Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: What’s Ken Griffin’s endgame?
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
For generations now, Chicago has had its own separate set of state laws for just about every topic under the sun. The city’s mayor is allowed to appoint the school board, Chicago has its own “working cash fund” law, the state’s mayoral veto law does not apply to the city and Chicago has a unique exemption allowing it to deduct money from worker paychecks.
From big to archaic, the list is almost endless.
So, when you’ve grown accustomed to doing it your own way for a century or so, you may start thinking you’re a special case in literally everything. And that seems to be what happened last week.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters she hoped to change Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s mind about imposing the same public health mitigations on the city as the state has imposed on several other regions, including suburban Cook County, and said the two ought to be “in lockstep” on any “new restrictions.”
The mitigations mainly involve shutting down indoor dining and booze-drinking at taverns.
The moment to address this, of course, was months ago when Pritzker laid out the new plan and the boundaries of the new public health districts. Chicago was given its own district back in mid-July (ironically, at the behest of the suburbs), but not its own rules. The city, in fact, imposed even tighter restrictions on restaurants, taverns, parks, beaches, etc. than the rest of the state, which is allowed under Pritzker plan.
But the city and the mayor have known all along that local governments cannot impose looser regulations than the state’s.
And, really, how would DuPage County respond if Chicago was given a special pass on indoor restaurant dining? Not well, I assure you. And Winnebago County denizens would be rightly upset if Chicagoans could drink inside their local taverns and they could not.
Complying with the mayor’s demands would undermine the governor everywhere else in the state. And he’s got enough of that problem as it is.
Look, we know that state mitigation works if regions stick to the program.
Why? Simple.
The Metro East area as well as the region encompassing Will and Kankakee counties both eventually worked their way out of the stricter protocols. Those successes alone should be enough to prove that the spread is slowed when indoor dining and drinking are curtailed. But coverage follows conflict, so news consumers aren’t getting that message. Instead, it’s all about disagreements between political leaders and the furious anger of the hospitality industry.
But both of those previously successful regions are now right back in mitigation. Restaurants and taverns that survived the first mitigation round are now having to go through this nightmare all over again. Businesses in first-time mitigation and those in regions about to be subjected to the limits look at their colleagues and are justly terrified for their futures.
While there’s no doubt that indoor dining, indoor tavern drinking, etc. do, indeed, spread the virus, people should be forgiven for thinking it’s unfair to put the onus completely on those specific businesses — particularly at a time when the federal government is showing absolutely zero interest in helping the businesses cope and the main complainers about Illinois’ rules (other than Lightfoot) are unwilling to vigorously demand federal action.
In order to make this more “fair” and spread out the pain instead of focusing the responsibility, everyday people would be required to do their own part.
Chicago’s contact tracing program shows that “small social gatherings” are major contributors to the spread. “(W)here we’re seeing the greatest challenges is in people’s homes, in social settings that are not public,” Lightfoot said.
But if you think people are upset about the restaurant and tavern situation, try ordering them to avoid all contact with their friends and families.
Yikes.
So, the choices are between ginning up either a horrible backlash with horrible economic consequences or a horrific and widespread public backlash that could conceivably jeopardize everything. Or let it all burn, and Pritzker is not going to do that.
So, “horrible” seems the only do-able choice.
And, make no mistake, without help from D.C., it will truly get horrible for a lot of very good people.
* Related…
* Two McHenry County judges deny separate lawsuits seeking restraining order against Pritzker’s indoor dining ban
* All 11 IDPH regions under IDPH mitigation rules as of November 4
* Springfield has distributed no small business relief grants to date
* Enforcing mitigations from Pritzker. How much power does Mayor Langfelder truly hold?
* Springfield bar, restaurant owners uncertain about future as mitigations begin Sunday
* East Peoria Will Not Enforce New COVID Restrictions, Mayor Says
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 3:09 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: What’s Ken Griffin’s endgame?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My father is in an assisted living facility and at the age where each Christmas could be his last. Earlier this year I hoped for a normal Christmas with him but that is most likely out the window. All because some people can’t be bothered to wear masks and keep a little distance between themselves. Many thanks, anti-maskers, you sure owned those libs.
Comment by Independent Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 8:16 am
Many restaurants in my area of Region 6 who complied with the first round of mitigations are publicly declaring they will not this time around. They argue that they are following all of the CDC guidance regarding sanitizing and enforcing social distancing and mask wearing by customers and staff. I’m a vocal proponent of masks but can also see the point of the restaurant owners who are truly following the rules. Why should they be penalized for the actions of the bad actors? I understand masks have to come off while eating and drinking but if customers are distanced appropriately, theoretically the only possible transmission is occurring at individual tables and that’s happening anyway within families and social groups.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 9:24 am
=can also see the point of the restaurant owners who are truly following the rules. Why should they be penalized for the actions of the bad actors?=
If they are not following the order, they are not truly following the rules and are by definition a “bad actor”.
I feel for anyone that is negatively impacted by the pandemic, especially those who have been ill, lost loved ones, or passed away.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 9:42 am
===If they are not following the order===
They have (according to them) done everything asked of them since March and are now being ordered to shut down inside dining. It’s not fair to penalize them for the irresponsible actions of others. If only there was a way to mitigate the bad actors and let the responsible owners continue doing what they’ve been doing.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 9:53 am
“It’s not fair…”
This virus doesn’t care about fairness.
Comment by Morningstar Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:00 am
The Emperor (my nickname for Langfelder as well as any other Springfield mayor) is calling for a special Springfield City Council meeting Wednesday night concerning the new Region 3 mitigations and their effects on the city’s bars and restaurants:
https://www.sj-r.com/news/20201102/langfelder-calls-special-city-council-meeting-for-wednesday-on-covid-19-mitigations?rssfeed=true
Comment by Chatham Resident Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:03 am
==It’s not fair to penalize them for the irresponsible actions of others.==
Like others have said on this site, if you want total freedom from consequences, open a business in Somalia. If not, come join the community with the rest of us.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:08 am
All the mitigation rules in the world wont matter without enforcement. The businesses that are flaunting the rules know there is no penalty for disregarding the rules.
When the rules are fairly and evenly enforced on all, maybe the mitigations will have an effect. Until then…
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:11 am
=They have (according to them) done everything asked of them since March and are now being ordered to shut down inside dining.=
The restaurant industry isn’t being punished for disregarding the rules. Most restaurants have responsibly followed them. The reality is that the virus is more easily spread in indoor places where people aren’t masked. It’s just the nature of the virus and restaurants. There are very few other settings where people are going to be congregating without masks on. It’s an unfortunate reality.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:16 am
===All the mitigation rules in the world wont matter without enforcement===
Exactly right. We can forever debate what’s fair but it won’t change anything. Ultimately, these restaurants will remain open to inside dining and nothing will be done to stop them. Perhaps a citation here or there but it’s not going to achieve the desired effect.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:19 am
= It’s not fair to penalize them for the irresponsible actions of others.=
This isn’t as much about what’s fair as it is the reality of the virus. It spreads in indoor areas where mask wearing isn’t possible.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 10:31 am
The notion that the mitigation steps are necessary and without them this does not end (or even get better) is a given.
That said, local municipalities, law enforcement, the local State’s Attorney, et. al. are not going to touch this, thereby making enforcement nearly impossible. The Governor is in the very precarious political position of having to go it alone. That is the sad, unfortunate, pragmatic reality.
A bad scenario all around.
Comment by Go Big Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 11:24 am
Are the restaurants not enforcing the rules nice ones (by nice I mean the kind of place you might take an out of town relative or your mother for mother’s day)? It seems to be a dirty business, violating health and hygiene rules and I would not think that nice places would stay in business doing that.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 11:45 am
Not every problem has a solution…that will satisfy everyone affected by the problem.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 12:47 pm
=== And, make no mistake, without help from D.C., it will truly get horrible for a lot of very good people. ===
That help may have to wait until January 20th, because the Republicans have pivoted towards once more feigning care about budget deficits since their deficit-causing tax cut for the rich passed.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:14 pm
In any future…I hope people will remember the year 2020…and just how much Republicans cared.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 2:46 pm
I’ve been unable to find any news stories of County level or ISP enforcement action this weekend in any of the suburbs with a Mayor preaching defiance (Itasca, Libertyville, Orland Park) or benign “We won’t be checking” defiance (Rosemont).
Unless there’s visible State enforcement very soon even many of the Eagle Scout operators are going to draw the obvious lesson well before Thanksgiving.
And to every comment about “I’ll never patronize that defiant place in in the future” that’s a very distant and hypothetical concern to any small business unsure if they can survive into 2021.
Comment by ChicagoBars Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 3:19 pm
Ascribing junk data to non-political science while claiming “Its not political” is horrible. Scarier than a dementor.
Comment by PK Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 9:22 pm