The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois has concerns about implementation of new restrictions on soliciting and unattended property in Uptown, near and in Uptown Station. It has sent a letter to the town detailing the concerns and the town has issued a response clarifying its approach.
WGLT asked Mayor Chris Koos about the issue during a Sound Ideas interview.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
WGLT: The ACLU has First Amendment concerns about the solicitation ban. What are your thoughts?
Mayor Koos: Our legal department looked at that and disagreed partially. I would say there are areas where we feel you could do that. There are areas where we feel you couldn't do that within the confines of the ground floor of the station.
Where can you and where can't you?
There's kind of a public area in between the seating area for Amtrak passengers and seating area for buses. We would consider that an area not to do that. You know, we've held press conferences in that main area in between, and I think that's where we differ on that. I will say, I don't see this as contentious between us and the ACLU. I think we're working together to get to a common solution, if there is a problem here. I have no issue with the ACLU taking a look at our ordinance and questioning it.
How is someone supposed to know where the public space and where the non-public space transitions?
I would say common sense would tell you that not bothering people that are there for transportation. It really comes down to when it becomes an issue … that has to do with oversight and enforcement. Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's hard and fast that we're going to interpret that in every situation. I think the security staff and the staff of Amtrak can show some discretion.
So if they decide that they're exercising their discretion because they don't like the cut of somebody's jib or their appearance, they can, in effect, unevenly enforce it?
I would say, again, I think overall if people are not being disturbed in the station there won't be enforcement on that. If people are being disturbed in the station, I think there will be enforcement.
The ACLU in its letter also has trouble with the removal of unattended property. They say you must have exceptions for accessing town services, attending public meetings, using transit services, or responding to legal processes. Are they right about that?
I think that is a little bit broad brush because I would say second, third, and fourth floor that would be very accurate, yes, but ground floor that's to me is a different animal. That's a train station.
Part of the issue is whether Uptown Station and nearby constitutes a public forum in the legal sense. It's a public building; it's a public space in which public governmental business is conducted. Members of the public have to enter into it. Why wouldn't the definition of it as entirely as a public forum apply?
Boy, I can't answer without getting into legalese. I mean, we're really, really splitting hairs here.
Some of these definitions are a little squishy, so it's hard to define which area is OK and which area is not, based on that. Does it need to be clearer?
I think if you look at the legalese of it, it's very binary. You can, you can’t. I think more importantly is, how it's interpreted and how it's been interpreted for years is probably more accurate.
I would not expect a security officer in Uptown Station to just say rigidly, you can do this, you can't do that. It gives them the option to do it if it becomes disruptive.
We should note one area that the ACLU focused on in the letter is a need to have town policies on how you deal with unattended property, like trying to find the owner and other reasonable steps before you remove the property. The town already has those.
Correct.
An ACLU attorney tells WGLT the ordinance still seems to provide a wide berth for removal of property, notwithstanding the procedures, and they hope the procedures will be implemented fairly. What does "fairly" mean to you and the town regarding property removal?
Fairly, I think, is just using common sense on the part of the person leaving the items, and on the part of the person enforcing the ordinance. If it becomes a problem, then we will have to address that. But if it's not a problem, it works. I mean, if you look at rules in airports and train stations in Europe, and that, it's pretty hard and fast because of the issues that they've had with those situations. We've not had those situations, so I don't see the heavy-handed approach being implemented.
On another topic, the firefighters' union is criticizing the town administration’s recommendation to not participate in the ground emergency medical transport program [GEMT]. That criticism happened online on a social media post. The program offers additional reimbursement to ambulance services when transporting people who are on Medicaid. Firefighters said that choice would add substantial income for the fire department. What's the reason for the recommendation against participating in it?
In our budget this year we had a generous surplus. We don't see any reason that we need to raise costs of ambulance service. Why would we do that for our citizens?
Unpack that. Why would you have to raise the fees for non-Medicaid people? Is it a precondition to get Medicaid reimbursement for those who are on Medicaid?
Yes, it's a very convoluted process. It has to do with the amount of services that don't get paid, that are in default. That rate rises higher. It will, by our analysis, raise the cost of ambulance services for everybody that dials in for an ambulance. They [Firefighters] are correct that it would raise more revenue for the town, not necessarily for the firefighters. It would go into the General Fund. We just don't see any reason that we should raise our ambulance rates.
For some municipalities, the administrative cost of implementing it is higher than the reimbursement. Is that the case for the town as well as well as the increased cost to non-Medicaid people?
I can't say that that would be the outcome, but that is the outcome we think could happen, and that's why we're not in favor of this.
The mayor also said during the interview there is no push from council members to have a wider council discussion of the staff recommendation.
