Illinois Supreme Court sides with the aged, not with fans of “food trucks”

I have a cousin, some 20 or so years younger than I, who considers himself something of a “foodie.” Quick to check out exotic cuisines and always on the lookout for an interesting place to eat.

Dining under the "L" tracks. Photos by Gregory Tejeda

Yet I know he’s also a big fan of the “scene” that has developed in Chicago to have “food trucks,” rolling restaurants of sorts that are capable of bringing unusual food items to the neighborhood.

THOSE TRUCKS RECEIVED a legal blow from the Illinois Supreme Court, which on Thursday ruled previous rulings by the Cook County and Illinois Appellate courts that have sided with Chicago city government’s restrictions on food trucks.

Such as the one preventing a food truck from parking itself within 200 feet of a more conventional restaurant. Or the rules requiring the food trucks to contain GPS devices to make it easier for city officials to track their movements.

The food truck operators filed their original lawsuit back in 2012, contending that such restrictions harmed their ability to do business. And as for the GPS, they say it’s a violation of their right to privacy to have someone being able to track their movements throughout the city.

Yet the Illinois Restaurant Association contends they’re willing to work with the food truck operators to reach some sort of compromise to allow them to operate in partnership with more conventional restaurants.

ALTHOUGH I DO suspect that for the restaurants, the “compromise” resembles something along the lines of “withering away and dying.” They don’t really want more competition when it comes to the concept of preparing and serving food.

Particularly from a food truck, which is an operation that has far lower overhead costs than maintaining a conventional restaurant in a physical building and having to maintain the kind of staff required to operate a restaurant.

I don’t doubt the restaurants think these food operators are thinking the food trucks are playing unfair. Probably the more we hear the phrase “roach coach” used to refer to them, the worse business is becoming.

 

Can this Pilsen neighborhood restaurant compete?

 I do have to admit to a bias, and it’s probably one because of age. I personally have little interest in searching out the food truck that serves the best Korean-inspired tacos, or even the best conventional (ie, ketchup-less) hot dog.

FOR ME, PART of the appeal of “eating out” is to check out the physical ambiance of a restaurant, while also having someone serve me.

Which are aspects that a food truck tries to eliminate from the process.

Although I don’t doubt my cousin probably thinks I’m being overly ridiculous, as do, I’m sure, the other many fans of food trucks, who probably think it’s cool when a particularly unique one decides to pull up and operate right by where they work.

A quickie lunch that, I’ll admit, is probably much more interesting than the servings of a Subway sandwich franchise (I don’t mean that as an insult, my first job ever was working a late shift at a Subway – and my own standard order on those occasions when I eat there is a “Spicy Italian” sandwich).

WHICH MAKES ME think this is a matter of age. There is a younger crowd, I don’t doubt, that will take this issue much more seriously than I.

For all I know, the day may come when the state Supreme Court will find some sort of case that gives them the opportunity to reverse themselves on Thursday’s ruling.

BAULER: Ain't ready for food trucks either?

That is, assuming the concept survives the amount of regulation they would now face – as the Institute of Justice has its own studies showing the number of food truck operators is now 40 percent smaller than it was some six years ago.

It could be that food trucks in Chicago are a similar concept to how legendary Alderman Paddy Bauler once described political "reform” – we just “ain’t ready for it” yet.

  -30-

Burke’s wife cleared, but Preckwinkle still reeks of stink from alderman cash

I’m sure there are those people who are going to be grossly offended that a Burke has been cleared of wrongdoing. Or at least legal types are conceding they can’t prove anything against her.

ANNE BURKE: Judge cleared of wrongdoing

Yes, her! For the Burke I’m referring to is Anne, as in the spouse of Alderman Edward M. Burke who, in her own right, serves as a justice on the Supreme Court of Illinois.

ILLINOIS JUDICIAL INQUIRY Board has been conducting its own investigation into a fundraiser that the Burkes held in their Chicago home for the now-failed mayoral aspirations of candidate Toni Preckwinkle.

The inquiry board was trying to determine if Anne Burke herself did anything inappropriate – as in engaging in conduct unbecoming a judge of any type. Particularly one sitting on the state’s highest court.

But it would seem she’s off the hook, so to speak. Nothing that could be deemed inappropriate. Except in the mini-minds of those individuals who want to believe that everything a government official does is wrong – and worthy of prosecution.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported this week about a letter saying the inquiry board had reviewed the matter and “determined to close” it. The letter gives no explanation of why the investigation is over – or any details of what it uncovered.

THE INQUIRY BOARD cited confidentiality rules as a reason for refusing to publicly disclose what it learned. Although Jeffery Orr, the son of now-former county Clerk David Orr and the man who filed the original complaint that got the inquiry board thrown into the mix, said he was “disappointed” by the ruling.

He seems more interested in getting nit-picking details that would further enhance the image of all things related to Burke as being inherently corrupt. Or as he told the Sun-Times, “Part of the problem in Illinois and Chicago is the secretive way of doing things.”

For what it’s worth, Anne Burke had no comment on the matter, although this decision comes close to the time that federal prosecutors let it be known that they want more time to investigate Alderman Ed himself.

PRECKWINKLE: Still being blamed for Burke

He will continue to have legal types probing his affairs – searching for evidence that he did something that can be construed as illegal. Although it seems anybody who was hoping for the Burkes to be taken down as a couple will be disappointed.

ALTHOUGH THE BURKE issue has already managed to inflict its harm on some political people – all the people disappointed that they couldn’t beat Ed Burke in his re-election bid back in February wound up taking it out on Preckwinkle.

Which accounts for that roughly three-quarters of the vote in the April runoff election going to Lori Lightfoot. Who herself insisted on continuing to smack Preckwinkle about for having accepted campaign contributions from people who were motivated by Ed Burke to do so!

Preckwinkle is insisting she has tried giving the money away to other sources, although Lightfoot claims Preckwinkle has kept the funds – which could wind up bolstering her efforts to remain politically relevant while serving as Cook County Board president AND as county Democratic chairwoman.

No doubt Lightfoot would rather see Preckwinkle wither away into irrelevance – and certainly not become a competing political figure. After all, with the way the electorate can be politically fickle, it could work out that many voters would come to the conclusion they voted for the wrong person back on April 2.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, the Chicago Tribune contends that some $72,000 of the roughly $116,000 that Preckwinkle got from a Burke household fundraiser has yet to be returned.

ED BURKE: Guilt by association?

Not that Burke would be getting any money back. The usual way for political people to try to erase negative connotations to any contributions they receive is to give it to some charitable cause.

Which really doesn’t erase the fact that the money was received by the candidate in the first place. It just allows for a lot of self-righteous rhetoric by candidates who’d rather not be tagged for the sins committed by their political supporters.

Which is what Lightfoot most definitely wants to continue to happen in the case of Preckwinkle and Burke. If we can’t get the two Burkes put away somewhere, I’m sure those wanting to operate on ideological grounds will be more than glad to see Toni pay, in place of Anne Burke.

  -30-

It won’t be easy to lock up Jason Van Dyke and ‘throw away’ key, it seems

It seems like not all that long ago that a Cook County jury returned the verdict that turned one-time Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke into a convicted killer, albeit one of the second degree.

VAN DYKE: A legal break? Or justice!?

Remember the elation that some people made a point of showing that day, marching through the streets of downtown Chicago to literally make it clear they were ecstatic at the thought that a white cop was off to prison.

IN THEIR WILDEST fantasies for something close to a life prison term. Something that would show what an outrage it was that he thought he could claim self-defense and “just doing his job” to justify the multiple gunshots he fired at a teenage boy – one who happened to be black.

Some went so far as to claim it was evidence that “justice” had been served against a “killer cop.”

While others, I’m sure, sat and stewed at the very thought that a police officer was being punished for doing his job – which on occasion requires use of physical force.

That was then. This is now!

FOR THE SUPREME Court of Illinois came down with a ruling Tuesday that I’m sure will infuriate the masses who were marching in the streets last year.

Basically, they backed up the way that Judge Vincent Gaughan handled the sentencing. Which basically was to give him a light prison term on the second-degree murder conviction, while ignoring all the aggravated battery charges that the jury piled on to their decision.

Those charges, all 16 – one for each pistol shot Van Dyke fired at his youthful assailant, were the ones that were supposed to add up to so much prison time that we’d literally have Van Dyke agonizing at the thought of decade upon decade in prison before finally dying.

Except, perhaps, for those ghoulish types whose idea of humor would be to have Van Dyke use a bed sheet to hang himself in his cell.

THAT DOESN’T SEEM in the cards.

For the Supreme Court rejected a request by the Illinois Attorney General’s office to reject the just-over-six-year prison term that Gaughan handed down.

They wanted the almighty Supreme Court to force Gaughan to resentence him in a way that would be more in keeping for those who want to see Van Dyke killed like a killer cop. Which now just ain’t a gonna happen!

The reality is that while I’m sure there are still legal motions that could be attempted on the off-hopes that a law clerk might be swayed enough to tell his judge to consider the merits of such an appeal, the point is they’re going to be long-shots.

WE MAY HAVE to accept the fact that the legal merits of the Van Dyke case are resolved. Now it’s just a matter of Van Dyke “doing” his time – which with time off for good behavior will come to about three years. He’s going to have something resembling a life left after he is released.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that the separation will turn out to be too much for the Van Dyke family – which may well be permanently fractured. That is something we will have to wait and see for ourselves.

I’m also sure that Van Dyke, now being held in a prison facility in upstate New York himself will think he’s suffering amply – his case is so notorious there isn’t a prison facility in Illinois capable of holding him without constant repeats of that beating incident while in a cell in Danbury, Ct., got national notoriety.

While others, I’m sure, will forevermore claim his fate is still better than the one Laquan McDonald suffered – an eternal rest in death at a Forest Park cemetery. A suburb whose residents likely would have freaked out and called for the cops if the teenager had ever set foot there while alive.

  -30-