Lightfoot's Long-Delayed Proposal To Seize Street Gang Assets Advances Over Doubts From Aldermen Wary Of Whether It Will Work
CHICAGO (CBS) -- After being stalled for months, Mayor Lori Lightfoot's proposal to allow the city to file civil lawsuits in order to seize assets from Chicago's street gangs and their leaders finally advanced out of committee on Thursday, despite concerns from many aldermen that it would be an ineffective waste of resources.
The 11-4 vote by the Public Safety Committee came after Lightfoot agreed to amend the ordinance to target street gangs and their adult leaders, rather than any rank-and-file gang members, after aldermen raised concerns that people with loose gang ties and their families might be targeted by lawsuits the city might file.
"We are not talking – again, to reiterate – about low-level drug dealers on the street. We are talking about established gangs, established gang members, who do have assets, and we can establish have assets," deputy mayor for public safety John O'Malley told aldermen.
Despite the overwhelming vote by the Public Safety Committee, which is largely comprised of the City Council's more conservative members, a vote by the full City Council next week might be much closer, as many aldermen who are not members of the committee have said they plan to vote against it, and continued to raise doubts at Thursday's committee meeting about how effective the ordinance would be if it is approved.
The ordinance mirrors a 1993 state law that allows county prosecutors in Illinois to file civil lawsuits against gangs and gang members in an effort to seize their assets. The mayor's ordinance would give that same authority to the city's Law Department.
Lightfoot and her top advisors have insisted it would be a crucial tool in targeting gangs and reducing crime by going after their assets.
"A yes vote on this ordinance is providing a very important tool to help the Chicago Police Department go after gangs and gang enterprises that are causing violence because of illegal narcotics trade in particular," O'Malley said.
As for concerns from aldermen that gang members' innocent relatives could have their property seized, Lightfoot administration officials told aldermen that in order to seize assets under the ordinance, they would have to prove that a defendant has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, including at least two gang-related convictions.
"We're not confiscating a home from a grandmother, or a car that a grandfather has been driving," Chicago Police Counterterrorism Bureau Chief Ernest Cato III said.
Cato said part of the goal also is to deter family members from getting involved in taking ill-gotten gains from relatives involved in gang activity.
"Our gang members are very savvy," he said. "They do take the money. They do help their families, let's say that. They do help their families. But the other hand, they're helping their families where we're also having shootings in the areas. The goal is to deter families from actually getting involved in that."
However, many aldermen have repeatedly raised questions about whether there's any evidence that such lawsuits have been effective at reducing crime in neighboring counties where prosecutors have gone after gang members in civil lawsuits in the past. Critics of the mayor's proposal were clearly frustrated that the Lightfoot administration could provide only anecdotal evidence to back up those claims.
Ald. Rosanna Rodriguez-Sanchez (33rd) said the Lightfoot administration has provided no data that lawsuits against gangs have served as a deterrent to crime, only anecdotal evidence based on claims from prosecutors in neighboring counties who have insisted that lawsuits against gangs in their communities have been effective at fighting crime.
"Correlation is not the same as causation, and I think it would be very beneficial if we had some studies or something that is provided besides the word of the counties saying 'this actually helped reduce crime or reduce gang violence,' because that's not how it works," Rodriguez-Sanzhez said. "If we want to have evidence-based approaches, we have to see evidence."
Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th) also said that he feared, without proof the lawsuits would be effective, city attorneys would be wasting time better spent on other matters.
"So you're spending a whole bunch of time on things where you may not get any damages, as opposed to spending time on things where we might be able to move forward on those," he said.
O'Malley said he believes there is evidence out there to support the effectiveness of filing civil lawsuits against gangs, but acknowledged he couldn't provide any actual data. Still, he insisted going after gang leaders' assets is an important tool for fighting crime.
"I would think there is evidence. We don't have it, fair point, but if it were not a deterrent, I don't think asset forfeiture would exist," he said.
Ald. Michael Rodriguez (22nd) said the Lightfoot administration's claims seem to be based on a "hunch."
"I think this is an 80s-based strategy to 2022 problems, and I'd argue that this wouldn't work in 1980 either, and it didn't work," he said.
Rodriguez also noted gang culture has changed significantly in the past few decades, and street gangs no longer have the organized hierarchy that they once did, blunting the potential impact of suing them for their assets.
Ald. Raymond Lopez (15th), one of the mayor's harshest critics, said he was "repulsed at the amount of stunned silence from those presenting and defending this ordinance to the questions my colleagues have raised."
"In my opinion, that means that there are plenty of unresolved issues in this ordinance still," he said. "I think that holding criminals accountable, as you all know, is key. But we have to do it right, we have to do it in a way that makes sense, and we have to do it in a way that works."
Lopez sought to block a committee vote on the mayor's proposal on Thursday so that aldermen could have more time to get the answers they are seeking, but his bid failed on a 3-13 vote.
The proposal now goes to the full City Council for a vote next week.