Meeting Notes (agenda here):
The meeting kicked off with the mayor inducting two firefighters by oath to positions in the City of Champaign.
There was a "public hearing" for the Stormwater Quality Program to allow public input to the council, but no one from the public took the opportunity to speak.
The council moved forward on a Honorary Street Name request for Robert Grossman, although as I understand there still needs to be final approval in a regular city council meeting. The applicant for the request spoke in support and stated his appreciation for the consideration and highlighted Mr. Grossman's charitable work.
There was a presentation and overview of the Snow and Ice Control Plan by Public Works Director Dennis Schmidt and Supervisor Brock Summers, a 20 year veteran of Public Works. In general the plan is essentially the same as what has been in effect for over a decade. A priority is put on the main thoroughfares first and on down to cul-de-sacs and dead end streets. Council members brought up concerns raised by their constituents about equality as some residents feel left behind waiting for their streets to be cleared.
The director highlighted that eight of the last ten budgets went over budget, and the other two were simply one storm away from going over budget as well. He asked for a more realistic budget ahead of time rather than current trend of underestimating the need. Mayor Feinen made her annual plea for individuals and businesses to uphold their obligations for snow shoveling and helping neighbors who may need assistance.
The council discussed changes to the yard waste program, including spring collection dates and expanding it back to all residential properties again.
Public Participation and Housing:
Groups supporting the reform included First Followers, the ACLU, the Champaign County Reentry Council, the NAACP, the City of Champaign Human Relations Commission, CU Indivisible, a Mennonite Church, and the C-U Tenant Union. Several individuals, some with felony convictions in their past, also argued the supporting arguments and data that access to housing helps lower recidivism and aids opportunity for rehabilitation.
A couple landlords argued in favor of the change. It was pointed out that the restriction on low income tenants does not apply to homeowners or landlords who may have been convicted of the same crimes.
The realtors overall stayed on a very focused message at each opportunity to speak. They want to protect their right to ask questions and ensure the safety of their residents. They framed changing the ordinance back to the original and in line with Urbana as discrimination against realtors and their property rights. They highlighted the scariest scenarios and most dismal anecdotes as inevitable, as if they'd be powerless to screen tenants without being able to discriminate solely on history of criminal conviction.
The speakers speaking for larger realtor groups kept close to that framing with as much deference to the hard work and empathy with speakers on the other side who work with reentry and have gone through reentry themselves. A couple more frustrated people made sure to make digs at "the criminals" daring to criticize their town.
The pro-reform arguments pointed to the vast racial disparities in the criminal justice system outcomes, even for the same crimes, as why they shouldn't be relied on to further racial discrimination in housing. Landlords refused to acknowledge the connection and or outright put that responsibility on the state even if they use those outcomes.
The landlords generally argued for their own discretion and painted a picture of Champaign area landlords as overwhelmingly being beyond racism and going out of their way to give rehabilitated felons a chance with extra scrutiny. Organizations and impacted tenants pointed to statistics and personal stories of hardship as they struggle to avoid discrimination in Champaign versus other area locations.
Board Comments:
Overall the board seemed to appreciate the civility and and level heads of everybody who came out to argue on both sides of the issue. There seemed to be interest in at least having a study session to look at the data and discuss possible compromise language as opposed to just a flat out repeal of the language.
Council member Fourman made a personal argument about the need to ensure the safety of residents and her constituents. She argued that it's premature to have a study session and doing so will give people the impression the council is ready to begin implementation when it's not. She pointed to other solutions to address aiding employment, reentry programs, etc. "How do you know you're helping people be safe? I'm asking you?" She pointed out that what she regularly hears from her constituents is frustration that the City isn't helping get the bad actors out of their neighborhoods, from drug dealers to dangerous criminals.
There was some back and forth between Fourman and Beck (even as the Mayor reiterated that the comment opportunity wasn't for such back and forth discussion). There was a disagreement on what was said before, where, and Fourman complained that Beck interrupted her as an example of the problem with her communication. "You won't let me finish talking."
Gladney and Kyles talked in favor of having the conversation, though wanted to learn more before taking a stance on any particular changes, if any.
Stock and Brix viewed compromise as the way forward and described taking the language back to the original as an "absolute." Perhaps it was just my impression as someone with an opinion on the subject, but it seemed like they didn't like the choice being described as whether the City would be allowing discrimination or not. They say the trick to compromise isn't making everyone happy, but getting enough unhappy people on board. I suppose we'll see how that works out in the future.
The Mayor also reiterated the appreciation for the overall respect and civility by everyone and pointed to this meeting as an example of local government at its best when it can hear from well meaning people on both sides of an important issue. She pointed out that unlike many contentious issues, the people getting up to speak were all mixed together instead of on one side of the room or the other.
The meeting adjourned at 10:14pm with a reminder that next week is the 5th Tuesday of the month and there's no City Council meeting scheduled (for those who attend regularly on the 1st through 4th Tuesday regular/study session meetings.).
No comments:
Post a Comment