offense
to
attempt
to
purchase
okay.
A
B
A
D
A
All
those
opposed
any
abstentions,
great
that
passes
all
right.
That
brings
us
to
nine
five,
ten
three
pedestrians
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
or
drugs.
This
is
the
portion
about
you.
You
can't
be
impaired
to
a
point
that
you
cause
a
hazard
and
ride
a
bike
or
a
motor
scooter
or
some
other.
A
Non
some
other
equipment
that
is
covered,
and
so
let
me
actually
I
want
to
make
one
amendment
to
this.
It
says
propulsion
tool
I
I
would
say
equipment.
I
didn't.
I
was
maybe
very
tired
when
I
wrote
this
and
I
should
have
said
equipment
instead
of
tool
entertaining
motion
to
just
to
clarify,
to
make
it
better
to
amend
that
to
equipment.
A
We'll
just
we
can
very
quickly
second,
it
okay
friendly
amendment
and
it's
adopted
so
we're
amending
95103
to
instead
of
propulsion,
tool,
equipment
or
we'll
even
let
the
law
department.
If
there's
some
better
word
that
you
think
will
leave
you
the
freedom
to
to
amend
it
in
the
way
that
you
see
fit.
Okay.
So
all
those.
D
L
A
So
all
of
that
it's
meant
to
get
too
he's
got
it:
okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
nine
five
95103
as
amended.
Okay,
great
the
motion
passes.
A
E
A
Burglars
tools:
I
want
to
go
to
that
one
hs
12
11,
so
I
move
hs
11
removal
of
burglars
tools,
ordinance
from
the
city
code.
B
A
A
See
all
right,
but
this
is
burglar's
tools,
so
this
eliminates
the
section
of
code
relating
to
burglars
tools
with
this
one.
We
we
discussed
at
the
last
meeting
the
law
department
provided
the
memo.
A
It
seems
as
though
we
cannot
regulate
a
felony
as
a
misdemeanor,
but
we
can
regulate
a
felony
as
either
a
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
but
we
can
regulate
a
felony
as
a
ticketable,
offense
or
essentially
a
that's.
What
the
memo
can't.
A
A
A
I
mean
my
goal
is
to
strike
this,
but
if
we
are
able
to
do
that,
then
I'm
happy
to
amend
this
to
to
make
this
a
purely
ticketable
offense
or
in
the
language
to
one
to
match
state
law
and
then
also.
K
Yeah,
I
think
there
is
in
the
current
code,
there's
just
one.
The
last
line
where
you
basically
have
to
prove
yourself
innocent
was
the
part
I
had
an
issue
with
and
the
state
law.
I
have
it
right
up
here.
It
says
yada
yada,
with
an.
A
K
L
And
yes,
I
just
found
the
memo,
and
that
was
the
recommendation,
because
I,
I
think,
there's
some
trepidation
by
our
department
that
the
way
that
it's
currently
drafted
is
actually
not
proper
and
we
could,
if
it
was
challenged
in
court,
we
would
actually
get
thrown
out.
So
there
is,
there
is
the
suggestion
from
the
law
department
that
it
be.
That
would
mirror
state
law
in
terms
of
possession
of
burglar
tools,
yeah.
A
So
I
just
want
to
note
that
the
reason
I
brought
this
up,
because
again
this
is
another
very
warped.
Evanston.
Now
article
no
evans
denial
readers,
I'm
not
looking
to
allow
burglars
to
run
loose
throughout
evanston.
It's
looking
to
address
this
law
in
a
manner
that
comports
with
our
constitution
and
as
our
law
department
has
said,
the
city
of
chicago
has
had
a
similar
ordinance
that
was
struck
down
by
courts.
A
Is
also
invalid.
Yes,
right
now
as
it
stands,
ours
is
invalid,
so
even
the
person
who
was
charged
with
it
that
we
were
you
know
saying
we're.
You
know
that
person
shouldn't
have
been
charged
with
their
local
ordinance
and
that's
also,
you
know.
I
will
say
part
of
why
I
have
a
a
bit
of
concern
about
local
ordinance
violations.
Is
our
local
adjudicators
don't
have
the
same.
A
A
L
I
think
to
clarify
that
our
hearing
officers
may
not
be
attuned
to
prior
administrative
adjudications
of
our
own
code,
so
precedent
of
our
enforcement
of
our
own
code,
but
they
would
be
attuned
to
sorry
decisis
from
the
courts
because
they
are,
they
are
licensed.
Attorneys
and
yeah.
L
Was
the
case
that
was
cited
in
the
memo
was
from
1970.
A
B
So
have
we
is
it
clear
now,
the
other
part
of
it,
which
is
whether
we
can
it
will
become
ticketable
or
where
are
we
at
on
that
part?.
A
A
Yeah
hold.
A
L
Our
our
ordinance
allows
for
it
to
be
ticketable,
unlike
chicago's
ordinance,
which
is
in
the
memo.
It's
not
does
not
account
for
jail
time.
Chicago's
ordinance
account
for
jail
time,
but
it's
recommended
that
our
ordinance
mirror
state
law,
which
is
720
ilcs
5-19-2,
with
respect
to
possession
of
burglar
tools
and
still
make
it
ticketable,
as
opposed
to
our
current
reading,
because
it
was
somewhat
similar
to
city
of
chicago's
ordinance
and
for
everyone's
edification.
L
I'd
have
to
look
that
up,
but
it
for
some
reason.
I
have
the
sneaky
suspicion
that
it
that
it
could
also
be
a
misdemeanor.
B
A
It's
a
felony
at
the
state
level
and
that's
why
we're
having
this
discussion.
So
it's
a
felony
offense
at
the
state
level,
and
it
says
what
it
says
here
in
the
memo
is
therefore
the
city
may
regulate
for
the
protection
of
public
health,
safety,
morals
and
welfare,
but
may
not
be
but
may
not
go
beyond
the
limitations
that
are
that
have
been
established
by
statute.
A
Subsequently,
it
can
be
inferred
that
municipalities
may
regulate
an
act
to
provide
for
punishment,
but
may
not
reclassify
an
act
determined
by
the
state
law
to
be
a
misdemeanor
to
be
a
misdemeanor
and
make
it
a
felony
or-
and
vice
versa,
say
we
can't
make
something
that
is
misdemeanor
by
state
law
or
felony.
We
can't
regulate
felonies
period
and
we
also
from
what
this
is
saying.
We
can't
take
something
that
is
a
felony
and
make
it
a
misdemeanor.
A
That's
a
big
deal
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
criminal
laws
of
the
state
yeah.
There
is
no
case
that
is
on
point
with
the
particular
issue
that
state
law
does
not
preempt
the
city
for
making
its
own
ordinances
as
it
relates
to
possession
of
burglar's
tools.
It
is
advised
the
city
not
attempt
to
classify
the
possession
of
burglar
tools
as
either
a
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
but
it
may
choose
to
impose
a
fine
and.
B
Very
interesting:
that's
arrest
and
creativity
all
right.
So
where
are
we
at
on
this
again.
A
So
the
so
then
I
I
make
a
motion
to
have
this
code.
Mirror
state
law
is
seconded
by
council
member
vel,
all
those
in
favor.
A
A
Okay,
then,
I
move
that
that
this
offense
be
merely
a
ticketable
offense
with
a
ticket
not
to
exceed
750
and
not
to
not
to
exceed
700,
to
have
a
minimum
of
300
and
a
maximum
of
750.,
and
I'm
I'm
picking
those
numbers
inconsistent
to
be
consistent
with
the
way
we
ticket
for
certain
other
offenses,
because
this
is
a
very
serious
offense
and
I
do
think
it
requires
of
the
highest
ticket
fees
that
we
can
assess.
If
we're
not
going
to
criminalize
someone
for
it.
D
A
There
a
second
on
that
motion.
Second,
is
there
any
discussion
on
that
motion?
I
want
to
pose
to
that
motion.
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
any
no's,
any
extensions.
It
passes
all
right.
So
we've
gotten
that
and
then
I
think
we'll
we'll
move
on
to
the
park
issue
and
we'll
so
that
I
move
item.
A
B
K
So
I
will
try
a
friendly
amendment
where
you
had
the
language
that
said
exercising
change
that
to
jogging
and
cycling.
A
I
am
happy
to
amend
that,
so
we
are
striking
the
language
as
council
member
harry
cars
said
that
says
exercising
and
we
are
adding
the
language
to
say
specifically
jogging
or
cycling,
correct,
great
okay.
I
would
like
to
just
take
a
voice
foot
on
that.
I
second
it
all.
Those
in
favor
aye,
aye,
guys.
E
A
Great,
oh
council
member
reveal.
J
A
Observation
this
is
it
you're
correct.
It
is
not
covered
in
this
section
of
code,
but
in
another
section
of
code
it
does
say
specifically
that
all
courts
close
at
10
pm
and
that's
also
why
I'm
moving
up
the
hour
here
from
11
to
10,
to
just
match
that
that
it's
clear
that
at
10
pm
you're,
not
playing
basketball,
you're,
not
hanging
out
in
the
park
you're,
not
doing
anything
other
than
walking
sitting
cycling
or
jogging.
A
A
It's
fast,
it's
all
park
equipment,
so
all
basketball,
courts,
tennis
courts,
even
the
little
exercise,
things
that
are
along
the
lakefront
you're,
technically
not
allowed
to
step
on
those
after
10.
and
council.
Commons
can
we'll
give
them
some
time
to
confirm
that,
and
I
will
also
look
for
it.
Are
there
any
other
questions
that
you
have.
J
It's
a
it's
a
real
problem
over
at
lighthouse
beach,
and
I
just
I
don't
think
I
can
support
allowing
even.
J
A
So
I'm
I
want
to
get
to
your
concerns.
So
first
of
all,
council
cummings
has
turned
on
his
light.
L
Courts
do
not
have
a
regulation
with
respect
to
that
isn't.
L
You're
you're
not
allowed
to
use
a
skateboard
on
the
tennis
court,
but
there's
nothing
in
terms
of
hours
of
play
listed
in
the
city
code.
It
does
only
restrict
in
terms
of
hours,
posted
tennis,
court
rules
and
regulations,
as
adopted
by
the
parks
and
recreation
board,
or
what
govern
and
only
tennis
is
allowed
to
be
played
on
tennis
courts.
B
You
know
what's
interesting
about
that
is
I
do
people
see
people
in
certain
tennis
courts
in
everton
playing
rather
late,
and
I
think
that's
the
seventh
award
on
on
lincoln.
B
They
play
pretty
late
over
there,
okay,
but.
J
No,
it's
just
I.
I
just
have
a
real
problem
with
allowing
people
in
the
parks
after
closing
hours
at
lighthouse,
that
would
that
just
would
create
a
problem.
Are.
A
Right
now,
the
ordinance
that
we're
looking
at
would
include
would
allow
folks.
A
A
Well,
but,
and
hence
why
the
law
says
that
you
cannot
enter
a
public
park
to
do
anything
other
than
sit,
walk
or
jog
or
cycle,
and
that
if
you
enter
the
park
for
anything
other
than
that,
you're
not
allowed
to
enter
it.
And
if
you
enter
the
park-
and
you
are
in
a
group
of
people
or
even
by
yourself
and
you're,
making
any
noise,
it's
not
decibel.
A
If,
if
we
can
hear
a
whisper
of
the
noise
that
you're
making
from
50
feet
away,
you
are
to
immediately
leave
the
park,
shall
not
remain
in
a
park
from
10
pm
to
7
pm.
So
if
we
can
hear
you
whisper,
15
or
50
feet
away,.
A
Do
believe,
I
think
I
got
this
language
from.
I
also
want
to
note
that
this
is
ordinances
like
this
exist
in
many
cities
across
america,
and
in
fact
I
got
this
language
most
of
it
from
ann
arbor.
B
Because
my
point
is:
is
that
again,
if,
if
you're
in
the
backyard
or
whatever
part
in
loudspeaker
whatever
it
is
like,
there's
there's
a
time
limit,
but
if
you're
sitting
there
of
a
certain
volume,
you
could
do
that.
It
just
says-
and
this
happened
in
my
ward-
where
they
just
they
come
by
the
the
gathering,
you
can
still
gather
it's
private
property,
it's
just
the
noise
and
it
can't
be
heard
and
I'm
pretty
sure
it's
within
50
feet.
So
this
is
consistent
with
what
we
do
in
residential
dense
areas.
B
Already.
You
know
it's.
J
It's
not
just
merely
the
noise,
it's
the
how
the
young
people
show
up
they
and
and
one
thing
leads
to
another,
and
then
we
have
fires
in
the
dunes
and-
and
I
know
none
of
this
is
allowed,
but
it's
just.
I
think
I
don't
want
to
encourage
people
to
think
they
can
stay
in
the
parks
and
go
on
the
beach
later.
I
I
like
the
idea
of
closing
it
at
10
p.m.
A
I
I
do
want
to
note
that.
K
K
P
So
our
beaches
currently
close
at
6
p.m.
When
we
get
to
our
regular
season,
they
will
close
at
eight.
So
if
you're
talking
about
the
parks,
it
would
be
eleven.
I
would
also
warn
you
all
that
we
still
have
some
events
in
our
parks
that
are
permitted
currently
after
10
p.m.
So
they
already
have.
K
Oh
audrey,
since
you're
here,
how
do
you
feel
about
the
the
provision
to
sit
or
walk
or
jog.
P
So
there
was.
I
don't
know
that
you
all
read
what
came
from
our
parks
and
rec
board
chair,
mr
bush.
That
was
a
public
comment
that
was
sent
in
and
our
I
mean
we
haven't
changed
our
position
on
this.
B
And-
and
just
so
I'm
clear,
I
think
that
what
I
you
know
I
know,
there's
might
be
some
generous
opinion
on
this.
But
what
I
want
to
make
sure
is
that
somebody,
the
scenario
I
have
in
mind
is
if
it's
a
small
group
of
people
or
down
to
one
person
walking
through
a
park
jogging
through
a
park
cycling
through
a
park.
I
see
no
issue
with
that.
B
If
there
is
a
large
gathering
at
a
park
after
a
certain
time,
obviously
that
that
can
create
some
issues,
but
everything
else
shouldn't
be
criminalized
because
we're
concerned
about
really
larger
events,
you
know
and
less
people
moving
through
a
park,
but
more
so
like
hanging
out
in
a
certain
area
and
again
I
know
there
may
be
some
difference
of
opinion,
but
if
there's
not
enough
support
for
the
hangout
there's
enough
support
for
the
cycling
for
the
walking
you
know.
A
And
I
want
to
note
that
if
a
group
of
people
are
together
a
group
of
young
folks
to
kind
of
be
making
noise,
that's
audible,
even
if
they're
being
fairly
quiet,
a
large
group
of
people
is
going
to
just
the
hum
of
the
human
existence
is
going
to
make
enough
noise,
that's
audible
from
50
feet,
thereby
they
are
to
leave
the
park
that
to
them.
The
park
is
closed.
Now,
if
there's
a
group
of
young
people
who
happen
to
be
so
mouse
quiet
that
they're
there
and
you
can't
detect
noise
from
50
feet.
A
Well,
then,
really,
what
are
they
doing?
That's
bothering
anybody,
but
I
think
that
your
concerns
of
a
large
gathering
of
folks
will
those
folks
will
still
have
to
leave
the
park
immediately.
If
an
officer
comes
over
and
as
they're
approaching,
they
can
hear
them
50
feet
away,
even
just
to
hum
audible,
not
audible
at
65
decibels,
75,
it's
audible
period
and
you
got
to
go
okay
count
here,
council
member
here
curtis,
so
our
councilmember
curtis.
B
K
I
mean
I
I
wish
park
staff
would
support
this.
I
do
feel
it
is
problematic
to
have
it
be
criminalized
just
to
be
in
the
park
like.
I
know
me
personally.
I
I've
ridden
my
bike
through
the
parks
early
in
the
morning.
A
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
we're
not
condoning
like
the
exact
issue
that
you're
concerned
about
this
actually
addresses,
because
if
we
take
this
out,
then
what's
stopping
a
group
of
people,
a
group
of
people
can
go
and
walk
or
sit
and
do
whatever
they
want
in
the
park
and
essentially
make
as
much
noise
as
they
want
in
the
park.
This
says
that
if
that
group,
if
that
person
or
a
group
of
people,
makes
noise,
that's
audible
from
a
distance,
they
got
to
go.
This
actually
addresses
the
very
issue
that
folks
are
concerned.
B
A
I'm
happy
to
shift
it
to
11.
if
we're
fine,
with
people
being
in
parks.
Now
at
10
o'clock
and
making
noise,
I
was
looking
to
you
know,
solve
the
issue
of
residents
who
want
to
be
able
to
go
to
sleep
at
10
o'clock,
or
you
know
somewhere
around
10
and
have
that
noise
cleared
out
well
before
11..
And
so
that's
why.
I
think
that
the
10
o'clock,
you
know
ending
this
noise
and
we
can
add
a
provision
except
for
you
know,
events
that
are
authorized
by
the
parks
and
rec
department.
P
So
to
your
point,
councilman
member
head
of
cottage,
if
you're
riding
your
bike
through
the
park,
even
if
the
police
were
called
by
the
time
they
get
there
you'd
be
gone
so,
but
if
you're
continuously
just
writing
and
writing
and
exercising,
I
think
it
brings
again.
As
I
stated
the
last
time
I
was
here,
you
know
I
just
think
it
brings
up
a
lot
of
issues
of
miscreant
behavior.
P
The
summary
of
the
of
the
ordinance
change
is
that
the
park
is
open,
24
hours
a
day,
and
so
from
someone
saying
hey,
the
park
is
closed.
Move
along.
You
can't
do
that
anymore,
so
I
just
want
you
all
to
understand
that
that
is
gone.
P
B
Quickly
address
that
I'm
pretty
sure
the
way
I
understood
this
is
it
talked
about
walking
quietly
through
a
park
cycling
quietly
through
a
park
through
not
in
circles
but
through
a
park
on
your
way
home
for
example.
So
I
just
want
to
be
you
know,
I'm
fine
not
having
the
sitting
in
the
gathering,
and
all
of
that
I
don't
need
it,
I'm
fine
with
it
or
without
it.
What
I
want
to
make
sure
is
that
people
can
walk
quietly
through
a
park
can
cycle
quietly
through
a
park.
B
A
A
I
won't
be
there,
but
there
could
be
an
officer
just
sitting
there
and
see
me
riding
my
bike
or
see
some
young
person
riding
their
bike,
and
you
know
that
person
is
then
it
creates
an
interaction
with
law
enforcement
for
an
issue
that
is
not
harming
anyone
and
again.
I
I
think
that
the
the
language
here
there's
a
big
difference
before
and
I
did
not
write
the
previous
language.
A
You
know
it
was
that
referral
was
made
before
I
started
drafting
the
ordinances,
but
there
is
a
big
difference
before
the
ordinance
just
blanket
said
that
even
city
buildings
aren't
you
know,
closed
and
park
buildings.
This
very
clearly
says
that
you
know
the
park
department
may
set
a
time
for
for,
for
all
buildings
to
close
and
buildings
can
close
at
whatever
time
you
say
is
appropriate
park
buildings,
but
the
public
area
of
the
park
is
still
open,
and
I
I
to
bring
this
up.
You
know
I
think
first.
A
B
K
And
then
also
I'd
be
curious
if
there's
any,
because
I
get
what
we're
trying
to
do,
but
if
there's
any
way
to
change
the
wording
that
would
you
know
satisfy.
D
P
A
It
doesn't
seem
so
chief
eddington
sent
a
number
of
arrest
files
that
are
coded
for
the
parks
and
at
least
it
seems
from
2019
to
present.
It
doesn't
seem
like
folks
were
arrested,
and
I
want
to
note
the
other
day
as
I
was
preparing
for
this.
I
went
to
fountain
square
and
along
the
lakefront
around
10
30,
and
I
just
sat
there
until
about
11
when
I
removed
myself
as
best
as
I
could
from
legal
liability
of
being
in
a
park.
A
But,
for
example,
fountain
square
is
buzzing
at
11
o'clock
at
night,
11
30
at
night,
sometimes
even
12
o'clock
at
night.
I
haven't
really
been
there
past,
then
and
police
drive
by,
and
they
look
at
all
the
people
sitting
in
the
park,
which
is
illegal
and
they
do
nothing,
which
is
what
I
want.
And
again
people
along
the
lakefront
are
walking
along
the
lakefront
going
home,
doing
whatever
they're
doing
and
that's
perfectly
fine
and
again
people
aren't
being
arrested.
A
So
let's
create
a
law
that
makes
it
very
clear
what
you
can
and
can't
do
in
a
park.
So
you
don't
have
situations
where
laws
are
unequally
enforced,
particularly
against
people
of
color.
O
Mr
chairman,
and
to
answer
the
question
about
the
numbers
being
arrested,
I
think
we
gathered
up
some
of
that
data
last
time
for
the
for
the
committee.
A
all
the
all
the
interactions
we
had
at
the
parks
were
a
call
for
service.
We're
we're
we're
only
going
when
somebody
calls
us
and
I
think,
your
experience
of
fountain
square.
My
experience
nightly
at
fountain
square,
we're
not
going
to
interact
unless
there's
a
problem
or
there's
a
complaint,
and
so
I
I
I
don't.
O
I
am
terribly
concerned
about
creating
a
situation
where
we're
at
least
giving
the
appearance
of
unequal
enforcement.
In
that
now,
you
want
to
put
us
in
a
position,
we're
saying:
hey.
We
got
a
complaint,
we
can
hear
you,
you
got
to
go
and
now
we're
going
to
have
the
discussion
about
well,
what
about
those
people
well
they're,
not
making
noise
yet,
and
I
I
think
that
we're
we're
creating
a
difficulty
that
we
can
avoid
by
making
a
rule
hey
the
parks,
closed,
move
along
and
and.
O
Those
interactions,
nobody
gets
arrested,
they
say,
hey,
you
got
to
go
and
they
go
we're
done
and,
and
you
can
see
by
our
demeanor
vis-a-vis,
the
lakefront
vis-a-vis
fountain
square-
we're
not
looking
for
those
interactions,
we're
not
looking
to
make
arrests,
but
I
think
that
with
this
clear
bright
line
rule
we
have
something
to
fall
back
on.
If
there's
a
complaint
that
we
need
to
address.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
and
I
would
say
that
there's
still
a
very
clear
bright
line
rule
that,
if
someone's
making
noise
that's
audible,
they
have
to
leave.
And
what
I
will
also
say
is
that
by
creating
a
situation
where
you're,
where
we're
not
enforcing
a
law
and
we're
literally
having
officers
drive
by
and
watch
people
break
the
law
and
not
enforce
it,
I
think
that
creates
a
situation
and
the
fact
that
you
say
that
you
only
respond
to
calls.
A
I
think,
shows
why
this
is
a
perfectly
fine
ordinance
that
wouldn't
change
the
status
quo
at
all,
because,
if
you're
only
responding
to
calls
you're
likely
not
responding
to
a
call
where
someone's
just
saying,
hey,
there's
somebody
in
the
park
at
night
you're
responding
to
a
call
that
somebody
is
violating
an
already
existing
ordinance
that
you
know
either
they're
making
too
much
noise
or
they
are
doing
something
else
illegal,
which
prompted
the
call.
And
then
that's
how
you
deal
with
it.
Based
on
whatever
you
were
called
for.
O
Sir,
if
I
may,
I
think
that
the
parks,
the
long
bromo
and
we've
got
a
bunch
of
those
with
potlats.
We
get
calls
for
those
where
people
are
hanging
in
the
park
and
and
we
shush
them
away.
The
the
citizen
calls
happy
nobody
gets
arrested,
but
but
we
do
get
those
calls
for
service
and-
and
I
think
that
for
a
minor
interaction
like
that,
if.
A
I
can
interject
just
because
of
time,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
up
the
hot
lots
and
in
my
award.
If
we
look
at
section
a
nothing
has
changed
about
tot
lots.
Tot
lots
still
are
quote,
will
close
and
they
close
at
9
pm.
So
those
top
lots
in
my
ward.
You
can
still
come.
You
see
anybody
sitting
in
a
top
lot
at
9,
00
pm
901
p.m.
You
can
shoot
that
person
out
of
the
top
lot.
So
this
tot
lots
are
still
covered
under
the
current
ordinance.
L
L
One
question
I
want
to
pose:
the
committee
is
whether
the
ordinance
addresses
individuals
who
may
stay
in
the
park
because
of
even
as
quiet
as
they
want
to
be,
because
they
really
don't
have
any
other
place
to
go.
A
So
currently,
under
our
code,
it's
it's
illegal
for
someone
to
set
up
an
encampment
in
anywhere
in
in
public
property.
So
if
someone
wants
to
make
an
encampment,
an
encampment
does
not
mean
they're
pitching
a
tent
necessarily.
It
means
that
they
have
provisions
for
living
in
this
area.
They
would
be
banned
from
doing
that.
A
And
so
that
that
would
be
addressed,
and
the
last
thing
I
didn't
you
know
if
we
have
the
votes
to
move
it
forward
to
council
I'll,
save
this,
but
there's
also
a
legal
argument
about
why
this
is
unlawful
and
there's
a
chicago
case
that
started
in
2011.,
if
juan.
If
you
need
me
to
go
through
that
not
or
if
you're,
if
I'm
moving
this
forward
to
counsel,
we
can
just
move
forward
to
counsel,
and
we
can
have
that
discussion
later
time.
A
K
D
B
H
H
So
what
I
also
heard
was
cycling
through
walking
through
what
the
current
ordinance
that
is
amended
does
say
remain
in
parks
for
the
duration
of
time.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
what
the
amendment
that
will
be
going
to
cancel
would
be.
Is
that
going
through
the
parks
or
remaining
in
the
parks?
It
says.
P
P
P
A
P
P
L
P
B
The
10
o'clock,
you
said,
there's
already
something
with
a
special
apartment.
The
activity
going
on,
especially.
A
A
Yeah
so
then
I
moved
to
amend
this,
to
allow
exceptions
as
granted
by
the
parks
and
rec
director,
so
that
would
allow
you
to
make
those
exceptions
for
those
folks
who,
and
so
that
would
come
at
the
end
of
section
c.
It
would
say,
accept
you
know,
nick.
I
trust
you
except
those
folks
who
are
authorized
by
the
public
rex
parks
and
rec
department
director.
A
Okay,
so
with
with
that
amendment,
and
then
this
is
motion
to
move
forward
to
council
what
I
would
really
love
for
as
this
moves
forward
for
the
law
department
to,
I
will
send
the
case
over
there's
a
chicago
case
about
closing
parks.
A
That
made
it
very
clear
that
you
can
only
close
parks
that
there
needs
to
be
a
significant
government
interest
if
you're
going
to
limit
folks's
ability
to
enter
a
public
park,
and
so
I
just
love
I'll,
send
it
over
to
you.
But
I'd
love
a
legal
analysis
on
that,
because
I
think
that
more
so
than
any
other
values
about
you
know
whether
people
can
walk
and
remain
quiet.
I
think
that
will
legally
make
it
very
clear
that
it
is.
A
It
potentially
puts
us
at
legal
liability
and
a
constitutional
violation
to
limit
the
right
of
folks
to
enter
a
public
outdoor
space
like
a
park
without
a
significant
without
a
compelling
government
interest
that
is
narrowly
tailored
and
we'll
talk
about
that.
Why
it's
freedom
of
speech
and
freedom
to
gather.
L
I
really
want
to
read
that,
because
the
city
is
allowed
to
limit
the
time.
A
Chicago
is
allowed
and
they
they
said
they
won
in
that
case,
but
it's
only
because
chicago
claimed
that
in
those
hours
between
11
and
6,
just
like
our
ordinance
that
they
maintain
their
parks,
and
so
they
argued
that
they
send
staff
out,
which
is
questionable
to
maintain
the
parks
and
that's
why
they
need
the
parks
cleared,
because
they
provide
maintenance
and,
as
our
parks
and
rec
directors
previously
disclosed,
we
do
not
engage
in
any
kind
of
activity
from
staff
in
parks
overnight.
A
So
I'll
I'll
send
the
stuff
to
you
and
we'll
yes,
see
this
before
council,
but
I'd
love
an
analysis
on
on
that
as
well.
Okay,
so
with
that
all
those
in
favor,
we
passed
the
amendment.
Yes
right,
we
passed
amendment
that
would
allow
the
parks
and
rec
director
to
grant
permits
to
folks
are
operating
outside
of
these
hours.
So,
first
to
make
sure
we
did
that
all
those
things.
A
Say
second,
second
yeah.
Second,
all
those
in
favor
aye
aye.
You
guys
have
it
go
ahead.
Councilmember
burns.
B
No,
I
was
just
going
to
say,
I
think
what
that
works
off
of
is
we're
trying
to
limit
or
really
deny
people's
ability
to
access,
not
like
indoor
public
spaces
but
outdoor
public
spaces,
not
for
crimes
they
are
committing,
but
what
we
think
they
may
commit,
and
I
think
that's
with
no.
What
was
it
was
the
term
they
used
in
the
education
used
with
no
compelling
yeah.
B
Think
that
so
I'm
very
curious
about
that
as
well.
Council
members
shared
that
with
me,
but
I
think
that
probably
is
what
it
gets
it.
You
know
those
beaches
and
lakefronts
belong
to
all
of
us
and
if
I
want
to
walk
through
it
and
I'm
not
doing
anything,
I'm
not
creating
any
nuisance
or
noise
or
whatever
it
is
and
nobody's
trying
to
clean
it.
So
it
doesn't
need
to
rush
to
breathe
or
any
of
that
what
was
stated
before.
I
should
be
able
to
do
that,
and
I
think
that's
why
it's
been.
A
B
A
Okay,
okay
and
we
will,
I
want
to
get
through
one
more
and
that
is
the
public
nudity.
Oh
I'm
sorry!
Yes!
Well!
We
just
did
that's
my
apologies!
Thank
you.
Yes,
so
all
those
in
favor
of
moving
this
forward
to
council
say
aye
what.
A
Those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
any
abstentions,
one,
no
all
right
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
passes
and
then
lastly,
I
want
to
get
through
one
more,
which
is
ordinance
50,
a
move,
hs10
ordinance,
57022,
title
9,
chapter
5,
section
11.,.
B
And
real
quick:
this
is
because
I'm
fine
with
carrying
fireworks
over
to
the
next
well,
I
actually
don't
know
if
we'll
have
another
option.
A
But
we
can
schedule
like
a
whatever
meeting
a
continuation
of
this
at
the
virtual
meeting.
At
some
point.
A
Okay,
so
this
is
ordinance
57022,
title
9,
chapter
5,
section
11..
So
in
2018
the
state
of
illinois
became
the
37th
state
to
ratify
the
era,
the
equal
rights
amendment
and
then
virginia
later
became
the
39th
state
or
I'm
sorry,
the
38th
state
which
triggers
constitutional
ratification.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
whether
that's
valid
or
not,
and
whether
congress
needs
to
make
rules,
but
regardless
of
the
federal
era
in
1970,
the
state
of
illinois
adopted
an
illinois
equal
rights
amendment-
and
I
read
that
earlier
at
the
top.
A
That
note,
it
bars
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
sex
and
reads
as
follows:
the
equal
protection
of
the
laws
shall
not
be
denied
or
abridged
on
account
of
sex
by
the
state
or
its
units
of
government
and
school
districts.
A
Courts
have
determined
the
rights
of
suspect
classes
may
only
be
infringed
upon
by
government
for
a
compelling
government
interest
in
a
narrowly
tailored
fashion
in
illinois.
I
would
consider
that,
because
we
have
an
equal
rights
amendment
in
illinois,
that
would
make
gender
a
suspect
class
in
illinois,
okay,
and
so
with
that.
A
If
this
is
a
suspect
class
and
it
has
to
be
a
compelling
government
interest
and
a
narrowly
tailored
fashion,
I
would
say
that
we
have
to
remove
this
law
and
rely
on
the
illinois
statute,
which
is
720
ilcs
720,
section
30,
which,
in
a
gender-neutral
fashion,
provides
law
enforcement
with
all
the
tools
they
need
to
address
issues
of
public
indecency,
and
so
I
will
first
just
ask
of
each
member
council
member
burns.
Do
you
support
the
equal
rights
amendment.
B
It's
very
simple:
well,
what
I
will
say
about
this
is
is
I
think
it
is
probably
similar
to
the
park's
question.
You
know
you
have
to
define
what
you
know
being
indecent
looks
like,
whereas
this
is
very
cut
and
dry,
you
either
can
and
cannot
do
it,
and
so
I
don't
necessarily
like
what
I
don't
think.
The
state
statute
makes
it
easier
to
enforce
even
this,
because
you,
unless
it
clearly
defines
what
it
means
to
be
indecent.
I.
B
J
Look
how
late
it
is.
Let
me
just
go
right
to
the
chase,
which
is
so.
I
did
some
googling
to
see
what
what
the
court
cases
are
saying
about,
whether
communities
that
make
a
distinction
between
what
men
and
women
can
wear
to
the
beach,
whether
those
are
constitutional,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
courts
that
have
addressed
laws
banning
public
female
toplessness
have
upheld
their
constitutionality.
J
So
what
what's
really
critical
is
what
is
our
local
community
standard,
because
that
the
the
cases
always
refer
to
that
a
federal
appeals
court?
This
was
just
a
year
or
two
ago
in
was.
J
Ocean
beach,
new
jersey,
inherent
differences
between
men
and
women,
which
we
have
come
to
appreciate,
remain
cause
for
celebration,
but
not
for
denigration
of
the
members
of
either
sex
or
for
artificial
constraints
on
an
individual's
opportunity.
J
So
the
question
is,
you
know:
men
and
women
are
not
the
same
with
respect
to
the
traditional
understanding
of
what
constitutes
nudity,
and
I
don't
what
I
before
I
could
support
this.
I
want
to
know
what
evanston
residents
as
a
whole,
what
what
is
their
understanding
of
what
constitutes
nudity,
I'm
I'm,
I'm
I'm
not
I'm
not
willing
to
to
approve
this
until
I
know
that
we've
got
community
support
for
what
this
would
what
this
could
mean.
We
will
become
the
topless
beach
beaches
of
illinois.
A
L
It's
persuasive
and
not
authoritative,
correct
persuasive.
A
J
It
that
it
rules
what
we
can
and
can't
do
here,
I'm
just
citing
it,
as
you
know,
reflecting
a
lot
of
it.
It's
similar
to
other
other
laws
in
other
parts
of
the
other
court
cases
in
other
parts
of
the
country.
So.
A
Agreed
and
just
like,
if
you
know,
there's
a
law
passed
here
in
illinois
that
that
banned
abortion,
it
would
be
differently
interpreted
than
the
same
law
in
texas
texas,
because
they
have
different
state
laws.
They
have
different
interpretations
of
those
state
laws,
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear,
but
yes,
it
is
certainly
persuasive.
It
is
not
mandated
that
we
follow
that,
and
what
I
want
to
be
clear
on
is
that
illinois
has
an
explicit
equal
rights.
A
Amendment
new
jersey
does
not
have
an
explicit
equal
rights
amendment
in
the
way
that
illinois
does
so
that
that's
one
big
difference
and
also
I
want
to
note
that
there
are
local
cases
where
this
has
gone
to
court
in
illinois
and
it's
gone
to.
In
fact
it
went
to
the
seventh
sub
circuit
here,
and
so
it's
it
does
have
impact
here.
What
I
will
note
is
that,
in
the
case,
it
was
a
chicago
case
which
has
a
law
that
mirrors
our
law,
the
folks
who
it
was
takashi.
A
Let
me
get
that
right.
The
name
tagami
v
city
of
first
the
city
of
chicago,
and
this
tagami
case
did
not
cite
the
illinois
constitution.
A
As
a
reason,
for
you
know
this
being
unconstitutional,
what
they
did
cite
is
the
14th
amendment
which
we
know
the
14th
amendment
does
not
provide
gender
equality.
It
provides
for
race.
You
know
laws
to
not
be
based
on
race,
but
it
does
not
explicitly
say
gender,
so
the
14th
amendment
is,
you
know
they
were
looking
for
a
big
case
to
to
make
this
legal
count
countrywide,
but
that
did
not
work
and
the
state
constitution
is
explicit
in
the
fact
that
there
should
be
no
laws
differentiating
the
sexes.
B
So
council
comments
that
would
love
to
get
your
interpretation
on
this,
that
you
know
your
opinion.
I
should
say
on
if
this
puts
us,
if
our
current
code
around
this
puts
us
out
of
alignment
with
the
illinois
constitution,.
L
So
just
two
thoughts.
First,
the
ordinance
probably
should
include
some
more
factual
findings
by
the
committee
and
or
the
city
council
with
respect
to
the
city's
local
standards
in
terms
of
the
recitals
that
would
help
put
us
on
some
better
footing
and
also
since
gender
is
considered
a
suspect
class,
both
federally
and
probably
even
at
the
state
level.
With
respect
to
this,
the
constitution
of
the
state
constitution
narrowly
narrowly
tailored
would
essentially
mean
that
we
would
have
ex
exceptions,
for
example
breastfeeding
when
you
have
like
a
public
nudity
ordinance.
L
A
B
L
So,
to
be
perfectly
fair,
this
was
passed
to
my
department
last
week
with
very
little
opportunity
to
to
delve
into
it,
so
we
essentially
prepared
it
for
the
packet
and
provided
it.
You
know
for
committee
presentation,
the
the
research
that
we
were
we
did
get
a
heads
up
on
was
with
respect
to
burglary
tools,
and
you
have
a
very
comprehensive
memo
about
burglary
tools,
but
not
so
much
when
it
comes
to
these
items.
These
items
here
well.
B
Important,
for
me
is
just
to
be
clear:
is
that
again,
if
we
are
out
of
alignment
either
because
we
need
to
add
recitals
or
or
we
need
to
just
strike
this
totally
with
the
illinois
constitution?
B
That's
what
is
motivating
me
to
consider
making
this
change
absent,
that
I
lean
more
towards
councilman
ravel
that
I
need
to
see
the
community
come
out
and
make
it
clear
that
they
would
like
community
our
current
community
standards
to
change
around
this
issue.
So
that's
that's
where
I'm
at,
and
so
your
your
research
on
this
amount
of
council
coming
is,
is
really
important.
So
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
do
that.
B
A
All
right
is
there
any
other,
and
I
will
just
say
one
last
thing
on
this,
and
then
we
can
begin
to
close
out.
Is
this
also
creates
ambiguity
for
the
trans
community
because-
and
I
don't
think
our
current
ordinance
is
narrowly
tailored,
because
what
is
so
inherently
sexualized
about
the
female
body?
That
is
not
inherently
sexualized
about
the
male
body,
and
you
know:
how
do
you
define
female
breast?
A
Well,
if
you
look
it
up,
it
means
that
there
are
cells
within
that
breast
that
are
mammary
cells,
and
so
you
know
for
for
a
trans
person
who
has
breasts
that
comport
with
the
way
that
female
breasts
traditionally
look.
Does
that
does
that
count?
I
think
we
just
really
need
to
get
clear
on
what
this
law
is:
create,
a
law
that
eliminates
ambiguity
for
trans
folks,
I
create
a
law
that
is
in
alignment
with
the
illinois
constitution
and
and
that's
it.
A
So
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
refer
this
item
to
then
to
to
hold
this
yeah
to
table
this
item
to
the
next
gathering
of
the.
A
A
Go
back
and
look
at
this,
so
the
items
that
we
are
going
to
revisit
are
folks
able
to
do
a
virtual
meeting,
either
later
this
week
or
next
week
to
deal
with
these
items.
B
I
mean
I
would
appreciate
the
fireworks
before
the
fourth
of
july.
My
request,
you,
chair
and
you'll
recall.
I
asked
if
we
could
move
that
to
the
top
of
the
agenda.
We
did
not
do
that,
but
I'd
like
to
find
a
way
to
quickly
go
over
that
in
some
venue.
I
don't
know
if
there's
another,
if
we
can
move
that
to
council,
can
we
just.
L
A
A
special
order
of
business,
at
least
10
20.,
we'll
move
it
now,
and
so
I
move
that
we,
because
I
think
these
are
both
pretty
simple
and
I'll
break
it
up.
If
not,
is
that
we
move
hs13
and
hs9
to
council.
A
Hs9
is
the
portion
of
the
daily
crime
bulletin.
That
includes
the
names
and
addresses
of
folks
who
have
been.
A
Member
cars
is
fine
with
that
as
well,
so
we'll
move
both
those
items
to
council
all
those
in
favor
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed.
A
No
memo
on
it,
but
yeah:
okay,
yeah!
It's
on
the
agenda,
though
it's
just
none;
okay,
so
that
leaves
we
voted
on
that.
So
that
leaves
items
hs.
A
Yeah
tennis,
coming
back
to
to
the
committee,
all
the
other
ones
are
coming
back
with
more
information
and
what
has
passed
tonight
to
counsel
is
the
noise
ordinance
honorary
street
name,
obedience
to
police
and
public
places
correct.
I
went
forward,
modification
to
park
hours
went
forward,
and
then
that
is
as
well
as
hs9.
A
Okay,
now
with
that
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn
well,
no,
there
is.
A
So
moved
moved
by
council
member
burns
seconded
by
myself
all
those
in
favor
aye.
The
meeting.