Article

quote:

Still, Trustee Mary Jane Chapman was not fully convinced. If enforcement is driven by complaints, those complaints would likely be made unequally across the population, she said.

She also said she was worried that the laws would be too vague and required too much police discretion, a charge echoed by Trustee Peter Norton.

“It’s too vague, and it tries to cover too much ground,” he said after this week’s meeting.

Can someone please tell me what the hell these comments mean?

I was at the meeting and left under the impression that some Trustees were worried about creating new laws targeting PADS clients. So they are basically saying that they are against a law that would target one demographic: PADS/Homeless people. I may be wrong, but that was the impression I got.

Also, the vague comment was the same thing. They were worried about a resident calling because they didn't like the look of someone, or knew they were PADS, and could now call and complain even if that person was not doing anything wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by JustAResident:
I was at the meeting and left under the impression that some Trustees were worried about creating new laws targeting PADS clients. So they are basically saying that they are against a law that would target one demographic: PADS/Homeless people. I may be wrong, but that was the impression I got.

Also, the vague comment was the same thing. They were worried about a resident calling because they didn't like the look of someone, or knew they were PADS, and could now call and complain even if that person was not doing anything wrong.

So what?

Residents can call, and have always been able to call, for whatever reason they want...whenever they want...it is up to the Police to use their DISCRETION. In fact, they are specifically immunized by statute from any liability in the failure to act based upon their exercise of discretion.

Seems to me from the quote that some are now afraid of that discretion...as it may uncover and lead to prosecution for the illegal activity that has been occurring in our downtown all too often but ignored and accepted all in the name of sympathy and graciousness for the vagrants.

These board members need to trust the people who are in charge to do things the right way. An advisory board, like the Trustees, cannot and should not micro-manage and handcuff those who are paid and employed to serve....especially when motivated by personal political ideals.

I actually think it is up to the Police to USE their discretion. It has always existed.

After reading the article, I am not hopeful. Nothing will change except the continued decline of the CBD.

I say we bring out the fire hose.

Seriously.

Used Cars

Rudy: Yeah. I had to have Jim turn the firehose on them.
Big Jim: [holds up the still wet firehose] And I knocked them mother******s right on they *****, too.

Is there a place where I can review the proposed ordinance?

I almost forgot: the meeting had a very interesting ending. I have no idea what is going on, but here is what I witnessed:

Trustee Pete Ladesic put forth a motion to go into executive session to discuss the same subjects that were discussed at last week's executive session which he was only able to participate via phone. He stated it was difficult for him to hear and could not really participate and would like to rediscuss. The room went immediately into high tension. I almost thought I was back in the good 'ole TBS discussion days. Trustee Tim Armstrong, after a pause, seconded the motion. Roll call vote was: Trustee Michelle Thorsell: No, Trustee Peter Norton: No, Trustee Mary Jane Chapman: No, Trustee Tim Armstrong: Yes, Trustee Jim Comerford: Yes and Trustee Pete Ladesic: Yes. Tie vote went to President Vicky Hase, who hesitated and said she was "on the fence" and then decided to vote yes because 3 Trustees voted yes, but that she didn't think it would change the outcome, or vote, from last week's meeting.

So this makes me wonder: what is going on?

That Trustee Thorsell....what an addition!

So this makes me wonder: what is going on?[/QUOTE]

I can tell you this. It was not about the public conduct ordinances.

COULD THIS HAPPEN IN GE???

kcra.com...

I HAVE HEARD THAT A KNIFE WAS PULLED SOME TIME AGO ON A PERSON WORKING AT PADS, ACCORDING TO ONE OF THE VOLUNTEERS.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD HOLD A FUND RAISER FOR FLAK JACKETS.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

Could THIS happen in GE???

Teen 'sport killings' of homeless on the rise

Probably not, but if you're worried about your children I implore you to seek help, if it's his friends talk to their parents. Don't stay quiet if you feel someone is dangerous.

The real risk still appears to be to those who have seen the brandishing of firearms, or threatened with knives, or been solicited for prostitution, or stumbled across hidden prison "shivs". These are the things that occur in Glen Ellyn.

The reality here is that little girls in Glen Ellyn have been raped in their homes by vagrants. No reason to make stuff up to be worried about, plenty of true events right here in this Village.

quote:

The reality here is that little girls in Glen Ellyn have been raped in their homes by vagrants.

When was there more than one attack, Jombl, or are you just adding to the fear mongering in your own subtle, counterfactual way?

Oh, and Jombl, if you read the article I posted, you would have read the following:

"Criminologists call these wilding sprees "sport killing," -- largely middle-class teens, with no criminal records, assaulting the homeless with bats, golf clubs, paintball guns."

Pretty tough to know if some kid is 'dangerous' enough to enact this type of violence on another human being when they seem to show no other signs before hand. Sounds more like it is the attitude of the parents of these kids/society in general that would cause this to be on the rise. Food for thought.

quote:

No discussion on substance then, just a remark on grammar and countable nouns.

You're a trip. No wonder you've been booted off other message boards.

quote:

Originally posted by GlenEllynRing:

Sounds more like it is the attitude of the parents of these kids/society in general that would cause this to be on the rise. Food for thought.

So parents opposed to PADS are, by your reasoning, more likely to attack or kill?

Interesting to note that the child in your article was the adopted child of teachers whose own mother was a homeless drug addict.

quote:

The reality here is that little girls in Glen Ellyn have been raped in their homes by vagrants.

So, there have been multiple rapes of young girls in Glen Ellyn by more than one vagrant , by your counterfactual grammer?

quote:

So parents opposed to PADS are, by your reasoning, more likely to attack or kill?

I said nothing of parents killing, but quite possibly the views of the parents raising them might possibly rub off on the kids, so that the kids feel there is little harm in murdering someone so worthless. Sounds reasonable to me.

quote:

Originally posted by GlenEllynRing:

quote:

No discussion on substance then, just a remark on grammar and countable nouns.

You're a trip. No wonder you've been booted off other message boards.

My post was in response to your post of 12:59. I withdrew it immediately upon seeing your post of 1:14.

I have sent an email to you at glenellynring@gmail.com requesting you to support your allegations against me. Please respond to jombl@yahoo.com.