Mayor Brandon Johnson pledges to veto "snap curfew" ordinance narrowly approved by City Council
Mayor Brandon Johnson on Wednesday said he would veto a controversial ordinance that would allow Chicago police to declare so-called "snap curfews" on as little as 30 minutes' notice in an effort to curb teen takeovers, shortly after the measure was narrowly approved by the City Council.
"I will veto this ordinance, because it is counterproductive to the progress that we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city. It would create tensions between residents and law enforcement at a time when we have worked so hard to rebuild that trust," he said.
The 27-22 vote came after months of debate on how the city should try to curb large youth gatherings that have sometimes turned violent. Supporters of the measure would need 34 votes to override the mayor's promised veto.
Before the meeting, 18 members of the council's Progressive Caucus urged the mayor to veto the ordinance if it were to pass, all but guaranteeing Johnson will have the votes to uphold his veto.
A Chicago mayor has not issued a veto in nearly two decades, since then-Mayor Richard M. Daley in 2006 vetoed an ordinance that would have required big-box retailers like Walmart and Target to pay employees more than the standard minimum wage.
Johnson has argued, rather than expanding police curfew powers, the city should do more to offer youth jobs and programming to give teens other choices for spending their free time other than large, often aimless gatherings in the streets or on the lakefront.
"In order for us to have safety policies, we have to make sure that we are not providing politicized knee-jerk reactions that do nothing to solve the fundamental problems of our city."
Johnson, who earlier this week called the snap curfew proposal "lazy governance," argued Wednesday that youth curfews do little to reduce crime, and the city should "look toward tactics that have actually worked," such as more youth jobs and other city-supported programming for teens.
"We must continue to show up for our young people by making the critical investments, creating safe spaces for our young people to enjoy, but also having programming that helps our young people find new skills, and connect with mentors and peers, and build their future," he said.
The mayor also has long argued the proposal is unconstitutional and could expose the city to costly lawsuits.
The final City Council vote on the "snap curfew" ordinance was postponed last month, setting up Wednesday's showdown.
The proposed ordinance, sponsored by Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), would authorize Police Supt. Larry Snelling to declare temporary curfews anywhere in the city with as little as 30 minutes' notice when mass gatherings are expected or underway, and there is reason to believe they could become a risk to public safety.
Supporters have said the ordinance would allow police to break up teen takeovers before they turn violent, but Johnson and other opponents have said police already have the power to issue dispersal orders when they spot large gatherings that become disruptive or dangerous.
Critics of the proposal have said curfews are ineffective, and that the city needs to do more to offer youth safe options for youths so that they're not tempted to organize largely aimless gatherings that sometimes turn violent.
Opponents also have said the language of the ordinance is too vague, and would allow police to arrest teens without any evidence they've violated the law, since police would be allowed to impose a new curfew before any gathering has turned violent or otherwise posed a public safety threat.
Hopkins said the goal of the curfew ordinance is to prevent large gatherings of teens from turning violent by allowing police to break them up as soon as things seem to be getting out of control.
"This ordinance would actually lean into tactics, to techniques and tools that are already being used by our deputy mayor of public safety in collaboration with the Police Department," Hopkins said. "This curfew ordinance is simply one more tool in that particular toolbox. It will work because the techniques that are currently being employed actually do work."
Ald. Monique Scott (24th) said the city needs to give police more power to impose curfews, saying too many teens involved in such large gatherings don't care about the kinds of programming offered by the city and local community groups.
"The havoc wreakers don't want structure. They want to roam, and so if we allowed our police officers a tool to give them the opportunity to enforce a curfew before they see it starting, that's a tool in their toolbox, and they should be able to use it," she said.
Scott said violent teen takeovers in Chicago have reached the point that she doesn't let her own daughter go downtown.
"If I have to send my kid to Oak Brook to have a good time to go shop and eat, then that's what I'll do until the city's streets are safe. I don't want her in an area where there's no control, and the kids are doing what they want to do, and they're running up and down the streets," she said.
Mayor Johnson has said police already have the power to arrest people for committing crimes at such gatherings without relying on power to declare temporary curfews, but Hopkins argued that "this curfew is a better alternative to arresting teenagers."
"The police can arrest them. Let's give them something better where they don't have to. They'll simply take them out of this volatile dangerous situation, remove them from it, end the chaos and mayhem, and let the teenagers be safely returned to their families when a parent or guardian comes and gets them," Hopkins said. "That is much better than having to arrest them for doing the things that are in fact criminal acts."
The mayor has been outspoken in his opposition to the ordinance, saying on Tuesday, "We're debating something that doesn't work. Why are we even debating it?"
"It places too much pressure on law enforcement. I continuously say that we cannot just simply rely upon policing alone. We need people to help my administration do the things that work. When we invest in people, violent crime goes down," he said ahead of Wednesday's vote. "We cannot afford lazy governance, and then we just wash our hands, absolve ourselves of any responsibility, and say, 'Police, you do it.' That is antiquated. That form of governance is dead, and should remain dead."
Ald. Angela Clay (46th) criticized the proposal's supporters for not consulting with youth groups about potential alternatives to the snap curfew ordinance.
"It bothers me that we have a room full of young people back here, and nobody has asked them their opinion on this issue. I'm very much so dedicated that the people who are mostly impacted by what we are discussing should be at the table, making sure that they are also giving their observations and opinions on the matter," she said.
Youth advocates from Good Kids Mad City, Communities United, and other community groups rallied at City Hall on Wednesday in opposition to the snap curfew proposal.
They called on alderpeople to vote no and support a youth-led alternative known as the Peace Book Ordinance, which seeks to increase investment in youth-led violence prevention programs. It also would employ youth peacekeepers, create neighborhood-based and citywide peace commissions, and create a "Peace Book" guide of resources for de-escalation and violence prevention tactics.
Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th) has repeatedly argued that the ordinance could potentially lead to racial profiling by police, noting when he was in high school, he and his friends often got kicked out of places like Navy Pier by police, with or without a curfew.
"Every single weekend at Navy Pier, you would watch scores of young kids all getting kicked out, and police telling us to get the heck out of there," he said. "But you would also see who would not get kicked out … typically they were more affluent, typically they weren't Black and Brown, and all that did to us is make us feel like we weren't part of a community, make us feel like we were less than anybody around, and actually led more of us to engage in further activity we shouldn't be engaging in."
Ald. Jason Ervin (28th), who originally was one of Hopkins' co-sponsors on the snap curfew ordinance, pulled his support last month, after a provision was removed that would have required both Snelling and the city's deputy mayor of community safety to sign off on any snap curfews. Instead, the ordinance now up for a vote would only require Snelling to consult the deputy mayor before enforcing snap curfews, but the final decision would be solely up to the superintendent.
"This power is bestowed in one department whose interests may not necessarily be totally aligned with the interests of our entirety of the city," Ervin said on Wednesday. "Giving authority to a department that historically has not had the best interests of Black kids in its place is not something that I want to sign up for."
Complicating Wednesday's debate was Snelling's own stance on the specifics of the measure. According to published reports from WBEZ Public Radio and WTTW-TV, Snelling recently told a federal judge overseeing the federal consent decree mandating sweeping reforms at CPD that he never sought the power to impose snap curfews, and even if granted the authority, would never use it with only 30 minutes' notice.
