Excerpts of editorials from Illinois newspapers
EDITORS:
NEWS DIRECTORS:
Thanks to all members for submitting editorials that help The Associated Press assemble the weekly Illinois Editorial Roundup. Due to several factors, it has become more challenging to find fresh, original editorials on member websites. We would very much appreciate if you could take a few minutes to submit editorials that you would like to share with other members. They can be sent to our main email address, chifax@ap.org. Please use "Editorial Submission" as the subject line.
Please remember that we try to use editorials with appeal and interest for a statewide audience, and that not all submissions can be used. If you have any questions, please contact AP-Illinois News Editor Hugh Dellios at 312-920-3624 or hdellios@ap.org. Thank you.
The AP-Illinois
_____
February 21, 2015
Rockford Register Star
Limiting access to public notices is a mistake
We expect more transparency and greater openness in our dealings with government. Yet a bill in the General Assembly would make it more difficult for the public to get information from the government they pay for.
House Bill 261, sponsored by Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford, and Ron Sandack, R-Downers Grove, would allow local governments to post all public notices on their own websites instead of in a newspaper.
A government could still decide to publish in a newspaper, but would not be required to do so.
More often than not, government's default position is to restrict the flow of information rather than enhance it. Just ask anyone who has filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
So if a government agency decides to skip the newspaper, a likely outcome, the information would be available ONLY online. Making matters worse, the government entity - city, county, school district, township, etc. - would be required to place the notice only on its own website.
Bills like HB 261 have failed before, and we hope this one fails as well.
Currently, public notice information is available in print newspaper editions and online. If you do go online, there's one-stop shopping at PublicNoticeIllinois.com, a public service made possible by Illinois newspapers. The information is updated daily. That would go away if the legislation passes, further hindering the public's right to know.
Allowing local governments to post public notices on their own websites means that this information would be scattered across more than 8,000 online locations; placing the information in one searchable online database is the easiest way for taxpayers to access it.
When government officials want to tout what they're doing, they come to the local newspaper. Officials know that newspapers in communities across Illinois and across the country reach wide audiences through social media, websites and, of course, print.
Newspapers simply are the best way to get information to the public. Sadly, however, governments can't be trusted with that responsibility even when they are legally bound to do so.
A recent audit conducted by the Citizens Advocacy Center studied more than 750 public body websites in Illinois and found that many government bodies failed to comply with the law.
Illinois lawmakers are fond of talking about transparency, but are more inclined to mess with your right to know. For an example, just take a look at how they've eroded the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, which took effect in 2010 and was weakened shortly thereafter with multiple exemptions.
No other state is doing what Illinois is trying to do. Every other state in the nation still requires notification of certain government actions to be published in the newspaper.
Utah tried to bypass newspapers by passing legislation in 2009. However, that law was repealed two years later because local governments routinely failed to post the required information online.
Taxpayers should be able to get information about their government from multiple sources. Limiting the flow of information, as this bill would do, does nothing to enhance democracy.
___
February 21, 2015
Peoria Journal Star
May Caterpillar long call Peoria home
"Caterpillar will stay in Peoria. I repeat, we will stay in Peoria."
Caterpillar Chairman Doug Oberhelman's opening remarks Friday about his company's plans to build a sparkling new headquarters in Downtown Peoria were greeted with sustained applause from a who's who of political and business leaders, among them Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Indeed, for those locals who are honest with themselves about where central Illinois' economic bread is buttered, these were sweet words producing something of a hallelujah moment on another gray, blustery, frigid February morning when they could have been forgiven for thinking things were not looking up. This kind of blockbuster announcement may not exactly be the equivalent of Halley's Comet, but it's close, arriving with a bang but once every half century or so, if we're lucky.
Let's face it, this community has long lived with the insecurity that Cat might look elsewhere for a home, even as the two-year study phase and the property purchases Downtown seemed to be pointing in this direction. After all, if Boeing in Seattle could move, if Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur could pack up and hit the road ...
Rauner gave voice to that: "Let's be clear. They could have put their new headquarters anywhere in the world," with no shortage of governors in this country making a bid for them, as well. "Caterpillar said, 'No. We're an American company." As a result, any central Illinois homeowners who had pulled the "For Sale" signs out of their attics, just in case, can put them back.
Beyond that, "Caterpillar never came to me or the prior governors and asked for any special deal," said Rauner. "They didn't ask for tax break, or a rebate," unlike some other major corporations that held Illinois taxpayers up for ransom these past few years. "They just wanted to be treated with respect, and to know that Illinois is going to be fiscally responsible, and to be run right, the way Caterpillar's run right." That is to this proud Peoria company's credit.
If Caterpillar has been good for central Illinois, Friday's announcement also was an acknowledgement that central Illinois has been good for this Fortune 50 company, which certainly has been profitable and then some from this base.
___
February 18, 2015
Sauk Valley Media
Leaders glad communities going to 'pot'
How times have changed.
A generation ago, if a city was known for the production or distribution of marijuana, aka pot, its leaders might hang their heads in shame.
Today, because of the Medical Cannabis Pilot Program, scores of Illinois communities competed for state-issued cultivation and dispensary permits.
And not one felt any shame about trying to snare the accompanying economic and taxation benefits.
For 21 available permits for medical marijuana cultivation centers, 158 applications were received.
An applicant who plans to build a cultivation center at the Lee County Industrial Park in Dixon, GTI Clinic Holding, LLC, was among the lucky awardees, as announced recently by the Gov. Bruce Rauner administration.
For 60 available permits for medical marijuana dispensaries, 211 applications were received.
An applicant who plans a dispensary in Fulton, The Dispensary, LLC, was among the awardees.
The pilot program, approved by the Legislature, is designed to provide Illinois patients with medical marijuana to relieve symptoms caused by serious diseases.
Much evidence exists that medical marijuana would be helpful to those patients. Who could be against a concerted state effort to relieve their discomfort?
Marijuana has been held up as an object of fear and scorn (a la "Reefer Madness") and an object of humor (a la Cheech and Chong).
Now, it's being held up as an object of compassion and economic development.
Hence, the full name of the legislation: the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act.
Jobs and economic development will aid Dixon's economy.
In Fulton, Mayor Russell is proposing that the dispensary pay the city a $60,000 annual fee.
Pilot programs don't necessarily lead to permanent programs, but often do. Growers and dispensaries will have to be on their best behavior and prove they can be good citizens in the communities they serve.
Yes, Dixon and Fulton are "going to pot," and their leaders couldn't be happier.
Times certainly have changed.
___
February 17, 2015
The (Carbondale) Southern Illinoisan
Silencer bill deserves debate
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, says he wants to protect our hearing. That's why silencers should be legal in Illinois.
This session, he introduced an amendment to the Wildlife Code, removing the prohibition on the use of silencers for hunting.
Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, filed a similar bill in the Senate.
Phelps is the perfect person to carry this bill. He's fresh off a huge win after fighting for concealed carry permits in Illinois. That was a good bill. It brought the state into alignment with its neighbors. It created a permitting process that requires a federal background check and 16 hours of firearms training with an approved instructor that includes classroom time and demonstrated skill with a firearm on the firing range. Under the law, concealed weapons in Illinois are not allowed in schools, childcare facilities, government buildings, courthouses, buses or trains, bars, public parks or stadiums. It's a comprehensive bill that seemed to think of everything and answer any question or concern.
If our goal is to encourage responsible gun ownership in Illinois, establishing a concealed carry permit was a great step.
The same can't be said for the silencer bill. It's one paragraph. It's "effective immediately." And, more concerning, Phelps' presentation reeks of hubris.
Anyone who questions his silencer bill is labeled an over-reacting, gun-rights opponent.
This is the moment when a lawmaker becomes dangerous. They fight for a good cause and get a big win. They get some national attention - Phelps is an NRA darling right now. And they let it go to their head.
If legalizing silencers is going on the table, if it's going to be amended into law, it deserves debate - no matter what Phelps says about people who are concerned. "Hearing loss" isn't reason enough to legalize silencers. There are already ear plugs and other forms of ear protection on the market.
We get it. Phelps is a rising star to the gun lobby. That can take someone pretty far in politics these days.
Phelps ran unopposed in 2012, but still received $3,000 in campaign donations from the NRA.
The NRA has been on a campaign to see silencers legalized in all 50 states and the states have been falling in line like dominoes, thanks to lawmakers willing to carry the legislation.
The Wall Street Journal calls silencer sales a "growth industry." There's a lot of money to be made by selling silencers. Phelps and Haine have been tasked, it seems, with opening up a new market.
We're supporters of the free market. But we also know that debate is the only path to good legislation.
To pretend that nothing could go wrong if Illinois legalizes silencers is irresponsible. To pretend the only motivation behind this bill is to protect hunter's hearing is disingenuous.