Mayor Daley Vetoes Big Box Ordinance

This CNN article raises Mayor Daley's decision to veto the big box ordinance, which he issues on September 11, 2006. He supported it with what he had been saying all along about driving big retailers out of the area, cutting back on job opportunities and low-cost shopping opportunities for the poor communities, and growth and development over all.

Daley points out here that the ordinance is well-intentioned, and he does appreciate the need to give decent wages, but he also acknowledges that some people need jobs badly enough to not mind getting paid less than $10/hour. Economically speaking, I agree that that large of an increase would have some detrimental effects. I hope that the issue isn't dead, though. If a federal increase is not on the way, I hope that Illinois will at least work on a raise.

This Crains article discusses Mayor Daley's veto. It was his first veto in 17 years, stemming back to before the federal minimum wage increase in 1997. People are accusing him of favoring businesses over residents, and that is kind of a tough call. When you take into consideration things like campaign finance and the pressure that I'm sure he feels from those large retailers, it would seem like a corrupt decision. But I don't think that he is without other support. His official statement, quoted in multiple articles, was this:

"I understand and share a desire to ensure that everyone who works in the city of Chicago earns a decent wage. But I do not believe that this ordinance, well-intentioned as it may be, would achieve that end. Rather, I believe it would drive jobs and businesses from our city, penalizing neighborhoods that need additional economic activity the most. In light of this, I believe it is my duty to veto this ordinance.”

I don't think he is constantly adhering only to his monetary backers, or else we would have seen a veto sometime in the past 17 years. There is good reasoning behind letting these stores into the city, and I think other negotiations should be worked on. It does offer an interesting look at democracy, though. The people here clearly spoke out and a majority of Chicagoans were in favor of this ordinance, but corporations and those in power shot down what the people came together to propose. The possibility of an override does give one last chance for a majority to speak out, a system of checks and balances arranged so that the mayoral veto is not the end-all, be-all. I don't think that the city aldermen dislike Daley, though--he has usually been a very popular political figure and I think he would be able to persuade at least a few people to come to his side.

The VP of the National Retail Association called this a triumph of reason over politics. This seems pretty backward to me--yes, the veto was backed by reason. But it was also completely powered by politics, and the influence money has on politics.

This Chicago Tribune article discusses Daley's decision to veto the bill. One alderman is quoted here saying:
"My decision is based on Mayor Daley's track record. Chicago has never looked better."
This is evidence of Daley's popularity, and the effect that has on support for his veto. Other politicians issuing this veto may have been looking at a career-ending decision, but people really begin to look at the other side of things when a politician that they respect or usually stand behind does something like this. It is fascinating that he can simply change minds so easily just by issuing a decision like this.


This article talks about the existing stores in the city, rather than the decrease in incoming business due to the ordinance. Over 40 existing retail stores would have been affected by this ordinance. On the topic of incoming business, though, the threats to Daley seem even more apparent here--Wal-Mart had promised at least five new Chicago stores if the ordinance was repealed. This would have surely had an enormous influence on his decision, and shows the power that words alone can have over the decisions of a large governmental body--Wal-Mart's rhetoric must have scared and enticed Daley and had a huge impact on his veto.

This is a New York Times opinion piece on Daley's veto. This article actually says that Wal-Mart plans to expand into Santa Fe, which is hypocritical when you think about the fact that Santa Fe's minimum wage is $9.50--if they are willing to pay that, what difference does the extra .50 make to them in Chicago? Especially because Chicago is a larger city than Santa Fe and would probably bring in more money in the long run.

According to this reporter, the proponents of a living wage have the moral high ground, but can this translate to a political high ground? Morality dominates politics in some arenas such as abortion, but it varies greatly dependent on the situation.