The "big box ordinance" was passed by the city council in July 2006 and then vetoed by Mayor Daley in September 2006.

The City Council failed to override his veto during the City Council meeting held on September 13, 2006. Thirty-four votes were required in support of the ordinance to override the Mayor's veto. The vote was 31 – 18.

Alderman Shiller voted to sustain the Mayor's veto. In July she abstained.

Big Box Speech - 9/13/06

When this first came up for a vote, I chose to abstain because I felt conflicted. Not conflicted in what I thought were the relevant principles in this legislation, but conflicted in that I felt divided loyalties.

On the one hand, I felt that this legislation possibly threatened a development in my ward—a development that will jump start a sluggish commercial and retail environment, and that includes needed affordable housing and several hundred jobs.

And also importantly, I thought that this legislation may have had a bad impact on one of the city’s few preeminent developers committed to developing private affordable housing.

On the other hand, almost all of the people lobbying for this legislation are long time allies. People who I respect and admire. People who I have been friends with for decades. People with whom I usually agree. People whose agendas I generally agree with. People who I know have good intentions.

This time around however, I cannot let this debate and vote go by without commenting. I have always believed that loyalty is an important principle. As a legislator and an elected official it is often easy to be loyal to political allies while being loyal to your beliefs and principles.  Sometimes it is difficult. Ultimately, however, a good legislator must cut through the political loyalties and decide how to vote on a piece of legislation based on whether the outcome of that legislation is good or bad.This, in itself is a difficult proposition.