Naperville Councilman Hinterlong’s Memory Doesn’t Match The Facts

A paper trail is a wonderful thing. When videos are available to support a paper trail, it’s even more wonderful. However if you are a politician who’s memory doesn’t match the facts, then it’s definitely not wonderful.

Pick a politician, any politician, how about Naperville city councilman Paul Hinterlong. Watch and listen as Hinterlong tries to distance himself from a decision he supported dis-allowing a designated driving service (Booze Crews) in downtown Naperville:

Hinterlong says the issue was ‘long before his time’ on the council. Wrong. Councilman Hinterlong was elected to the Naperville City Council on April 7, 2009, a full five months before Booze Crews appeared as an agenda item for the September 15, 2009 city council meeting. Take a look at the city council meeting agenda for that evening, and specifically L-3:

Naperville City Council Meeting Agenda – September 4, 2009

Oops. Did we just hear Hinterlong publicly state he and the council would not allow for the safety of individuals. One could say that Hinterlong flat out lied about not being on the council, but that would be too harsh, let’s just say that he conveniently forgot, or that his memory is hazy, yet he continues to sit at the dais participating in decisions that effect the lives of others.

My memory is hazy at times, more-so now than 20 years ago, however I clearly remember this issue because I was the mentor of the young man trying to start/continue his designated driving service. Take a look at the young man’s letter  (L-3 above. Booze Crews Pdf) to then Mayor Pradel and the city council.

I clearly remember attending a liquor commission meeting, supporting the young man, and a colder reception anywhere at anytime, I am hard-pressed to remember. One liquor commissioner said, “We don’t have a drinking problem in Naperville”, and Mayor Pradel specifically said, “I don’t think we need a service like this”.

The young man wanted to make a presentation to the city council, but the writing was on the wall, hence the topic was moved to a later council meeting, and during that time Naperville city officials successfully regulated the designated driving service out of business in Naperville. They wanted to pigeon-hole the service as being a solicitor, require outrageous levels of insurance, add cumbersome regulations, and in essence, become a not-so-silent partner in a business, they were determined to see fail. The business never failed, because it never had the chance to start. Naperville city officials regulated it out of business.

When it comes to liquor, and over-serving,  there are a lot of people making a lot of money from taxes on liquor, to DUI attorneys, taxi companies, to morticians, and coffin makers. Some say the taxi owners own the liquor commission and city council. ‘Own’ may be too strong, maybe invested would be more appropriate. What the taxi lobby and city officials did to Booze Crews, they couldn’t do to Uber and Lyft. One can only wonder how many people could have benefited from the designated driving service, and how many lives may have been saved.

Hinterlong and a few of his council peers had a good chuckle about ‘where is that guy now’. The real question, is where are those guys now, council members Furstenau, Miller, Krause, Boyajian, Wehrli, Fieseler, and Pradel. A few lost their re-election bid, a few knew they couldn’t get re-elected, and a few moved on. Two council members remain, councilman Paul Hinterlong and councilwoman Judy Brodhead. One is on thin ice (Brodhead) and one has been exposed again for his words not matching the facts (Hinterlong).

A final thought on Hinterlong’s comment. He says it was way before his time and then he says “we wouldn’t allow it”. Now if it did pre-date his tenure, then he can’t rightfully say ‘we didn’t allow it”. If he wouldn’t allow it (included in the we), then it didn’t exactly pre-date his time on the council. Sounds like double-talk by another politician

Show 1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Jim Haselhorst

    This post seems to be more about providing lame justification for posting an anti-Clinton video (on a page that claims to be about city council issues) than questioning the behavior and qualifications to hold city office of one council member.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *