Sometimes a solution is so logical it’s amazing the problem still existed.
Consider Senate Bill 3374, which the chamber’s Executive Committee advanced with 11 yeses (and two “not voting”) March 4 and was to have its second reading Tuesday. The proposal would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code by allowing certain government units to lower the default speed limit from 30 to 25 or 20 mph without first conducting a speed study.
There are other aspects (such as the 10 mph alley limit and increasing the maximum allowable urban district speed limit to 55), but the big picture is fairly clear: while it’s understandable for the General Assembly to endorse a statewide standard, speed limits on city streets are the type of issue where local governments should be able to assert control.
For any push to increase speed limits, there’s logic in retaining the requirement to formally evaluate safety concerns. But why force a government to spend thousands of dollars to reach an obvious conclusion?
That’s not to say slower is inherently safer, or even logical, but speed limits are set through municipal ordinance, and that’s precisely the type of topic that draws residents to meetings. Whether a village board proposes altering the limit on every applicable road in the corporate limit or a ward-based alderman is concerned with just a block or two, local traffic issues are of maximum importance to the people who most directly fund that unit of government. The more say they have, the better!
After spending the better part of 25 years encouraging civic engagement, it’s frustrating to have little of value when responding to questions and statements like “Where do I even start?” or “It feels like nothing I do will make a difference.” And while some local officials might like the security of being able to say “we can’t change it, there’s a state law …” it’s definitely prudent for the state to assess when the mandates amassed over decades might impede both good government and taxpayer involvement.
MAILBAG: Reader AO responding to Tuesday’s column: “Liked your idea of breaking vote on general fund budget into pieces to allow things both sides of the aisle agree on to pass quickly. Could be used to improve state’s finances too.”
He suggested establishing definitions of core functions and departments, with departments then making their own similar designations, and ensuring the “core” automatically gets 90% of its historical percentage of state revenues as a baseline, with 5% for discretionary spending and 5% for cuts or savings. After ranking discretionary requests, remaining programs and goals would get their own supplemental focus and formula tiers with eyes on overall fiscal health.
Anyone else have ideas worth sharing?
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
Top Feeds,Politics
via Shaw Local https://ift.tt/EPgyY7p
March 12, 2026 at 10:00AM
Illinois Delivered 