Joe Moore on Clout City talking about the City Council

A post from Clout City. For my purposes here, it's not particularly important to talk about the whole foie-gras ban. Surely we can look up stories about it. What is important is that this is the baby of Joe Moore, the alderman from the far north side 49th ward.

He was unable to speak in favor of his ban and I should mention that his "friends" Craig Gernhardt and Tom Mannis is loving this attention. When you get the chance go to their blogs to see how they view him and his stewardship over that ward. You'll see where they come from!

In any event for my purposes and I would suggest you go read the whole thing he offers his two cents on the city council especially in light of what happened with the foie-gras ban and even the potential battle with the children's museum moving into Grant Park:

Well, I’m an eternal optimist. And with the new aldermen elected last year I was extremely hopeful that we would have more debate in the City Council, more aldermen willing to challenge the administration from time to time. But I must say that what happened this week has tempered that optimism tremendously. I think this does not bode well for Alderman Reilly and his battle with the Children’s Museum. The last real power that aldermen give themselves is aldermanic prerogative [to allow fellow aldermen the right to decide whether to approve zoning and development plans in their own wards]. And while I understand that this particular issue involves a development in the downtown area, nonetheless the mayor’s willingness to completely disregard the views and sentiments of the local alderman and the people he represents is not a good sign.

To me, this upcoming City Council vote [on the museum’s plans] represents who gets to make decisions in this city. Is it a joint effort between the mayor and the representatives in the city council, or is it just one man? I fear the vote coming up will confirm once again that we in the City Council will be willing to surrender what power we have to the mayor—and at great public cost. One-man rule may be easier in the short run, and democracy may be messy, but ultimately you get better policy and government through checks and balances.

I also want to mention his view on why Aldermen and the Chicago voter might not be able to stop "one-man rule" in Chicago:

It is ingrained in the culture of this city—a culture that has existed my entire life. Most of my life has been spent with a Mayor Daley on the fifth floor of City Hall. And there has been this deference accorded to whoever was mayor—even Harold Washington in his final year or two in office was winning votes by incredibly lopsided margins in the City Council. I think there’s a particular comfort people have in strong, autocratic leaders.

I think this mayor benefited coming after the tumultuous period of Harold Washington’s administration. And you have to hand it to him—he’s one of the most skilled politicians I’ve ever witnessed. He and his team are very skilled at marketing themselves, they’re very skilled at getting their message out, and they’re very skilled at their relationships with individual members of the City Council. And he also has accomplished a lot of good things.

Old habits are very hard to break. We’re just extremely accustomed to deferring to the mayor on all citywide matters, and unfortunately it appears as though many of the fresh faces we have in the City Council are starting to accept this too.

A lot of drama for a body that only meets once a month!