Before City Council once again punted a decision Monday on the contentious Healthy Buildings Ordinance to ban emissions from certain large buildings by 2050, the devolving tenor on the dais peaked with some personal broadsides.
“You’re not a prosecutor,” Ald. Bobby Burns (5th) told Ald. Devon Reid (8th). “Just make the amendment so that the issue that you think Northwestern could challenge on can’t be challenged. I don’t want to be here all night, man. It’s like you’re trying to find an angle.”
Earlier, Reid angled against a sentence describing organizations that could receive special consideration to secure exemptions from Evanston’s new rules. It included all nonprofits, he argued, and therefore could grant those benefits to NU.
His colleagues, including Mayor Daniel Biss, disagreed with his take on the brief phrase. Biss allowed that the council could further clarify the language, but he maintained that “we don’t really have a problem here.”
“I think we do,” Reid shot back.
The discussion over the long-stalled ordinance descended into further acrimony.
Not long after Burns complained about having to stay at the Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center “all night,” Reid complained about giving Burns more time to speak — because it could keep councilmembers from leaving for the night.
Still, the council’s ultimate decision to table the ordinance for the March 10 meeting underscored the fractious, if more civil, divides over the measure that has drawn both impassioned support and brickbats aplenty.
Introduced by a unanimous council vote Jan. 13, the Healthy Buildings Ordinance would ban on-site greenhouse gas emissions and require all-renewable energy electricity for buildings of more than 20,000 square feet. City buildings of more than 10,000 square feet would also have to comply.
Fault lines appeared later that month.
The measure seemed poised for final approval at the Jan. 27 council meeting. Earlier that day, Biss declared a full-throated endorsement of the sweeping emissions policy, arguing that it bolstered Evanston’s focus on sustainability.
A coalition of Evanston power players delivered an opposing missive. The letter, signed by leaders like University President Michael Schill and former mayor Steve Hagerty, argued that the measure needed more time for deliberation.
Monday’s public comment period proffered a similar dynamic. Sustainability advocates pushed for the ordinance’s approval, while property managers spoke against it, arguing it would prove onerous and economically destructive.
The council’s Monday vote to table a final decision on the Healthy Buildings Ordinance marked the third time it has delayed acting on it.
Next time might prove different, some councilmembers said. Others offered a more conciliatory tone.
“I’m not prepared to vote on this tonight, but I’m also not prepared to vote on the sequencing of this,” Ald. Clare Kelly (1st) said, referring to the ordinance’s implementation. She also urged the city to collaborate with NU.
The tiff over whether the ordinance might give large nonprofits like NU a pass continued the small-scale but wide-reaching debates over the measure’s nebulous details. Other discussion centered on giving business leaders seats in conversations about the ordinance and the boards the city would ultimately create for its implementation.
Yet the high-minded rhetoric that some public commenters offered — for and against the Healthy Buildings Ordinance — ended up largely absent from the council’s deliberations. The digs on the dais punctuated the discussion with a sometimes melancholy mark.
“We’re writing a sloppy ordinance, in some regard,” Reid said. “And I’m sad that we’re here.”
Email: shungraves2027@u.northwestern.edu
Related Stories:
— Healthy Buildings Ordinance hits another brick wall at City Council
— Highly-debated environmental, housing proposals to return to City Council
— Chaotic City Council meeting ends without vote on building emissions ordinance
