Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Pedestrians...Freeport's Second Class Citizens

There has been so much talk about the condition of Freeport streets the last few months.  I agree they are terrible, however, as a city we need a much broader conversation on our transportation needs.  Thinking we can tax our way out of this ongoing dilemma (the condition of Freeport streets have been a topic for at least the last three decades) is laughable.  The increases in Freeport's home rule sales tax has literally paralleled Freeport's decline.

One common misconception is that "everyone" or that "all" of us use Freeport roads equally.  In talking to his fellow city council members at the most recent committee of the whole meeting, alderman James Monroe said that "all of us are affected by them (bad streets)...we all drive on these horrible roads."  That's not a true statement.  Many Freeport housesholds have no automobile and have little care about the condition of Freeport streets.

Writing extensively on transportation issues in the 1990s and living in Freeport without driving a car for more than 20-years has given me a unique perspective.  I've come to the conclusion that driving a vehicle is the most goverment subsidized activity most people partake in, gas and road use taxes don't come close to covering the cost of automobile travel upon society, they never have.  Hence, those that choose not to drive are forced to subsidize those that do.  Just look at the $2.00 road fee on your water bill, despite the fact that many residents don't even have off street parking;  or the proposed sales tax hike to fix Freeport streets.  Those that, for whatever reason, don't drive must pay the aforementioned taxes all the while being treated as second class citizens.

Just take a look at the recent snowstorm and the two weeks of heavy snowpack that followed.  There were numerous places in Freeport, at both private and public parking lots, snow was pushed on to sidewalks leaving them impassable for pedestrians...despite an ordiance purportedly in place to prevent such actions.  Here are just two examples:


Yes, there is a sidewalk underneath that huge mound of snow along the east side of the 100 block of North Walnut Avenue.  What's particularly egregious about this pile of snow is that, despite a city ordinance prohibiting such activity, numerous Freeport police officers had to see this mountain of snow as they use the alley right across the street, to enter and exit the police station parking lot.


Here is another pile of snow plowed from a private lot onto the sidewalk on the east side of Locust Avenue, near the foot of Lincoln Boulevard.  As a matter fact, pedestrians coming from the west on Lincoln wishing to get downtown, had no easy route to the foot of Main Street, they had to climb over the snow piles the plows had pushed up.

Larger intersections are as much, or more of a challenge for pedestrians, as the islands they rely upon to keep them from getting killed are never cleaned of snow and ice in Freeport, just the opposite, they are used to collect the snow. (the picture below was taken after much of the snow had melted)


We spend thousands of dollars in equipment and manhours hauling snow from downtown when it's not much of an impediment to vehicle or pedestrian commerce.  Couldn't some of these resources be used where the need is more urgent?

Despite being taxed heavily for "roads" those in Freeport without cars have a very difficult time conducting the necessary commerce that many Freeport drivers take for granted.  Freeport drivers can expect to have the roads cleared of snow and ice while Freeport pedestrians can  expect the snow and ice to be plowed up becoming obstacles for them to overcome...if they're young and healthy enough to contemplate a winter walk in Freeport.

Freeport is a small enough town that it should be easy to conduct at least some commerce by foot.  However, in the newer parts of Freeport pedestrian accessibility appears to have  never been contemplated, despite the city council spending huge sums on "transportation" projects and looking to spend yet more.

A common problem cited by Freeport employers is the lack transportation for their workforce.  Many people taking Freeport's entry level jobs do not have their own cars.  I'd like to see the mayor or any member the city council walk from Farm and Fleet to Starbucks, it's only a short distance. I can cite dozens, if not a hundred short distance walks that are darn near impossible for anyone without youthful athleticism.  Just try to walk to the nearest neighborhood elementary school in any weather and consider what pedestrians, many of them children, are up against.

If people can conduct more business by foot it is is good for all involved.  Walking is good for one's health, not driving saves money for the individual and the community. Freeport taxpayers have paid for numerous recreational walking trails, however we need a much greater emphasis on improving our infrastructure to make walking for commerce--point A to point B trips--possible and more inviting to all Freeport residents and visitors.

While the 2024-2026 City of Freeport Strategic Vision and Goals, as adopted by the Freeport City Council, plainly states "Whether you drive a car, use Pretzel City Transit, a ride-share or taxi, ride a bike, or walk, getting around Freeport is easy." I'd like to see Freeport Mayor Jodi Miller and the Freeport City Council begin working to make their certified statement something beyond fiction.

As always, yours in honesty

John Samuel Cook

2024

tutty.baker@gmail.com




















Saturday, May 6, 2023

The Stephenson County State's Attorney and his Walnut Acres Dance

 At the last Stephenson County Board meeting on April 20th Stephenson County State's Attorney Carl Larson was asked about an Illinois statute which applies to Illinois's county run nursing homes.  The part of the statute the State's Attorney attempted to address is this paragraph, 55 ILCS 5/5-21001(9).

"Upon the vote of a 2/3 majority of all the members of the board, to sell, dispose of or lease for any term, any part of the home properties in such manner and upon such terms as it deems best for the interest of the county, and to make and execute all necessary conveyances thereof in the same manner as other conveyances of real estate may be made by a county. However, if the home was erected after referendum approval by the voters of the county, it shall not be sold or disposed of except after referendum approval thereof by a majority of the voters of the county voting thereon."

The last clause of this statute is what is pertinent to Stephenson County's present situation, as a matter of fact, State's Attorney Larson cited the last clause verbatim to the Stephenson County Board.  Again, that clause is, "
if the home was erected after referendum approval by the voters of the county, it shall not be sold or disposed of except after referendum approval thereof by a majority of the voters of the county voting thereon."

You may view Mr. Larson's presentation at this YouTube link, it begins at 18:57.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2bhIYW5M8g&t=1260s

Mr. Larson goes on quite a stretch of illusionary legal reasoning in an attempt to bifurcate the building from the legal entity.  Please watch the video where he attempts to define the words "erect"  and "nursing home" in a blatant attempt to mislead the Stephenson County Board and the public at large regarding plain as day Illinois Statutes.

Clearly our State's Attorney Larson desperately needs a lesson on statutory construction as determined by the Illinois Supreme Court.

I am in possession of an Illinois Supreme Court opinion that states, "A primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislative intention.  In seeking the intent of the legislature, courts consider not only the language used but also the evil to be remedied and the object to be attained.  Furthermore it is well settled that, in the absence of statutory definitions indicating a different legislative intention, the courts will assume that words have their ordinary and popularly understood meanings" Citations have been removed, however anyone can copy and paste the quoted material and find this opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Clearly, in passing this statute, the General Assembly wanted to ensure that if the electors of a county had supported a county "home" through a bond sale approved at referendum, the county board acting alone could not pull the rug out from underneath something the public has willingly supported with their tax dollars and votes for decades.  

In my opinion, the statute was meant to give the future of county homes--that had been supported by past bond issues courtesy of referendums--to the public at large and not the county board.

I would be interested in seeing a written response from State's Attorney Larson as to what problem he thinks the General Assembly was trying to remedy in the statutory clause  he recited to the county board above?

I believe this clause is enforceable by any citizen of Stephenson County with a simple action in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for a couple hundred dollars.  I'd go in pro se on this issue just to see the State's Attorney turn himself inside out attempting to tell the court the statute in question means something beyond its plain and reasonable meaning.

Another problem with our State's Attorney.  Why is he twisting himself into a pretzel on behalf of the Helms' cabal?  I like to think that a state's attorney does the public a greater service by making sure that the real power stays vested with the people and not the few citizens who happen to be county board members.  I think it would be more prudent for Mr. Larson to side with the public over the board.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion whether or not we continue to maintain a county nursing home.  However, I believe that is a decision that should rest with the voters of Stephenson County and not the Stephenson County Board.

What's more important is Illinois Statutes demand that the public weigh in via referendum before a county home is disposed of or sold.  I welcome a written response from State's Attorney Larson.  It will be much less stressful for him to discuss this here rather than in front of a court, but I just might be down for some fun, I've got nothing to lose but a couple hundred dollars.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook

2023