Subject Matter Hearing Misrepresentations Exposed – Part VI

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

This is Part VI of the exposure of misrepresentations and misinformation provided by Shelby County State’s Attorney Nichole Kronke during her oral testimony in support of legislation affecting every county in the state.  We urge everyone to read Part I at this link, Part II at this link, Part III at this link, Part IV at this link. and Part V at this link.

• “So the Attorney General is saying had they added the proper language, then it is within the realm of the Constitution to lease the land to a private entity.”

We challenge everyone to read what the Attorney General’s office wrote in their letter at this link and find the language Kronke claims the AG is saying.

The fact of the matter, as covered in Part V of this series, Kronke omitted the most important word in the letter she quoted from and continues with the misrepresentation by applying her opinion that the AG was saying something while omitting key facts.

The reason her words are such misrepresentations is that the narrative she is creating is inconsistent with what the AG actually wrote.

“We note that the General Assembly is vested with broad discretion in determining whether a particular enactment serves a public purpose within the meaning of article VIII, section l(a), of the Illinois Constitution. Accordingly, when the General Assembly expressly authorizes a county to lease county property to a private entity, there is a presumption that a proper public purpose exists.”

People need to go no further than the language found in the AG Opinion issued to this same county on a similar issue in 2006. One paragraph in particular almost mirrors key portions of the letter Kronke claimed to be quoting from.

“This court has long recognized that what is for the public good and what are public purposes are questions which the legislature must in the first instance decide. [ Citations.] In making this determination, the legislature is vested with a broad discretion, and the judgment of the legislature is to be accepted in the absence of a clear showing that the purported public purpose is but an evasion and that the purpose is, in fact, private. [Citations.]”(AG Opinion issued to Shelby County in 2006)

What Kronke is doing is leaving out the very key points and language that hurts her position.  Had she read the last part of the paragraph above from the 2006 opinion the legislature might have asked her why she is wasting their time on this.

What she wants the world to believe:

‘It is long recognized that what is for the public good and what are public purposes are questions which the legislature must in the first instance decide. In making this determination, the legislature is vested with a broad discretion, and the judgment of the legislature is to be accepted.’

The truth of the matter is there is more to the law than just what she wants the world to believe and it’s summed up in the last part of the paragraph written in the 2006 AG opinion in bold below.

“It is long recognized that what is for the public good and what are public purposes are questions which the legislature must in the first instance decide. In making this determination, the legislature is vested with a broad discretion, and the judgment of the legislature is to be accepted in the absence of a clear showing that the purported public purpose is but an evasion and that the purpose is, in fact, private. [Citations.]”(AG Opinion issued to Shelby County in 2006)“

There is no absence of a clear showing that the purported public purpose, making money, is but an evasion and the purpose is, in fact, private.

If this legislation ever gets passed and signed into law the County is going to be facing an uphill battle in court as there are numerous people ready to take legal action to force the county to follow the law.