Latest news with #HB1147
Chicago Tribune
25-04-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Guest column: Illinois must act now to solve affordable housing crisis by passing tax credit bill
Every day, the Association for Individual Development (AID) witnesses the growing demand for affordable homes. Individuals facing developmental, intellectual, physical and mental health challenges as well as those who are chronically unhoused are struggling to find homes they can afford, putting their stability and well-being at risk. We know how to meet this need — by building more affordable housing — but we need the right tools to make it happen. The Build Illinois Homes Tax Credit is one of those tools. This proposed state legislation will help shovel-ready developments cross the finish line and bring urgently needed homes to vulnerable communities across the state. Our nonprofit, based in Aurora, provides services across seven counties in Illinois, including the far western suburbs of Chicago. We have just finished building Wildwood Commons and Trace in Elgin. This development took vacant, unused acres and converted them into a beautiful neighborhood complete with artistic murals that provides housing for 74 families who need it most. The waiting list for these units is more than 600 people long. We secured highly competitive federal tax credits for the development but found it necessary to leverage other financing to move the development towards construction. If the Build Illinois Homes Tax Credit were in place now, we would be able to create more affordable homes for residents in need. We are also in the process of constructing Las Rosas, a permanent supportive housing development in Aurora. The property was the previous home to an unused religious school but will be transformed into homes for individuals and families with disabilities or facing homelessness. These properties are excellent examples of how the Build Illinois Homes tax credit program could unlock increased development and address the shortage of housing across our communities. Illinois currently faces a shortfall of more than 289,000 affordable rental homes for its lowest-income residents. This is not just a crisis for those directly impacted — it weakens our entire state. When individuals with disabilities, unhoused individuals and extremely low-income families cannot access affordable housing, they are more likely to face unnecessary costly institutionalization and chronic homelessness. When families and individuals are forced to spend the bulk of their income on rent, they have less to invest in local economies. And when housing insecurity rises, so do emergency services and health care costs, putting additional strain on public resources. The Build Illinois Homes Tax Credit (HB 1147/SB 62) is a proven, bipartisan solution to this crisis. This proposal has already been adopted in more than 25 other states, and it would create a stable and predictable funding source for affordable housing development. The state does not spend a dime until developments are completed. This minimizes taxpayer risk while maximizing public benefit and ensures that private investment flows into Illinois communities, helping to build high-quality housing without requiring state funds upfront. Illinois cannot afford to wait any longer. The cost of inaction is far greater than the investment needed to solve this crisis. If we do nothing, housing costs will continue to rise, pushing more families into instability and making it harder for businesses to attract workers. But if we act now, we can create a stronger, more resilient Illinois where our workforce and vulnerable populations have the security of a home, and communities thrive. The Build Illinois Homes Tax Credit is a smart, common-sense investment in our state's future. We urge lawmakers to pass HB 1147/SB 62 and take decisive action to address our housing crisis. The time to act is now.
CBS News
18-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Some Colorado cities challenge bill reducing harsh penalties in municipal court
Colorado's municipal courts primarily prosecute minor offenses, and punishment for those crimes can vary from city to city. That could soon change. While many welcome the consistency, some cities say it would be a big mistake. House Bill 1147, Fairness & Transparency in Municipal Court, aims to standardize sentencing and enhance due process in municipal courts across Colorado. In recent years, Aurora has gotten tougher on crime -- from shoplifting to car theft. "We were the number one state for motor vehicle theft. That was the first, big issue that we tackled when we passed that first mandatory minimum for that," said Pete Schulte, Aurora City Attorney. "We're still lower on motor vehicle theft today than the rest of the state, and a lot of our council members believe it's because of our mandatory minimum penalties." Some city leaders in Aurora fear crime would spike if HB1147 becomes law. Aurora also has mandatory minimum three days in jail on the first offense for retail theft and 90 days in jail on second offense. By contrast, under state law, shoplifting under $300 carries a maximum of 10 days in jail. HB1147 would force Aurora and other cities to reduce its penalties to the state criminal code. Schulte says the bill undercuts Aurora's ability to respond to its own challenges. "The things that are happening in Aurora are probably a lot different than what's happening in Grand Junction, Steamboat, Vail, Rifle," Schulte said. "Some cities may not have the issues that Aurora has, which is why we like our home rule authority to be able to do these sort of things and take action on our own." Supporters of the bill say consistent punishment would eliminate what they say are disparities in municipal court. Terrance Carroll, former Speaker of the House and President of the Sam Cary Bar Association - Colorado's Black lawyers association - voiced strong support. He emphasized the disproportionate burden current municipal court systems place on vulnerable populations. "You normally get folks who are the poorest of the poor... who don't necessarily have the same resources to bond out or to make bail," said Carroll. The bill also has support from several organizations including the ACLU and Colorado Freedom Fund. He says cities shouldn't be labs experimenting with criminal justice. "It makes no sense that for a state offense, you won't do jail time. But for a low-level municipal offense, you could find yourself in jail for extended periods," said Carroll. "We strongly support it because we think there will be true due process and ensure that there's consistency and constitutional rights throughout the state." He says solutions are bigger than punishment and justice needs compassion. "Sometimes you have to look at the circumstances," he said, offering a hypothetical of a struggling mother who resorts to shoplifting. "It's still wrong to do a crime, but... Justice has to be compassionate. Sometimes justice has to be empathetic." Schulte says Aurora's penalties show compassion to the victims. "This is standing up for small businesses, standing up for our citizens," Schulte. "Our city is taking a stand on some of these offenses that we believe the state isn't taking seriously." The bill has passed both chambers and now sits on Gov. Jared Polis's desk. But with mounting pressure from municipalities claiming the bill infringes on local authority, there's speculation that a veto could be on the table. If it is signed into law, the city of Aurora says it will legal action.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Is it really parole-eligible if inmates can't get a hearing? Time to modernize Maryland parole
(Illustration by Pict Rider/iStock Getty Images Plus) Maryland's parole system has fallen far behind national standards, refusing eligible individuals parole hearings and allowing department staff – rather than appointed parole commissioners – to conduct the majority of parole hearings. Two bills that passed the House this session, House Bill 1147, sponsored by Del. Elizabeth Embry (D-Baltimore City) and others, and House Bill 1156, sponsored by Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County), aim to correct these fundamental issues and ensure that parole operates as intended. In Maryland, state law does not explicitly state that a parole-eligible person ever has to get a parole hearing. It has been the practice of the Parole Commission (parole board) that incarcerated people are given at least one hearing and, if they are denied, must apply for all future hearings. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. Maryland is one of only four states that requires applications for subsequent hearings – alongside Delaware, Idaho, and Utah – and the Parole Commission routinely refuses these hearing applications. Over the past two years, the commission has refused hearings to more than 1,000 people each year (1,126 in 2023 and 1,159 in 2024), including hundreds of hearings for people in prison for nonviolent offenses. These aren't parole denials, these are denials of the request for a hearing. The Parole Commission is effectively refusing parole eligibility to thousands of people whom both the legislature and courts have already determined to be eligible. It's currently within the Parole Commission's authority to refuse people's request for a hearing each time they apply, effectively changing a parole-eligible sentence to one without parole. This practice was not the intent of the legislature. Is a sentence really parole-eligible if the law doesn't state that you actually get a parole hearing? HB1147 would establish a schedule for subsequent parole hearings, ensuring eligible people are considered at specific intervals and providing the commission with a predictable cadence for scheduling. Additional provisions in HB1147 would clean up some basic housekeeping: removing administrative delays for providing a person their records, making sure all victim-impact statements are considered by the commission, ensuring recordings of hearings are retained throughout a person's incarceration and ensuring a prompt official decision on parole, alongside justifications for each decision. Further, it's a common misconception that parole commissioners conduct all parole hearings in Maryland. By law, parole commissioners are only required to conduct hearings for people convicted of a homicide or serving a parole-eligible life sentence. The majority of incarcerated people (~60%) will have their parole hearing in front of a hearing examiner, a department staff member who conducts a hearing alone and decides whether to recommend release. These hearing examiners are selected by the secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services – the governor and Senate never review or approve their names. It is a system without checks and balances rife for abuse. Parole is a crucial step toward successful re-entry and release is an important decision: Is the incarcerated person ready to transition to community supervision? HB1156 would swap out hearing examiners for an expanded Parole Commission, ensuring the people appointed to make release decisions meet with every person who is eligible for release. No department staff member should be conducting parole hearings alone. These bills do not change parole eligibility laws – they simply ensure that parole-eligible people get parole hearings, parole commissioners conduct their hearings, and adequate records and justifications are kept in their file. House Bills 1147 and 1156 would help modernize parole in Maryland, a move that is long overdue to ensure eligible people have the chance at parole that both the legislature and courts provided to them.
