TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 20, 2008 LYNWOOD, Ill. - Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public. Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic. The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color. Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer. they really should spend money making the area look nicer.... rather than make some dumb law like this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A l t e r E g o 9 Posted July 20, 2008 IMO this law WILL make the area look nicer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted July 20, 2008 IMO this law WILL make the area look nicer. Amen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted July 20, 2008 $25 fine! They must be joking or smoking too much weed. Really do they anything better to do with their time. Does anyone really think this will stop it? Since it's against the law now in that Chicago suburb it just might have the opposite affect. The fine is way to small to make it effective way to stop people for where their pants below their waste. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 20, 2008 i mean i wear saggy pants for a more comfortable feel, but i don't wear them to look like a thug. and by nice, i mean build a new park, plant some flowers or trees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted July 20, 2008 The pants cost more than the fine! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lizy 1 Posted July 20, 2008 I say this is a dumb law they tryin to make boys n mens like girls now that wrong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted July 20, 2008 i mean i wear saggy pants for a more comfortable feel, but i don't wear them to look like a thug. and by nice, i mean build a new park, plant some flowers or trees. Why spend taxpayers money to build something nice for people who aren't even concerned with their own personal appearance. Nobody wants to see underwear or butt cracks in public. People make their neighborhood - not the other way around I wish they'd outlaw overweight women with three inches of fat bulging out over their low rider jeans as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 20, 2008 I wish they'd outlaw overweight women with three inches of fat bulging out over their low rider jeans as well. *shudders at the thought* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) Why spend taxpayers money to build something nice for people who aren't even concerned with their own personal appearance. They, themselves, are still taxpayers. You would be surprised how much money and hours they spent on their personal appearance. Just because they have their pants below the waist is not cause for the town neglecting the neighborhoods. Also only a small group, teen and young adults, where their pants below the waist. Why that group be the sole reason for the town not to build something nice for the neighborhood? Should the police have more important work than making sure the youth of their town is wearing their pants on their waste. Nobody wants to see underwear or butt cracks in public. Of none wants to see underwear or butt cracks in public, but the law has no teeth. The pants costs more than the fine. It won't stop those who don't care how others view what they wear. People make their neighborhood - not the other way around A run down neighborhood that neglected by the town will only make the people neighborhood not care about it. If the town does not care why should the people in the neighborhood care? If the pants are not the only issue for business, not going into current neighborhood, and pants wearing on the bottom of the list. The real issue behind the law is that town can't get businesses to invest in their neighborhoods had more to do with economic situation that the town and country is facing. This law won't draw in businesses if all factors are not their favor. I wish they'd outlaw overweight women with three inches of fat bulging out over their low rider jeans as well. No argument out of me. Edited July 20, 2008 by Odie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor37 9 Posted July 20, 2008 I guess Troy will be out a lot of money I guess......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekz 7 Posted July 20, 2008 Some stats on Lynwood from Wikipedia Lynwood is a village in Cook County, Illinois, United States. The population was 7,377 at the 2000 census. Lynwood was founded in 1959. The Village is surrounded by Lansing to the north, Glenwood to the west, Sauk Village to the south, and Munster and Dyer, Indiana to the east. The Indiana state line borders the entire eastern edge of Lynwood. Geography Lynwood is located at 41°31′35″N, 87°32′53″W (41.526351, -87.548194)[1]. According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 5.0 square miles (12.9 km²), of which, 4.9 square miles (12.8 km²) of it is land and 0.1 square miles (0.2 km²) of it (1.40%) is water. Demographics As of the census[2] of 2000, there were 7,377 people, 2,620 households, and 1,985 families residing in the village. The population density was 1,497.8 people per square mile (577.7/km²). There were 2,733 housing units at an average density of 554.9/sq mi (214.0/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 50.14% White, 45.40% African American, 0.23% Native American, 0.98% Asian, 1.55% from other races, and 1.71% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.57% of the population. There were 2,620 households out of which 40.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 53.8% were married couples living together, 17.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 24.2% were non-families. 20.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 5.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.82 and the average family size was 3.27. In the village the population was spread out with 29.8% under the age of 18, 8.4% from 18 to 24, 30.6% from 25 to 44, 23.8% from 45 to 64, and 7.5% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 35 years. For every 100 females there were 91.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 85.9 males. The median income for a household in the village was $56,554, and the median income for a family was $64,848. Males had a median income of $41,509 versus $36,458 for females. The per capita income for the village was $22,650. About 3.8% of families and 5.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 7.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. The Village is currently in the midst of a housing boom. The new homes in the community are larger and more expensive than what had been previously developed. A requirement of all new homes to be built on at least .75 Acres will assure that all future development will be upscale in nature. A plan is in the works by the Ho-Chunk Indian Nation of Wisconsin to create a reservation within the Village. The tribe has been purchasing land in the village near IL 394 and hopes to place the land into a trust. The ultimate goal of the tribe is to create a megaresort complete with casino gambling. END ARTICLE Too bad it doesn't tell about parks, schools. etc. But it is a relatively young commuity, perhaps with less of an identity than some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted July 20, 2008 Now if the fine was more than the cost of pants than I would take law and the town more seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldfan1 0 Posted July 20, 2008 I don't believe that the intent of the law is to just stop people from seeing underwear and butt cracks. I see this as an attempt to cut down on or get rid of the thug types and thug wannabes. If they said that this was the actual intent the ACLU among other groups would be filing multi-million dollar lawsuits. If I go to a business to spend my money and there are teenagers and young adults wearing their baggy pants and playing crap noise (rap music) I will just go elsewhere to spend my money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 21, 2008 I guess Troy will be out a lot of money I guess......... hey even if i got a ticket, im not even gonna pay it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wishfire 2 Posted July 21, 2008 I say this is a dumb law they tryin to make boys n mens like girls now that wrong Um... what? What gives you such an idea? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor37 9 Posted July 21, 2008 I guess Troy will be out a lot of money I guess......... hey even if i got a ticket, im not even gonna pay it. Then you better hope you don't show your butt-crack in prison........if you know what I mean........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 21, 2008 kor hearing you talk about it makes me think you've been in prison Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lizy 1 Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) I still say it wrong about making this law not wearing baggy pants that going way to far on this Edited July 21, 2008 by Elizabeth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 21, 2008 i might as well do it just to prove point...besides, we all know the cops are too lazy unless it involves terrorism Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor37 9 Posted July 21, 2008 i might as well do it just to prove point...besides, we all know the cops are too lazy unless it involves terrorism I don't know........seeing your butt crack may well be considered an act of terrorism....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) the last i checked im not fat lol Edited July 21, 2008 by Troy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor37 9 Posted July 21, 2008 the last i checked im not fat lol You don't REALLY want me to post the pic of you I saw elsewhere which would prove your statement wrong, do you?....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lizy 1 Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) who is posting a picture of my boyfriend now although I think he will let me do that lol Edited July 21, 2008 by Elizabeth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted July 22, 2008 The solution here is really simple. Just don't wear underwear. No underwear, no fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted July 22, 2008 ^_^ There are some butts that should never see daylight! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 22, 2008 the last i checked im not fat lol You don't REALLY want me to post the pic of you I saw elsewhere which would prove your statement wrong, do you?....... kor.....do you have some sort of obsession of me that you want to tell me about? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor37 9 Posted July 22, 2008 the last i checked im not fat lol You don't REALLY want me to post the pic of you I saw elsewhere which would prove your statement wrong, do you?....... kor.....do you have some sort of obsession of me that you want to tell me about? Not at all. Simply responding to your posts as I would anyone elses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted July 22, 2008 well what is the other pic of me that you found? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites