CHICAGO (WLS) — Mayor Brandon Johnson is strongly opposing a proposed curfew law intended to expand police authority to deter “teen takeovers.”

The proposal is set for a Chicago City Council vote on Wednesday.

ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

Johnson has been visibly frustrated by and vocal against the curfew proposal since its inception. On the day before it was to be voted on, he made a passionate and emphatic speech against it.

“We have to stop, as a city, falling into some of the most ridiculous, remedial forms of governance. It has not worked,” Johnson said.

The initiative to give the police a new means to stop teen takeovers throughout the city is meeting strong resistance from the mayor, just a day before a vote on this contentious proposal.

“But you want to give the police the power to be able to issue a curfew as it wishes, instead of giving the city of Chicago the power to actually invest in people? What sense does that make? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s a sloppy form of governance,” Johnson said.

The mayor called out unspecified city council members who support the ordinance, but did not vote for money to provide an additional 1,000 summer jobs for youth, a program that the mayor contends has helped drive down violence.

“I need partners to help with that. We cannot afford lazy governance, and then, we just wash our hands, absolve ourselves of any responsibility, and say, ‘Police, you do it.’ That is antiquated, that form of governance is dead and it should remain dead,” Johnson said.

Johnson, who credits an investment in youth programs, including late night basketball, for a reduction in violent crime, sees the issue of teen takeovers in broader terms.

“Most of this stuff we can transform overnight if we actually invested in families. The cumulative wealth of Black families in this city is zero freakin’ dollars. You got Black people waking up every single day in this city with all the wealth, and they are barely breaking even, and they’re talking to me about a curfew,” Johnson said.

The ordinance requires CPD Supt. Larry Snelling to consult with the deputy mayor of public safety, before Snelling decides whether to impose a curfew, after giving a crowd at least 30 minutes’ notice.

Snelling recently testified in court that he did not want one because last-minute curfews would be too late. He said he supports a curfew that, based on prior intelligence of planned violence, could be imposed in advance to prevent it.

READ MORE | Mayor Johnson, Chicago police superintendent discuss curfew at safety meeting with other US mayors

The sponsor says calling it a “snap curfew” ordinance is a misnomer.

“The intent of this ordinance is to prevent teen trends. How long does it take to prevent a teen trend? However long it takes. The more opportunity we have to prevent it, the better off it is. And that’s what the superintendent is going to do,” said Public Safety Committee Chair and 2nd Ward Ald. Brian Hopkins. “We’re certainly not going to do this for every time we think teens might be gathering. It’s a relatively high bar.”

But with a substitute curfew ordinance expected to be introduced on Wednesday, it is not clear if Hopkins’ proposal will get a vote, according to a mayoral ally.

“And we’ve heard loud and clear that clearly, right now, it’s not ready to be brought into to the floor to make it make sense. There’s some work to be there,” said 6th Ward Ald. William Hall.

“We’re debating something that doesn’t work. Why are we even debating it?” Johnson said.

Hopkins says he has 30 alderpersons supporting his ordinance and he expects it to pass on Wednesday.

“This is pretty settled law that curfews of this type are allowed and legal and constitutional,” said 34th Ward Ald. Bill Conway.

But a group of youth leaders from Communities United has sent a letter asking council members to vote “no.”

“People go downtown because it’s a lot of things to do downtown than it is to do in our community,” said Arianna Brandt with Communities United.

If the ordinance passes, and the mayor vetoes it, it is unclear if there are 34 votes to override that.