BY MIKE CETERA
*** UPDATE -- 12/20
The resolution that was bizarrely introduced and abruptly pulled from the Aurora City Council agenda this week is modeled after a resolution approved without dissent last month by the city of Elgin.
However, the Aurora version briefly under consideration removes all of the flowery applause for the city of Chicago that Elgin's council had, and does not explicitly offer support for gaming expansion in Chicago. Instead, the resolution asks that any new casino licenses go to "depressed economic areas of the State and in markets that are not adequately being served by an existing riverboat casino."
You could make the argument either way whether Chicago would qualify under this scenario. And I'm not sure it's in Aurora's best interests to be supporting casino expansion anywhere. Aurora's resolution, however, expressly opposes adding slot machines to racetracks.
Read the full text of the Aurora resolution here. (Note: the resolution as proposed is different than what has been posted elsewhere). Compare it with the Elgin resolution approved in mid-November (pages 753-755).
Elgin officials are opposed, in particular, to adding slot machines to racetracks. A recent proposal calls for 3,600 slot machines at five racetracks. Lawmakers estimate a gambling expansion would generate a billion dollars a year in revenue. But last month Sean Stegall, Elgin's assistant city manager, said the slot machine proposal could mean an annual loss of $10 million in revenue collected from the Grand Victoria Casino.
*** UPDATE -- 12/20
Rick Lawrence e-mailed me a copy of the resolution that was e-mailed to aldermen Tuesday morning. It is, indeed, the "full version" of the resolution posted elsewhere and approved by the Elgin City Council last month. It is not the version included in the council packet handed out to reporters (a copy of which I posted earlier). I don't know if the resolution changed between 11:30 a.m. and the council meeting or if the full version wasn't given to us. More to come.
Wow, this brings up some questions. Is the version you have the first version that was sent out? Also why couldn't the city have added the text of the motion to the agenda for the meeting?
Finally who is pushing the city do to this?
Some more questions:
Are you saying that that other blog made up that resolution? When are they - or you - going to explain the discrepancy? (Personally, I believe that other blog over you Commie pinkos/Weisner toadies at the Beacon.)
Is the Weisner administration naive and incompetent enough to think they could jam through a last-minute resolution when they blocked one (parental notification) on procedural issues themselves? Don't they know that my friends at the Justice League - Rick "Captain America" Lawrence and Stefanie "Wonder Woman" Kifowit - are on the job?
Last but not least, did Conrad Black steal so much money from the STNG that you can't afford Acrobat Pro?
Cetera responds:
* To Oneman -- I don't know if this is the first version. But it is the version that was presented to aldermen Tuesday evening. As far as including the text of the resolution in the agenda, that's a great idea. Other communities (Elgin) do it, but Aurora has never done this to my knowledge. In many respects the city conducts its business much as it did when I was covering the council (four or five years ago) before communities thought to put their documents online.
I also don't know who is pushing this. Certainly no alderman has stepped forward to claim credit (as in the parental notification debate). But stay tuned.
* To Clark Kent -- I'm not saying "that other blog" made up the resolution. It's clear what was posted there is a nearly identical copy of Elgin's resolution with Aurora's name substituted. Whether or not that was an early version of what was presented Tuesday night, I don't know. What is clear is what "that other blog" posted isn't what aldermen were asked to consider.
Whoever pushed this resolution clearly fumbled here, which shouldn't have happened, particularly in light of the parental notification dispute. This was sloppy, careless work by someone who should have known many are carefully watching this administration.
And I'll look into acquiring Acrobat Pro. But please leave Mr. Black alone. He's having a rough holiday.
Interesting that they were able to give a version to the Beacon reporter (nice guy BTW) at the meeting but didn't give one with the agenda (which I think was printed right before the meeting since I was handed one at the start of the meeting by someone from the city) and I was within about 10 feet of the Beacon reporter.
Also again why the rush if Elgin did it back in November why did Aurora even think it had to do it with less than 24 hours notice? Is it ever appropreate for the city to try and do this with less than 24 hours notice?
When the city is going to say it stands for something like this (or notification for that matter) shouldn't the public have notice? It never made it on the agenda on the web, when I was e-mailed about it by someone that was the first place I checked because I thought they were kidding.
Why in the heck this had to be done in a hurry, right before Christmas with no real advance warning to the community for input, thats is the story in my opinion. Who pushed this now? Why? That's the interesting story.
I agree with OneMan. I am interested to know how this happened and who was behind it and why it was rushed through.
Where was the original version of the resolution posted?
Cetera responds:
Find the original version here.