Home

Search

Browse

About IPO

Staff

Links

Condominium laws
EDITOR: I read with interest your article, 'Condo Conversion: The Human Factor" in the June 1979 issue of Illinois Issues. It was a well-written article; however, there is one particular point that is incorrect.

I believe that investigation will prove Illinois actually does have progressive and strong condominium laws as opposed to those in most Dther states. Further, much of the disclosure provisions in the present law are there because of the Illinois Association of Realtors®.

For a number of years various Condo proposals were defeated each session. However, when the Illinois Association of Realtors® created its special Condominium Committee to study the Condominium problem and worked with the National Association to develop a Model Naional Law, we then took an active part in promoting and supporting some major improvements in the Illinois law. The Illinois Association of Realtors® worked with Senator John Merlo (D., Chicago) and Representative Arthur Telscer (R., Chicago) in development of these laws.

We will, however, continue to oppose any attempts to impose any unconstitutional restrictions on condominiums that would impede the rights of property owners.

We did appreciate your article very much.

Robert E. Cook, CAE
Executive Vice President
Illinois Association of Realtors®

Illinois judges
EDITOR: Illinois is in a quandary about the "best" method of selecting judges. The election-retention system adopted in i 962 was an improvement, providing a retention system which the voters are slowly learning to use effectively.

In a sense, Illinois has slipped into a merit system through the back door. Merit retention is a logical component of the system, but is a bit meaningless without introducing original selection by merit.

Two major proposals for merit selection of state judges were introduced to the legislature. One is the so-called "Missouri Plan" in which the governor selects from names forwarded by nominating commissions. The governor's influence in this system is considerable, including the appointment of nominating commission members as well as selection of judges from names submitted by those commissions.

An alternative supported by the Illinois State Bar Association is a proposed constitutional amendment, HJR-CA10, sponsored by Rep. James P. McCourt (R., Evanston). The McCourt bill has been tailored to serve the needs of Illinois, particularly by distributing the power to select nominating commission members, and by limiting the ability of a governor who is so inclined to "wire" a candidate through a nominating commission. Political reality dictates the necessity for a system which will protect against a future governor who might decide to use a merit selection system for rewarding cronies in such a fashion.

In the meantime the Illinois State Bar Association has re vised its Judicial Advisory Poll, expanding the questionnaire from six broad questions to seventeen questions which will permit a more comprehensive evaluation of judicial candidates. It has been our experience that the poll can be an effective tool when coupled with significant reporting by the news media. All too often, however, the news media presumes the voting public is uninterested in judicial elections and thereby perpetuates the information void facing voters.

The question of who shouldjudge the judges has been an issue in Illinois for many years. It is time for the Illinois legislature to confront the question and provide constructive changes to improve the system we now have.

John H. Dickason
Executive Director
Illinois State Bar Association

Long-term care
EDITOR: I commend Dennis and Judith Fradin on their March 1979 article, "Seniors Want Action."

However, I have some reservations about their statement that "Public Act 80-1411 (H.B. 2691) provides services to enable elderly persons to remain in their own homes longer." Although P.A. 80-1411 declares that "The Illinois Department [of Public Aid] shall establish a program of services to prevent premature or unnecessary institutionalization of persons in need of long-term care," it appears that the In-Home Care Supportive Services (1HCSS) Program consists of a reimbursement mechanism rather than a program of services.

Potential and actual weaknesses of the program are:
1. A physician must attest to the applicant's immediate need for institutional care, thus, early preventative services are precluded;
2. Stringent financial criteria exclude many in need;
3. Eligibility determination generally takes more than one month;
4. Many older persons refuse to accept assistance from a welfare agency;
5. The amount of entitlement is based on the "point count" method, which measures only need for services provided in institutions;
6. Clients themselves are responsible for locating providers.

After five months of operation, the Department of Public Aid (IDPA) has approved 330 persons for participation -- paltry when one considers that nearly 100,000 Illinois residents live in long-term care facilities and more than 1,000,000 Illinois citizens are 65 years or older.

While P.A. 80-1411 is a positive step toward preventing unnecessary institutionalization, efforts must intensify to insure that comprehensive systems of health and social services outside institutions are available to those in need throughout Illinois.

Alice Adler, Chairperson
Statewide Health Coordinating Council
Subcommittee on Alternatives to
Long-Term Institutionalization

The drinking age
EDITOR: According to Ray Urchel's article on the drinking age in the June Illinois Issues, the prime sponsors of the bills to raise the age cite as their reason for pushing the bills that currently 19-and 20-year-olds are purchasing alcohol and passing it down to teens as young as 13.

If this is truly the reason for hiking the drinking age, then all the bills introduced so far are overboard. All the bills introduced to date would prohibit 19- and 20-year-olds from purchasing beer and wine in restaurants and taverns as well as prohibiting them from purchasing these beverages in packages to carry out. But to meet the sponsors' objective of preventing 19- and 20-year-olds from passing alcohol to younger teens, it would only be necessary to ban the carry-out sale of package liquor to 19- and 20-year-olds.

Although Chicago found such a scheme unsuccessful, this was probably because most Chicagoans live within a short driving distance of the suburbs, where the 19- and 20-year-olds could still pure base carry-out package liquor. Most Illinoisans do not live within a short driving distance of the state border, so this problem is unlikely to encountered if carry-out package liquor sales to 19- and 20-year-olds were banned statewide.

The raising of the drinking age also brings up the ethical problem of whether it is right to take away from today's 19- and 20-year-olds a right the state has already give to them. Often in cases such as this, those who possessed rights at the time the new law was passed, are grandfathered in under the new law. For example, when a mandatory retirement age was set for Illinois judges, those judges who had already been elected, were allowed to serve past the mandatory retirement age. Similarly, with regard to the drinking age, would it not be more equitable to allow those persons who were 19 years old the day before the new drinking age law took effect to maintain their right to drink, while those persons who reached the age of 19 after the effective date of the new law would have to wait until they reached 21 to pour spirits down their throats?

Sam Cahnmann
Peoria, Ill.