A nuisance ordinance is a good place to start in the effort to restore public order in Chicago
If you want to understand why crime is rising, consider why it fell so dramatically after the high-crime era of the 1970s through the 1990s. It wasn’t just about having enough police, prosecutors, and judges. It was about enforcing consequences — not only for serious, violent crimes, but for quality-of-life offenses that signal whether the rule of law matters. When communities enforce small laws, it sets expectations that larger ones will also be upheld.
This erosion of consequences for low-level crime contributes to more serious offenses. The Broken Windows Theory holds that when small crimes go unpunished, it signals neglect and encourages lawlessness. Today, the damage to public and private property, petty theft, disruption of commerce, trespassing, and the harassment of first responders often go unchecked. The result? A dangerous message to young people that there are no consequences for antisocial behavior.
Chicago needs a City Nuisance Ordinance — a law empowering authorities to crack down on those who damage property, trespass, take over public streets, disrupt commerce, or interfere with schools and campuses. Unfortunately, offenders have grown increasingly bold, knowing they’re rarely arrested, and even if they are, charges are often dropped. There are few financial or legal consequences for the damage they cause.
Such an ordinance should make clear that rioting, looting, blocking traffic, physically assaulting police, or even publicly inciting such behavior can result in arrest and prosecution under charges like mob action or reckless conduct. Police would have the authority to ticket, impound vehicles, confiscate property, revoke licenses, and issue substantial fines. In cases of serious property or economic damage, the city should have the right to sue.
For minors under 18, police should be allowed to detain them until a parent or guardian arrives. Parents could be fined when their children commit property damage, disrupt commerce, or are truant from school. The temporary confiscation of vehicles or cell phones would likely serve as a strong deterrent. Meanwhile, the city should pursue restitution from individuals or groups who damage public or private property. Actions must have consequences.
Nothing gets a person’s attention like being hit in the pocketbook — or being harassed by the same systems that aggressively penalize law-abiding residents. Think about how easily the city boots cars, sends ticket debt to collections, and drags residents through bankruptcy court over minor infractions. Yet those who threaten public safety or cause real damage are often let off the hook.
Chicago, as a Home Rule city, has broad legal authority to improve public safety. It can create ordinances “for the protection of public health, safety, morals, and welfare.” Alderman Anthony Napolitano (41st Ward) previously introduced a version of such a law, the Criminal Accountability Ordinance, during the Lightfoot administration. Her allies on the City Council blocked it from even being heard.
Proceeds from a City Nuisance Ordinance could help fund a Witness and Victim Protection Program, led by the Chicago Police Department's Bureau of Detectives. This program could provide shelter and support for the most vulnerable — especially victims of domestic violence — prioritizing safe housing within every police district for women and children fleeing violence.
Yes, some progressive leaders will object. Nevertheless, the data is clear: Restoring consequences for lower-level crime reduces overall crime. And it doesn’t require mass incarceration. Temporary loss of personal property and financial penalties can be an effective, proportional deterrent. Ironically, the same voices who oppose fines for lawbreakers have no issue financially punishing drivers — many of whom have harmed no one.
Compare the city’s treatment of average drivers. Red-light and speed cameras, city sticker violations, and parking fines generate more than four million tickets annually, pulling in over $350 million — more than Los Angeles and New York City combined. Thousands of residents have been pushed into bankruptcy by the city’s aggressive ticketing system.
A ProPublica Illinois investigation found that traffic ticket debt is a leading cause of bankruptcy in Chicago, which leads the nation in Chapter 13 filings. And this burden falls hardest on Black and Hispanic residents. Eight of the 10 ZIP codes with the highest ticket debt per adult are majority-Black. These communities have been hit with more than $500 million in penalties over the past 15 years, causing thousands of car impoundments, license suspensions, and bankruptcies.
And yet, rather than reform this punitive system, the City Council tried to make it worse. Alderman Daniel La Spata (1) pushed legislation to lower the citywide speed limit to 25 mph — a move aimed squarely at generating more revenue from drivers. Though it passed out of committee last October, it failed to gain full council approval as members turned to the 2025 budget. Still, it’s part of a broader pattern: Relentlessly targeting drivers, especially in areas where CTA service is unreliable and unsafe.
While City Hall obsesses over ticket revenue, street takeovers continue across Chicago — from residential neighborhoods to downtown — causing mayhem with virtually no response. Where’s the outrage over the blocked intersections, reckless street racing, and community disruption? Why the silence from so-called reformers?
Everyday Chicagoans who commit minor traffic infractions are punished far more harshly than those who damage property or endanger the public. A City Nuisance Ordinance would restore a sense of balance — and the foundational civic expectation that lawbreaking has consequences.
This is not about criminalizing youth. It’s about restoring a culture of accountability. Respect for public space, for neighbors, for the rule of law — it has to start somewhere. A nuisance ordinance is a reasonable, necessary step toward rebuilding public order in a city that desperately needs it.
