Daniel Tobon
6.2K posts
@dtbon
Humanist, Inmigrante, aspiring Urbanist, Army vet, ex-Esq., serial founder, CPS LSC member. Candidate for 35th Ward Alderman. Usually at the other place now.
This is how I feel about it. I loathe machine politics and got to office defeating an incumbent who got in that way. However there are quite a few problems with choosing to grind the entire House to a halt to force all 435 members across the country to do a rushed vote on this one individual instance (of many, mind you!). 1. Why is it that this objection wasn’t brought up until now? The author had no problem when Bill Posey did it, or even earlier this year when a member’s account was tweeting post mortem for an election. The standard of this resolution is unevenly applied and choosing to enforce it via privileged resolution for some but not others does open legitimate questions of rationale or motivation. Why not care about this for them, but care about it now? This question has not been answered. 2. This is why the Ethics Committee exists. Establishing this process as precedent will mean all 435 members of the House will be forced to vote on a slew of individual member indiscretions determined by political convenience of whoever is in the majority. I do not think it is the best use of my constituents’ time to sort through the details of every individual matter of a person acting out of accordance with the esteem of the office once a week for a floor vote under rushed circumstances. The House has an investigatory structure for this for a reason. If there was a complaint filed with Ethics or an investigation buried and then ignored, I’d understand. But that’s not the case here. 3. These specific kinds of resolutions can ONLY be executed on a partisan basis because the mechanism of seeking privilege on this can only move forward with GOP leadership’s blessing. That means partisan enforcement and I do not want to open the door to that. Make it nonpartisan or don’t bother - that’s why the Ethics Committee is structured the way it is. 4. This resolution was dropped on a fly out day to begin voting on a fly in day, giving people no time to review the details of the matter while they are home in district on a weekend. On a matter of local politics that nobody had familiarity with. People are genuinely not familiar with the details of this surprise vote because this is the kind of thing brought to Ethics precisely to investigate and confirm details.
.@CongressmanRaja tells @kasie he voted against condemning his Democratic colleague Rep. Chuy Garcia for his controversial succession plan because it didn't feel right to single him out due to "the large number of people across numerous states who have engaged in this."
Perez: Whereas Rep. Chuy Garcia's actions are beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. Now therefore, be it resolved that the house of representatives disapproves of the behavior of the representative from Illinois…
Belmont Cragin business owners are begging for support as ICE fears devastate sales and closures loom. blockclubchi.co/4ouCMAR
Weird... Check out these lists showing where Class C apartment rents are falling most. (Class C = cheapest market-rate units.) In 16 of the 17 MSAs where Class C rents FALLING >6%, new apartment SUPPLY exceeds the U.S. average. And ... guess where Class C rents growing MOST?
Ahead of a marathon city council day, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration is asking commissioners and certain alders to direct their staffers to fill out the chambers
Summary provided here: new draft ordinance empowers individual alders to restrict or allow construction of ADUs in RS (single-family home) zones, with no such restrictions in RT (two-flat, small apartment building) zones.
I think it’s bad optics when a US judge in a landmark monopoly case gets whisked away from a friendly EU press gaggle by a member of the US defense bar at a Brussels conference where he’s a “guest” so the press can’t pepper him with questions. Really bad. #Google
Chicago's overspending to settle police-related lawsuits is higher than ever this year. It had passed $200 million. If you add the $120 million in court verdicts the city lost (being appealed), the cost is almost four times any other year... before this deal. By @joemahr:
