Department of the Environment and Other Governmental Units
Below, Chicago mayor-elect Brandon Johnson responds to our environmental questionnaire on the topic of Chicago’s Department of Environment and other governmental units.
Q: The City Department of the Environment was disbanded over 10 years ago. Now there is a Sustainability Office within the Mayor’s Office. With the need to implement the ambitious new Chicago Climate Action Plan and address ongoing neighborhood pollution problems, when you reinstate the Department of the Environment what authority, autonomy and funding will you provide?
A: The Department has to have some degree of autonomy from the Mayor's Office in order to ensure that environmental policies are developed and implemented based on the best available science and data, rather than being subject to political considerations. For too long, communities of color, in particular, have been overburdened with the presence of factories, high-traffic roadways, and other polluting mechanisms, therefore, the Department of Environment and its staffers, must approach environmental policy through an environmental justice lens. The office will require a significant level of funding to staff the department with a commissioner, a broad range of policy experts, and inspectors to effectively implement the Chicago Climate Action Plan, address ongoing pollution problems, ensure enforcement of municipal code, and execute policy proposals that emerge from the cumulative impact study and community assessments.
Q: The Sun-Times recently published a story documenting how the city regularly settles with industrial polluters, imposing minimal fines without requiring them to admit liability. This protects bad actors from escalating consequences and lets them show a clean record when they apply for permits. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner of the Dept of Public Health is on record saying that the city deliberately stops issuing tickets for repeat violations at industrial facilities Lax enforcement and low penalties are typical. How would you hold polluters accountable?
A: Establishing stronger and clearer regulations that set specific limits on the pollutants that companies can release into the environment. These regulations should be accompanied by regular monitoring and enforcement to ensure that companies comply with the rules. In addition, penalties for violations should be severe enough to deter companies from engaging in harmful practices.
Q: Chicago’s Checkout Bag Tax has generated a staggering $50 million plus in revenue in almost 6 years. Currently, this money is going into a general fund. Would you be willing to create a special Sustainability Fund for this revenue?
A: Establishing a special Sustainability Fund for revenue generated from the Checkout Bag Tax would allow the city to allocate funds specifically towards sustainability efforts, such as renewable energy, waste reduction, and green infrastructure. By creating a dedicated fund, the revenue generated from the Checkout Bag Tax would have a clear purpose and could be directed towards initiatives that have a positive impact on the environment and the community. Furthermore, having a dedicated Sustainability Fund helps to ensure that the revenue is used in a transparent and accountable manner. Provide greater public confidence that the revenue generated from the Checkout Bag Tax is being used for the intended purpose and not simply going into a general fund. Ultimately, any decision regarding the creation of a special Sustainability Fund would require a comprehensive understanding of the specific needs and priorities of the city, as well as the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a fund.
Q: The Inflation Reduction Act has Greenhouse Gas Reduction funding available. How do you plan to take advantage of this money to reduce emissions, electrify transportation and buildings, increase energy efficiency, and increase renewable energy generation?
A: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, funding could be used to support initiatives such as incentivizing businesses and residents to adopt cleaner technologies and practices, such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy-efficient appliances. Funding could also be used to support programs that promote sustainable land use, such as promoting urban green spaces and limiting urban sprawl. To electrify transportation and buildings, the funding could be used to support the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles and electric-powered equipment, and retrofitting buildings to be more energy-efficient. Increase energy efficiency, the funding could be used to support programs that encourage businesses and residents to adopt energy-efficient technologies and practices, such as upgrading to LED lighting or improving insulation. renewable energy generates funding that can be used to support the development of new renewable energy infrastructure, such as wind and solar farms, as well as incentivizing businesses and residents to adopt renewable energy technologies, such as rooftop solar panels. Ultimately, any decision on how to utilize the funding available through the Inflation Reduction Act would require a comprehensive understanding of the specific needs and priorities of the city, as well as the potential benefits and drawbacks of each initiative.
Q: Transparency within your administration will be vital in winning community support. For example, if elected, will you commit to officially releasing to the public the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report about the problematic Hilco demolition/implosion in Little Village in April 2020?
A: Releasing the report to the public, the community can have access to information about the incident and any potential findings and recommendations made by the OIG. This will help to build trust and confidence in the government's ability to hold itself accountable and to take necessary steps to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Prioritizing transparency and accountability will go a long way towards building a strong relationship between the community and the government.
Q: Twenty-two cities, not including Chicago, have filed a lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry. Would you commit to having the City of Chicago file a lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry for its history of deception about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment?
A: Filing a lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry for its history of deception about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment is a significant decision that requires careful consideration. This decision should be based on a comprehensive analysis of the legal, ethical, and financial implications involved.
On one hand, a lawsuit may potentially hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in contributing to climate change and help to create a more momentum towards transitioning to a cleaner, more sustainable energy system. However, on the other hand it may also have implications for the local economy, as the fossil fuel industry is a major employer and contributor to the city's tax base.
Whether to file a lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry would need to be made with input from stakeholders, including community members, legal experts, and other relevant parties. This has to be based on a careful weighing of the potential benefits and risks involved.
Q: The Utility Billing Relief (UBR) program began in 2019 to provide reduced water rates for low-income Chicagoans with the ability to clear water debt after a year of enrollment; however, under the current guidelines only homeowners of single family or 2-unit buildings who make under 200% of the Federal Poverty Line are eligible. This leaves out thousands of Chicagoans living in multi-unit buildings as well as renters. Are you in support of expanding eligibility to reach people making up to 250% of the Federal Poverty line, renters, and multi-unit buildings?
A: Expanding the eligibility of the Utility Billing Relief program to include people making up to 250% of the Federal Poverty line, renters, and multi-unit buildings could potentially help a larger number of Chicagoans who are struggling to pay their water bills. This would broaden the program's reach and provide assistance to a more diverse group of individuals and families.
It is important to consider the financial feasibility of such an expansion, as well as any potential impact on the program's effectiveness in achieving its goals. It may be necessary to assess the cost of the program and any potential consequences of increasing the income threshold or expanding eligibility to renters and multi-unit buildings.
Q: A proposed city ordinance aims to hold neglectful landlords to account by requiring apartments to be inspected regularly. The Metropolitan Tenants Organization, a tenants rights advocacy group, has teamed up with progressives in the City Council to push for its Chicago Healthy Homes ordinance. The ordinance would require apartments to be inspected by the city’s health department at least once every five years. Routine apartment inspections — for ventilation, mold control, lead levels and heating — are not required in Chicago. Are you in favor of this ordinance?
A: Regular apartment inspections will help to ensure the health and safety of tenants, particularly those living in older buildings that may have inadequate ventilation, mold issues, or lead-based paint. Regular inspections will also help hold landlords accountable for maintaining his/her properties to a certain standard, which will help prevent neglectful behavior.