On Dec. 7, Roscoe Village Neighbors hosted horse-drawn sleigh rides as part of its Winterfest activities, despite the fact that the city of Chicago banned horse carriages within the city limits five years ago.
The City Council sent a clear message when it passed this common-sense measure by an overwhelming vote of 46-4, likely due to a wealth of evidence showing how operators refused to self-regulate and constantly disregarded the city’s laws.
Animal advocates routinely documented how horses were not offered water, worked more than double what the law allowed, and were forced to work in extreme heat, cold, and in snow and thunderstorms, which put these thousand-plus-pound prey animals, who frighten easily, and the public at risk every time they were forced to share our busy streets with emergency vehicles, city buses, motorcycles, garbage trucks, electric scooters, bicyclists, etc.
There have been multiple instances of deadly holiday horse rides where both humans and horses have perished, which is another reason to drop this tradition.
The legislation is specific and only allows exceptions if horse carriages are part of a parade, athletic event or movie production. It does not allow businesses or individuals to rent them for special events, proms, weddings, Valentine’s Day and the like.
The holidays don’t magically make this archaic exploitation romantic, safe or humane.
Cruelty is cruelty at any time of the year, and we hope that Business Affairs and Consumer Protection cites King Carriage and Roscoe Village Neighbors for violating the law, and that all Chicago event planners stick with family-friendly fun that does not exploit animals for entertainment.
Jodie Wiederkehr, executive director, Chicago Alliance for Animals, West Rogers Park
Bears test their leverage, undermine fans
Bears fans know loyalty. We have shown it for decades. That is why the team’s recent open letter about a new stadium deserves a careful response — not blind acceptance.
If the Chicago Bears intended the letter to reassure fans and clarify their path forward, they missed the mark. As a lifelong fan and someone who works professionally with state and local governments, I read it with appreciation for the franchise’s history, but with concern about how the issue is being framed.
To begin on common ground, the Bears deserve credit for clearly stating they are not seeking direct state taxpayer dollars to build a stadium. At a time when publicly funded stadiums face well-earned skepticism, that distinction matters.
But it is not the full picture.
Public support for a project of this scale does not end with construction. Stadium developments impose significant and lasting public obligations: expanded police and emergency services, traffic management, road and utility upgrades, transit coordination and long-term infrastructure maintenance.
These costs are not hypothetical. They fall on municipalities and residents, often without the revenue certainty or flexibility available to private developers.
Acknowledging these realities is not opposition; it is responsible governance.
The Bears’ claim that expanding the search beyond Arlington Heights “is not about leverage” warrants scrutiny. In public life, leverage is defined less by intent than by effect. When a major franchise publicly signals it may leave the region, or the state, it applies pressure on elected officials, taxpayers and fans. That pressure is leverage, whether acknowledged or not.
For fans, that message lands poorly. It feels less like a partnership and more like a warning. It undermines trust rather than builds consensus.
Stadium projects are not just business deals. They are major land-use decisions with generational consequences. Arlington Heights and Chicago are stable communities, not distressed ones desperate for investment at any cost. Residents expect transparency, deliberation and respect for local priorities.
None of this diminishes the Bears’ legitimate desire for a modern stadium. Soldier Field’s limitations are real. But how that goal is pursued matters as much as the goal itself.
Chicagoans have stood by this team through generations of highs and lows. They deserve a stadium conversation grounded in transparency, respect and realism, not one that tests loyalty.
Michael Pierce, Grayslake
Bearers of bad news
Just when the beloved Bears stop being a total joke on the field, they remind everyone that they continue to be just that off it by reopening, or is it re-reopening, their search for a location for a stadium.
Let’s face facts. If placed in the market today, the Chicago Bears would fetch at least $8 billion, even without their own stadium. The team owners paid very little or in some cases literally nothing for their stakes, meaning the proceeds of the sale would be pure profit.
Team President Kevin Warren suggested that this has all been caused by a desire to find “reasonable property tax certainty to secure financing.” This is weaselspeak for “the billionaires I work for want a huge property tax cut.” Literally every major bank in the state would provide financing for the entire development today, with or without the tax break, because an NFL franchise with no significant debt is a license to print money.
Everyone expects the Bears to build a stadium on the property they spent $170 million on for the purpose of building a stadium. Congratulations to Gov. Pritzker and the local politicians in the northwest suburbs for holding strong against the team’s latest blackmail attempt.
As far as that blackmail goes, moving to Indiana would be the Matt Nagy or Matt Eberflus of stadium location decisions.
Don Anderson, Oak Park
A nod to museum workers and their union efforts
Chicago’s museums play a vital role in our city and state. They educate our children, preserve our shared history and help define Chicago as a global cultural destination. Behind every exhibit, school program and visitor experience are dedicated professionals whose work makes these institutions possible.
In recent years, many museum workers have chosen to organize. This moment deserves thoughtful discussion, not alarm. Unionization in our cultural institutions should be understood not as a threat, but as an opportunity for dialogue and long-term stability.
Like many workers across Illinois, museum employees have faced rising costs of living and evolving job expectations. Through the pandemic, they continued to serve the public under difficult and uncertain circumstances. Organizing has become one way for them to seek clarity, consistency and a stronger voice in their workplaces.
When approached collaboratively, unionization can support the health of museums themselves. Clear communication, defined workplace standards and fair compensation help reduce turnover and preserve institutional knowledge. Stability among staff strengthens educational programs, enhances visitor experiences and supports the public mission museums exist to fulfill.
Across Chicago, from long-established institutions to those newly organized, we have seen workers and management find ways to engage constructively. Agreements that provide structure and predictability benefit not only employees, but the institutions that rely on their expertise and commitment.
At a time when museums face real external pressures, from fluctuating funding to changing visitor patterns, maintaining strong, experienced teams is essential. Supporting the people who sustain these institutions helps ensure they remain accessible, innovative and resilient for future generations.
Our museums reflect our values. When the people who power them feel respected, heard and supported, the public experiences the difference. Students learn more deeply, families connect more meaningfully, and our cultural economy grows stronger.
Unionization, when grounded in mutual respect and shared goals, can be part of that positive future.
It is a conversation worth having and one that can ultimately strengthen us all.
State Rep. Kimberly Du Buclet, D-Chicago, chair, Illinois House Museums, Arts, Culture & Entertainment Committee
Proposed hemp ban penalizes small businesses
Sitting in on a hearing of the Chicago City Council Committee on License and Consumer Protection as an ordinance banning all hemp products was being considered, one could not help but notice that the only people who testified in favor of a total ban on hemp were people with a direct connection to large cannabis businesses.
These large corporations see small businesses as competitors and are pulling out all the stops to ensure they have a monopoly. The current compromise language being discussed would only benefit big business and effectively pick winners and losers in the marketplace because the vast majority of cannabis-derived products that can be sold outside of dispensaries would be beverages, which would have to be distributed through liquor distributors and would inevitably lead to higher prices.
If it is OK to sell beverages to people over 21 — what exactly is the harm in selling gummies with the same amount of THC? What’s the difference between a 5-mg beverage and a 5-mg gummy? There is the same amount of THC in the gummy and the beverage, and yet one would be allowed in liquor stores and the other only in dispensaries.
The Illinois Healthy Alternatives Association has always advocated for protections for children. Our members take extraordinary steps to protect kids despite the lack of regulations.
The last thing we need, though, is a total ban. History has shown us that bans are not effective and pose serious risks to consumers. The right approach is responsible regulation. Let’s create product safety guidelines and enforce strict age restrictions to prevent minors from accessing these products. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, has proposed a comprehensive regulatory bill in Congress to protect minors and allow honest business owners to continue to provide healthy alternatives to their customers. The blueprint for reform is there.
Instead of imposing blanket bans that stifle small businesses and limit consumer choice, let’s work together to find effective solutions that ensure safety and accessibility. We can achieve the dual objectives of safeguarding minors and allowing honest business owners to continue serving their customers. Let’s not make the same mistakes again; let’s move forward responsibly.
Craig Katz, president, Illinois Healthy Alternatives Association
Blame Assessor Fritz Kaegi for property tax hikes
It is shameful that the Sun-Times published an essay by Cook County Assessor Fritz Kaegi (“Cook County Board of Review bears a lot of blame for your home’s property tax increase“). He is the one who caused this crisis, and yet you have given him the platform to falsely spread the blame to the Cook County Board of Review. His office has been extremely aggressive in increasing the property values of houses in Cook County since he was elected. The Cook County Board of Review is working overtime to correct the mistakes of his office.
Ultimately, the truth will come out, and he will be ousted from office. The Sun-Times should ask for forgiveness from the residents of Cook County. Shameful.
Israel Saacks, Rogers Park
Vandals strike church, First Amendment
Three cheers for the midnight thugs who vandalized the Nativity scene at Evanston’s Lake Street Church. Way to go, boys, “making America great again” by violating the First Amendment guarantees of both freedom of expression and freedom of religion. There can be no doubt about your “patriotism.”
Chet Alexander, Alsip
Discouraged travelers
Immigration agents want to see five years of social media from incoming tourists? One of my Australian friends who was planning to visit has decided not to come. I’d do the same.
Don Wedd, Hyde Park