Where I'm at (Connecticut), I've noticed folks are moving about on their outdoor activities (talking a stroll, walking pets, biking) with somewhat
regular frequency and location. The only exception is that most everyone seems to intuitively cross over to the other side of the sidewalk/path/road
to avoid close contact with other pedestrians. Seems pretty much like common sense to me.
We haves boardwalks and nature trails in my city. They remain open; neither the city nor state have moved to shut them due to COVID. Mind you, my city
is relatively small, so even in the best of times, in terrific weather, one can generally move about without too much difficulty or congestion. Other
cities in Connecticut have taken more restrictive measures on closing walking paths/trails, as is their prerogative, if they feel the path isn't wide
enough to sustain adequate social distancing, or if citizens are not following rules for keeping apart from one another.
In Chicago, the mayor felt the need to close a popular lakeside trail to foot traffic on account of
flagrant disregard of social distancing
meant to halt COVID's spread. It's been viewed by some as a somewhat harsh stance regarding freedom of movement outside, but not
every situation in every municipality is the same, as I mentioned above.
In any event, that debatable decision is not what got the mayor in hot water. While many hair salons and barber shops remain shuttered in Chicago due
to COVID, the mayor
a stylist to trim
her hair during a private appointment. Did I mention that everyone else in the city who wants a haircut or manicure is forced to either do it
themselves, await lifting of restrictions on public businesses, or hope they know someone in the trade?
I am certain the Chicago mayor isn't the only public official who has acted this way, but then again, not every public official has come down as hard
on social distancing in their local district as she has, nor drawn the ire of their constituents for choosing the COVID crisis as a platform for
publicly putting her own fingerprint
the nationwide debate over what social benefits illegal immigrants are entitled to.
Is Ms. Lightfoot setting aside any of her salary to offset the burden to Chicago taxpayers that will be incurred for giving financial aid to people
who are not legal citizens of her city? Chicago is perennially on poor grounds with respect to debt and public finance obligations, and the COVID
pandemic threatens to
fiscal health even more than the damage it has sustained in the best of times. I wonder if union members and public employees would support the
mayor's stand on illegal immigration if it jeopardized the solvency of their pension plans?
Seems like the citizens of Chicago ought to demand their mayor tighten her own personal habits and the city's spending habits, as many among the
public have been forced to do.
edit on 9-4-2020 by SleeperHasAwakened because: (no reason given)