CHICAGO — An effort to require Chicago businesses to install surveillance cameras started with a City Council majority but is now seeing its support wither.

West Side Ald. Emma Mitts, 37th, had sign-on from 28 aldermen last week when she introduced legislation requiring public-facing businesses to put in security cameras. But several sponsoring aldermen who say they misunderstood the ordinance at first are now backing away from it.

“It raises a concern that neighbors have about what could become a surveillance state,” said former co-sponsor Ald. Andre Vasquez, who cited federal government efforts to access data.

Like several colleagues, including fellow Progressive Caucus members Alds. Daniel La Spata and Byron Sigcho-Lopez, Vasquez, 40th, said he signed on to the ordinance without accurately understanding what it would do.

After initially speaking with Mitts, he believed the ordinance would only require businesses with security cameras to hold on to their footage longer, a move he thought would help police investigating crimes.

“It wasn’t until we started getting emails from neighbors that I took a second look at it and saw this one clause about requiring the licensees to have cameras,” Vasquez said.

Mitts’ ordinance indeed would require businesses with surveillance cameras to maintain footage for a week. But it would also mandate such cameras be maintained by businesses licensed to operate by the city and requires those cameras record entrances, a 15-foot exterior radius around doorways and public parking areas — a potentially expensive security add for thousands of businesses.

Aldermen typically listen to their colleagues explain what an ordinance does in often quick conversations to decide whether they will sign on as a sponsor, Vasquez said. He believes Mitts meant well, but that a critical misunderstanding arose for him and others during those commonplace conversations, he added.

Vasquez said he read the ordinance when Mitts shared it with him, but did not see the camera mandate that he now thinks is “a step too far.”

La Spata, 1st, argued the ordinance places too onerous a burden on businesses.

“How are we supporting businesses in paying for this and what are the penalties in noncompliance?” he asked when he said he would take his name off as a co-sponsor.

Sigcho-Lopez, 25th, similarly argued business owners “must be given the option,” but added that surveillance cameras could help businesses that fear deportation raids to enforce search warrant laws.

“I think business owners want some help having cameras that are working,” Sigcho-Lopez said. “I think there are some gaps that need to be discussed.”

Amid the declined support, Mitts signaled an openness to altering the ordinance. She said she would consider mandating only certain businesses install cameras, but firmly backed her plan to require businesses with cameras keep footage longer.

The ordinance “probably will change at some point” as aldermen weigh in, she said. She said she did not know where the misunderstandings arose.

“They heard the part they wanted to hear about the ordinance or didn’t read it,” Mitts said. “It’s a tool that would help the business, the public and police.”

But Ald. Jeanette Taylor, 20th, stood behind Mitts’ mandate. She argued more cameras would not impede on privacy rights and are desperately needed.

“Everywhere you go people have cameras,” Taylor said. “I don’t give a damn about your privacy when it comes to people’s safety. We’re past that now.”

More surveillance cameras would help not just businesses, but the entire community, she said. She cited a fatal shooting at a Walgreens in her ward last week.

“We live in a world where things happen, and a lot of times people don’t speak, they don’t want to talk about it,” Taylor said. “You can’t dispute a camera, you can’t dispute footage.”

The ordinance’s current language would give law enforcement considerable authority to demand footage, said Ed Yohnka, spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. He argued surveillance cameras do little to enhance safety, but could force places like psychiatrist offices or abortion clinics to install surveillance cameras even if they do not want them.

“There are lots of places that you and I go that we may not want someone to know we are going there,” Yohnka said.

The ordinance as written could also lead to “a negotiation and a half” over how cameras must be placed, said Pat Doerr, director of the Hospitality Business Association of Chicago. It is also unclear how the law would be enforced if passed, he added.

However it worked out, any mandate requiring businesses to install expensive cameras would be one more rule for those already struggling, Doerr added.

“Are we here to grow businesses or micromanage a shrinking number of businesses?” he said.

____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.