Clark Dog
3040 N Clark St, Chicago, IL 60657
Open today 9:00 am – 3:00 am
Had 2 Chicago style hot dogs a fry and a Pepsi which was outstanding. They put the right amount of pickle, celery salt,tomatoes and sport peppers on them. They have a bar attached and window and patio seating the parking lot is a tight squeeze but we'll worth it.
I give it 4 Sears Towers
The 25-year-old from Long Island was shot in the head on Saturday night. He died from his injuries on Monday making him the third NYPD officer to be killed in the line of duty in five months.
When NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton announced Moore's death during a news conference, de Blasio did not join him.While de Blasio did visit Moore's family at the hospital in the hours after the shooting, he did not participate in the news conference as has become common practice by mayors.
When asked by Fox 5 News reporter Linda Schmidt why he wasn't there, de Blasio had this to say:
"The extended family of the NYPD will say that today is a day for the members of the NYPD to be together. It was not a place, in my view, for elected officials," said de Blasio.
Hizzoner had continued with his scheduled appearances on Monday including a tech conference in midtown Manhattan at Noon. The announcement about Moore's death was made at 2 p.m.
When pressed by Schmidt about why he wouldn't have been at the hospital as the leader of the city, de Blasio defended his decision.
"I have been honored to stand by them in good times and in bad and I've done it many times and in I've done it in a way that was appropriate and in constant consultation with the department," said de Blasio.
"It was on my advice that the mayor did not come to the hospital because of the uncertainty of the circumstances in the morning. It was uncertain if the man was going to pass," said Bratton.
Tensions between the mayor and the NYPD became strained last year. Many officers even turned their backs to de Blasio when he arrived a the hospital where two officers died after being ambushed.
Despite his personal issues with red lights, Mayor Emanuel remains a strong proponent of red light cameras as an important safety measure for the city of Chicago. The Illinois General Assembly, however, has launched a direct offensive against this line of reasoning.
In a 79 to 26 vote, the Illinois House approved a bill that would ban the use of red light cameras in non-home rule communities, generally towns with a population of less than 25,000. Per the Illinois state constitution, home rule communities are larger towns which can "exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs." Therefore, Chicago and larger suburbs would not be affected by this proposed law and an outright state-wide ban would require an amendment to the state constitution.
Even though red light cameras would continue to exist in Chicago under this legislation, the debates occurring in Springfield largely echo a common debate that occurs around City Hall. Rep David McSweeney, the man responsible for introducing the measure, has repeatedly claimed that red light cameras are simply "a revenue grab by local governments" and that "This is not about safety, it's all about revenue." Rep. Ron Sandack said that "People hate them, they hate them for a reason and they are right."
This legislation comes on the heels of a long-running Tribune investigation into the efficacy of red light cameras, which found that the cameras "failed to deliver on safety claims and that the city's yellow light intervals are dangerously short and out of step with national standards." The bill is now pending consideration before the State Senate
Second City cop ran an article we thought you'd like to read.
Click here to read
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2013/12/sheriff-dart-hypocrite.html?m=1
Security officers in Chicago should be respected.
As some officers make the field a laughing stock others pour heart and soul into what they do.
Now we noticed Guardian Security drives around and follows people's gas. We noticed Securitas watches over the CTA. So what's wrong with security doing the same jobs as police, nothing and I'll explain why.
We noticed Total Security Management, AGB Security Services, and All Points Security Services drive around the commercial district of the neighborhood. The patrol they are doing is called SSA or Special Service Area which is funded by tif funds that is received from tax money to better improve the community's revenue or to keep the same people to come in and shop. Unfortunately you have gangs that keep new revenue from ever coming in. The SSA uses these tif funds to provide security or extra street cleaning. AGB, and All Points Security Services use off duty police officer's while TSM uses off duty mail carriers, college students, off duty police, fireman and emts to name a few. The city ordinance for SSA states that the vehicle must be marked Special Patrol however after speaking with TSM they are using special response because of the types of incidents they are called to. An example is natural disasters, alarm calls, riot control amungst other training.
Now if your let say at White Castle on 103 and Michigan and the special patrol car rolls up and sees what is happening they with engage.
You need medical attention these guys are trained for that too. These guys in the TSM Special Response cars are trained even in anti terrisim and riot control.
Food for thought did you know striking a police officer you can get 1 to 3 years in lock up.
But to strike a security officer you can get 3 to 5 years .
So understand this a job to for them they could be your neighbor, police officer or fireman. So think before you speek. Because as you'll see in the pictures attached to this article special patrol or response is on scene as either a second or third car.
1. Ride-share companies can’t own vehicles – or help drivers buy them.
One provision of the ordinance says that the operator of a ride-share service cannot “own, provide financing for the obtaining, leasing, or ownership of, or have a beneficial interest in transportation network vehicles.”
As it stands, neither Uber nor Lyft actually owns any cars or employs any drivers – they just bring drivers and passengers together. But who’s to say some future entrepreneur won’t find a way to make it economical for the “network” to also own vehicles or help its drivers buy them? And how does preemptively banning this help the public? In fact, it doesn’t do anything for the public; it’s just a way to stop ride-sharing companies from finding new ways to outcompete established taxicab companies.
2. No taxis allowed
Currently you can use Uber to summon three types of vehicles: black luxury cars, taxis and budget “UberX” cars. The taxis you can hail with Uber are normal, licensed Chicago cabs, and drivers have signed up to participate; it’s no different from calling for a cab by telephone or flagging one down on the street, except that it’s much more convenient.
The proposed ordinance would eliminate the taxi option for Uber customers by prohibiting taxis from participating in licensed transportation networks. How that could possibly benefit the public is a mystery. If the city adopts this rule, it will be destroying something that makes everyone’s lives easier for no good reason.
3. No advertising
Under the ordinance, advertisements wouldn’t be allowed on the inside or outside of vehicles. In the short term, that might not matter because, as things stand, Uber black cars, UberX cars and Lyft cars don’t have any ads in them or on them; only taxis have ads.
But maybe Uber, Lyft or a future service will want its cars to have ads. And maybe some customers wouldn’t mind seeing ads, especially if it meant cheaper fares.
Apparently the city wants to give taxis a monopoly on the vehicle-advertising business. That not only doesn’t serve a legitimate governmental purpose; but it also violates the First Amendment.
4. No airport drop-offs
Uber and Lyft cars already aren’t allowed to make airport pickups. Under the new ordinance, they wouldn’t be allowed to drop off passengers, either. This, of course, serves no purpose except to protect taxi companies from competition.
5. No time-and-distance pricing
Perhaps the proposal’s worst feature is that it would prohibit Uber and Lyft cars from charging passengers based on “a combination of distance travelled and time elapsed during service,” which is how they charge customers now. Instead, the cars would have to charge a prearranged flat fee or charge customers based on either time or distance – but not both.
That’s nonsensical. It’s only rational to charge customers based both on time and distance, because both affect the driver’s costs, and there’s no way to account for traffic conditions in advance. That’s why taxis charge based on both time and distance – and it’s why taxi companies don’t want Uber and Lyft to be able to use this method for charging customers.
6. Mandatory emblems
The ordinance would also require all cars in a given network to have an “emblem” on the outside of their car to identify which network they’re in. Lyft already does this with its cars’ pink mustaches. Uber, however, doesn’t – and its black cars’ logo-free appearance is part of what gives Uber cars their distinct cool, classy vibe.
Forcing Uber to add a logo serves no legitimate purpose. Customers don’t need a logo to identify their Uber car for several obvious reasons: (1) the Uber app shows them their driver’s name and picture, along with the car’s license plate number; (2) the Uber app lets the customer see where the car is on a map when it’s on its way and when it arrives; and (3) Uber drivers identify themselves upon arrival and confirm that they have the correct passenger.
So the only purpose of this requirement is to make Uber cars a little less special – that is, once again, to hamper competition for the taxi companies’ benefit.
7. Big Brother-style GPS tracking
The ordinance would also require the networks to allow the city to monitor all of their vehicles at all times by GPS. But the city has no legitimate need to know where every Uber or Lyft driver is at all times – let alone where their passengers go. If the city needs particular GPS information for a law-enforcement purpose – if, say, a car was implicated in a crime – it can always get a warrant for that data
Freddie Gray had spinal surgery shortly before he died in police custody, and had collected a payout in a settlement from a car accident. Those reports — which raise questions about the injury that led to his death in April 19 — point to Howard County court records as proof.But court records examined Wednesday by The Baltimore Sun show the case had nothing to do with a car accident or a spine injury. Instead, they are connected to a lawsuit alleging that Gray and his sister were injured by exposure to lead paint.
Paperwork was filed in December allowing Gray and his sister, Fredericka to each collect an $18,000 payment from Peachtree Settlement Funding, records show. In exchange, Peachtree would have received a $108,439 annuity that was scheduled to be paid in $602 monthly installments between 2024 and 2039.In her documents, Fredericka Gray checked "other" when asked to describe the type of accident. She also said that the date of the accident was "94/99" and that she was a minor when the case was settled.
In his documents, Freddie Gray checked "work injury, medical malpractice and auto accident" as the type of accident. When asked to explain, he also wrote something that is unreadable. He also wrote something unreadable when asked if he was a minor when the case was settled.
Both cases were filed at the same time by a New Jersey law firm.
A judge dismissed the case on April 2 when neither Gray nor his sister appeared in court, records show.
Gray's death has sparked more than a week of protests in Baltimore including some that turned violent and led to looting.
Baltimore attorney William H. "Billy" Murphy, who represents the Gray family, confirmed that the Howard County case was connected to the lead paint lawsuit.
