
Ald. Desmon Yancy: Chicago demands more from you, Mayor Johnson
Mayor Brandon Johnson, like many Chicagoans, I was excited about your election. As a fellow organizer and a newly elected alderman, I had high hopes that your administration would mark the beginning of a new era in Chicago government — one in which all residents and stakeholders were heard, valued and brought together. I believed your victory signaled the start of a Chicago for all.
You came into office with a strong ideological perspective, but early signs pointed to an inclusive administration — one that welcomed diverse viewpoints, even those that challenged your own. We hoped that your inexperience would be balanced by humility and a willingness to listen to those with deep experience in governance.
Yet, as I look back over the past two years, your administration has been the opposite of what we hoped for. Dissenting voices are consistently shut down. Detractors are shut out. Advice is ignored. Instead of collaboration, we see ideological isolation. Instead of a 'Chicago for all,' we see a government that treats those who disagree as enemies. This is not what I voted for, worked for or can continue to support.
Chicago under your leadership has become a cauldron of frustration. Multiple public polls reflect growing dissatisfaction, and the dysfunction is evident. Every mayor faces opposition from some bloc of aldermen, but the repeated close votes and tie-breaking votes you've cast are not signs of collaboration. They are signs of a government in disarray. Your own supporters — those who stood with you in difficult times — are not invited to shape policy but expected to fall in line behind half-baked proposals developed without meaningful input.
Chicago is at a financial crossroads — not of your making, but one that requires sound leadership. Yet, if the recent budget process and the recent bond vote are any indication, your administration is adding to the financial burden future generations must bear. I can no longer support that.
Mr. Mayor, Chicago needs a vision that embraces the concerns of all its citizens. Yes, we must prioritize the most vulnerable, but intellectually honest critique — no matter where it comes from — must be acknowledged. Truth is not the exclusive possession of those we agree with.
We need a financial strategy that, as our esteemed Vice Mayor Walter Burnett put it, makes Chicago truly self-sufficient. We cannot continue spending recklessly while hoping for bailouts from afar. Instead, we must do the work of our own hands, building relationships as we lay the foundation for a more equitable and sustainable future.
Look, I understand that this job is not easy. I also recognize that some of your challenges stem from America's original sin of racism, and Chicago has long been a test case in that regard. A glance at the rhetoric directed at you on social media makes that clear.
As a 53-year-old Black man, I have experienced my share of racial bias. But not every critique from citizens, the media or aldermen is racially motivated. Some are, but not all. The concerns raised about the recent bond issue were valid, and the pushback was not about race. It was about accountability. In fact, it reflects an increasingly engaged and informed citizenry that demands more from its leadership.
The people are demanding more. The City Council is demanding more. And as the elected representative of the 5th Ward, I am demanding more.
Mr. Mayor, the moment is yours. There's so much at stake. In fact, the future of this great city and those who call it home are counting on you to be the leader you promised to be during your campaign.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EPA moves to repeal rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to "unleash American energy" and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,'' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that ... no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living ... create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity." Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks" by the Republican president's administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,'' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former Republican congressman of New York, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry "out of existence" and make it "disappear.'' Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,'' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren." A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,'' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in "significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health," he said. ___ Associated Press writers Michael Phillis and Seth Borenstein contributed to this story. Matthew Daly, The Associated Press Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom compared to infamous Dem governor who also tried to block National Guard
Vivek Ramaswamy said he sees parallels between California Gov. Gavin Newsom and another controversial Democratic governor who literally stood in the way of the National Guard and had well-known presidential ambitions. Newsom is beginning to "resemble" former Alabama Gov. George Wallace in several aspects of his response to Los Angeles' riots, Ramaswamy claimed Tuesday on Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime." The Ohio gubernatorial candidate noted how Wallace – an avowed segregationist who ran for president four times – forced the hand of President John F. Kennedy by preventing Black students from attending the University of Alabama. "[Newsom's] behavior is starting to resemble that of another Democratic governor from U.S. history by the name of George Wallace, who was the governor of Alabama, who famously stood in the way of federal desegregation," Ramaswamy said. Maxine Waters Taunts Armed Agents After Feds Slam Door On Her During La Riots: 'You Better Shoot Straight' "The parallels are actually pretty striking, if you think about it: Democrat governors, when you look at George Wallace, he resisted desegregation. Gavin Newsom is resisting deportations. George Wallace wanted segregated cities. Gavin Newsom wants sanctuary cities. George Wallace stood in the school door, blocking the way. Gavin Newsom is blocking the ICE vans. It's the same Democrat-governor playbook." Read On The Fox News App The former DOGE co-leader said both Newsom and Wallace "dodge[d] the feds and rall[ied] the radicals." "What they were both doing is really carving their Democratic primary path for their presidential ambitions," he added. "Gavin Newsom's presidential ambitions are going to end in the same place that George Wallace's did: In the dustbin of history where it belongs." In June 1963, Wallace prevented two Black students – Vivian Malone and James Hood – from enrolling on the Tuscaloosa campus of the University of Alabama and made his infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door." Newsom Says Los Angeles Rioters Will Be Prosecuted, Slams Trump For 'Traumatizing Our Communities' After Wallace refused Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach's order to step aside, he delivered a pro-states-rights speech and did not budge. Kennedy federalized the Yellowhammer State's National Guard under the Insurrection Act. Gen. Henry Graham personally confronted Wallace, who ultimately relented. The next year, Wallace primaried President Lyndon Johnson and notably won a few northern states he had targeted on his segregationist platform – but lost to the incumbent. In 1968, he tried again on the American Independent line with a counter-civil-rights message – splitting the Democratic vote, winning five states and helping ultimate victor Richard Nixon. During his 1976 run, he apologized for his past support for segregation. This week, Newsom objected to President Donald Trump's federalization of the California National Guard and the ensuing deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles to assist in riot response. Late Tuesday, Clinton-appointed federal Judge Charles Breyer rejected a Newsom request to block Trump's military deployments. Newsom continued to lambaste Trump, saying in a video statement Tuesday that, "authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves, but they do not stop there." Newsom also took heat for his riot response strategy from some famous Los Angeles residents, including actor Jon Voight. "You fool," Voight fumed in an X video posted early Wednesday. "They [the rioters] would burn you down like they are burning the cars and the American flag." Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom for comment but did not immediately hear article source: Newsom compared to infamous Dem governor who also tried to block National Guard
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prosecutors Say a Juror Wasn't Honest — Diddy's Team Says That's Not the Real Reason They Want Him Out
The government is seeking to remove a juror in Sean "Diddy" Combs' trial, who the defense claims is among the panel's Black members Alexandra Shapiro, one of Combs' attorneys, said the government's attempt at removing the juror is a "thinly veiled effort to dismiss a Black juror" The trial is in its fifth weekProsecutors in Sean "Diddy" Combs' sex trafficking and racketeering trial, which is in its fifth week, have requested that a juror be dismissed, citing "a lack of candor." On Wednesday, June 11, the lead prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, told U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian outside the presence of the jury that "it appeared to be a lack of candor with the court that raises serious issues with us." 'We did not want to do this," Comey said. "We were compelled to do that.' One of Combs' attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro, said the defense opposes removing the juror and said the government's attempt at doing so is 'a thinly veiled effort to dismiss a Black juror.' Subramanian said he would address the matter by the end of the week after he had received written submissions from both sides. Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. Twelve people — eight men and four women — were selected for the jury, and a half-dozen alternates. The jurors range in age from 30 to 74. Their identities are known to the judge and lawyers but won't be made public. Among the six alternates, two are women and four are men. Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges. Read the original article on People