Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: White Sox reveal plans, projections for a ballpark in the 78
Posted in:
Members of the state Senate Democratic Caucus introduced three bills Wednesday aimed at increasing access to infertility treatments and fertility preservation. […]
Senate Bill 2572 would require insurance coverage of procedures used to diagnose and treat infertility, as well as injectable medications used to treat prediabetes, gestational diabetes and obesity – all of which can make it harder to conceive and carry a baby to term.
Senate Bill 2623 would require insurers to cover the freezing of an individual’s reproductive cells without restriction or exclusion.
Another measure, Senate Bill 2639, would prevent insurance companies from denying infertility treatment coverage when recommended by a physician.
* HB4933 from Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz…
Creates the Digital Forgeries in Politics Act. Provides that an individual depicted in a digital forgery who is an Illinois resident and a candidate for office in this State has a cause of action against any person who knowingly distributes, or enters into an agreement with another person to distribute, a digital forgery if: (1) the distribution occurs within 90 days before a regular election; and (2) the distribution is reasonably likely to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election. Sets forth exceptions. Allows a court to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction ordering the defendant to cease the display or distribution of the digital forgery. Includes additional awards to a prevailing plaintiff.
* Politico…
Watch for state Rep. Maurice West of Rockford and state Sen. Laura Ellman of Naperville, both Democrats, to file bills today pushing for more funds for Illinois students to receive free breakfast and lunch at schools. They are urging the state to find $209 million to the Healthy School Meals campaign that the General Assembly passed last year — but didn’t appropriate money behind it. The program would address children in the suburbs, exurbs and downstate. California and Michigan are among states already serving two hot meals a day to students.
* HB4951 from Rep. La Shawn Ford…
Creates the Neighborhood Concert Tax Act. Provides for a 2% tax on admission tickets to organized for-profit concerts in public parks. Establishes the Neighborhood Concert Tax Fund to be a repository for the tax proceeds. Provides for disbursement of 100% of the proceeds to the park district that hosted the concert to subsidize programs of the park district that ordinarily require a fee for participation. Defines terms. Makes corresponding additions to the State Finance Act. Effective immediately.
* Rep Barbara Hernandez filed HB5044…
Amends the Ticket Sale and Resale Act. Provides that the resale of specified tickets that are otherwise not covered by the Act shall not exceed 40% of the price printed on the face of the ticket or 40% of the price of the ticket at the box office, whichever is less. Provides that the Attorney General shall enforce the provision and may issue fines and penalties to operators who violate the provisions. Provides that the Office of the Attorney General shall adopt rules to enforce the provision, including the amount of fines for each violation and other financial penalties. Provides that the provision is operative 2 years after the effective date of the amendatory Act.
* Crain’s…
On Feb. 5, state Rep. Kam Buckner introduced the Single-Family Zoning Ban Act, which would prohibit zoning areas exclusively for single-family residential use. The bill would phase in that ban, applying to cities with a population between 100,000 and 500,000 by June 1, 2025, and cities with more than 500,000 residents by June 1, 2026. The Illinois Association of Realtors is reviewing the legislation, a spokesperson told Crain’s.
“This is obviously not a final piece of legislation; this is a first salvo into this space,” said Buckner, a one-time mayoral hopeful who has often appealed to a progressive base with legislation focusing on public transit. “One thing we’re seeing for sure with the migrant situation in Chicago and around the Chicagoland area is that the state needs to be a little bit more aggressive in the way that we talk about housing.”
The measure would require that property zoned for residential use allows “middle housing.” Buckner has not yet defined what middle housing will entail, but said there would be room to negotiate that language. The National Conference of State Legislatures defines middle housing as the “middle ground between large-lot, single-family homes and large apartment complexes and is missing from the available housing stock.” In Chicago, some could interpret middle housing to mean two-flats, three-flats or additional dwelling units, Buckner said. Those conversations will likely consider another bill in the state House that would prohibit any unit of local government from banning ADUs on a residential property. That bill, introduced in November by Buckner, was originally proposed in 2020 by Rep. Robyn Gabel, D-Evanston, who now serves as the House majority leader. […]
Buckner argues the bill is not a swipe at aldermanic prerogative but instead makes way for more density in the state’s largest cities.
* HB4982 from Rep. Tim Ozinga…
Amends the Burial of Dead Bodies Act. Provides that, until July 1, 2026, a green burial shall not be performed in this State unless the green burial is performed in a cemetery that permits green burials and at which green burials are permitted by all applicable ordinances and regulations. Provides that the Director of Public Health shall study the environmental and health impacts of green burials and natural organic reduction and develop recommendations for the performance of green burials and natural organic reduction to prevent environmental harm, including contamination of groundwater and surface water, and to protect the health of workers performing green burials and natural organic reduction, mourners, and the public. Details topics that the study may address. Requires the Director of Public Health to submit the study and recommendations, including any statutory changes needed to implement the recommendations, to the General Assembly by February 1, 2026. Defines terms. Effective July 1, 2024.
* Rep. Jay Hoffman filed HB5010…
Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Deletes language prohibiting a peace officer, or any other person acting under the color of law, from discharging kinetic impact projectiles and all other non-lethal or less-lethal projectiles in a manner that targets the back.
Currently, commercial solar energy facilities can be located within 50 feet of a home and 150 feet from a multi-family residence, but proposed legislation would increase that to 500 feet.
State Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, sponsors House Bill 4135 and said many residents in his district don’t want to live next door to a solar farm.
“We don’t know what the health concerns might be of a solar farm, we don’t like the way they look, we’re concerned about how it might impact property values,” DeLuca said. “Those are the three most common concerns I would hear.”
During a House Energy and Environment Committee hearing this week, Michael Morthland with the group American Clean Power Association said changing current Illinois law would set the state back in its clean energy goals.
* SB3323 filed by Sen. Dan McConchie…
Creates the Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Station Act. Requires the Department of Transportation to ensure that charging stations in the State are sufficiently accessible to allow independent use by drivers with disabilities, including people who have limited or no hand dexterity, limb differences, or upper extremity amputations and use adaptive driving controls. Requires chargers designed to serve people who use mobility devices to be located on an accessible route. Provides that the Department shall adopt the technical requirements for accessible routes established under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the federal Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA) including walking surfaces, curb ramps, and ramps. Establishes that a charging space with mobility features must provide a vehicle space with a minimum width of at least 11 feet and a minimum length of at least 20 feet. Requires chargers to provide a clear floor or ground space. Requires clear floor or ground spaces to meet ADA requirements for ground and floor surfaces, including criteria for firmness, stability, and slip resistance. Provides that a reasonable number of chargers, as determined by the Department, shall comply with ADA operable parts requirements, including technical requirements for clear floor or ground space, reach ranges, and operation. Provides that a connector must allow operation with one hand and no tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist, and with no more than 5 pounds of force. Provides that all chargers operated or maintained by any entity within the State must comply with the technical requirements for hardware under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Grants rulemaking authority. Defines terms.
* Rep. Larry Walsh filed HB5017 yesterday…
Amends the Wildlife Code. Deletes provisions that require a meat processor to be a member of the Illinois Sportsmen Against Hunger program in order for the meat processor to donate deer meat that the meat processor has processed. Provides that if a properly tagged deer is processed at a licensed meat processing facility and if the owner of the deer (i) fails to claim the processed deer within a reasonable time or (ii) notifies the licensed meat processing facility that the owner no longer wants the processed deer or wishes to donate the deer, then the deer meat may be given away by the licensed meat processor to another person or donated to a charitable organization or community food bank that receives wild game meat. Requires meat processors who donate deer meat to a charitable organization or community food bank that receives wild game meat to keep written records of all deer received.
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 8:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: White Sox reveal plans, projections for a ballpark in the 78
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
–many residents in his district don’t want to live next door to a solar farm.–
Personally, I’d be perfectly happy with a solar farm right next door, much less even 50ft away. When I put solar on my roof, it’s zero feet away from my property.
No emissions. No noise. No traffic. Higher taxes collected than vacant land.
There aren’t many better options of things to do with land nextdoor to me - which I don’t own or have control over. Seems like a win-win to have one nearby. Much better than a gas station, truck stop, or warehouse.
As a compromise, how about requiring nearby residents(within 500ft) to be given a discount on solar energy produced by the solar farm. Lots of paperwork comes with that idea for sure, but I’m sure it could be done. Carrots work better than sticks as a first approach.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 8:54 am
“Rep. Kam Buckner introduced the Single-Family Zoning Ban Act, which would prohibit zoning areas exclusively for single-family residential use”… state needs to be a little bit more aggressive in the way that we talk about housing”
Ill-advised power grab by the state trying to impose a high-density housing pro-public transit policy. As everyone, especially homeowners know real estate is and should be “local”. I do applaud the rep for being upfront about the aggressive (his own words) power move at the expense of local units of government.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 9:20 am
Cha-ching.
https://www.wspa.com/news/state-news/
nc-health-plan-no-longer-covering-new-ozem
pic-and-wegovy-prescriptions/#:~:text=RAL
EIGH%2C%20N.C.%20%28QUEEN%20CITY%20NEWS%29%20%E
2%80%94%20North%20Carolina%E2%80%99s,is%20put
ting%20the%20state%20health%20plan%20under%20siege.
Comment by Justaquestion Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 9:31 am
watch those infertility bills closely. many anti choicers are often not interested in helping with the choice to bring a life into the world. it’s sad.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 9:59 am
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 9:20 am:
Did you read the bill?
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:00 am
I hate Kam Buckner’s legislation for the same reason I hate the ban on gas stoves. Please stop trying to social engineer our communities. I’m an activist moderate Democrat and I hate this. Have I said hate enough on this? I like Kam a great deal and don’t understand why my fellow Democrats keep acting like Republicans telling us what to do in our communities. Enough.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:23 am
Did you read the bill?
“Did you read the bill?”
yes - lots of population limits in the bill that would limit the impact to places with over 100K - that would include Chicago, Aurora, Joliet, Naperville, Rockford, Springfield, Elgin, and Peoria. The larger question remains why should the state impose rules on decisions best left to consumers and local zoning boards? If high-density housing near transit is a good idea then builders will develop them and folks will voluntarily choose to live there.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:27 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, by requiring more dense residential use as a matter of right, the State would be turning residential zoning and development into the wild west. As I read it,Buckner’s bill prohibits any parcel from being zoned only for single family detached residential use, meaning that it must provide for at least a dulplex/multifamily use as a matter of right for each SFH zoned parcel. I say that, because virtually all zoning ordinances provide for special/conditional uses or variances for multi-family in SFH. Similarly, most ordinances have a Planned Use Development provision which would provide another avenue for higher density residential developments subject to conditions. In light of that, I can only assume (and I suspect a court would as well) that he intends to make multi-family use “a matter of right” in all SFH zoning districts. Some issues with granting it as a matter of right, because of the expected density for previously constructed developments may overwhelm in place infrastructure and may run afoul of broader plans for infrastructure development.
Now, to be clear, I respect the fact that he included an out for unincorporated areas with infrastructure problems, but that language has some issues. First, its unclear if the definition of a zoning unit includes the population in the county at large, or whether it is the population which actually resides in the unincorporated areas. That makes a big difference in the scope of the bill. Something like 20 counties are 100k or larger. I’d estimate 4 or 5 counties have unincorporated populations over 100k. Second, his bill doesn’t account for who makes the determination that the utilities provided are insufficient. If its the County, that may pose some challenges. If its the Developer, that will pose some affordability issues. Similarly, its silent as to multi-family septic projects. A keen developer who wishes to avoid public scrutiny could certainly make a compelling case that multi-family septic would cure any deficiency and that they be allowed to develop as a matter of right. In fact, the risks and costs of the conditional/special use or PUD process might very well make it worth the developer’s time to install “sufficient” infrastructure as part of their plan, but which would be contrary to a county’s development goals of eliminating private septic and well properties by municipal utility development and subsequent annexation. Of course, such a plan of action would raise the cost of the units, but the developer’s goal is not really to develop affordable housing. I won’t even go into the impact the bill has on municipal land use planning and the “sphere of influence” the municipal code provides over unincorporated parcels near municipalities.
In sum, the bill needs some fixing. Fixing what a “zoning unit” means is the first step. At least then you know who is impacted. Clarifying if the development must be “as a matter of right” or whether existing conditional/special use or PUDS meet the law’s requirements is also a good step. If the intention is to simply provide that a zoning unit may vary or condition changes in its bulk regulations to allow attached SFH in SFH districts, I don’t think thats likely to pose an issue. The bill should make it clear who has to decide if the infrastructure is insufficient and it should include parking, not just mass transit. Otherwise you have SFHs with no parking because some jackwagon threw up a 5 flat in a municipality that prohibits overnight parking on the street. Again, well intentioned, but I don’t think the sponsor has sufficient knowledge or experience with zoning matters to understand how this bill actually impacts development and planning.
Comment by Just Another Anon Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:51 am
===I hate Kam Buckner’s legislation for the same reason I hate the ban on gas stoves.
A ban on gas stoves in new construction is not social engineering whatever that means. It is addressing a serious climate issue and as we move away from fossil fuels it is just a natural step. Gas stoves also has significant health impacts on the people in the house. Not surprisingly emissions in house don’t just disappear.
Buckner’s legislation above would apply to 8 cities in Illinois at the same time we are facing affordable housing shortages. It also is likely to only require that people are allowed to build two to three unit buildings not large apartment buildings. It’s a good compromise to allow for more housing units without large buildings in residential neighborhoods.
Though I’ve never fully understood what social engineering is supposed to mean outside of eugenics, if there is a public policy that is social engineering it is zoning and zoning is always in tension with property rights. If someone owns a plot of property, why should they be limited to one residential unit on that property?
Finally, the health effects of solar farms? Thank you Representative DeLuca for falling for ridiculous right wing nonsense put out by groups funded by fossil fuel companies. It’s nice to see who is that gullible.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:53 am
–Please stop trying to social engineer our communities.–
Unawareness level 10,000
Single-family zoning is one of the most artificial ways land can be zoned, and the entire point of it has always been social engineering. The 2nd order effects of it are tremendous, and mostly negative. The simple fact you are used to it as if it normal is part of the problem.
This isn’t even touching on the almost complete disappearing of mixed-use zoning, which was a casualty of single-family zoning, and was how most small towns were built-up a hundred years ago. Every quaint ‘downtown’ you enjoy would not even be allowed to exist under the zoning of today.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:55 am
Seems noteworthy that the assistant majority leader is focused on making it easier for cops to fire on fleeing suspects.
Comment by Quibbler Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:57 am
==“We don’t know what the health concerns might be of a solar farm, we don’t like the way they look, we’re concerned about how it might impact property values,” DeLuca said. “Those are the three most common concerns I would hear.”==
He would have a better argument IMHO if he just limited his argument to the last two concerns. I’m not seeing how capturing sunlight could have any health concerns other than the health concerns that we all have being in the sunlight.
Comment by Aaron B Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:58 am
The idea of banning SFH zoning is it returns power back to the person that should have it. The property owner. If I own my land and my aged father (unfortunately not in the cards for me I lost him years ago) wants to stay with me, I am not allowed under SFH zoning laws to build him a cabin, apartment, or cottage so he can have some privacy on my own property.
And I think that would be the principle effect of this kind of law change. You would see in-law structures built for grown kids, parents, etc. And that would then relieve pressure on existing rentals. Since Jr would not be seeking an apartment since he could live in the cottage in the back yard.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:59 am
Correction: Just Another Anon, thanks for your post I now understand it’s zoning unit, Crain’s identified it as only cities so it is more broad than I originally understood. That said, Kam made i clear he’s open to limiting the number of units so what is most likely to happen is 2-3 units being allowed in such areas as several cities have done in other states. That hardly has the same impacts on infrastructure as buildings with a large number of units.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:59 am
====? If high-density housing near transit is a good idea then builders will develop them and folks will voluntarily choose to live there.
What in the bill requires transit? Also, why would transit be bad?
Except consumers are largely not being given that choice in many places. NIMBY problems with anything besides single-family housing are well documented. What about two or three units on a single plot will radically alter the character of a neighborhood?
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:05 am
“Buckner’s legislation above would apply to 8 cities in Illinois”
Funny how the Dems in the ILGA seem ready to step in and tell residents of these 8 places that they are incapable of self-governing. These cities are free to listen to the residents through advocacy or voting in new Trustees and adopt/amend zoning rules on their own.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:35 am
Can someone please explain to me why these deep fake prohibition bills only seem to apply to politicians and only around election season? Wouldn’t it be better and more popular if they just banned deep fake images/video/recordings of ALL Illinois residents without their prior consent? If you are going to have to go through the expense of a court challenge, at least do it for the greater good and not just to exclusivity of a small number of political figures. I mean… Who would vote against the ‘Can’t Make Unauthorized Porn of Illinois Citizens Act’?
Comment by Benniefly2 Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:01 pm
Cermak Road
> Return the power back to who should have it.
Zoning is derived from the state’s police power to provide for the safety and security of its residents. It was created as a progressive way to ensure that the public and the property owner benefitted from the “highest and best” use of the property. There is a reason that Zoning Ordinances exist, part of that is to make sure that harmonious uses are group together and discordant uses are not. The issue with ADUs isn’t the “mother in law suite”, which again is frequently provided for by ordinance. Its the AirBNB crowd. A SFH with an ADU isn’t likely to be discordant with the area. The usual issue is where people want to double their rental capacity at the neighbors expense. That’s why many ordinance treat hotels and BNBs differently than SFH and that’s why many places have restrictions on ADUs.
We can go back and forth about if ADUs should be allowed as a matter of right, but what I suspect would happen is that you would come to the realization that ADUs may be right for some properties, but not for others. That’s why blanket rules making ADUs a “matter of right” development are a bad idea. In the end it comes down to who is best able to determine if the use is appropriate for a particular parcel. Is it the state legislature by blanket decree, or a local zoning board who is familiar with the parcel, infrastructure, and area. Similarly, is it proper to require it as a matter of right or is it better to allow the zoning body to impose restrictions on the use and operation. If this passed tomorrow, we wouldn’t be seeing any changes for 2 years at the soonest. Then you have actual construction time. If this is the “silver bullet” to solve the housing shortage, then its certainly not going to do anything to solve it for 3 years or so. In light of that, why the rush to take away local control by blanket state legislation?
Comment by Just Another Anon Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:06 pm
Does anyone see problems with Ford’s Neighborhood Concert Tax Act? I don’t think I have ever not opposed a Ford bill, so I’m wondering what I’m missing, because on first review it seeems like a not-bad idea. Maybe some limitations on size of concert (e.g. Riot Fest included, small neighborhood concerts with a small fee not included), but otherwise…feed some money back into the park for neighborhood operations seems reasonable. Is this already being done? (Apart from things like Lolla or Riot Fest paying to repair actual damage.)
Comment by Leslie K Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:07 pm
Arch Pundit: 11:05
>What about two or three units on a single plot will radically alter the character of a neighborhood?
Two things. Its not 2 or 3 units on a parcel, its letting EVERY parcel have 2 to 3 units. That doubling or tripling the units and potentially growing population by 8 times the existing level (depending on occupancy) in a 12 to 24 month period. Beyond the transportation and school infrastructure, two things are inevitable. People drink water and people poop. Where is it going to come from and go?
Just because its SFH detached doesn’t mean that the roads, parking, and utilities are sized to service multiple residences. For example, a SFH can typically be serviced by a 1″ water line. A Triplex would need between a 1.5″ to 2″ line. Going beyond the pipes, one key aspect to housing development is water demand/supply. More people use more water. If that water is supplied by a municipal water entity, then they will need to be able to increase their pumping and delivery facilities to include 4 times the planned usage in 10 years or less. I don’t think that’s feasible. If they are using wells, then they will impact the water access level for other well units, meaning that for each additional unit that taps into the aquifer, other wells will need to be dug deeper and more frequently.
Similarly, sewage has to go somewhere. Septic systems require space that some lots won’t have and would need to be a “group” septic system at best. Muni sewer has a limited capacity. For example, DuPage can process 22 million gallons of sewage a day at 3 facilities. They average about 85% capacity. That means they are effectively at safe capacity. What happens when you double or triple the number of units? You double or triple the number of sewage users. Utilities like that can’t just pop online overnight or even over a few years. These types of projects are 4 to 8 year projects with huge capital outlays.
As matter of right development sets the stage for unregulated and uncontrolled growth, it also sets the stage for unexpected private and public utility issues both in cost and capacity. Imagine having to spend 2.5k to dig your well deeper or have to connect to municipal water (15 to 20k) because a whole subdivision doubled in size depleted the groundwater. These things come with a cost and that cost isn’t just the feel of the neighborhood but its access to services and the ability to actually manage the costs of owning a home.
I’ll leave aside the “Air BNB” effect (aka the “I don’t live here so what do I care” principle) for others to discuss.
Comment by Just Another Anon Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:35 pm
== provide for the safety and security of its residents. It was created as a progressive way to ensure that the public and the property owner benefitted from the “highest and best” use of the property==
It was also historically used by cities as suburbs as a weapon to keep the “wrong people” out of their city, or in their “proper place” in the community.
Comment by fs Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:53 pm
Seems like the parking issue could be resolved by issuing only so many parking permits to the whole address no matter how many units are on it. In the TOD developments in the city, for instance, those units are not able to apply for a parking permit.
Washington state has done this zoning relaxation. We can look at what went on there and what steps they took.
I do think that 1 or 2 in-law units should be allowed per address and that should not have to involve begging and wheedling by the zoning board and neighbor hearings.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:56 pm
====Two things. Its not 2 or 3 units on a parcel, its letting EVERY parcel have 2 to 3 units. That doubling or tripling the units and potentially growing population by 8 times the existing level (depending on occupancy) in a 12 to 24 month period. Beyond the transportation and school infrastructure, two things are inevitable. People drink water and people poop. Where is it going to come from and go?
But not every lot is going to have 2-3 units. This is taking the extreme case and making it seem like the likely case which it certainly is not.
More importantly, your example of DuPage County is likely under 100,000 in unincorporated areas (2008 numbers, but flat population since) and so would not even likely be covered and large developments of 2 and 3 unit housing just aren’t that likely given the level of development already existing.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:07 pm
Forcing companies to cover GLPs for obesity would raise health insurance premiums by $500 for each enrolled member. Along with the fertility treatment requirement, health insurance premiums would go up considerably.
I’m not saying that this is a bad thing, but these laws have real cost components to consider.
Comment by Chicagonk Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:25 pm
== “We don’t know what the health concerns might be of a solar farm, we don’t like the way they look, we’re concerned about how it might impact property values,” DeLuca said. “Those are the three most common concerns I would hear.” ==
No one wants anything by them, and the single scariest thing to any suburban homeowner is something that will ‘impact property values’.
A bit of a bigger buffer may not be a bad idea, but I would be curious about the definition of a ’solar farm’ and ‘health concerns.’ I don’t get that at all.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:02 pm
= I don’t think I have ever not opposed a Ford bill, so I’m wondering what I’m missing…=
I’m trying to wrap my head around why the state wants to impose a state tax on an event simply because it occurs on local-government property. Why is the state looking to cash in on something that has nothing to do with state government?
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:10 pm
Regarding Buckner’s bad bill, as a commenter noted above, “middle housing” can already be addressed through special-use processes or planned unit developments. It’s also not generally overly difficult to rezone property from single-family to mixed use housing. It’s not zoning restrictions that are preventing this housing. Right now, its interest rates and the costs of construction materials. Nobody can afford to build “affordable” housing because, in the current economic climate, you can’t make your money back.
If the state wants to encourage more housing, then it should look at grants, loans, or other incentives to make housing construction more feasible. This bill gunks up land use and local control without actually solving the problem.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:21 pm
I would be a little more impressed if he let Chicago lead the way on this vs making it apply to cities before it applies to Chicago.
== “middle ground between large-lot, single-family homes and large apartment complexes and is missing from the available housing stock.” ==
I am not sure my quarter of an acre lot qualifies as a ‘large lot’, but whatever. Multiple town-home complexes within 2 miles of my home are in the same city; just south of me, there are large areas of undeveloped land, which, if this gets passed, will never be annexed into Aurora but will be part of Oswego or Plainfield. Some of that undeveloped land will be annexed that is right next to my subdivision and will have duplexes next to our subdivision.
Multiple homes in my subdivision are now rentals that are owned by corporations; I suspect some of them would look to tear those down and create duplexes and the like to maximize revenue. There is no way they would have enough space for garage space for those folks so that we would have a street parking problem for starters.
Sincerely, Representative, I would love to hear how Aurora and Elgin have density problems. Does Rockford have a density problem? Are we that bad at zoning the state needs to step in?
Many of the developments around me have HOAs. Are those rules going to be usurped? Will the Del Webb active adult community to my south now have to allow duplexes?
How about this: have Chicago go first, have this be the law there for 10 years, and you run for mayor again and see how folks like it before you feel the need to usurp the zoning ability of other places?
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:32 pm
===I’m trying to wrap my head around why the state wants to impose a state tax on an event simply because it occurs on local-government property. Why is the state looking to cash in on something that has nothing to do with state government?===
Good question, although I think the answer is just that he is a state legislator, so that’s what he has influence on. The money seems to be going back locally, not acting as a state ‘cash in.’
Comment by Leslie K Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:43 pm
==develop recommendations for the performance of green burials and natural organic reduction to prevent environmental harm, including contamination of groundwater and surface water==
As compared to the burial of a body that has been filled with chemicals intended to preserve it? I can guess how that will come out.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 3:08 pm
Even if Rep. Buckner’s legislation makes sense, the messaging on it is bad.
Comment by Shytown Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 7:22 pm