three referendums on Nov 3, 2020 ballot (City of Chicago)

 I recommend a "no" vote on "access to broadband", skipping the second question and "no" on the firearms question.

Generally, I dislike & distrust these referendum questions. As I understand the system, there's a limit of three advisory referendums on the ballot. So, elected officials put bogus stuff on the ballot to keep more meaningful questions off the ballot.

My objection is that "access" is a vague enough term that it leads to debates about what "access" means. Think of the "access to healthcare" debate.

If the question is intended to mean, "Shall every household in Chicago be connected (high-speed) to the internet?" then they should have been asked this way. 

Further, the question seems to be built on the assumption that people will be purchasing "access" to the internet from private providers. I reject this model.

Hasan Minaj has a good episode of Patriot Act that makes the case for publicly owned high-speed internet.

Question two is gobbledygook. What does it mean to have equal focus on three things? And growth & sustainability are in tension too.

Question three is also vague enough that what the people answering thinks it means could be different that what public officials do when implementing policy.

"Restrict the sale or possession"... why not "sale and possession"? Assault weapons... bans on assault weapons are not particularly strong public policy options. As this article in "The Trace":

One major reason the federal ban may have had a minimal effect on the overall criminal use of assault weapons is that such firearms were already implicated in only a small share of shootings before the law was enacted. 

Public policy should focus on the more common gun violence. But media drives attention toward mass shootings. 

I recommend a "no" vote.