After the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance giving Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling the authority to extend ShotSpotter technology, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s February 2024 promise to turn off the monitors set up a battle with a majority of aldermen.
Three Southwest Side aldermen spoke to the Greater Southwest News-Herald about why ShotSpotter technology should be reinstated after it was turned off Sept. 22.
“I strongly opposed that decision from the mayor, decommissioning ShotSpotter,” said Ald. Silvana Tabares (23rd). “I had ShotSpotter in the 23rd Ward, and it’s a tool that gives police the ability to solve crimes and save lives. We need it, and I strongly oppose the mayor’s decision to decommission ShotSpotter.”
Not seeing an alternative from the city has left her disheartened with Johnson’s administration, she said.
“That’s a conversation that the mayor needs to have with City Council members,” Tabares added. “We have not seen what will replace ShotSpotter. The mayor released an RFI (request for information) for others to apply to replace this tool. He should have done this months ago.”
Ald. Raymond Lopez (15th) also opposed shutting down ShotSpotter.
“I think it’s very unfortunate that the mayor put his politics ahead of public safety,” Lopez said. “Everyone makes campaign promises; I understand that, and this was one of the ones he made—to cancel the contract.”
Aldermen, including Lopez, offered a 48% cost reduction from gunshot detection provider Sound Thinking, along with a contract extension through 2025, to give the city time to identify other vendors.
As of Oct. 3, Lopez does not believe the mayor has vetoed the ordinance.
“He’s doing some backdoor, backpedaling, trying to figure out how to walk back from all of his rhetoric, knowing that 33 aldermen, almost now 35 aldermen, fully support the continuation of gunshot detection technology. Nearly 80% of Chicagoans support this as well,” he added.
Lopez explained that it’s not unusual for routine, legally unalterable ordinances to pass annually, directing hundreds of measures to different city agencies.
“That order was a binding directive to the administration. Choosing to ignore it is a violation of city law, and I think that gives us grounds for some sort of legal argument to hold him in contempt or use other mechanisms to force the issue,” he said.
Lopez suggested that a court fight over whether a mayor can be held accountable for not following City of Chicago laws could set a legal precedent.
In the large 8th Police District, Lopez believes decisions about policing based on data sources are imperative. He said ShotSpotter opponents want to remove technology that aligns with progressive left talking points.
“None of this is about policing safely, constitutionally, or accurately,” Lopez said. “All of this is about dismantling the apparatus of policing. If you can’t defund and abolish, then you will destroy and dismember, and that’s exactly what they’re trying to do.”
In a Sept. 22 press release, Mayor Johnson announced an RFI from experienced first-responder technology vendors to find a solution for the city.
Southwest Side Ald. Marty Quinn (13th) supports bringing ShotSpotter back online, disagreeing with the timing of searching for new safety technology.
“I think what Chicago is witnessing is a dereliction of duty by the mayor. With respect to the veto, it will be interesting to see if there will be 34 votes to override it,” Quinn said. “In the 8th District, we have 250,000 residents and 259 police officers. It’s the worst officer-per-capita ratio in the city. We’re number one for calls for service. We can’t afford to lose any resources relative to safety.”
Lopez believes legal or legislative action will be necessary to resolve the issue.
“The real question is, how deep is he going to dig in his heels to fight 70% of City Council and 80% of the City of Chicago? How much longer is he going to fight against the wind that wants to keep the community safe? It shouldn’t be this difficult to do what is necessary in our neighborhoods,” he said.
These are alderman who are rightfully trying to protect their ward from the horrible decision of an inept and icompetent
Mayor. They are right, Johnson, as usual is wrong.