Alderman Moore is claiming he's coming up with another law.
According to the Sun-Times, Alderman Moore (49th), whose ward includes Rogers Park, said he plans to introduce an ordinance at the January City Council meeting requiring landlords to inspect rental units annually for working smoke detectors.
Whoa. There are already alleged stories the Alderman not only covered up the problem to help a campaign contributing, slumlord pal - he also knew the power was shut off in the Ramirez household. Then instead of giving the death trap a name, he calls it by an address.
"Ald. Joe Moore (49th), whose ward includes Rogers Park, said he plans to introduce an ordinance at the January City Council meeting requiring landlords to inspect rental units annually for working smoke detectors.
That was not the case at 7706 N. Marshfield. The children died in an apartment that, according to Moore, had an empty "bracket" where a smoke detector was supposed to be.
"It's not a cure-all, but it could have prevented the tragedy for two reasons. No. 1, an annual inspection could have discovered that there were not operating smoke detectors in the unit. And No. 2, an inspection of the unit would also have discovered that this family was without power," Moore said.
Blognotes: What a lying slime-ball our 49th ward Alderman Moore is. You want a stunt. I say for a good news media capturing stunt in January when this ordinance gets introduced, go down to city hall with six coffins filled with phony money flowing out of them. You hear this James campaign team. This would symbolize Alderman Moore takes campaign contributions over the safety and well being of his ward residents. I'm sure you'll make the news.
5 comments:
This is from the Sun-Times.
You can probably borrow a coffin from the Uptown Neighborhood Council.
Dear Craig:
Paradise is right. Listen to her. Unite under one candidate. Hey that candidate may not be the best on all issues, but the candidate will be better than Joe the Moore-on.
The trouble with you Craig is you are seeking perfection in a candidate and that you will never find.
Compromise.
Personally, I see your lack of support for one of the candidates running against the Moore-on as a passive endorsement of the Moore-on.
Hmmmm. Maybe that's what you want. Four Moore years!
Ha! The mopes can't WAIT for the dialog here to deteriorate into a challenger v. challenger smack-down. Moore & pals would eat it up.
When it doesn't happen, they post: "HEY who you for?" baiting us to cat-fighting. Nothing would serve the status quo better. Nothing is more irritating to them to read critiques of the Moore era day after day.
Focus, people: Let's beat Moore in February. It doesn't matter who the best challenger is if Moore gets 50% + 1.
Vote for the challenger of your choice but vote early & often.
> Joe must go.
Absolutely.
> instead of attacking them.
Yes, we should not be attacking the challengers.
> Let's line up behind one ... of the ... [challengers]
This is not necessary yet and may be harmful to the goal (1st point, above) at this time. Let's let each of the challengers work hard and get their message out and register voters.
We don't need to decide the best challenger here on the "Hell Hole": the voters will do that.
Let's make February a referendum on Joe.
If together we hold Joe to under 50% we all win.
Post a Comment