Chicago Sun-Times
Tuning in with Thomas Conner

Background reading on the promoter's ordinance: The proposed law, and the Chicago Music Commission's response to it

| 289 Comments | No TrackBacks

Following below are the text of the new promoter's ordinance that the City Council seems prepared to rush to approve next week -- with little input from the Chicago music community -- as well as the first public response to it from the Chicago Music Commission, the burgeoning activist group that seems poised to lead the fight in making the ordinance more fair for the community of artists and fans that it hopes to represent in the dark corners of City Hall.

Statement from Chicago Music Commission board member Bruce Iglauer (president of Alligator Records):

• The Chicago Music Commission shares the City's commitment to ensuring the safe and responsible enjoyment of entertainment in Chicago and strongly concurs with the City's goal of rooting out illegitimate “underground” promoters operating in Chicago with sometimes dangerous consequences while not overburdening Chicago's vibrant music scene. However, we cannot support this ordinance in its current form.

• CMC is extremely disappointed in the City’s public comment process for this significant change to Chicago's music landscape, especially given the City’s commendable past efforts to work with the music community on this important effort. As was clear at today's Licensing Committee hearing, there are still many, many concerns and questions that Chicago's music community has about the language of this ordinance, who will be affected, and how it will be enforced.

• The language of the ordinance as drafted unnecessarily and perhaps prohibitively increases the cost of doing business for any promoter seeking to work with PPA-licensed music venues under 500 seats and those without "fixed seating", including, among many others, Schuba’s, Buddy Guy’s Legends, the Vic Theater, the Riviera Theater, the Metro, The Hideout, Uncommon Ground, and Martyrs’. Many of these small and non-fixed seating venues rely on contracting with third party promoters for a significant portion of their revenue while their customers safely enjoy the entertainment. This ordinance will not address the "bad actors" CMC and the City agree are the root of the problem--underground promoters seeking to make a quick buck who put on unsafe events.

• The ordinance will reduce the amount of music in Chicago, make events more expensive for consumers, dampen the large and growing economic engine that is Chicago music, and create a much less supportive business climate for Chicago’s small music business community. As Chicago competes for business with cities from around the world in addition to our own regional suburbs, we cannot afford to put this ordinance’s well-intentioned but overly broad financial weight on Chicago’s music community.

• That is why CMC welcomes the opportunity to work the Committee and the City to revise this ordinance to address the very real problem of “underground” promoters while ensuring that law-abiding small business people that make up Chicago’s music economy are not unnecessarily overburdened.

And here is the law itself, rewritten from the version first presented last year and further adjusted in committee on Wednesday, but with many of the problems still intact, according to its growing number of critics and opponents. (Warning: Even veteran readers of city legislation say this particular law seems to be written in ancient Greek in some stretches; I welcome any readers' attempts to make more sense of it than I have.)

Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
S U B S T I T U T E
O R D I N A N C E
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
SECTION 1. Title IV of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago is hereby amended
by inserting a new Chapter 4-157, titled “Event Promoters”, as follows:
4-157-010 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
“Amusement” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-156-010. This definition
applies only to amusements occurring, or planned to occur, within the corporate limits of the City
of Chicago.
“Any other license or permit” means: (1) a public place of amusement license or
performing arts venue license issued under Chapter 4-156 or its equivalent in another
jurisdiction; or (2) an outdoor special event permit issued under section 10-8-335 or its
equivalent in another jurisdiction; or (3) an indoor special event license issued under Article IV
of Chapter 4-156 or its equivalent in another jurisdiction; or (4) a liquor license of any type
issued under Chapter 4-60 or its equivalent in another jurisdiction; or (5) any license or permit
other than those identified in items (1) through (4) of this definition required by law to sponsor,
promote, host or serve liquor at an amusement or event; or (6) any combination thereof.
“Controlling person” means any person who: (1) is an officer, director, manager, partner
or limited partner of an entity seeking or holding a license under this chapter; or (2) owns,
directly or indirectly, 10 per cent or more of the interest in an entity seeking or holding a license
under this chapter.
“Department” means the department of business affairs and licensing.
“Director” means the director of business affairs and licensing.
“Establishment” or “site” means any building, or any indoor or outdoor premises, or any
part thereof, used or intended to be used to present an amusement or event.
“Event” means: (1) any activity requiring a special event liquor license under Chapter
4-60 of this code; or (2) any activity requiring city approval of a special event liquor license
under the Illinois Liquor Control Act; or (3) any outdoor special event as defined in section
10-8-335; or (4) any indoor special event as defined in section 4-156-530. This definition applies
only to events occurring, or planned to occur, within the corporate limits of the City of Chicago.
“Event promoter” or “promoter” means any person who: (1) is directly or indirectly
responsible for the organization of an amusement or event, as evidenced by activities such as
contracting with the principals, selecting entertainment, advertising or otherwise holding out an
amusement or event to members of the general public, inviting participants to an amusement or
event, or renting or controlling the site of an amusement or event; and (2) directly or indirectly
receives or shares in any of the following: (a) admission or entrance fees paid by participants or
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
2
spectators at the amusement or event; or (b) compensation, consideration or other revenue from
sponsors of or private donors to the amusement or event; or (c) revenues from concessions or
other sales at the amusement or event. The term “event promoter” includes nonresident event
promoters who do business within the City of Chicago.
“Fireworks” has the meaning ascribed to the term in the Fireworks Use Act, as
amended, codified at 425 ILCS 35/0.01 et seq.
“Fixed seating” or “fixed seats” means seats securely fastened to the floor.
“Licensee” means any person licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter.
“Maximum capacity” means the number of persons that a building, premises, room, floor
or other area or space may accommodate, as determined by the building commissioner pursuant
to Chapter 13-36 of this code or by any other appropriate government official.
“Not-for-profit corporation” means any not-for-profit organization which: (1) has been
registered with the State of Illinois as a not-for-profit corporation for at least three years prior to
the presentation of a promoted amusement or event, or (2) qualifies for tax exempt status under
Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
“On-site representative” means any person designated pursuant to the requirements of
section 4-157-140 as a licensee’s on-site representative.
“Promoted amusement or event” means any amusement or event promoted by a licensee
under this chapter.
“Pyrotechnic display” has the meaning ascribed to the term in the Pyrotechnic Operator
Licensing Act, as amended, codified at 225 ILCS 227/1 et seq.
“Throughout the duration” means at least one hour before the promoted amusement or
event, during the promoted amusement or event, and until all persons attending or in any way
connected with the promoted amusement or event have left the establishment presenting such
amusement or event.
4-157-020 License–When required–Exclusions.
(A) No person shall engage in the business of event promoter without first having
obtained an event promoter license under this chapter.
(B) The following persons are not event promoters within the meaning of this chapter:
(1) any print or broadcast media who are paid for page space or broadcast time to
advertise an amusement or event but exercise no other financial or operational
responsibility in connection therewith;
(2) any off-premises ticket seller who sells admission tickets to an amusement or
event in advance of such amusement or event but exercises no other financial or
operational responsibility in connection therewith;
(3) any performer who is paid for his performance at an amusement or event but
exercises no other financial or non-performance-related operational responsibility
in connection therewith;
(4) any agent of an athlete or performer who is compensated for negotiating his
client’s contract to perform at an amusement or event but exercises no other
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
3
financial or operational responsibility in connection therewith;
(5) any licensee under Chapter 4-156 of this code, to the extent that the licensee
personally plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of
such licensed business;
(6) any full-time employee of a licensee under Chapter 4-156 or under this chapter, to
the extent that the employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in
the course of such employment;
(7) the City of Chicago or its sister agencies;
(8) any employee of the City of Chicago or its sister agencies, to the extent that the
employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of such
employment;
(9) any not-for-profit corporation, to the extent that the not-for-profit corporation
personally plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event on its own behalf;
(10) any bona fide member or employee of a not-for-profit corporation, to the extent
that such member or employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event
in the course of such membership or employment on behalf of the not-for-profit
corporation; and
(11) any person who exclusively promotes amusements or events at establishments or
venues meeting all of the following requirements: (1) the owner or operator of the
establishment or venue at which the promoted amusement or event is presented
holds a valid public place of amusement license or valid performing arts venue
license issued under Chapter 4-156 of this code, and (2) the establishment or
venue at which the promoted event is presented (i) has fixed seating only and all
patrons attending any promoted amusement or event at such establishment or
venue are seated in such fixed seats; or (ii) has a fixed seating capacity of 500 or
more persons.
4-157-025 License classification.
Event promoter licenses shall be divided into the classifications which follow. The
holders of such licenses shall be entitled to engage in the business of event promoter within the
City of Chicago subject to the following limitations:
Class A license: The holder of a Class A license is subject to no limitation as to the
maximum capacity of the building, premises, room, floor or other area where a promoted
amusement or event is presented.
Class B license: The holder of a Class B license is entitled to promote an amusement or
event at an establishment, if the maximum capacity of the building, premises, room, floor or
other area where a promoted amusement or event is presented is 2000 persons or less.
Class C license: The holder of a Class C license is entitled to promote an amusement or
event at an establishment, if the maximum capacity of the building, premises, room, floor or
other area where a promoted amusement or event is presented is 500 persons or less.
Class D license: The holder of a Class D license is entitled to promote an amusement or
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
4
event at an establishment, if the maximum capacity of the building, premises, room, floor or
other area where a promoted amusement or event is presented is 100 persons or less.
4-157-030 License–Posting–Nontransferability.
Each license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be posted in a conspicuous place near
the entrance of the licensee’s chief place of business. On the date(s) that a promoted amusement
or event is presented at an establishment, a photocopy of the event promoter license shall be
posted in a conspicuous place at such establishment. No transfer of ownership shall be allowed
on any license issued under this chapter.
4-157-040 License–Application.
An application for a license under this chapter shall be made in writing to the director, on
a form provided by the department, and shall be accompanied by the following:
(A) If the applicant is an individual:
(1) the applicant’s full name, residence address, business address, business
e-mail address, business telephone number and cell phone number;
(2) the name, residence address and residence telephone number of all
controlling persons other than the applicant, if any;
(3) proof that the applicant and all controlling persons are at least 21 years of
age;
(B) If the applicant is a corporation:
(1) the corporate name, address, e-mail address and telephone number of the
applicant’s principal office or place of business;
(2) the date and state of incorporation;
(3) the name, residence address and residence telephone number of all
controlling persons and registered agents;
(4) proof that all controlling persons are at least 21 years of age;
(5) proof that the corporation is in good standing under the laws of the State of
Illinois;
(C) If the applicant is a partnership or limited liability company:
(1) the name, address, e-mail address and telephone number of the applicant’s
principal office or place of business;
(2) the name, residence address and residence telephone number of all
partners, if a general partnership; of all general and limited partners, if a
limited partnership; of all managers, managing members and members, if a
limited liability company; and of all controlling persons and registered
agents;
(3) proof that all controlling persons are at least 21 years of age;
(D) If the applicant seeks to do business under an assumed name, proof of compliance
with the Illinois Assumed Business Name Act, as amended;
(E) A list of every jurisdiction and name under which the applicant, within the last 5
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
5
years, has done business as an event promoter;
(F) A statement as to whether, within the last 5 years, the applicant and each
controlling person has had an event promoter’s license or any other equivalent
license or permit, regardless of nomenclature or characterization, revoked or
suspended in any jurisdiction and if so, the details surrounding each such
suspension or revocation;
(G) A statement as to whether, within the last five years, the applicant and each
controlling person has been either convicted, in custody, under parole or under
any other non-custodial supervision resulting from a conviction in a court of any
jurisdiction for the commission of a felony of any kind, or of a criminal offense of
whatever degree involving theft, fraud, perjury or dishonesty and if so, the details
surrounding each such conviction;
(H) A statement as to whether, within the last five years, the applicant and each
controlling person has been convicted or found liable of knowingly making a false
statement of material fact or a knowing and material misrepresentation or
omission on or in connection with any license application submitted under this
chapter and if so, the details surrounding each such conviction or finding of
liability;
(I) The date of birth and social security number of each natural person named in the
license application;
(J) The license fee, as required by section 4-157-060;
(K) Fingerprints, as required by section 4-157-090;
(L) Proof of insurance, as required by section 4-157-100;
(L) An indemnification agreement, as required by section 4-157-110; and
(M) Any other information that the director may require.
It is a condition of the license that all information in the license application be kept
current. Any change in required information shall be reported to the director, on a form prepared
by the department, no later than ten days after the change has occurred, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays.
4-157-050 License issuance–Prohibited when.
(A) No license shall be issued under this chapter unless all of the following requirements
are met:
(1) The applicant and each controlling person is at least 21 years of age;
(2) The director determines that: (a) within the last five years, the applicant and each
controlling person has not had an event promoter’s license or any other equivalent
license or permit, regardless of nomenclature or characterization, revoked in any
jurisdiction for any cause other than failure to renew the license or permit, or
suspended for more than 30 days in any jurisdiction for any cause other than
failure to file a timely license or permit renewal; and (b) if, within the last five
years, the applicant or any controlling person has had such license or permit
revoked or suspended for cause in any jurisdiction, such person has been
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
6
sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust. The burden of proof of
sufficient rehabilitation shall be on the applicant or controlling person, as
applicable;
(3) The director determines that: (a) within the last five years, the applicant and each
controlling person has not been convicted, in custody, under parole or under any
other non-custodial supervision resulting from a conviction in a court of any
jurisdiction for the commission of a felony of any kind, or of any criminal offense
of whatever degree involving theft, fraud, perjury or dishonesty; and (b) if, within
the last five years, the applicant or any controlling person has been so convicted,
such person has been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust. The
burden of proof of sufficient rehabilitation shall be on the applicant or controlling
person, as applicable;
(4) The director determines that, within the last five years, the applicant and each
controlling person has not been convicted or found liable of knowingly making a
false statement of material fact or a knowing and material misrepresentation or
omission on or in connection with any license application submitted under this
chapter; and
(5) The applicant and each controlling person submits to fingerprinting.
(B) No license shall be issued under this chapter if the director determines that the
applicant or any controlling person is concealing the actual or beneficial ownership of the
business identified in the license application or is otherwise evading by subterfuge, disguise or
indirection any of the licensing requirements of this chapter.
(C) Eligibility for issuance of a license under this section shall be a continuing
requirement for maintaining a license under this chapter. Failure to maintain eligibility for
issuance of a license under this chapter may result in license suspension or revocation in
accordance with the requirements of section 4-4-280 of this code.
4-157-060 License–Fee.
The event promoter license fee, payable every two years, shall be as set forth in section
4-5-010 of this code.
4-157-070 License–Term.
The event promoter license shall expire on the date indicated in section 4-4-021.
4-157-080 License number to be printed where.
Licensees shall print their event promoter license number legibly in all of the following
places: (1) on the front page of every estimate, contract and subcontract provided by or entered
into by the licensee or his agent in connection with any promoted amusement or event; (2) in all
advertisements of the licensee’s services as an event promoter; and (3) in all advertisements of
any promoted amusement or event. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person
who violates any of the requirements of this section shall be fined not less than $200.00, nor
more than $500.00, for each offense. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
7
separate and distinct offense to which a separate fine shall apply.
4-157-090 Fingerprinting–Required.
Each applicant for an event promoter license and each controlling person shall be
required to submit to fingerprinting in accordance with procedures and regulations prescribed by
the director.
4-157-100 Insurance–Required.
Each applicant for a license under this chapter shall furnish a certificate of insurance,
evidencing commercial general liability insurance, with limits of not less than $300,000.00 per
occurrence for bodily injury and property damage arising in any way from the issuance of the
license.
Each policy of insurance required under this section shall: (1) be issued by an insurer
authorized to insure in Illinois; (2) name the City of Chicago as additional insured; and
(3) include a provision requiring 30 days’ advance notice to the director prior to cancellation or
lapse of the policy.
The licensee shall maintain the insurance required under this section in full force and
effect for the duration of the license period. A single violation of this section may result in
suspension or revocation of the event promoter license in accordance with the requirements of
section 4-4-280 of this code.
4-157-110 Indemnification agreement–Required.
Each applicant for an event promoter license shall agree, in writing, to indemnify, defend
and hold harmless the City of Chicago for any loss that results, directly or indirectly, from the
issuance or use of such license.
4-157-120 Event promoter’s contract–Required.
(A) No promoted amusement or event shall be presented at an establishment except
pursuant to a written contract between the licensee and the owner, lessee or manager of the
establishment presenting such promoted amusement or event. Such contract shall include the
following information:
(1) the licensee’s license number;
(2) if any other license or permit is required for the promoted amusement or event, the
applicable license or permit number;
(3) the maximum capacity of the building, premises, room, floor or other area where
the promoted amusement or event will be presented;
(4) the name and cell phone number of the licensee’s on-site representative(s);
(5) the number of security personnel that will be present, if any, during the promoted
amusement or event and the name of the employer of such security personnel;
(6) the respective responsibilities, functions, duties and rights of the parties to the
contract required by this section;
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
8
(7) the date or dates, and location and hours of operation, of the promoted amusement
or event;
(8) whether any fireworks or pyrotechnic display, as defined in section 4-157-010,
will be used during the course of the promoted amusement or event and if so,
proof of compliance with section 15-4-550 and 15-4-560, as applicable;
(9) whether any special effects involving the installation or alteration of electrical
equipment will be used during the course of the amusement or event and if so,
proof of compliance with section 13-12-360; and
(10) whether any special effects other than those identified in items (8) and (9) of this
subsection or equipment of a type posing a danger to the public health, safety or
welfare will be used during the course of the promoted amusement or event,
including, but not limited to, sound concussions, lasers, animals, flying objects,
people with rigging or electrical hazards associated with computer-generated
effects or water effects and if so, the precautions that will be taken by the
respective parties to the contract to address the public safety threat posed by such
special effects or equipment, including, but not limited to, proof of compliance
with any applicable permitting requirement or other provision of this code.
(B) A copy of the contract required by this section shall be: (1) kept at the site of the
promoted amusement or event throughout the duration of such amusement or event; and (2) in
the possession of the licensee’s on-site representative at all times that any equipment, supplies or
materials to be used in presenting the promoted amusement or event are present at the site of
such amusement or event. If the establishment presenting the amusement or event requires any
other license or permit as defined in section 4-157-010, a copy of the contract shall also be kept
in the possession of the holder of such required license or permit and of any person managing or
directing the day-to-day operations of the establishment for a period of not less than 7 days
before and 30 days after the amusement or event is presented. Upon request, a copy of the
contract required by this section shall be made available for inspection by any authorized city
official.
4-157-130 Record keeping–Required.
The licensee shall maintain on file, for a period of three years, complete and accurate
records of all business activities or transactions governing or in any way connected to a
promoted amusement or event. Such records shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) the event promoter contract required by section 4-157-120; (2) all other applicable contracts;
(3) all advance ticket sales; (4) all tickets sold at the door; and (5) all admission and entrance fees
paid by participants or spectators at the promoted amusement or event.. Such three-year period
shall be measured from the last day of operation of the promoted amusement or event as set forth
in the contract required by section 4-157-120. Upon request, the records required by this section
shall be made available, during regular business hours or in case of emergency, for inspection by
any authorized city official.
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
9
4-157-140 On-site representative–Designation required–Duties.
(A) The licensee shall designate an on-site representative(s) for each promoted
amusement or event. Such on-site representative(s) shall be: (1) at least 21 years of age;
(2) responsible for discharging all of the duties identified in subsection (C) of this section; and
(3) the same person(s) named as the licensee’s on-site representative(s) in the contract required
by section 4-157-120. If, due to circumstances beyond the licensee’s control, the on-site
representative(s) named in the contract is unable to serve as the licensee’s on-site representative
at the promoted amusement or event covered by such contract, the licensee shall: (i) designate
another person meeting the requirements of this section to serve as the licensee’s on-site
representative at the promoted amusement or event; and (ii) modify the contract to state the name
of the person so designated.
(B) No person shall be designated as an on-site representative if, within the last five years
preceding the promoted amusement or event, such person has been convicted, in custody, under
parole or under any other non-custodial supervision resulting from a conviction in a court of any
jurisdiction for the commission of a felony of any kind, or of any criminal offense of whatever
degree involving theft, fraud, perjury or dishonesty. Provided, however, that this prohibition
shall not apply if the designated on-site representative holds a valid license under this chapter.
Any person who violates this subsection (B) shall be fined not less than $500.00, nor
more than $1,000.00, for each offense. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a
separate and distinct offense to which a separate fine shall apply. In addition to any other penalty
provided by law, a single violation of this subsection may result in suspension or revocation of
the event promoter’s license in accordance with the requirements of section 4-4-280. Provided,
however, that it shall be an affirmative defense to the imposition of any fine under this subsection
and to license suspension or revocation if, prior to designating the on-site representative: (1) the
licensee initiated, pursuant to the Illinois Uniform Conviction Information Act, codified at 20
ILCS 2635/1 et seq., as amended, a fingerprint-based record search of the person so designated;
and (2) such fingerprint-based record search indicated that the person so designated did not have
a criminal background of the type prohibited under this subsection; and (3) the licensee did not
acquire any subsequent or independent knowledge that the person so designated had a criminal
background of the type prohibited under this subsection.
(C) The licensee’s on-site representative shall have the following duties:
(1) To comply with the requirements of subsection (B) of section 4-157-120;
(2) To be present on site throughout the duration of the promoted amusement or
event;
(3) To accept all notices of violation and closure orders;
(4) To comply with all applicable laws and ordinances governing or in any way
connected with the promoted amusement or event;
(5) To adhere strictly to all conditions imposed on the licensee pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter and of any other license or permit required for the
promoted amusement or event;
(6) To carry on his or her person throughout the duration of the promoted amusement
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
10
or event: (i) photographic identification; and (ii) a cell phone having the telephone
number identified in the contract required by section 4-157-120;
(7) To produce, upon request, the required photographic identification and cell
phone for inspection by any authorized city official;
(8) To adhere strictly to the terms of the contract required by section 4-157-120;
(9) To comply with any reasonable request made by any authorized city official
necessary or appropriate to implement the requirements of this chapter;
(10) To cooperate fully with any authorized city official in any inquiry, inspection or
investigation necessary or appropriate to implement the requirements of this
chapter; and
(11) To ensure that the maximum capacity is not exceeded of the building, premises,
room, floor or other area where the promoted amusement or event is presented.
4-157-150 Exceeding maximum capacity–Unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any licensee or controlling person or on-site representative to
exceed the maximum capacity of the building, premises, room, floor or other area where a
promoted amusement or event is presented.
4-157-160 Other legal duties–Joint and several liability.
(A) Each licensee and controlling person shall have the following duties:
(1) To comply with the requirements of this chapter and with all other applicable
laws and ordinances governing or in any way connected with such promoted
amusement or event;
(2) To adhere strictly to all conditions imposed on the licensee pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter and of any other license or permit required for any
promoted amusement or event;
(3) To adhere strictly to the terms of the contract required by section 4-157-120.
(B) The licensee and all controlling persons shall be jointly and severally liable for any
violation of the requirements of this chapter.
4-157-170 License–Revocation.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, three or more violations of any provision of
this chapter on three different days within any 12-month period may result in license suspension
or revocation in accordance with the requirements of section 4-4-280 of this code.
4-157-180 License revocation–Five year wait for new license.
No person whose license under this chapter is revoked for any cause shall be granted
another event promoter license, under the same or different name, for a period of five years from
the date of revocation.
4-157-190 Violation–Penalty.
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
11
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person violating any of the provisions
of this chapter shall be subject to a fine of up to $10,000.00 for each offense. Each day that a
violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense to which a separate fine shall
apply.
4-157-200 Regulations.
The director shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to
implement the requirements of this chapter.
SECTION 2. Section 4-5-010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago is hereby
amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as
follows:
4-5-010 Establishment of license fees.
This chapter shall establish fees for various licenses created by this title unless otherwise
provided. The following fees shall apply for the specified licenses. The chapter in which each
fee requirement is created is also provided. Unless otherwise stated, fees shall be assessed every
two years.
* * * * *
(Subsections (1) through (66) are not affected by this ordinance,
and are not shown here for editorial convenience)
(67) Reserved. Event Promoter (4-157)...........................................
Class A.............................................................. $2,000.00
Class B.............................................................. 1,500.00
Class C.............................................................. 1,000.00
Class D.............................................................. 500.00
* * * * *
(The remainder of this section is not affected by this ordinance,
and is not shown here for editorial convenience)
SECTION 3. Chapter 4-60 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago is hereby
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
12
amended by inserting a new section 4-60-065, as follows:
4-60-065 Promoted amusements or events–Unlawful acts.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any licensee under this chapter to use, hire, employ or
otherwise avail oneself of the services of an event promoter to promote any amusement or event
at the licensed establishment, if the event promoter requires but does not hold a valid event
promoter license or proper class of such license issued under Chapter 4-157 of this code.
(B) If a not-for-profit corporation promotes an amusement or event at an establishment
licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter, and such amusement or event is open to
members of the general public, and an admission fee, minimum purchase requirement,
membership fee or any form of donation or other fee is imposed for the privilege of attending
such amusement or event, and the person promoting such amusement or event on behalf of the
not-for-profit corporation does not hold a valid event promoter license or proper class of such
license issued under Chapter 4-157 of this code, it shall be unlawful for a licensee under this
chapter to present such amusement or event at the licensed establishment unless the
not-for-profit corporation provides the licensee with: (1) acceptable documentation establishing
its not-for-profit status, and (2) a dated letter, on its letterhead and signed by its authorizing
official, (i) stating that the not-for-profit corporation or bona fide member(s) or employee(s)
thereof is promoting the identified amusement or event at the licensed establishment on behalf of
such not-for-profit corporation, and (ii) confirming that the not-for-profit corporation has not
used, hired, employed or otherwise availed itself of the services of an event promoter licensed or
required to be licensed under Chapter 4-157 to promote such amusement or event. Such
documentation and letter shall be kept on site by the licensee throughout the duration of the
promoted amusement or event, and thereafter shall be maintained on file by the licensee for a
period of three years. Upon request, such documentation shall be made available for inspection
by any authorized city official.
(C) As used in this section:
“Acceptable documentation” means: (1) for most not-for-profit corporations, a current
copy of the not-for-profit organization’s: (i) “Corporation File Detail Report” available online
from the Illinois Secretary of State, or (ii)Domestic/Foreign Corporation Annual Report”
submitted to the Illinois Secretary of State, or (iii) cancelled check (front and back) that
accompanied the current “Domestic/Foreign Corporation Annual Report” submitted to the
Secretary of State; or (2) for not-for-profit corporations incorporated prior to 1943, a current
certificate of good standing from the Illinois Secretary of State; or (3) for branches of
government, a copy of the enabling legislation or letter from the appropriate government body
on its letterhead stating that the organization is an official agency or branch of government; or
(4) for charitable trusts, a current Charitable Organization Supplement (Form AG990-IL) or
letter from the Attorney General verifying current good standing; or (5) if the not-for-profit
corporation is a public school or religious organization, a letter claiming tax exempt status
under the United States Internal Revenue Code and signed, as applicable, by the school
principal or authorizing official on the public school’s or religious organization’s letterhead; or
(6) if the not-for-profit corporation is a school affiliate organization, such as a PTO or PTA
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
13
group, a letter from the affiliated school on school letterhead acknowledging the affiliation and
signed by the school principal or authorizing official.
“Amusement” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-157-010.
“Event” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-157-010.
“Licensee” means: (1) any person licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter
and such person’s representative or agent; (2) any officer, director, manager, partner or limited
partner of an entity seeking or holding a license under this chapter, (3) any person owning,
directly or indirectly through any intermediate ownership entity, 5 percent or more of the interest
in the licensee, and (4) regardless of title or ownership interest, any person who directs the
day-to-day operations of any person holding or requiring a license under this chapter.
“Not-for-profit corporation” means any not-for-profit organization which: (1) has been
registered with the State of Illinois as a not-for-profit corporation for at least three years prior
to the presentation of an amusement or event within the meaning of subsection (B) of this section,
or (2) qualifies for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the
United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
“Throughout the duration of the promoted amusement or event” means at least one hour
before the promoted amusement or event, during the promoted amusement or event, and until all
persons attending or in any way connected with the promoted amusement or event have left the
establishment presenting such amusement or event.
SECTION 4. Chapter 4-156 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago is hereby
amended by inserting a new section 4-156-465, as follows:
4-156-465 Promoted amusements or events–Unlawful acts–Duties.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any licensee under this chapter to use, hire, employ or
otherwise avail oneself of the services of an event promoter to promote any amusement or event
at the licensed establishment, if the event promoter requires but does not hold a valid event
promoter license or proper class of such license issued under Chapter 4-157 of this code.
(B) If a not-for-profit corporation promotes an amusement or event at an establishment
licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter, and such amusement or event is open to
members of the general public, and an admission fee, minimum purchase requirement,
membership fee or any form of donation or other fee is imposed for the privilege of attending
such amusement or event, and the person promoting such amusement or event on behalf of the
not-for-profit corporation does not hold a valid event promoter license or proper class of such
license issued under Chapter 4-157 of this code, it shall be unlawful for a licensee under this
chapter to present such amusement or event at the licensed establishment unless the
not-for-profit corporation provides the licensee with: (1) acceptable documentation establishing
its not-for-profit status, and (2) a dated letter, on its letterhead and signed by its authorizing
official, (i) stating that the not-for-profit corporation or bona fide member(s) or employee(s)
thereof is promoting the identified amusement or event at the licensed establishment on behalf of
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
14
such not-for-profit corporation, and (ii) confirming that the not-for-profit corporation has not
used, hired, employed or otherwise availed itself of the services of an event promoter licensed or
required to be licensed under Chapter 4-157 to promote such amusement or event. Such
documentation and letter shall be kept on site by the licensee throughout the duration of the
promoted amusement or event, and thereafter shall be maintained on file by the licensee for a
period of three years. Upon request, such documentation shall be made available for inspection
by any authorized city official.
(C) It shall be the duty of a licensee under this chapter to notify the police department in
writing of a promoted amusement or event, at least 7 calendar days in advance of the presentation
of such promoted amusement or event, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) the
amusement or event is being promoted by an event promoter licensed or required to be licensed
under Chapter 4-157 of this code; and (2) liquor will be served at the promoted amusement or
event; and (3) the establishment presenting the promoted amusement or event has a maximum
capacity of 100 or more persons. Provided, however, that if a promoted amusement or event is
not booked or scheduled until within 7 calendar days of the presentation of such amusement or
event, it shall be the duty of the licensee to notify the police department immediately upon the
booking or scheduling of such promoted amusement or event, and under no circumstances fewer
than 24 hours before the presentation of such amusement or event.
The written notification required by this subsection shall be made to the local police
commander of the district where the promoted amusement or event will be held and shall contain
the following information: (a) the date, time and location of the promoted amusement or event;
(b) the estimated attendance at the promoted amusement or event; and (c) the name and license
number of the event promoter. Upon request, the commander of the district shall provide a copy
of the written notification required by this subsection to the alderman of the ward in which the
promoted amusement or event will be presented.
In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates the
requirements of this subsection shall be (i) fined not less than $500.00, nor more than $1,000.00,
for each offense, and (ii) prohibited from using an event promoter to promote or present any
amusement or event at the establishment for a period of six months, as measured from the date of
conviction of such person by a court of competent jurisdiction or a final determination of liability
by an administrative law officer within the meaning of section 2-14-076(l).
(D) It shall be unlawful for any person prohibited from using an event promoter under
item (ii) of subsection (B) of this section to engage in such conduct. Any person who violates this
subsection shall be fined not less than $1,000.00, nor more than $10,000.00, for each offense.
Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense to which a
separate fine shall apply. A single violation of this subsection may result in license suspension or
revocation in accordance with the requirements of section 4-4-280 of this code. No person
whose license under this chapter is revoked for violation of this subsection shall be granted
another license under this chapter, under the same or different name, for a period of one year
from the date of revocation.
(E) As used in this section:
“Acceptable documentation” means: (1) for most not-for-profit corporations, a current
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
15
copy of the not-for-profit organization’s: (i) “Corporation File Detail Report” available online
from the Illinois Secretary of State, or (ii) Domestic/Foreign Corporation Annual Report”
submitted to the Illinois Secretary of State, or (iii) cancelled check (front and back) that
accompanied the current “Domestic/Foreign Corporation Annual Report” submitted to the
Secretary of State; or (2) for not-for-profit corporations incorporated prior to 1943, a current
certificate of good standing from the Illinois Secretary of State; or (3) for branches of
government, a copy of the enabling legislation or letter from the appropriate government body
on its letterhead stating that the organization is an official agency or branch of government; or
(4) for charitable trusts, a current Charitable Organization Supplement (Form AG990-IL) or
letter from the Attorney General verifying current good standing; or (5) if the not-for-profit
corporation is a public school or religious organization, a letter claiming tax exempt status
under the United States Internal Revenue Code and signed, as applicable, by the school
principal or authorizing official on the public school’s or religious organization’s letterhead; or
(6) if the not-for-profit corporation is a school affiliate organization, such as a PTO or PTA
group, a letter from the affiliated school on school letterhead acknowledging the affiliation and
signed by the school principal or authorizing official.
“Amusement” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-157-010.
“Event” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-157-010.
“Event promoter” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-157-010.
“Licensee” means: (1) any person licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter
and such person’s representative or agent; (2) any officer, director, manager, partner or limited
partner of an entity seeking or holding a license under this chapter, (3) any person owning,
directly or indirectly through any intermediate ownership entity, 25 percent or more of the
interest in the licensee, and (4) regardless of title or ownership interest, any person who directs
the day-to-day operations of any person holding or requiring a license under this chapter.
“Not-for-profit corporation” means any not-for-profit organization which: (1) has been
registered with the State of Illinois as a not-for-profit corporation for at least three years prior
to the presentation of an amusement or event within the meaning of subsection (B) of this section,
or (2) qualifies for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the
United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
“Promoted amusement or event” means any amusement or event promoted by an event
promoter as defined in section 4-157-010.
“Throughout the duration” means at least one hour before the promoted amusement or
event, during the promoted amusement or event, and until all persons attending or in any way
connected with the promoted amusement or event have left the establishment presenting such
amusement or event.
SECTION 5. Chapter 4-156 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago is hereby
amended by inserting a new section 4-156-651, as follows:
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
16
4-156-651 Promoted indoor special events–Unlawful acts.
It shall be unlawful for the sponsor of any indoor special event to use, hire, employ or
otherwise avail oneself of the services of an event promoter to promote any indoor special event,
if the event promoter requires but does not hold a valid event promoter license or proper class of
such license issued under Chapter 4-157. Provided, however, that this requirement shall not
apply if: (a) the sponsor of the indoor special event is a not-for-profit corporation, to the extent
that such not-for-profit corporation or any bona fide member or employee thereof personally
plans, prepares or executes the outdoor special event on behalf of such not-for-profit
corporation; and (b) such sponsor maintains on site throughout the duration of the indoor
special event: (i) acceptable documentation establishing its not-for-profit status, and (ii) a dated
letter, on its letterhead and signed by its authorizing official, stating that the not-for-profit
corporation or a bona fide member(s) or employee(s) thereof is promoting the indoor special
event on behalf of such not-for-profit corporation and confirming that the not-for-profit
corporation has not used, hired, employed or otherwise availed itself of the services of an event
promoter licensed or required to be licensed under Chapter 4-157 to promote such indoor
special event. Such documentation and letter shall be kept on site by the sponsor of such outdoor
special event throughout the duration of the outdoor special event. Upon request, such
documentation shall be made available for inspection by any authorized city official.
As used in this section:
“Acceptable documentation” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-156-465.
“Event promoter” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-157-010.
“Promoted indoor special event” means any indoor special event promoted by an event
promoter as defined in section 4-157-010.
“Throughout the duration” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section 4-156-465.
SECTION 6. Section 10-8-335 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago is hereby
amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows:
10-8-335 Outdoor special events.
(a) As used in this section unless the context requires otherwise:
* * * * *
(The remainder of this subsection (a) and of subsections (b) through (r)
are not affected by this ordinance, and are not shown here for editorial convenience)
(r)(1) It shall be unlawful for the sponsor of any outdoor special event to use, hire,
employ or otherwise avail oneself of the services of an event promoter to promote
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
17
any outdoor special event, if the event promoter requires but does not hold a valid
event promoter license or proper class of such license issued under Chapter 4-157.
Provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply if: (a) the sponsor of the
promoted outdoor special event is a not-for-profit corporation, to the extent that
such not-for-profit corporation or any bona fide member or employee thereof
personally plans, prepares or executes the outdoor special event on behalf of such
not-for-profit corporation; and (b) such sponsor maintains on site throughout the
duration of the outdoor special event: (i) acceptable documentation establishing
its not-for-profit status, and (ii) a dated letter, on its letterhead and signed by its
authorizing official, (1) stating that the not-for-profit corporation or a bona fide
member(s) or employee(s) thereof is promoting the outdoor special event on
behalf of such not-for-profit corporation and (2) confirming that the not-for-profit
corporation has not used, hired, employed or otherwise availed itself of the
services of an event promoter licensed or required to be licensed under Chapter
4-157 to promote such outdoor special event. Such documentation and letter
shall be kept on site by the sponsor of the outdoor special event throughout the
duration of such event. Upon request, such documentation shall be made
available for inspection by any authorized city official.
As used in this subsection (r)(1):
“Acceptable documentation” means: (1) for most not-for-profit
corporations, a current copy of the not-for-profit organization’s: (i) “Corporation
File Detail Report” available online from the Illinois Secretary of State, or
(ii) Domestic/Foreign Corporation Annual Report” submitted to the Illinois
Secretary of State, or (iii) cancelled check (front and back) that accompanied the
current “Domestic/Foreign Corporation Annual Report” submitted to the
Secretary of State; or (2) for not-for-profit corporations incorporated prior to
1943, a current certificate of good standing from the Illinois Secretary of State; or
(3) for branches of government, a copy of the enabling legislation or letter from
the appropriate government body on its letterhead stating that the organization is
an official agency or branch of government; or (4) for charitable trusts, a current
Charitable Organization Supplement (Form AG990-IL) or letter from the
Attorney General verifying current good standing; or (5) if the not-for-profit
corporation is a public school or religious organization, a letter claiming tax
exempt status under the United States Internal Revenue Code and signed, as
applicable, by the school principal or authorizing official on the public school’s
or religious organization’s letterhead; or (6) if the not-for-profit corporation is a
school affiliate organization, such as a PTO or PTA group, a letter from the
affiliated school on school letterhead acknowledging the affiliation and signed by
the school principal or authorizing official.
“Event promoter” has the meaning ascribed to the term in section
4-157-010.
“Not-for-profit corporation” means any not-for-profit organization
Draft Ordinance–April 28, 2008
18
which: (1) has been registered with the State of Illinois as a not-for-profit
corporation for at least three years prior to the presentation of the outdoor
special event, or (2) qualifies for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3),
501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
“Promoted outdoor special event” means any outdoor special event
promoted by an event promoter as defined in section 4-157-010.
“Throughout the duration” means at least one hour before the promoted
outdoor special event, during the outdoor special event, and until all persons
attending or in any way connected with the outdoor special event have left the site
of such event.
* * * * *
(The remainder of this section is not affected by this ordinance,
and is not shown here for editorial convenience)
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take full force and effect 120 days after its passage
and publication.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/8936

289 Comments

wow.

The CMC has it totally right. Here's a little tidbit within the first few hundred words:

"The term “event promoter” includes nonresident event
promoters who do business within the City of Chicago."

The terms of this law are so broad that this might even require anyone passing through to pay money just to do so. Why not just call this the entertainment tax? Do the bookers of Broadway theaters have to pay the same kind of fee? If so, someone should alert them so they can get as up in arms as we are.

Keep it up, Jim.

The wording of this ordinance is so broad that it stifles and or eliminates booking original singer/songwriters inside the city limits of Chicago.

Chicago Acoustic Underground is dedicated to promoting and supporting original music in Chicago. We intend to promote a series of benefit concerts supporting Chicago based not-for-profit foundations and it appears that we fall prey to this ordinance while trying to support the local music community through these concerts.

CAU along with all 150 local acts that have performed on the show will be opposing this ridiculously vague proposed ordinance.

Michael Teach, Host
CAU

What is the purpose of this legislation? Who is this ordinance protecting from harm? What good does this constraint laden document offer the citizens of Chicago? Where is the money generated from this document to go?

The statement "No person shall be designated as an on-site representative if, within the last five years
preceding the promoted amusement or event, such person has been convicted, in custody, under
parole or under any other non-custodial supervision resulting from a conviction in a court of any
jurisdiction for the commission of a felony of any kind, or of any criminal offense of whatever
degree involving theft, fraud, perjury or dishonesty. " Places a potential on-site representative with previous minor convictions or even being held without charges in custody with constitutional violations as written. This is unenforceable. The wording violates a citizen's civil rights.

There are other obvious flaws in the document which place undue hardship on the independent music community.

There are flaws which violate the right to free speech and expression which render this document unenforceable and an entire waste of the city council's time and effort.

It is suggested that city council and especially the authors of this document focus on illiteracy, poverty, gun crimes, employment and fairness for the citizens of this great city. Shame on our representatives in city council for violating citizens rights!

Obviously, this proposed legislation is totally out of focus with reality and would seriously hurt many legitimate small venues in Chicago. It should not be passed.

This is a ridiculous attempt to stifle freedom of expression and speech. A clear violation of the 1st amendment. Music qualifies as speech! It is also a way to help the rich get richer. Passing this law is the ultimate in abuse of power.

now that's just ridiculous!

hmmm... in a way, sounds like this ordinance is a repercussion of E2 Nightclub where 21 lives were lost...
This ordinance is very discerning to say the least...

The one big problem I have here is that we would have to list the city under our insurance -- That's pretty lame. Also, I've looked into it and its too hard to get insurance for the small promoters. I have checked with two brokers and they say the insurancy companies don't want to write the policies.

wow - just another way of pushing the creative side of this city out. Chicago needs its creative types - we give its residents another reason to stay - a great, and wide range, of music and art.

this promoter ordinance will be a significant factor in the departure of talent from this city - because everybody knows that if you want to make a living on music and the arts, its all about promotion - self promotion, promotion of your friends, promotion of your communities, and promotion of your city, chicago. this ordinance will affect all of these, and hurt the cities image at home and abroad.

everybody agrees that there are underground promoters who are willing to put people's lives on the line for a quick buck. and everybody agrees that they should be stopped. but shutting down, taxing, and effectively halting the progress of the music scene here is not the way to do that.

This is an outrage! It resembles extortion quite a bit, if you ask me. This will cripple Chicago's artistic/cultural scene, which is of course the essence of this city's greatness. This should NEVER be passed. I, too, say "Shame on the representatives of City Council".

My laptop battery is too close to dead to read the ordinance. Reading the first third, which is all definitions, utilized valuable battery life. ;) But yeah...smaller venues like Schubas, Hideout, Beat Kitchen and less-affluent promoters are what MAKE the local scene and help define Chicago's identity. (A woman named Rebecca Rakstad recently put together a tribute to one such venue, entitled the Fireside Bowl Project, which perhaps says this better than I can.)

Thank God for good ol' Bruce Iglauer. From accounts others have shared with me, he's been a huge supporter of the local music scene...beyond just being a contributor. (He was a very supportive individual of some performances I and some local blues, hip-hop, and soul musicians had over the last two years.)

Thanks for posting.

i say NO! to this. This is another example of this stupid city council with nothing better to do. Let them get a REAL JOB! Chicago is a great arts town, Lets keep it that way. Are they trying to throw more people out of work?
Say NO to this stupid proposed amendment.

Any venues addressed by this ordinance would ALREADY have adequate liability insurance that would cover music-related incidents, or any other. This ordinance would NOT have prevented the sad events of that night at the E2, nor any other similar tragedy! Vote NO, aldermen!

As a musician who plays exclusively in these non-fixed seating venues, I can only see this causing the death of live music in restaurants/bars, where it is already endangered and undercompensated. This would hurt the music culture of Chicago is apractically irreparable way.

This is horrible... where would Chicago be without the music spots where so many greats got their start? We're the home of the blues not the home of the rich artists with enough money to pay here and there. This is just wrong!! What can we do to help? Let me know and I will let all the fans know what to do!

Don’t do it City Council of Chicago! Small businesses including artists, intimate venues and independant promoters are the heartbeat of this great city known for its deep and continually thriving musical roots and culture. Nurture the local arts with support. Don't destroy with mindless ordinances and licensing measures. How can this extortive double-dipping into already thin pockets be legal?

I can't believe what I am reading. I am in complete disagreement with this new "law"! Why is the city worried about such a certain thing anyways? Of all the other problems that need to be looking at they decide to look at something like this and say it is a problem. The simple fact that something like this is being considered means that the city's priorities are not in order.

Wow - I never thought I would see Chicago dying like it is now. Our downtown used to be filled with clubs, bars, restaurants, shops, museums...now we have WAY too many new condos, Starbucks and chain restaurants and shops. We've LOST our souls and will seal the coffin by passing this ordinance.

As a working musician in this city I see little option but to move to a city that appreciates and celebrates the diversity of a cultural scene that has room for EVERY expression, big or small.

If the city wants go after "underground promoters" (I'm not even sure what that means....people that have 'rave' style parties is all I can even think of and that boom ended YEARS ago) then GO AFTER UNDERGROUND PROMOTERS, not the entirety of a music scene that keeps your city alive.

You'll see how these decisions will affect the city's population - you'll be left with a corporate city, not a city that's always been lauded for it's creative scene. Sadly, I go where the music goes, so Chicago, even though it's my hometown, may see me crying on my way out to make a living somewhere else.

Who's making the money out of all of this change. How can the city council justify this move. Don't do it Chicago!

As a musician recording indpendently and booking my own gigs in the city I vote no to this law. Who is collecting signatures so I can direct my bandmates and all the bands I know to sign against it?

I'm absolutely amazed that anyone could think this might be good for Chicago. I always tell people that I love the fact that after 15 years here, I am still discovering new places and new, vibrant scenes. This ordinance would kill all that, and make Chicago just like anyplace else. Kick this ordinance to the curb, City Council of Chicago!

This is just silliness, and ridiculous.

I can understand attempts at ordinances, which provide a clear and recognizable "public good". As written, this ordinance has none, in spirit, or in letter. I agree with many of my colleagues, in postings before me. This is roundabout suppression of free speech. Perhaps if it passed, some sort of class action lawsuit will be initiated. I hope the members of our city council see the harm to the community and its culture, and vote no to this ordinance.

That is horrible. Chicago's ambience of culture is being stained. Its great to be able to go to a small theater and see a live performance, go to the street fests and enjoy all sorts of cuisines, pop into another place like Schubas and see another artist...You are going to ruin the city????We have so many local artists that thrive on their performances at small venues and the aufdience loves these. Don't do this to the city and make it like a "big" city. We are a big city, but we are also like a neighborhood.

For a city that claims to embrace the arts, this is a disgrace. Live entertainment in the City of Chicago has been beaten down enough, and this is just another nail in the coffin. Sounds like the City is just looking for sources for revenue, which will not be accomplished trying to bleed a group of performers who don't have that money in the first place. I find it deplorable that the Chicago City Council could further destroy the entertainment scene by a rediculous ordinance such as the Promoter's Ordinance! I lived there...made my living there as a musician...I left there in 1990, and entertainment had been chiseled away by all kinds of obstacles when I left. I know from my musician friends who are still there TRYING to work that it's gotten a whole lot worse than it was when I left 18 years ago. And now you want to put the last nail in the coffin?!? Look for your revenue somewhere else: In case you haven't heard of the "starving musician," you may want to acquaint yourself with the term. THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, ANYWAY! Not to mention the rediculousness of this ordinance. Enforce what you already have in place, because you certainly don't need new restrictions. You're just trying to bleed the performers dry. STOP IT, ALREADY!

Okay, first it was the "No smoking ordinance" that cut bar attendence by 30% across the city, which is also a cut in our audience. Its bad enough that many small clubs dropped live music in the city, in favor of DJs. A working musician can't make a living here unless there's a fair amount of studio work or he has a day job.
But this ordinance will hit the small clubs square in the pocketbook. Does the Mayor know how many smaller bars only pay $200.00 to $400.00 for a band to play? How about the places that pay a percentage of the bar? All these venues will dry up. Plus, how about the joints who DON'T pay the bands but give them some exposure, and a place for their friends to come see them? The kids just starting out and the garage bands will have nowhere to play at all.
The band I regularly work with books itself. We work for $300 and up per night (three sets). There's no way we're going to be able to deal with these new fees.
If the City Council is so hard up for cash, then change the ordinance to apply to venues of 1,000 or more. THEY can afford all this, and the City will make more money from them than they ever will from the smaller agents, bars and bands.

I mostly play for exposure at this point, and I love my little divey places that pay me via a small percentage of the bar tab from the night. Or artists' collectives that don't pay at all, but feed me:-) I have to teach piano too (grad school debt calls:-), but luckily Chicago is full of so many places for me to play "part time" while I develop my sound/style. I gain experience, exposure, friends, and a deepening appreciation of Chicago as a good city to be a performing songwriter in. That said, if all this stuff passes, I will be appalled and feel like we are moving into some strange Orwellian society. Please, Chicago law-passers, let us retain a little dignity and freedom in our already struggling starving-artist existence. At least right now I'm having fun. I can't imagine being fingerprinted to promote my own 11pm Wednesday nite show at some tiny place like Gallery Cabaret (home of free music, 7 days a week!).
Please don't make us feel like criminals--and please don't drive all the culture back to other cities! (i know people who have moved here FOR the music scene--from Minneapolis, Milwaukee, even NYC, California...please don't drive us all away, which is what would likely happen if we all have no small venues to play!)
Thanks!
Jessica


Since exposing and forwarding this shocking information late last night to my colleagues and constituents, and supporters of live music, I have received numerous inquiries as to what can be done to prevent this ordinance. CONTACT THE MAYOR. If you read the interview with the alderman's representative's office, and the alderman himself, it appears that while a meeting on Tuesday will be held, they foresee no change in executing this plan to decrease music opportunity in Chicago. The City still clings to the idea that promoting an illegal rave of underaged audiences/drinkers and promoting a jazz benefit fall under the same stipulations.

It is critical that every musician, promoter and supporter of every genre of artistic expression, petition a change in this ordinance BEFORE WEDNESDAY MAY 14TH! I have personally sent a letter directly to the Alderman of the 47th Ward who claims not to be the author but certainly seems to be compliant with this senseless law. Again, Mayor Daly needs to be addressed as well-- as it has always been my understanding that he has supported the arts/cultural flourishing of Chicago. They are out of touch with the people on this one. --This "promoter ordinance" is, as the CMC states, prohibitive of small venues' thriving. My knowledge is mainly in my field of course, which is the jazz circuit. I've been working and "promoting" in this city for over a decade (which, by the way, I was much younger than 21 when I started!)... As I pointed out to the alderman, I don't know of ONE jazz or blues club whose seats are "fastened to the floor"-- typically clubs have cabaret tables. Does that make it more prone to "dangerous activity"? Certainly not. Yet, Wrigley Field has thousands of fastened seats and ticketed seating... I'm willing to bet the occurrence of drunken, disorderly conduct (IE fights) at sports arenas far outnumber (as in 100 to 1) those of jazz clubs. People don't hang out at the Chicago Cultural Center, Jazz Showcase or Baliwick Theater to start fights. GET A GRIP PEOPLE. Of all the "safety" measures that this city could be implementing! This is insulting and a lame excuse for what one blogger called "the entertainment tax".

The argument being made for a license isn't lost upon me completely-- of course there should be checks and balances. But the invasion of privacy has reached the ridiculous and non-useful heights of some of our latest airport security measures. I now need to be fingerprinted to book/promote a CD-Release concert at The Park West???? This is inane. The cost is another factor. The fact that this specifically targets small, indy clubs and their outside promoters (who are usually the band members themselves) is even more disgraceful.

Lastly, and probably the bottom line is simply this: the city is charging twice for one license of "protection". A promoter's sole responsibility is to advertise an event, they have never had authority at the door; the club has the final say and it's their job by definition to determine and abide by capacity laws or refuse service without explanation. In the YEARS I've been booking hotels, I can attest I never received a 401k package, health insurance, hotel union support... not even employee parking. We are independent contractors. But NOW, without the addition of these comforts, we are expected to bring the business to the hotel lounges AND pay to do so???? The hotels are so strictly on-par with code it's slanderous to claim "maybe they don't have the right license". And I don't ever recall hearing about a "riot" or "murder" as the alderman states outside of a jazz or blues club that was full. It's common sense that in advertising, you advertise to the masses of a taget market and only 10% typically turn out for every attempt. To blame the promoter for a huge turn out that potentially -but would unlikely be large enough- to ever get turned away at the door, is to blame a vodka company for a bar fight.

It's a fallible, transparent argument for what is ultimately just a new spin on greed. I can't find a more accurate word than extortion to describe effectively, how this oppresses the artists of this city.

I can’t believe what I have been reading. It’s mindboggling to think this BS is happening in Chicago! I’m a touring musician based out of Nashville and I play in Chicago several times a year. It breaks my heart to see the idiots in charge being such mercenaries. I have always thought that Chicago had such a cool music scene. Playing in Chicago and hanging out with Chicago musicians is always so uplifting to me.

To think artists and clubs are going to have to pay through the nose to present live music is outrageous. We already have a hard enough time out here trying to make a living doing what we love and the ever rising costs of gas makes it even more difficult. You are killing the arts, killing the soul of the city. I can assure you, we will not go quietly.

I can’t believe what I have been reading. It’s mindboggling to think this BS is happening in Chicago! I’m a touring musician based out of Nashville and I play in Chicago several times a year. It breaks my heart to see the idiots in charge being such mercenaries. I have always thought that Chicago had such a cool music scene. Playing in Chicago and hanging out with Chicago musicians is always so uplifting to me.

To think artists and clubs are going to have to pay through the nose to present live music is outrageous. We already have a hard enough time out here trying to make a living doing what we love and the ever rising costs of gas makes it even more difficult. You are killing the arts, killing the soul of the city. I can assure you, we will not go quietly.

to put it in a nut shell these aldermen are going to do just what they want Chicago corruption is alive and well this city and the bar owners dont have a clue on how to conduct themselves with professional musicians La and NYC and Nashville,Vegas thats where you go to make the money ChiTown sucks!

I tink that this is a step in the wrong direction, which will leave us with either mega events, which only a few will be able to afford to attend, and elevator music.

Waldo Ocaña

Congratulations to Chicago -- in addition to your ridiculous taxes and fees, you now add a measure that will drive artists of all kinds from your city along with many others who have left. Many more will leave and we in Indiana will welcome them. Wisconsin will welcome them. Other cities with less greed, corruption, and repression will welcome them. Your loss will be others' gain.

I am against the legislation, all the way.

This desperate and predatory proposal is a slap in the face of the arts community. If passed, this will not only financially devastate creatives but also patrons of their venues. It means death to the independent and aspiring artists in this city. If the City of Chicago endorses the arts community, touting Maggie Daley as it's staunchest advocate of the arts, then the response will be against this assanine bill. How many ways does the City of Chicago have to milk the fiscal life-blood out of its' citizens before they respond? I'm disgusted by whomever the authors of this bill are. How do we find this out who is on this committee? I hope they get run out of town on a rail...

my son's band played many of these small venues to get established with their fans and worked hard as hell to do it for years. now they are Rise Against and are shocked that this ordinance will cripple the small venue music scene. please don't do this. its not right for the small theatre groups and the small bands coming up!!!chicago, where is your heart???????

To the Mayor and the Aldermen of the City Of Chicago

Don't let this happen
VOTE NO !!

May 14, 2008- the day the music died in Chicago.

As both an artist manager and attorney, I am concerned about this ordinance. It is unclear what this ordinance is aimed to "curb" (E2?) and how this would even work to resolve the issue that the city counsel presumably seeks to remedy, that of the insurance coverage issue. For an events promoter, the ordinance is also vague and broad reaching and does not address how it would be enforced. The end loss would not only be to the artist and musician who could not afford to find a promoter to assist them, but also to the public who would be the ultimate vicitm of increased costs of business. This is clearly a step in the wrong direction and if ANY party is cited, I would clearly be the first to represent them in order to challenge the statute in Court.

WOW. It appears that the City of Chicago is trying to protect itself from futher E2 disasters, but has used broad and possibly contradictory terms that may threaten unintended targets.

My mind zones out when I try to read lonnnng legalese, but I think the most important definitions are of "Event" and "Event Promoter," and then to examine the "Exclusions." Not to overquote, but look towards the end of Page 1 of the proposed ordinance:
"'Event' means: (1) any activity requiring a special event liquor license under Chapter 4-60 of this code; or (2) any activity requiring city approval of a special event liquor license
under the Illinois Liquor Control Act; or..."

To me, this means places like Schubas, Martyrs, etc. are *excluded,* because they already *have* liquor licenses; similarly, coffee houses would be excluded, theaters would be excluded, etc. They either HAVE or DON'T HAVE liquor licenses; they don't host events that would require a special license -- at least, this is my take on it (and I'm not a lawyer, I'm only a singer/songwriter!).

Next, Event Promoter: "...any person who: (1) is directly or indirectly responsible for the organization of an amusement or event, as evidenced by activities such as contracting with the principals, selecting entertainment..." (blah blah blah...)

This part seems rather vague. It seems to indicate anyone who has anything at all to do with promoting any event -- although, if "event" means what was previously defined, then this is not a problem for performers and regular venue operators. But, it is vague and potentially problematic.

NOW skip to "Exclusions" (bottom of p. 2, cont. on p. 3):
"(B) The following persons are NOT [emph. mine] event promoters within the meaning of this chapter:
(1) any print or broadcast media who are paid for page space or broadcast time to advertise an amusement or event but exercise no other financial or operational responsibility in connection therewith;
....
(3) any performer who is paid for his performance at an amusement or event but exercises no other financial or non-performance-related operational responsibility in connection therewith;...."

There are a *whole lot* of exclusions. Newspaper/broadcast media promotions are excluded; the performer promoting him/herself is excluded; and it looks like the club owners are also excluded from being considered promoters.

In other words, it seems the ordinance is supposed to mean special events held in non-venue type places, as opposed to regular, music and theater events. However, some of the wording is confusing and possibly contridactory, and needs to be cleaned up a bit for everyone's sake.

Once this is pointed out to the powers that be, it can be corrected and the arts shall remain safe in our city.

-- The alternative, of course, is that all the arts/artists will leave, and the remaining residents will lead smoke-free, arts-free zombie "lives" -- but at least they will be SAFE --well, except for all the guns 'n stuff...

This ordinance can do nothing but stifle the growth of the arts in the Chicago area. The city should be promoting the growth and supporting locale talent, not placing them in a position where they cannot compete.

Your blog's informative is very rich in contents. I like your way of presentation. At times I disagree with your views but thinking about it who presents views that are acceptable to everyone. Keep posting your good blogs.

How can this ordinance be good for Chicago or it's wonderful citizens? Doesn't the city council have better more important things to protect us from, like child predators, rapists,crime, theft, corrupt government,poor education, gangs killing children, gangs, poor, hungry and the list goes on and on? This is a senseless waste of time and taxpayer money. It is so unfair for all of the law abiding Chicagoans and small business owners. You will kill this city, it will die, diversity and arts will go elsewhere. With Daley so preoccupied with making this a world class city, this ordinance is a huge step backwards in a terribly wrong direction with detrimental effects. What are they thinking?!!!!! this is just plain nuts. Don't do it Chicago, we have a tremendous art scene here don't make it go away.

Many times there are bands that get together and provide entertainment under a particular theme name ( Let's get Nut's tour, etc) . Sometimes I book 4 bands under GoBobbyGo productions in variouse clubs. I think this ordinance would prohibit me in doing so.

Unfortunately, this is the reality in Chicago. As a once independent promoter in Chicago I was constantly pressured by the city not to have all ages shows, not to charge a donation, etc.

For the past few years, I watched many of my independent promoter friends get out of the event promotion business.. And many of my friends in bands move out of the state. I moves to Los Angeles. For the sake of the independent arts community, I really hope that this ordinance does not pass. But if you as me, the beginning of this push for this ordinance started with the lost of Lounge Ax....

All the best Chicago!!

There is more to Chicago than the Olympics; it's time for the city to pay attention to those of us who live here. Aldermen: VOTE NO!

Put the brakes on. Please don't allow the inappropriate management of some venues that have had sad,even deadly consequences due to the lack of training ,mismanagement and actions of unqualified individuals effect the arts community as a whole. Slow down and come up with a plan that provides rules and regulations that a promoter is to use as guidelines for providing a safe,secure event for the public to attend.
I know of many contractors who have a biz license and insurance but fall far short of providing the public and customers a job that meets the standards of the local building codes, manufactures requirements and common sense safety procedures.
Please do not pass this as written...

This is a travesty. Chicago has long been undervalued as a live music city due to just this kind of backwards thinking. If Daley really wants to position us as a "World Class City", especially with the Olympic bid hanging in the background, he needs to rethink his position on independent music. The kind of cultural significance and impact that he so desires to capitalize upon will be severely curtailed by this kind of restrictive ordinance. It is wrong-headed, and all of us in the industry need to take action - but what action can we take?

Passing an ordinance like this will virtually destroy the diversity and importance of an independent music scene. This will again put the power in the hands of the large promoters and completely cut out independent promoters from hosting bands that would have no way of showcasing their art. PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE! If you enjoy going to shows and discovering new bands, call your alderman or city official and tell them to vote NO.

This is a big coffin nail in an already struggling music/ arts scene. We already saw the death of the Chicago house music scene here in the late 90's because of focus on the "bad eggs", and this will only serve to hurt the reputable venues and drive the disreputable "promoters" further underground where they will surely continue to operate and profit with even less regulation. E2 was an extremely unfortunate incident for all involved, but occurred due to the venue's own irresponsiblity, and should be viewed as an exception to what is otherwise a very safe and respectable scene. The venues, promoters, and not-for-profits that have upheld this scene should not be forced to shoulder this burden, which will ultimately be passed to the artists already struggling to keep heads above water. One question, are any of the important parties going to see this blog/ comments? Or are we wasting valuable time that could be spent organizing/ hounding our aldermen to make sure that this does not go through?

VOTE NO

VOTE NO!

Plain and simple... NO.

As currently worded, this ordinance will have a terrible effect on Chicago music, art, and performance.

NO!!!!

Please vote no. It will devastate the local music, theater and art scene. A scene that is integral to making Chicago a cultural mecca.

I am totally against this ordinance.

Even if the exemptions from the policies include those venues that either already have a liquor license or don't need one (although this is debatable given the wording), what about all the low-capacity, informal, non-commercial spaces? Would it suddenly be illegal to have a show at your house? Could this be in violation of the First Amendment?

my letter to Alderman of 35th Ward Rey Colon:

Mr. Colon,
As a Humboldt Park resident, I urge you to vote no on the Event Promoter Ordinance on May 14.

The proposed changes to local laws are incredibly hostile to artistic expression in the city. Longstanding major Chicago venues (like the Hideout and Buddy Guy's Legends) will be saddled with additional bi-annual fees and rigid policies. And the wellspring from which Chicago's musical community grows -- the hundreds of non-professional venues that come and go -- will be greatly diminished. Thousands of artists/musicians/spectators come to Chicago every year on this basis. This accessibility and variety of music and art performance is much of what makes Chicago special.

If passed, the policies will busy law enforcement with needless policing of what most citizens regard as normal cultural activity, not to mention the countless bureaucratic headaches that both the licensers and licensees face. And many stubborn artists, promoters, and musicians will simply ignore the policies -- go "underground" and make-believe that we all live under Soviet conditions. Consider that the ordinance might even violate the First Amendment.

Even in crude economic terms, the proposal is insane. Fewer venues mean fewer visitors. These visitors' foregone revenue (at restaurants, retail shops, etc.) will far, far outweigh the revenue accrued via the permits themselves.

Please think this over carefully!

This would bring down Chicago in more ways than one if it's passed. Chicago has been known for it's live music and culture for decades. To take that away would also take away jobs, tourism, and a sense of pride one has for living in such a diverse, eclectic city. VOTE NO.

This city needs a different way to make more money without being carried on the backs of starving artists and small business owners. The owner of an establishment should have the right to provide entertainment (which they usually are already paying for in some way). If an owner of a business gives permission for someone to perform or hires a guitar player, violinist, or band that should be a done deal. This ordinance dipping its hand into small buckets across the city in order to give permission to business owners who already have permission by right of ownership and other business licenses (which they purchased), is too similar to the older Chicago times when the mafia skimmed under the table. This ordinance is ridiculous in its intent. We pay this city enough in parking tickets. We have enough flowers. Please don't financially squeeze our already tight art and cultural scenes, not to mention the future of struggling yet hopeful talents who don't need more obstacles in their paths toward self-expression.

This ordinance goes against what makes Chicago great !! Don't let this get passed !! Pull this ordinance from the agenda NOW !!

Thank you !

-John Turner

everything is about money. I drive a limo and will NOT get a Chicago limo license. I drive in the suburbs. Why does our government become a black hole? I left NYC for the same reasons. Taxes, fees, tolls etc etc. All this will do is force those who cannot afford to pay to leave. More creatively and self expressionist artistic types will leave and Chicago will eventually become devoid of the vibrant things that make the city attractive in the first place.
What a bunch of idiots.....so many of them now, the city is being choked to death. and to this the recent water bottle thing, plastic idea thing, increase in real estate transfer tax, water bill going up and up......pack your bags and get out of town while you still can, I say. My wage does not go up to support everything and their stupid stupid ideas.

Redikilous! AM writing my alderman and spreading the word. Chicago is world famous (really) for having an exciting underground music scene. Laws like this will work their way up the food chain and eventually hurt even the mainstream/large venues.
Fight back before its too late!

This is a terrible proposal. Although I do not live in Chicago, I come into the city for live shows of all kinds - smaller venues, bigger clubs, and concerts on occasion. The wording of this proposal would almost certainly destroy a vibrant music scene here. This would ultimately result in loss of venues, which in turn would result in loss of both revenue to the city and jobs - not a wise thing to be doing at a time when the economy is struggling. Please vote "NO" on this wrong-headed ordinance...

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT CHICAGO WANTS TO RUIN ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT CHICAGO HAS GOING FOR IT. I THINK IT'S GREAT TO LIVE IN THE SUBURB AND HAVE THE CHOICE TO GO INTO CHICAGO TO SEE WICKED OR TO GO TO ONE OF THOSE GREAT LITTLE THEATRES NEAR DEPAUL AND SEE GREAT PLAY OR HEAR A NEW BAND FOR HALF THE PRICE. JUST SAY NO TO THIS ORDINANCE.

This is not good for the city of Chicago. I'm a working musician and I'd like to stay working !!!

Vote NO to Events Promoters Ordinance --- NO, NO, NO

In the 60's & 70's, almost every bar & club had "live" music...& you could dance = but the cost of Live Entertainment licenses & insurance for "live" music & dancing area, etc. became too expensive for many bar owners...now most bars have only juke box or DJ...so there's way less "live" entertainment & less floors for dancing/exercise today. . .and now they want to pass this Promoters Ordinance that will only give us even less local music. No wonder kids don't try to learn an instrument anymore, what's the point, where can they play when they get older? Don't pass this vague ordinance that will hurt the local music scene.

Aside from expressing ourselves on the web and talking about how terrible this ordinance will be, is there anyone who is organizing a physical presence at the council meeting to make sure our voices are heard? If anyone has any information on a demonstration or anything going on at city hall, please email me at dillonkelley86@yahoo.com Thanks and hope to hear from someone soon. We need to take action and soon!

how about giving the smaller artists a break ? how about helping us rather than making it harder to present innovative and experimental work?

ousted and innovative theater, dance, and music in chicago will have to go further underground.... and become illegal speakeasy's of performance.

I understand the problem the ordinance is trying fix, but are the council members complete morons to not realize the negative impact with the ordinance's current form?! VOTE NO!!!!!

Chicago's music and cultural community is alive, well, and diverse generating tons of money week after week often off the beaten path of the larger venues. Why on earth would you hamstring such a vibrant part of the city: a part of the city that makes Chicago a fascinating place to live and work, and a part, in my opinion that really does rival teh cultural scene in NYC. This legislation as written would devastate the city culturally and economically. You would be insane to pass this into law.

I moved to Chicago for the opportunities that it presents to me to market my music on the Local Scene. If this policy is passed in its current version, I, and I imagine MANY other creative people will have a block put on our progress that will force us to either give up our dream of growing our musical businesses or leave the city of Chicago for a city that welcomes artists without a maze of red tape. My obvious choice would be to leave the city that I love. Giving up performing my craft is not an option. After much reading and contemplating I feel it is not only local business that will notice a huge impact in these times of tight economy, local artists and promoters, many of whom rely on the income provided by their performances will be forced out of the city... Saftey at venues is important, however not at the cost of our livelihood

Chicago thrives because of independent art and what it contributes and feeds to so many people; doing this is killing others' dreams; it is ridiculous to even think about eliminating an entire lifestyle and culture. This is no different than destroying a rainforest. Please do NOT pass this ordinance.

This will totally hurt my small venue at Blue Line Studio. We have small performances, music, poetry, film etc. of mostly new and emerging artists. By giving these artists voice to try new work and as a stepping stone to bigger venues we provide a vital service to artists and new audiences.

STOP THIS ORDINANCE!

And let's not forget that those "500" seat venues that are exempt from this ordinance include places like Steppenwolf and Chicago Shakespeare Theatre. Both companies started out performing on rooftops and in church basements. Everything that the Chicago Arts & Culture scene has come to represent to the rest of the world is based on small, independent companies pushing through the challenges of creating art in unlikely places.

Please add my name to the list.

I just did an interview on Chicago Public Radio. We are trying to get as many people as we can involved. If you read the petition, this ordinance is not just about club promoters, it affects block parties, sporting events, concerts (specially smaller places like Double Door & Metro) or any event that holds more than 100 people. The other part of the ordinance that is scary, basically puts the burden of proof on venues. Venues could loose their license completely or not be allowed to promote another event for up to 6 months if they work with promoters who are not licensed. All promoters have to put their license number on all ads, fliers, emails and such. Basically hanging a target on the back of the promoters. This is scary big brother stuff.

This is a terrible idea! Please do not pass this ordinance!

Chicago please don't do this. Why do you want to make us less of a city to New York? We are growing and getting better than New York why destroy our opportunity to grow past NYC and become the greatest arts city in the US. Please don't pass this ordinance. It will really hurt Chicago as a city and as a culture. We thrive off of the small venues and little theaters. Don't destroy chances for young people to get out in the world and do what they love.

What's most important is that everyone contacts their alderman. You can do so here

http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html

Email or call today and be sure that your voice is heard in a way that matters.

Please accept this posting as a signature on the petition opposing the Promoter's Ordinance as currently written.

vote no. this is American. let freedom sing.

Terrible idea. Worse law.

I vote a RESOUNDING NO to this ordinance.

Please accept this posting as a signature on the petition opposing the Promoter's Ordinance as currently written.

Wow. I myself am a small events promoter/producer, and have been for a few years now, and I am shocked to see the city trying to strongarm something like this to go through. Why are they trying to get is passed so quickly? Do they feel like they're not getting their fair share from all of the DIY performances that go on around the city? If so, what a way to fill the coffers. Most of the shows I do are fundraisers for other groups who are trying to produce a small show/event, and we, and the people we help promote need the money we raise, and run on a $0 operating budget to try and maximize the money being raised. This really baffles me. The greatest thing about Chicago is that it's so accessible to do a show/event here, unlike New York, and L.A. Why would the city try to kill that off?

Vote NO.

Please accept this posting as a signature on the petition opposing the Promoter's Ordinance as currently written.

This ordinance will render Chicago's creative life pretty dead, and many artists will be forced to find another home. The city gets so much revenue from tourists and businesses, it's time for the city to share that with its citizens.

I think even being a website/internet promoter for music talent this proposed bill is bogus and they need to look at more vital things like fighting crime instead of hindering the music scene here in chicago.

Please do not let this happen! So many artists life and work depends on this !
Vote no!

Please vote NO

This will hinder growth in the artistic community by choking fledgling organizers. We need this group if Chicago is to continue being a breeding ground for musical and theatrical talent. Chicago culture, as a whole, may suffer a great loss should this be enacted.

This is just another example of the political corruption that plagues Chicago. Will it ever stop?

I am trying to understand that this law is a result of the E2 disaster. However, this law is too vague and too broad. The scapegoat here are all 'event promoters.' Instead of this law, our city needs to work more to promote fire/building exit safety.

This law is awful. I vote NO!

Just when things were looking up with the CMC and other organizations. This is a major mistake from the city, and I am amazed that they couldn't put this up to give a chance for response. Exempt if over 500 seats...did I read that correctly? Are we that obvious?

vote no, if not you will be killing off a vital potion of the city that becomes the movers and shakers. Why do you think everyone goes to either coast, but doesn't stay here? Amazing.

Everyone call and email your alderman. We must make our voices heard! I'm a booking agent - and this will seriously hurt my business!

This is like telling a visual artist it is illegal for you to hang your art anywhere outside of the museum. I agree with Howard - music is expression, it is our language... we will not be silenced!

Please accept this posting as a signature on the petition opposing the Promoter's Ordinance as currently written.

It is absolutely ridiculous!

What is happening to Chicago? I'm disgusted with this idiotic idea. Don't we have enough "bureaucrazy" in our lives. This must not happen!

What is happening to Chicago? I'm disgusted with this idiotic idea. Don't we have enough "bureaucrazy" in our lives. This must not happen!

After reading through the whole of Chapter 4-157, Title IV of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago, I am compelled to pen this letter addressing the unfair provisions contained in the new “Event Promoter” chapter of the city ordinance. As a member of the Chicago music community I feel that if this is allowed to pass it will be the first nail in the coffin, doing more to end smaller events and put venue owners out of business than it will ever accomplish in curbing illegal and dangerous events held within the city limits. Those who choose to operate outside the law will continue to do so while professionals who are operating within the guidelines of the law at safe, licensed facilities will be unfairly penalized for not holding their events in buildings that happen to have more than 500 permanent seats.
This ordinance also states that anyone promoting any event drawing more than 100 people must obtain a license, even if they are working with a well-established and already licensed promoter. The capacity range for these licenses, as outlined in 4-5-010, is Class D ($500) for 100 people or less, Class C ($1,000) for 500 people or less, Class B ($1,500) for 2000 people with Class A ($2,000) being unrestricted. I feel that these capacity price ranges unfairly discriminate against smaller promotional companies and venues that are often at the heart of nightlife communities. For example, most places catering to dance music often only have seats in the form of barstools or booths, no matter how large the actual capacity of the building may be. While the biggest venues are those that are exempt from these stipulations, they are also the ones who should require the most insurance and policing, as they are the establishments catering to thousands to tens-of-thousands of people on any given night. The larger promoters and venues that are exempt from a law that would be effective in making their venues, patrons and employees safer are, in some cases, those that need the stipulations the most. Licensees would also have to carry at least $300,000 in commercial liability insurance which is another difficult hurdle for smaller promotional entities to overcome.
This will be a devastating blow to the Chicago music scene if implemented, and also you'll most likely see lots of bars go under that depend on local artists organizing and promoting events at their venues to keep business going. If these smaller venues and promotional companies are stifled by these unrealistic financial burdens, there won’t be any artists for the larger national agencies to book and promote. Even outside the realm of nightclubs and music venues, I believe that this will also have an extremely adverse effect on everything from comedy showcases, small theatrical productions, seminars, community organizations, youth programs, artist collectives, activist groups, to fund-raising benefits – basically any smaller cultural happening taking place within the city limits. In a time when the Chicago and national cultural scenes are being taken over by generic entities such as Clear Channel, the city cannot afford to pass legislation that further increases the already high financial difficulty of staging independent events. This will kill what cultural identity the city has left, rendering the landscape even more generic and monopolized than it is now.
The introduction of this new ordinance also overlooks the logistical requirements of enforcing such measures. It will be nearly impossible to effectively enforce this legislation. Are we to believe, that in the face of rising murder and crimes rates, an already taxed Chicago Police Department will have the appropriate resources to stroll into nightclubs every night of the week to ensure compliance? Those at whom this ordinance truly targets -- underground promoters and illegal production companies -- are going to violate the norms and conventions regardless of the laws on the books. What's more, this legislation will actually have the effect of driving unlicensed, unsavory or outright dangerous promoters further underground, placing more lives at unnecessary risk and making police enforcement more difficult. It’s impossible to regulate those who have blatant disregard for public safety concerns through legislation, but this particular piece imposes an environment of fear and an additional level of needlessly complex rules on those who mindfully work to ensure compliance with public safety rules. The scope of this legislation is far too broad to have any real effect on the underground, illegal party racket – people who operate outside of the law anyway, and will continue to do so – and those people will continue to operate in the face of this ordinance the dozens of other bits of legislation passed against them in the past. If they failed to follow any of those ordinances, what makes you think they will follow this one?
This legislation places the onus on the promoter, but this is a burden that must be shared in conjunction with the venue. If a venue works with an unlicensed promoter, or does not provide adequate security or enforcement, it is the promoter who gets stuck with the fault. Venues already must be properly licensed with the city, but it is unfair to penalize the promoters who have no choice but to work with them for any violation that is beyond their control. It is a shared responsibility, but ultimately, venues control their own doors. Promoters cannot be held responsible if a venue, even a properly licensed one, skimps on security or fails to control their venue.
It was Mayor Daley who said, "It's the whole idea of what a city should be: the appreciation of the artistic community. That's the soul of a city." This ordinance shows a complete disregard for the artistic community and appears to be drafted by people who are out of touch with those who love Chicago because of its thriving independent art and music scene. As a citizen of this city I am concerned for the future of its cultural climate and for good reason, as arbitrarily broad legislation such as this ordinance is robbing Chicago of its authentic artistic scene, paving the way for a homogenized version where one or two larger companies have a monopoly over the entire city due to the fact that they’re the only ones who can afford to jump through the hoops that destroyed their competitors.

As a small event promoter, I'm already just barely breaking even. I put on events because I love doing them, because I love what they offer people, I'm not making scads of money over this. This ordinance would utterly shut me down, completely prevent me from putting on events in Chicago. Please don't pass it.

This is just proof in writing that some of our alderman need to GO!

Who's on this "committee"? Who's heading this? Who's idea was this? We need to vote these people OUT OF OFFICE after dealing with this issue. We need names!

We must stop this from passing and stop it NOW! This ordinance will drive all creativity out of the City of Chicago.
We artists have enough to worry about without the well-to-do city council stepping on our throats! This effects our income and ability to feed our families in some cases.

I'm sure there are laws already on the books to stop unsafe promoters. Why don't they just enforce the laws we already have instead of terrorizing the creative element?

"Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do"... is the only thing that comes to mind.

What place this language has in our city is troubling and confusing. Of course the safety of a large group of people enjoying themselves is of utmost importance. But suggesting cutting young artists off at the knees in an already daunting climate is maddening. We need to make it easier to create art, not more difficult.

Do not let this legislation pass. And if it does, I do wonder how they plan to enforce it. I would laugh at any police officer telling me I couldn't tell people where my band is playing next.

I moved to this city because of it's welcoming and encouraging invitation to new performers working within small performance venues. It's a beautiful place to hone your craft, loaded with so much opportunity to witness and take part in the art of musical performance. My "Chicago family" is rooted in that smaller venue scene. I understand the need for safety guidelines, but I frown on a document that doesn't carry the intelligence to be specific about it's interests, negatively affecting those doing good as well.

Why does the city want to ruin one of the best things about it?

This city has been pushing out some of the greatest up and coming bands of this year.

Chicago has always been a bustling music scene. Countless bands take hope from making it big and being noticed by playing in that city. An ordinance that severely limits the music scene can only hurt. Not only the culture but the economy as well. Think about it, people from all over the states go to chicago to play their music, and they stay there and make a life for themselves. Taking that away from them hurts everybody....

sounds totally in line with the regressive and costly (in lost tax revenue) policies of the completely amoral and corrupt Daley administration. maybe if the local music community ponied up some funds for some of Daley's favorite developers, cousins, brothers, sons, other relatives, friend's relatives, wife's friends or others in Daley's favor, this legislation would not be under consideration.

with so many people under him having been charged with crimes, it is obvious that Daley is either absolutely corrupt, or absolutely incompetent. i believe it is the former.

Chicago is known not only for its sports teams, but for the neighborhoods which in lies NUMEROUS venues which provide live music and theatre to the residents. It appears the ordinance is poorly written. I believe the goal can be accomplished without putting undue financial stress and hardship on these venues, artists and "promoters". This will cause ticket prices to go up at a time when the economy is not strong and people are already cutting back. I am solely going to smaller venue shows due to ticket prices. I can see more art for my money right now. This will hurt the neighborhoods if a venue shuts down due to the hardships of this ordinance the bars and resturaunts near that venue will also suffer. Please carefully consider this and table it for further discussion by the community, owners of venues and promoters. Thank you.

This is bad law. It has the potential to violate the Constitution, it will ruin independent artistic expression, and make this city a dull lifeless place to live. It's bad enough that the weather sucks.

As to safety of patrons I'm all for that, but that would only happen if we enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Thanks.

Well, well,
The powers at be have a better idea for us all once more eh? The Protectorate, knowing what's best for the proletariat - the pumpkin eaters.
Yes, the all knowing do nothings have a better way once again; squeeze the creativity, born of soap-box orators, poets, musicians, actors, story-tellers from small clubs and stage. Steal the intimacy, and quiet the masses.
The committee sits there, and comes up with "The party of the first part, shall be squeezed from shows of creativity in all forms and in all places as we, the party of the second part, see fit".
What's next? Books?
Here's a better idea - why doesn't the 'committee' hold it's next meeting in a sand-box? To match it's child-form intellect.

vote no,

NO!!

Count me among the opposition.

While this would have long-term effects negative effects on the music, arts and cultural communities here in Chicago, let's just focus solely on the negative economic effects.

Excessive burden on small venues force venues to close. Fewer venues means (obviously) fewer opportunities for bands to play and to exist. Where, then, will you find the bands to PLAY at all of those block parties and neighborhood festivals that the Mayor's Office of Special Events holds every year? There is no stork delivering fully-formed bands onto the stage at Millennium Park.

When a city is hostile to art, art leaves. When art leaves, people who care about art leave to spend their sales and property taxes elsewhere. Clearly, the quality of arts and culture is a determining factor for many individuals and families in determining where to live. If in several years time this effectively kills off independent music in Chicago, I, like many others, would be gone without a second thought to seek out less hostile territory.

In any city with a thriving, multi-level music scene an ordinance like this could be devastating. Think, then, of the effects on one of THE premiere cultural and music centers of the country: Chicago.

Have fait...they tried to pass an ordinance limiting small club shows (under different circumstances, but the same audience being affected), and the local response was great enough that it never passed. I hope for everyone's sake and the sake of local music everywhere that the same thing happens in this case.

In any city with a thriving, multi-level music scene an ordinance like this could be devastating. Think, then, of the effects on one of THE premiere cultural and music centers of the country: Chicago.

Have faith...they tried to pass an ordinance limiting small club shows here(under different circumstances, but the same audience being affected), and the local response was great enough that it never passed. I hope for everyone's sake and the sake of local music everywhere that the same thing happens in this case.

As part of the group who founded the League Of Live Music Venues, (a predecessor of sorts to the CMC), we were a group that included: HotHouse, metro, schubas Buddy Guy's Jam, the hideout,Martyr's and House of blues to name a few. we were formed in the wake of E2 after many of our venues were troubled by licensing demands that were inconsistent. It was clear that a new ordinance was being drafted to address the E2 issue that had an irresponsible set of club owners and promoters operating in bad judgement.

As I read this today, this bill would also affect caterers, wedding planners,universities, organizations hosting fundraisers,corporate and trade show groups hosting after hour events, film festivals holding wrap parties or kick off galas. etc.

At HotHouse about a third of our programs were hosted by entities that would now fall into this new category. This group of promoters would include the City, host of The world music festival, events associated with the Chicago Jazz Fest, programs we co-sponsored with various consulates, programs we co-produced with places like the Puerto Rican Cultural center,Yound Chicago Authors, The Guild Complex, or Columbia College, or the Public Square or The Cambodian Association of Illinois. While some groups can take on the administrative costs and navigate the application and licensing process in a timely fashion, it will prove undoubtedly untenable to others.

With space at a premium and the corporate monopoly and consolidation of culture increasingly positioned to drive all but the most well-endowed players from the market, this is an onerous and ominous ordinance that should be resoundingly protested.

I believe the key is to forge a broad base alliance with all the players in the entertainment and special events industry and not think narrowly when looking for allies on this issue. I am unclear who is taking a leadership role in this fight but given the wide net approach of the language in the ordinance it would appear that there are many natural allies that could be pressed into a unified position to pressure significant changes that would be reasonable.

I know that the Department of Cultural Affairs, The Department of Tourism and The Mayors Office Of Special Events are sensitive to the concerns that have been raised in other postings they would be and a good place to start in terms of getting some productive meetings scheduled.
Perhaps the CMC can start the ball rolling and see who would like to get involved with the details of re-working the ordinance by representing various actors in the Chicago events community.

I have played in Chicago many times, and I've always played in small venues. This ordinance will shut down all small venues in the city, which will end most creative activity. The City of Chicago must not shut down the creative outlets for the majority of artists in your city!!!! Do not let large promoters take over all outlets for creativity!!! Your artistic freedoms are at stake!!!!

This is ridiculous!! My is filled to the top with work and baby and so many other responsibilities that going to these events is a huge treat. I'm positive that many others agree, I can see they do above, when i say this would be a huge mistake for Chicago. And like someone said before, Aren't there better things to be done here? I want my son to grow up with safer streets to walk on while going to see a local band, not have nothing to do and end up getting into trouble!

Basically I vote NO!

This law would not have prevented any previous disaster. It will only bring the city more money that will come from the artists' pockets and breed much dissent and bitterness. Drying up the art scene here is a BAD MOVE. These young people won't shift their interest to the Cubs and the Bears and Broadway plays, they'll be moving to other cities with thriving art scenes and more logical policing. Soon we performers, who don't even come close to living off of our music, will get $5 to play a show, and I'll be moving my music out of this city instead of helping to give it a name. Even these dangerous underground shows that are mentioned? Young people listening to music at someone's house is way less dangerous than our crappy school system and gun violence. Instead of supporting the things that keep our young people motivated and productive you're wasting all this time figuring out ways to squash our music scene??!!! What greed!

Not to mention the artisic endangerment...this would cripple the economies of many middle class recreational systems.

Terrible, just terrible.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Doesn't the City Council have any real problems to solve. VOTE NO!

Maybe as an Evanston resident, my opinion doesn't count, but I grew up in Chicago and love the city.. primarily for its rich diversity of population and culture. I believe it would be a real tragedy if this ordinance would limit the creative enterprises that bloom in small venues throughout the city, which are priced within the budgets of young people, as well as those with limited resources. As a grandmother, I get so much pleasure out of attending these venues and watching the joyful faces of young people being exposed to great theatre, poetry, all kinds of music from opera to jazz, to folk and blues, to dance. Please don't squelch one of Chicago's greatest gifts! Mitzie Eisen

This is a horrible idea that will do nothing but harm to a vibrant community of artists and musicians as well as anyone who sets foot in Chicago to perform as such. Urge everyone you know to contact their alderman and tell them to vote no on this ordinance.

As a medical student, I often understand the practical side of things. In the US, business, science, and technology are what receive the most attention in funding (both in grants to make things happen and vocational income). The US does not find the arts very practical. The only way that the arts are seen as practical is in a business sense when performances or products are profitable. If this is the only way the arts can be perceived, then we are promoting a stripped humanity that simply progresses economically through a gray world. The truth is that the arts must be seen for what they are and not solely as an market commodity. Given the harsh economic reality of city life, an increase in the costs of accomplishing artistic endeavors for those that don't have fiscal success (those participating at smaller venues) is actively preventing Chicago from having a thriving artistic community. I played in small Chicago venues with bands throughout high school and undergrad, which I feel allowed me to find balance with my scientific academic pursuits. Seven years ago, when I was a member of Fall Out Boy, Chicago's most financially successful contemporary band, we were only playing at these small venues and at DIY events. The arts depend on low costs to make things happen. Please don't damage Chicago's artistic community by imposing unnecessary regulations on small venue promoters.

This ordinance as it stands will hurt the performance and music industry in Chicago and the tourist economy, that in part depends on the music and performance industry. Please don't allow this to be passed without revisions to ensure that all venues can survive.

Chicago has such a rich musical heritage, the amount of great live acts you can see 7 days a week is why I live here. THis is so sad it could make me cry! Please vote no. I am at a lose for words at how ridiculous this ordinance is

Vote NO!

After having read the lion's share of the proposed ordinance, one clause rings louder than any other. If you review the insurance provisions enumerated in the ordinance, the ordinance requires all of the owners, promoters, etc., to procure insurance not only for themselves, but also to add the City of Chicago as an additional insured. This means that if another Great White or E2 incident occurs and the City is sued (which it inevitably will be), the event promoter's insurance policy will pay for the attorneys to defend the suit, as well as $300,000 toward any settlement on behalf of (or verdict against) the City.

This is just a very convoluted, roundabout way for the City to attempt to protect itself against future lawsuits. Unfortunately, this will probably bankrupt many of the more upstanding venues about which the City has concern, but will not dissuade places like E2 to continue to run completely illegal operations to the detriment of the City and its patrons alike. If E2 had no problem operating as a club when its club and liquor licenses had been revoked, why would it bother to obtain a special events license?

Please don't hurt small venue shows...

One sure way to destroy the artistic soul of a city is to pass a law that allows only the rich and well-connected to make art while leaving those who can't afford to create and present out in the cold.

A city's art scene is often looked at by sociologists in the same way biologists look at frogs. If there is something wrong with an ecosystem, the frogs usually show the first signs of the problem. Art is the same way. When a city stops the creation of grass roots art, it can be a sign that the city is in serious emotional and sociological danger.

I, for one, do not want to live in a city where art has been stolen from the masses. All that leads to is mass art, and how much Wicked can a community take before artistic expression is no longer taken seriously?

Vote no. Then do some reading about how art, in all forms, can help the city rather than slowly rock it to sleep.

This legislation is flawed and as written would irreparably harm the city culturally and economically.
A massive revision of this ordinance is needed to address the real problem of “underground” promoters while ensuring that law-abiding small business people that make up Chicago’s music economy are not unnecessarily overburdened.
The audiences (comprised of many tourists and visitors)
will ultimately suffer as a result of fewer concert offerings and higher admission fees.
Mr. Mayor and Alderman, Please Vote NO to this ill-advised ordinance!

Are you kidding me? As a working musician in this city, I find this proposed ordinance apalling. As if those of us who fight the good fight against corporate spoon-fed junk on TV and radio don't have enough to worry about, with soon-to-be the highest sales tax in the US, along with nearly the highest gas prices. Now you're telling me I have to have a licence to play a gig in a bar in Chicago, all because some idiots caused a stampede at E2? I feel badly for those individuals who lost their lives, and their families, but punishing the artistic community with such a wide-reaching blanket law just isn't the answer. When you have one bad employee, do your fire your entire staff! No, so vote NO on this ordinance. Do you think NYC would ever think of doing something this idiotic? Of course not, that's why we are known as the "Second City", soon to plummet further down the list with this bunch of crap. When will voters in Chicago learn to make our elected officials responsible?

I say NO to the proposed Ordinance!!!!

The need to support local music is important to many independent artists. Venues promote individuality and recognition of new and upcoming bands. Don't stop the music, if stopped there goes crativity and freedom which is part of our american dream.

Adam Fendelman here. I’m an independent Chicago film and theater critic and the publisher of HollywoodChicago.com, which is a daily arts and entertainment publication out of Chicago.

I believe in the power of theater and every day curse corporate America for necessitating it to be a business. It’s a well-known fact how cash strapped theater already is and the passage of this ordinance would be nothing short of criminal.

I have also spread the word on HollywoodChicago.com to drum up support against the passage of this asinine measure:

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/forums/2421/potentially-devastating-chicago-arts-ordinance-called-to-a-vote-on-may-14-2008

VOTE NO

I'm a bit confused; this ordinance seems to say that if you own a bar, and you have events, you have to get a license. Unless your bar is really big, it'll cost you $500 every other year. Non-profits are exempt from this ordinance. It doesn't seem particularly brilliant as law, but I'm not exactly seeing its world-ending potential.

this will be bad for the city if this were to pass. How could they let this happen it seems like they will be losing a lot of tax revenue by passing this. Even worse they will be losing one of the things that Chicago is known its culture. Is losing the rich Chicago history worth a few bucks, that might not even be there. I think as residences of Chicago, we must stand up and say no. I know i will

PLEASE CONTACT THE ALDERMANS!

This ordinance is an outrage, every band needs it's start somewhere! This bill will only lead to the sabatoge of Chicago's extraordinarily well built reputation, diversity, and character of the music apart of it! It would only be a sliver away from removing it's diversity of new talents!
Think of the ginormous lack of movies filmed in Chicago when an ordinace similar to this one was passed years back, VOTE NO! THIS BILL IS A BIG MISTAKE!

CONTACT YOUR ALDERMAN!
THEY CAN HELP GET OUR VOICES THROUGH!
VOTE AGAINST THE BILL AND SAVE CHICAGO'S MUSIC!

art and culture does not equal immidiate revenue, just as a seed does not yield a crop until harvest. unfortuantely, mayor daley forgot what he knew and has long sinced practiced. by this logic, we should remove the trees growing around the museum campus along with with the flower beds along michigan ave and put in various kiosks.

lord god, save our art and our chicago version of very american culture. it helped define me and my life.

we saved our sox in 93, now we must save our music in 08.

What i like is all the murders, or the freedom to murder in Chicago. We really know to kill each other. I'm glad we haven't gotten tougher on that. Of course it's only on the south side. Glad that's not an issue and SOMETHING WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TOUGH ON! GO CHICAGO KILLERS! Poor us.

If you look at it this way, it's abad move for the artists, the other people in Chicago and Chicago it's self! Becuase it will limit the numbers of people actually having a chance, there will be no more well known bands or anything, people will grow to hate Chicago for stunting it's creative growth, it will lose all publicity. Why would a city want that to happen?

VOTE NO!!!!!

That is horrible, unhelpfull, it will destory lives, don't do it, VOTE NO!!!!!!

As a small business owner who depends on activity at small venues I respectfully request that you vote against the proposed ordinance. The lifeblood of Chicago is already on the verge of being taxed out of existence due to property taxes, increasing sales tax, increasing tax on alcohol and cigarettes, parking enforcement designed to maximize revenue and a myriad of other ways in which the residents of Chicago are nickeled and dimed into submission. These fees will be passed along to residents or force club owners to shut their doors completely. The ordinance also will place additional administrative burdens on already strained City resources – all of that form processing, record keeping and enforcement will require tremendous effort… unless of course the plan is to just take in the fees and not actually enforce anything.


John Fitzgerald, Founder
Local Band Network - Information about local bands no matter where "local" is to you...
fitz@localband.net | www.localbandnetwork.com | www.localband.net

I don't live in Chicago, but in a way that should mean even more, becuase outsiders care about this aswell.
See Chicago has always been that city that I want to be from , the city I wish I lived in becuase I want my band to live there, becuase it's good music scene, becuase of how amazing it is. THis would make that all change, cuase there would be no more bands making it out like Fall Out Boy did, there would be nothing, I would resent CHicago, and not want to go there anymore.
Does CHicago want to decrease it's amount of visters?
Does Chicago hate music?
Does Chicago want to be known as heartless and stupid?
If the answer to those questions, any of them or all, is "no", then the vote should be NO as in N-O!

I oppose this ordinance on so many levels.First of all the fact that clubs are required to carry this insurance means that laws to prevent overcrowding and fire safety are already in place. I understand the need to prevent tragedy’s like E2 and stopping illegal and dangerous underground parties.It is up to the city to enforce the rules already in place not make up more rules that target the already responsible citizens.
Secondly it will financially devastate our working musicians and actors by creating less opportunity. Less places that can stay in business,less people that will be able to afford the mark-up for their functions equals less work in an already competitive industry. This will make it difficult for some college educated professionals to earn a living anymore.
Thirdly, touring bands can just as easily play in Milwaukee and boycott Chicago all together.
Fourthly, I foresee our tourism suffering if our arts community is snuffed out. People come from all over to explore Chicago’s arts and culture at all levels and price ranges. It will be pretty bland and boring without all of our music venues, independent dance companies and small theaters and more costly to visit the ones that are lucky enough stay open.
This ordinance appears to have been written by ill-informed individuals. The city council needs to educate themselves in the business of music, dance, theater and other art forms from the grass-roots up. I am sure that when a city council member gets home from work, like the rest of America they turn on the TV or listen to music. How do they think that those people they are enjoying got started? Where did their favorite actors start out? Our great city is famous for it's Improv comedy, Blues and Rock bands. Chris Farley, John Belushi, John Malkovich..etc.. started out at Second City and other theaters in this city telling people to come to their shows and starting their own small companies. If this law was around then,this would make them promoters. It is unlikely that artists at that level could afford the license and insurance(if they can find an insurance company to insure them.) Right now disability insurance is not available to artists, no matter how much you are willing to pay, I’m sure that similar guidelines apply in regard to any kind of policy.
What about Buddy Guy? When he started he couldn't afford to eat, hence the famous story about how Muddy Waters gave him a bologna sandwich...now he is of great pride to the city of Chicago and how are you paying him back...you are trying to pass a law that could put his club(which he has publicly claimed to not be a great source of income) out of business. Buddy Guy has fans that come from all over the world to Chicago to visit his club,support Chicago tourism and hear local Blues musicians. Those Blues musicians self promote...and the cost of the insurance and the license would cut into their profit margin considerably.Using the words profit margin and Blues musicians in the same sentence is an oxymoron. What about Wilco, The Cocktails, Smashing Pumpkins, Fallout Boy, that Chicago loves to claim as their own. Everyone starts out small...not anymore.. if this goes through. There will be nowhere for them to hone their skills and become their potential. The way this ordinance is written you will kill Chicago Arts at the roots.

This is just another ridiculous ploy by Mayor Daley to make Chicago's downtown theater district more tourist friendly. They have been trying to shut down small theaters and venues for years so everyone is forced to go see Wicked or Jersey Boys if they want to see live entertainment. Chicago is not Broadway, it never will be, and shutting down every creative outlet rising performers have is only going to force more entertainers to LA or New York.

If they are worried about liability and another E2 or Great White type of tragedy, shouldn't they look into imposing this type of ordinance on big name promoters that throw tens of thousands of dollars into huge events that invite all the trouble that they are worried about in the first place? Exempting the bigger, more lucrative venues and promoters defeats the apparent purpose of the ordinance.

I run stand-up comedy shows, and so far no one has been trampled, stabbed, shot, burned alive, or otherwise harmed at any one of the thousands of shows I have produced.

I barely scrape by and can hardly pay my performers as it is, how are we supposed to cough up all these fees when we can barely afford to promote the events we put up. We do this because we love it, and the city and the performers need it, not because it makes us rich.

ve found that the UK is looking to Chicago as a model of a diverse and thriving theatre/arts community. Please don't prove them wrong by homogenizing this market.

This ordinance will definitely hurt more than it will help. And even though I'm not from Chicago, I've been there twice, and count me in on signing this petition to stop this inane law from going into effect.

NO!!!

This is just another example of politicians taking away personal freedom using an excuse of addressing a legitimate issue. The irony is that this proposed law doesnt have anything to do really with the causes of the issue it aims to solve. I VOTE NO- leave musical expression alone- don't attack the people who seek to bring creativity and enjoyment to life- go after the corrupt city council members instead- that should keep you busy for a long time!

Reading of this ordinance makes me want to puke. Why anyone would want to destroy culture is beyond me.

NO

Please VOTE NO!
Theater is a necessity for people, not a privilege.
Please do not entertain this idea.

just another way for king daily to get more money for the city officals and to give himself a pay raise

There appears to be a glitch in your posting system. My comments made at 7:54 pm are attributed to Melissa and someone elses comments that follow at 7:55pm are attribued to me- Please make the correction.

Jim DeRo responds: Marguerite, it is an oddity of the blogging software the Sun-Times uses that the identity of the author of a post appears BELOW that post. It makes no sense to me -- reporter's byline appear on top of the story, not at the end of it -- but that's the way this works, for now. I keep telling my bosses we really oughta fix it. All the best -- JIM

Practically NONE of the artists Chicago recently hoisted up with Looptopia would've stood a chance in making it with the current pending law. The testing/proving grounds they need for their art would vanish or go underground even further until no one notices.

Why is it every chance Chicago gets to celebrate its artists it immediately turns and does the exact opposite and makes it next to impossible for them to make a living in the city they call home? It happened with Jazz. it happened with Country/Western and Blues. It happened with House music and Hip Hop and now it'll happen to anyone who can't fill a room like the Metro or larger. Truth be known here and now. Chicago shines the brightest in rooms that fit less than 500 people. Anytime the future has been witnessed. It's been in a small room that wouldn't stand a chance given this law. These small rooms that illuminate the future of the arts would be crushed and all that would be left is deep pocketed and safe entertainment and over the top festivals like Lollapalooza.
We regularly lose artists from every media and form to cities that are more receptive and open to providing said artists with a livable life in the city they live in. Why is that and why is that still the case?
I can't begin to imagine what stars we won't be sending on to Saturday Night Live after they won't be testing the audiences and I can't imagine what kinds of new musics won't be getting created IN Chicago. We can all peel off names and address's of small dark rooms that dot the city that MADE the city and attracted an arms length of artists we all know and love who have, for the most part ALL gone to live elsewhere. It's heartbreaking when that list is longer than the artists who have stayed and it's heartbreaking to see those artists who choose to remain have their chances and the soul of the city vanish in a maze of numbers and droll legal language.
Chicago is at its best and most vibrant when the budget is shoestring and on a dream. It's at is most boring when its budget has deep pockets and a plan.

I'm in the process of emailing all 50 Aldermen as with the following message. Please consider this my signature on a Petition pleading that the proposed Promoter's Ordinance as drafted be REJECTED by the City Council.

Dear Alderman:

Although I no longer live in the City and now commute from Hammond IN, my band and my solo act primarily work within the City at small live music venues. See http://www.mythicfigs.org

There is no way we would be able to continue to operate our legitimate music business in the City of Chicago if the proposed Promoter's Ordinance (as presently drafted) becomes law. We are a small scale operation and do our own bookings, and could not possibly afford to continue to operate at any Chicago venues if that Ordinance were in effect.

PLEASE VOTE NO on the Promoter's Ordinance when it comes up for a vote in the City Council.

While it is possible SOME regulation is needed to protect the public re safety concerns due to huge crowds and/or pyrotechnics associated with SOME events, the Ordinance as presently drafted fails to differentiate between past tragic occurrences that no doubt spurred this proposal, and small live music (or theater) venues.

Thank you for considering my input on this matter.

Sincerely,

Caroline Jaffe, Hammond IN
[street address & phone # omitted, but included in emails to Alderpersons)

This is very sad. Chicago is known for it's diverse music scene. We have everything here. If you want jazz, you got, you want rock-a-billie, you can listen, indie, experimental, hip-hop, etc it's all here. Without these smaller venues, bands can never emerge and get their music out to the masses. I am for making things safer, but this is not the way about it. So many smaller bands will not be able to play in chicago anymore. I can not believe this is the only solution they were able to come up with.

I vote NO to this ordinance.

This is not the solution.

Even without this hair-brained ordinance, making a living in the arts in Chicago is no easy accomplishment. Now the city wants to make the difficult virtually impossible. I challenge the aldermen who want to pass this into law to try living on the average artist's income for a month. Would you then still be able to vote for this terrible idea? Against great odds Chicago's artistic community keeps us a cultural magnet in the world. Why would you want to drive your artists out? I traveled the country as a performing artist for 20 years and I can tell you that Chicago gets roundly criticized for our corruption, our mass transit, violence in our schools and our excessive taxes... but never have I heard anything negative about the arts community. I get "It must be great living with all the cultural opportunities you have there." or "Chicago, Yea! Home of the Blues" or "We remember our visit to Chicago. We found the neatest little club with the greatest band. We'll never forget it." Please City of Chicago, Wake up! Get outside your inner circle and see your city the way the rest of the world sees it. Fix its problems. Don't waste your time and ours creating more. Vote "No" until someone comes up with a reasonable solution to the problem of rogue promoters and leave our artistic community intact.

hey if you want to make chicago safer you shouldnt take away the music scence.some small bands have dreams to play in chicago
i vote NO!!!!!

NO! How can we claim to be a cultural society when we attempt to do away with the arts! Millions of private funds have been used throughout the last quarter century to build up our respect and appreciation, and coffers for the arts of music, theatre, dance,
literature both prose and poetry, as well as countless hours of
prepartion and training of these gifted members of society.

Without the arts how can one say they belong to a society that respects and gives honor to the entire individual whether celebrating his body, mind or spirit?

What better legacy do we have to pass on to our children's children if not the arts and culture as seen though these forms of expresssion?

We shall not let our Statemen dictate our cultural diversity or needs! America is not a Communist lead country, let us continue to be the true example of the arts and all that the arts stand for, ie that dreams can come true and any one can be a star.

Please say NO to this bill, PLEASE.

No! This would not protect anyone--only destroy Chicago as a place where great music is created. There is already an entertainment tax paid by clubs and the are responsible for their capacity and safety. The truth is now, the music maker is often the promoter because they already work for nothing. This law would damage the creative vibrancy of the city--which is built on a tradition of small clubs for blues, jazz, and musicians and DJ's getting their chops and developing their sound. Again, NO to the Promoters Law.

This proposed ordinance will definitely hinder Chicago's music scene and overall image in a VERY negative way. Chicago is well known for for its underground music scene and it gives the city another venue to attract not only tourism, but residents either involved or interested in music. Safety could be addressed in a more effective manner without affecting such a famous city trait.

Please vote NO for this ordinance. Art is essential for our city. The smaller communities provide the best the city has to offer. It is NOT a commodity to be taxed.

How about developing another solution where everyone wins?

It is hard to believe that you are even considering passing this ordinance. The city of Chicago is well known for its musical talent and the ability to showcase that talent in street festivals and similar events is key to keeping that culture alive. This ordinance would destroy that and would seriously harm the tourist trade in the process. I'm not sure what you are thinking in even considering this.

One sure way to destroy the artistic soul of a city is to pass a law that allows only the rich and well-connected to make art while leaving those who can't afford to create and present out in the cold.

A city's art scene is often looked at by sociologists in the same way biologists look at frogs. If there is something wrong with an ecosystem, the frogs usually show the first signs of the problem. Art is the same way. When a city stops the creation of grass roots art, it can be a sign that the city is in serious emotional and sociological danger.

I, for one, do not want to live in a city where art has been stolen from the masses. All that leads to is mass art, and how much Wicked can a community take before artistic expression is no longer taken seriously?

Vote no. Then do some reading about how art, in all forms, can help the city rather than slowly rock it to sleep.

I can not believe that we have came to a cross road where we as a people would have to give up our rights as an American citizens- when it come to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression.
If this ordinate is pass, this will prove that America is no longer the greatest!
Do not let this pass vote NO so that the generations that is yet to come be able to express theirselves in music, and in entertainment.
Other than having no outlet than gun battles on our city streets- Keep America strong and keep our music alive!
Vote NO. NO. NO!

VOTE HELL NO!

Let the young people sing, let them express themselves!
Don't take that away from them too!

HELL NO!

Chicago has been a city that prides itself on the vast creation and enjoyment of diverse art forms. To allow this to happen would kill much of the beauty and culture that Chicago is known for. It would change our city drastically!

Vote no!

WHO'S WITH ME? i want to choreograph a subversive and brilliant movement piece that catches the attention of business men and women and people in ALL walks of life in this city. It's not just the artists that need to sign the petition but the people who benefit from the LIFE we bring to the streets and to smaller venues. Don't you think corporate men and women would feel refreshed and enlivened by street performances during their lunch break?

We need MORE art and MORE play in this world and in this city. we need the money to circulate in the artistic community in order to create more art. So let's show the masses what they will be missing if the vote goes through. we'll rope them in with a rad, beautiful performance and then have someone getting them to sign the petition.

there's one slight problem if the vote is happening tomorrow. but will it become final tomorrow? please inform me! as of right now, i'll sign the petition and send it to all my friends.

KEEP BRIGHTENING UP THIS CITY!!!. there's enough boredom, death and destruction and we must counteract with live art.

As a native of Chicago (now living in the Western 'burbs), this clears up one reason why I moved out of Chicago. High taxes, high crime, trixies, chads, a gazillion parking restrictions, etc. As much as I am angry about this proposal, I kinda have to laugh, too. I miss my Chicago as I remember it, but can really be happy to come home on a Friday night and get FREE parking for GREAT MUSICAL ACTS and DINING and pay half of what I would have dished out in Chicago. As a general wake-up call, Chicago, get your act together!

This will crush the heart of Chicago! Music is Chicago's second language, for the people and by the people.

Mike

Come out to Naperville, Evanston, Aurora, Oak Park, Berwyn! Great artists play here, too! The music scenes, art scenes...they have it all! And (gasp!) without the super-infalted, no parking available, taxed-out environment of Chicago.

Dear City Council and Alderman Lyle,

Take another look at what you're doing to your constituency. I appreciate the arts and having the choice of venues and artists to enjoy. This has become one of the few perks we have left in a city that is overtaxing us and pricing the average wage earner out of new housing.

Please redefine your proposed law so that the Spirit of Entertainment in the City of Chicago is preserved.

Sincerely,

Melanie J. Sholes

I strongly oppose this ordinance! The people don't need or want any controls in the realm of art!

I oppose this ordinance!!!

As a former Bar and Resturant owner who had live music and a Terrific open mike, I think this is a good way to kill the city..i would much rather have and ordinance and IN FORCED on the carp rap i have to listen to in the cars that pass my house or pull up along side me...with there BOOM...BOOM...BOOM...
give us a break, Chicago is and has always been known for the great shows, art form, and music...
Most artist who perfom here in the city in local bars do so cause they love it, and most have to hold a real job to pay the rent. They play the music cause they love it...

What would be the point of coming to Chicago. How boring does the city want to be? This is horrible.

This ordinance is bogus. From a cultural standpoint, it threatens to eliminate nearly all channels for creative expression and community development and outreach. This is not just about bands playing shows, but will also prohibit environmental and educational fundraising events. From an economic standpoint, it is guaranteed to damage both small neighborhood and citywide economies. Residents regularly support local neighborhood venues and feed the local economy. Without such venues to support, Chicago's economy will only continue to degrade.

Unbelievable! I guess we'll all (musicians, artists, theatre folks) be moving out to Oak Park, Evanston and other burbs that will end up having most of the live music clubs and live theatre places.

I oppose this ordinance too! This is the new reality for artists in a post 9/11 world.

I oppose this ordinance too! This is the new reality for artists in a post 9/11 world.

I strongly oppose this ordinance and implore our city council to vote against passing it.

I'm thoroughly disappointed with this proposed ordinance. I'm not a native Chicagoan. However, I've chosen to make Chicago my home with a key factor being the multiple small musical venues throughout this city. I most enjoy the new, non-mainstream music only these smaller venues can accomodate. This ordinance only serves to limit the exposure of these burgeoning musicians. To suffocate this type of diversity and creativity just to make a buck is shameful.

As a veteran of the local Chicago Metal scene who helps promote DIY shows around the city, this ordinance is a disgrace to not only the Chicago Metal scene but the Chicago independent music as a whole. The city does not realize that smaller venues like The Note and Reggie's will close down, making hardworking people unemployed, and this is a slap in the face on the independent spirit of Chicago's DIY music scenes, who are world renowned even though artists little to no money doing what they love. I vote no on this, it's very disgusting that the city is stooping so low to do such a horrendous venture.

letter sent to my alderman

Please vote no on the ordinance that could spell the end of the city’s diverse and historical music scene. This will spell the end of the little guy and in the music scene that means the end of anything new. If new artists can’t AFFORD be heard there how can we maintain the rich culture of entertainment these venues have fostered. Metro, Vic, Riviera, Aragon, Double Door…the list of places that may dry up goes on and on. In your seats from the city council you may not see it but these are the places where music comes alive and infects and inspires the people that witness it. Do not take steps to knock the foundation out from under the music and arts scene in Chicago but instead make is secure. Without that the whole of it will eventually crumble and dry up.

C'mon Chicago! You can't be serious with this?

Please vote NO.

This is almost scary - i mean honestly this would absolutely stifle the Chicago music scene. I fear for many of my friends - musicians, promoters, and venue owners alike whose entire livelihood is being threatened by this preposterous vote. Keep the arts free! Vote NO

This is completely bogus! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am digusted and am embarrassed to be a Chicagoan. I strongly oppose this ridiculus ordinance!

Unlike so many other countries that actively and financially support artists and musicians (modern-day France and Canada and Stalin-era Soviet Union among them), America basically leaves it up to artists to survive. It’s measures like this proposed ordinance that take this one step further, and seem to aim to crush whatever chance artists and musicians have in this nation. Why does America not treasure its artists and recognize that, for hundreds and hundreds of years, they have represented us as much as a flag or a president or ambassador or sports team? They are part of our proud national identity. If we don’t value and support our artists, especially in this era of the Media Player, what will we be listening to and who will we be watching? We’ll be all set up to to view and hear optimally, but what we see and hear won’t be American artists. There won’t be any. STOP CRUSHING ART IN THE USA!
-oh my god

It's the "underground" music, if you will, that has brought Chicago it's fame. Only the small venues nurtures that. Large "fixed seating" is reserved for the already famous, the already established, such as recording artists.

If the language in the ordinance is not written to protect the musicians and the small clubs who obey the laws and don't have problems the musicians will go elsewhere, the clubs will close or leave and the city's musical culture will dry up. From the small clubs like Theresa's, Gallery Cabaret, Schuba's, Chicago's musical scene was born. This is where our tourists and business people flock to; places like Buddy Guys, Schubas, Metro, Andy's, etc.. To experience the Chicago music.

If the city goes to the extent to give us "creatives" as they call us incentives to move to the city and work here, they need to keep in mind that they have to protect us when writing laws so that we are not ultimately victimized by it which will affect the city altogether culturaly and financially.

I oppose this! Do not do this to art!

The vote is scheduled for 10AM tomorrow morning. Show up and support a "NO" vote! THIS IS IMPORTANT:
The Chicago City Council meets in the Council Chambers, on the 2nd
Floor of City Hall. 121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago IL 60602

Hi, my name is Matthew Golombisky and I am a musician/composer/booking agent/independent record label director/etc. and live in Andersonville, Chicago. I moved here from New Orleans 2 ½ years ago and have become a community leader in promoting live music, creative arts and community driven events and connections. It is so hard and very unrewarding financially to be this person, to promote arts in a country that does not encourage such efforts. But people like myself persist on because we know our children, peers and those to come will appreciate learning and hearing our community’s music. It is a part of our lives, or at least should be. And it is a struggle, but many of us deal with it as best we can.

Please, please don’t vote in favor of this new “Event Promoter” ordinance. We’re struggling enough as it is. Help out local music! Help out the arts! Don’t let this bog down community driven artistic events!!!!

This is ridiculous. I absolutely oppose this ordinace!

VOTE NO!!!

What is the point of this? We in the entertainment industry operate on razor thin margins most of the time, unless you belong to a massively funded 501 (c)-3 or a commercial venue. For those of us that just want to do some art and show it off to a generally appreciative audience, whether for work or fun, this will kill these outlets. Because we all know that i we're forced to drag this out to the suburbs to perform it, almost none of it will survive since the denizens of there don't generally like art and tend to be fairly homogenous.

So please be the big city of the midwest and let these forms of expression survive as is becoming of a large urban environment.

Oh yeah and be prepared to have a decent chunk of your young professionals, who happen to be arts goers, leave the city in search of a more arts friendly community. Good bye economic expansion.

David Schwartz

This ordinance would strike a great blow to artistic vibrancy of the city! Chicago is one of the cultural lynchpins of this vast country we live in. Let's not allow ANY deterioration to creative freedom and artistic expression!! VOTE NO!! Keep Chicago great, keep the United States great!!

I oppose this ordinance. Do not defy my, city council.

This is appalling. I vote NO.

What a sad sad place chicago would be without corporate arts...say no to this stupid ordinance and let the artists do their job and share their gifts with the world and the city at every level. to pass this would be stupid and hateful.

I can totally understand how the City of Chicago wants to prevent occurances such as E2, etc., by making our local venues safer, but there has to be a better way to go about doing this (more specifically one that doesn't involve the eradication of such a rich, local culture). I strongly oppose this ordinance!

Stop this ordinance. I may have to go to Rockford for affordable entertainment

With the financial stability of the non-profit arts already being under enormous stresses due to the economy and shrinking grant awards from the Illinois Arts Council, how dare the City of Chicago take advantage of these very organizations that provide it with a rich cultural wealth thereby identifying this city as a role model for the world. With this trendof non-support for the arts, we will surely see the continued degradation of the principles that make a society great.

i strongly oppose this ordinance!

This is an outrage!! Do not pass this ordinance!

This is an outrage!! Do not pass this ordinance!

This ordinance has the terrible potential to devastate the arts in Chicago, effectively killing the “incubation” of artists groups, performers and musicians working in all sorts of disciplines. VOTE NO!!

This ordinance is quite obviously ridiculous and anyone who is reading this blog probably knows that. However, the result of passing this legislation will be the act of pushing the music/art further "underground" and could potentially create even more problems!

Please vote no! Ever heard the term STARVING ARTIST? This proposed law would make it even more difficult for the arts community! I am outraged! Please say no!

I oppose this ordinance.

If Alderman Helen Schiller votes for it, I will need to vote for James Cappleman for Alderman in my ward during the next election.

It seems as though the intent of this ordinance was just (i.e. to protect people), but the execution is poor. The wording needs to be changed as to prevent unwanted side effects, namely impeding the progress of Chicago's small-venue music scene. Vote NO!

Please VOTE NO, on this proposition. I am the managing director of a new theatre company. If this law if put into effect it will suffocate any chance I, or any other beginning artistic company, has in keeping its head above water. New independent theatre is put together with duct tape and a prayer. If we are forced to purchase a license, plus pay a fee to the city for the opportunity to perform, any chance for new, non commercial art will die. These new fees will add to the existing production costs; paying rental for performance and rehearsal space, royalties, marketing. This new fee will take new artistic ventures out at the knees. Not to mention that finger printing and a background check are necessary to become an event promoter. I was unaware you had to have a clean history to produce art, this is the beginning to a harsh censorship of non commercial art. Please help support independent art, VOTE NO.

I am strongly opposed to the Event Promoter Ordinance. Please vote no.

To take away the opportunity for people to express music, art, theatre--it seems wrong. It IS wrong. This city is an amazing outlet for performers, I cant believe it can be taken away. It's very upsetting to the performers/artists AND the patrons, not to mention businesses--that is another huge aspect. The support AGAINST this is very large... please stop this ordinance.

HERES A KICKER…
one of the alderman supporting this is Gene Schulter 47th ward.
47th ward is the home to the Old Town School of Folk Music, a nationally respected establishment for 50 years
Many of the local resturants and taverns located around the school allow students to play in their place of business in order to help them develop their skills. without the School many of these business would go under being that patrons are mostly students, teachers,performers,and event attendees connected to the school.
Talk about a politician stabbing their own people in the back….
This ordinance needs to be stopped!!!!!!!! and Schulter and Daley voted from office.

If I read this correctly, an aldermanic candidate inviting potential contributors to a fund-raiser at any venue with a PPA would need a "promoter's license."

Also, a young couple sending out invitations to their wedding would need a "promoter's license" if the church has less that 500 seats or reception venue has a liquor license.

I know Chicago is famous for stupid laws, but I never thought it would go this far...

I strongly oppose this ordinance.

I think this is being done in efforts to keep small groups out. I am affraid that these will limit the amount of talent exposred that makes this city great. The diversity of groups is what keeps the city going.

Dear Aldermen of Chicago,

I am requesting that you vote "NO" for this proposed ordinance. It would be a gross crime against performing musicians and many club owners in the great City of Chicago. Not only could this negatively affect the schools (as if enough music programs have been taken out already in some schools), but I believe that this will affect the surrounding suburban venues as well. For many kids, music is a positive way of helping them to learn other subjects and a way for them to believe in becoming a professional musicians themselves.
This is a lively hood for many of us musicians; this is our profession not simply a hobby. It would also deter tourism to an extent as Chicago has long been associated with QUALITY LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. As some of us are looking forward to hosting the Olympic Games in Chicago, I would think we would want to keep our live musical attractions working right here where everyone benefits. It's our Culture, for God's Sake! Please Vote "NO".

please vote NO for this ordinance!!

I extremely oppose this ordinance.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE!!! This ordinance will destroy the what makes Chicago great.

Obviously, who ever proposed this law is completely out of touch with reality.
It would damage the chicago local economy.

Obviously, who ever proposed this law is completely out of touch with reality.
It would damage the chicago local economy.

I also oppose this ordinance!!!!

I also oppose this ordinance!!!!

This has to be one of the biggest mistakes of all time.

I'm willing to bet that there are existing laws on the books to prevent any REAL problems, and this ordinance has no real purpose in life.

Please vote "NO" to the proposed ordinance and address the concerns of the Chicago Music Commission. The current ordinance would cause great harm to Chicago's music community, a valuable part of our city's culture.

Even though I live downstate, I would hate to see this ordinance passed. In addition to the negative effect on my colleagues in the windy city, it would serve as a terrible precedent to other communities who often look to Chicago for cultural leadership!

When people ask me what I love about Chicago I invariably answer the rich vibrant music and arts scene. It’s a city in its renaissance! What this ordinance doesn’t take into account is all those many comforts local artists, musicians, and art/music purveyors have given up in order to make Chicago a ground-breaker in every sector of the arts. Don’t make the pursuit of creativity any harder than it already is. And don’t censor our free choice through stifling regulations and economics. I beg you. I really don’t want to move again.

I believe all art created and performed in Chicago greatly enhances the beauty of the city. I am a dancer, choreographer, and teacher who has lived in the reality of the Chicago arts scene. Artists usually have many financial obstacles to overcome in order to bring their creativity into fruition. Some artists perform and create without personally charging for their time so that costumes, lighting, venue, etc. can be had. Those that do make a full time living as an artist are often barely getting by. Others have a full time career in order to pay bills so that they can create. Many "promoters" are also involved in performing/writing/directing/creating the project.

I oppose this Promotor's ordinance as it stands. I believe it would be completely disregarded by the arts community - resulting in a total waste of the City Council's time. Artists will not stop creating and performing. Artists will not be able to afford the fines and fees issued. It seems this ordinance would only cause more problems and waste.

Why not invite some artists in the community to participate in the generation of this ordinance? They may have some creative solutions that could actually benefit the local arts scene. Artists are usually very generous and eager to share ideas that will bring a positive outcome.

Stop this stupid ordinance dead in it's tracks. What are these dumbasses thinking? Where do I sign the petition?

Kathy Lawhon

I strongly oppose this ordinance. By passing an ordinance like this you are effectively squeezing all of the heart and soul out of the city. But ultimately beyond the livelihood of the musicians and the saving culture of the city the ordinance is quite paradoxical in nature. One of the main reasons that the white upper class has been moving into hip areas around city, and that the condo boom has happened is because musicians and artists have been able to live and work in areas that are affordable, with lower rents, but sometimes with higher poverty and crime. The realtors have followed the artists and musicians - putting up condos and raising rent in their wake.. causing the musicians and artists to be forced to newer parts of the city. Its the inevitable gentrification we have all heard so much about. However, the artists and musicians will still be here as long as there are outlets for expression. If those disappear, they will leave. Then what happens the condo's, the realtors and all of the upper middle class white folks that move here for the culture? They will eventually disappear too. Even from the prospective of the land owner, yuppie or capitalist it doesn't make sense to have a law like this. It seems like Daley's mission is completely wipe out industry from the city, pushing all of the poor people to the periphery, while openings the doors to the white upper middle class. If lawmakers were really thinking about consequences this law would have on their end goal, this is a abd thing for them too.

Part of what makes Chicago great is its local music scene.

Please vote “NO” on May 14th.


Seriously? I grew up outside the city; I finally get the opportunity to move in and have been working as a musician for over a year now and the goal of the city is to require my ensemble have a license and notify the police 7 days in advance?


I play 50 weekends a year, and even though I'm terrible at math I think that's too many times notifying the police where I'm going to be for a problem that has a minute chance of occurrence.


We already are forced to obtain 1 million dollar insurance for other reasons, and the fact that we do our own booking/promotion indicates that we are now under scrutiny for yet another aspect of our lives.


Here's another great thought; let's just say at best even HALF of the events survive. Everyone is flooding the police with phone calls; are the cops going around with a giant list of events to monitor? Do we HONESTLY need to spread our police force more thin?


Of all the things to sit around the table and say "you know what, that most assuredly needs to be a law". I find myself in complete disbelief.


In ignorance, they simply can NOT know what they are doing. It equates to lawyers running the labels. Why do they make the calls on what sells? All I know is the artist lost that fight so long ago, and now we are losing it for our last bastion.


If I didn't have to WORK tomorrow to support myself outside of my music, I would be at the meeting. I will be three blocks north on LaSalle with a headset on squeezing a stress ball.


Best of luck to all who are there. And please, somebody, anybody, grant these politicians some sense to listen to those who know better.

Chicago is recognized for it's culturally rich music and arts scene. This would drastically effect what this city's foundation has been built on (i.e. the World's Fair). DO NOT pass this ordinance for the sake of continuing Chicago's long held reputation has a vibrant beacon for the arts in this country.

I hope this makes a difference,because our creativity is our last hope at feeling some sense of freedom.

The word 'strongly' doesn't come close to decribing how much I oppose this. I suppose they think that musicians are all deadbeats who won't go out and vote. Talk about encouragement. Way to go, Daley.

Im no big fan of this proposed law, but many of the comments here seem to be a bit over the top.
As far as I can tell (I could certainly be wrong) the new law was not affect:

-Not for profits:
4-157-020 License-When required-Exclusions.

(B) The following persons are not event promoters within the meaning of this chapter:

(9) any not-for-profit corporation, to the extent that the not-for-profit corporation
personally plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event on its own behalf;
(10) any bona fide member or employee of a not-for-profit corporation, to the extent
that such member or employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event
in the course of such membership or employment on behalf of the not-for-profit
corporation.

****SO, that means it doesn't have any effect on any not for profit arts organizations.

And as was blogged earlier in this most (but could bare repeating)

"'Event' means: (1) any activity requiring a special event liquor license under Chapter 4-60 of this code; or (2) any activity requiring city approval of a special event liquor license
under the Illinois Liquor Control Act; or..."

*****That means that any venue with a liquor license of any kind is excluded. So anyone moaning about not being able to play dives bars or the metro or whatever should take a close look.

Now to the individual artists:


NOW skip to "Exclusions" (bottom of p. 2, cont. on p. 3):
"(B) The following persons are NOT [emph. mine] event promoters within the meaning of this chapter:

....
(3) any performer who is paid for his performance at an amusement or event but exercises no other financial or non-performance-related operational responsibility in connection therewith;...."

*****The point is that there is a lot of hysteria going on here and it doesn't reflect very well on anyone with real issue with this proposed law.

I don't even see how this law would have any relation to the E2 nightclub tragedy since I assume that was a bar with a liquor license and would not be effected by this.
What they seem to be trying to prevent is someone renting or operating some space, getting a special event liquor license and throwing a big party. I've been to these types of parties and the promoters basically operate a roving nightclub with DJ, bands, bartenders and door staff remaining the same in different ad-hoc locations. Sure, they are fun, partly because they are so 'underground', but its certainly not the kind of place I ever saw much 'art' going on.
Yes, this is trying to prevent raves, which is kind of silly, since the days of raves in warehouses all over the city seems to be over.

Again, I'm no supporter of this law, but he discussion has gotten out of hand and real opposition to this matter will not be possible unless the opposed know of what they speak. I've heard mention of this being a problem for booking in hotels, which is very possible, or in a venue like The Hothouse, which has other groups installed inside its walls, but even then, if those groups are not for profits, they won't be affected.

As many have said about the city council's time being spent on this issue instead of gun control, lowering real estate taxes, keeping the the CTA affordable etc...I think the same is true of opposition to this law. Isn't there something else we could all be ranting about? How about the city, state and federal gutting of funding for the arts in general? If your going to write a letter, write one to your state or federal senator about that.

Keep
It
Real.

As a performing artist in Chicago, I oppose this ordinance because it would crush the innovative culture of Chicago's art scene. Innovation happens on a small scale in the smaller venues before reaching the main stream entertainment industry. The fees proposed by this ordinance would destroy Chicago culture at it's source, where artists experiment and hone their craft. Please vote Against the Ordinance!

Folks, be sure to write alderman who aren't hearing from anyone. Those where the music is or those where music fans live may get the message. BUT those from the more 'remote' wards won't hear anything and they will follow the advice of the committee unless they hear from you!

Chicago: You're dead to me.

Put me down for a signature against this proposal. This would be a terrible thing for the city of Chicago.

The city doesn't know who they are messing with. The small venue music scene in this city has a very big voice and they will not take this lightly if it is passed. As somebody who frequents Martyrs, The Hideout, Schubas and dozens of other small music venues, this is appalling.

I'm not a musician or artist, but just common sense tells me how rediculous this proposed ordinance is. And if I were an independent performance artist, or owner of a small performance venue in Chicago, I would most likely move out under such conditions. Evanston may be a bargain in comparison, there are other suburbs looking to boost their night life scene I heard.

What can the Chicago City Council possibly be thinking? Please say you're not serious and vote NO!!

I'm not a musician or artist, but just common sense tells me how rediculous this proposed ordinance is. And if I were an independent performance artist, or owner of a small performance venue in Chicago, I would most likely move out under such conditions. Evanston may be a bargain in comparison, there are other suburbs looking to boost their night life scene I heard.

What can the Chicago City Council possibly be thinking? Please say you're not serious and vote NO!!

I'm not a musician or artist, but just common sense tells me how rediculous this proposed ordinance is. And if I were an independent performance artist, or owner of a small performance venue in Chicago, I would most likely move out under such conditions. Evanston may be a bargain in comparison, there are other suburbs looking to boost their night life scene I heard.

What can the Chicago City Council possibly be thinking? Please say you're not serious and vote NO!!

Please reject the Promoters Ordinance that has been proposed for the City of Chicago. One of main reason's I love to live in Chicago and would find it hard to leave is the rich thriving culture of music that can be seen at the smallest of venues around town. I have always been a big supporter of live music. However, I have long grown tired of attending the large sterile venues and events with the excessive ticket prices. I don't attend these because Chicago has so many quality artists performing independent of the corporate music machine. Please do not stifle creativity and performance opportunity for those artists operating on a shoestring who are trying to share their gift to to the world and especially Chicago. Please continue to allow Chicago to be known by residents and guests alike as a place where the independent artist is appreciated!


I'm not a musician or artist, but just common sense tells me how rediculous this proposed ordinance is. And if I were an independent performance artist, or owner of a small performance venue in Chicago, I would most likely move out under such conditions. Evanston may be a bargain in comparison, there are other suburbs looking to boost their night life scene I heard.

What can the Chicago City Council possibly be thinking? Please say you're not serious and vote NO!!

My wife and I live in the suburbs but frequently come into Chicago to see small local theatre groups.

We spend a lot of money while we are in Chicago on those trips.

In addition to the theatre tickets, we also buy lunch or dinner, pay for the parking garage, and get drinks at a bar after the show to talk about the play we just saw. We also take advantage of being in the city to do some shopping.

I think we're pretty typical, and there are hundreds or thousands out there like us.

All of the money we spend, and those thousands of other people spend in Chicago will be lost to the city if this ill conceived ordinance goes through and is passed into law.

Its passage will result in an overall LOSS of money to the city, and hurt performers and audiences alike. It's a LOSE-LOSE proposition.

James

If this piece of legislation accomplishes what I think it will, it will kill one of my absolute favorite parts of this city. This city is a collective exchange of ideas and commerce. This gross overreach, attempting to regulate the artistic community will snuff out the most vital part of this city, the small venue and the artists who inhabit it. Regulation should help not kill the community.

It looks like the ordinance has been pulled?

See: Save Chicago Culture (couldn't get the link to work: sorry ;( )

THERE'S NOT MUCH TO SAY IF YOU DON'T VOTE...WE AS A PEOPLE ALWAYS DO MARCHES...
BOYCOTTS...AND A HOST OF OTHER USELESS TACTICS TO SO CALL GET OUR POINT ACROSS... BUT WHEN IT COMES TO JUST PURE ACTION WE ALWAYS COWARD AWAY... I KNOW THIS MAY SOUND A LITTLE HARSH BUT SOMETIMES PHYSICAL AGGRESSION IS THE ONLY THING PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE HOW YOU EAT UNDERSTAND... IF PROMOTERS ARE FEEDING THEIR FAMILY'S WITH THESE EVENTS THEN BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO TO FEED YOUR KIDS EVEN IF IT RESORTS TO VIOLENCE...SORRY BUT THATS HOW I WAS RAISED AND SOME OF THESE SAME POLITICAL PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAY I RESPOND TO THESE TYPE OF ISSUES!!!!

The meeting discussing this policy has been put off until further notice. I've been told that this is to allow "further review" of the policy.

But when and where will they discuss this issue? I would suggest calling your representative. I just called Alderman Gene Schulter's office (47th ward) (773.348.8400) and was directed to his Policy Analyst Beth Beatty (312.744.4021). I left a message for her to keep me up-to-date as to when the new meeting will take place. Might be helpful if you try it with your alderman...?

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do?programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE! It will destroy what makes Chicago great. Don't punish the people who give Chicago it's unique personality. If you're trying to go after underground promoters who create unsafe environments then re-write the ordinance for that purpose. Don't punish the entire music scene.

Please do not make it unaffordable for us too attend concerts, plays, dance events, etc in the City of Chicago. Extremely high fees will close them down ! Patrons will also be priced out of this market.This is a very bad idea.
Thank You

Someone should print and take this whole blog to the meeting at City Hall tomorrow. It is 100% NO. There is not a person who has even a tiny understanding of how this ordinance might possibly be good in any way. You never see blog respones like this. NEVER.

Back in the 80s I had a similar problem with zoning/codes and my small theatre company. Sid Smith of the Tribune wrote an eye-opening article about it. The city eventually had to admit that it had stupid rules. But it also shut us down. So this ordinance opens an old wound for me.

Please oh please stop these idiots from putting this stranglehold on our fabulous arts scene in Chicago.

Thumbs down, City Council. This law is to no one's benefit.

There's way to little quality music available in Chicago to risk deleting significantly more with a "catch-all" regulation that really over-addresses the issue, as many long-term continuing locations have bee shown to be compliant over the years!

Being in Chicago for my whole life and having the love for all Chicago events this is a very bad idea for this to take place, Think about about how this will affect our communities here. We as people already have enough going on here in Chicago. Why don't focus on getting better or more people involed to help resolve this problem instead of just giving up on your city. Please stop trying to justify things that you know isn't the right thing to do for extras!!!!!!!!!!! THINK ABOUT IT......

THANKS
GOD BLESS

It's nice to vent, but hopefully you all realize that your outrage doesn't matter. The city council is stacked with bloated beaurocrats who barely take the time to read these ordinances much less have any valuable discourse. Remember, this mayor destroyed an airport with no ramifications, and this is the "foie gras" city council. You know this proposal is ignorant, I know it's ignorant, but these guys have too much time on their hands. AND the city needs to parasatize EVERY possible endeavor to increase revenues so they can build another Millenium Park and pay for the Olympics.

Chicago's music scene thrives on its lesser-known artists. Passing this ordinance would completely strike down the lifeblood of Chicago's entertainment industry.

A great way to steel our most cherished freedom in life.

Put me down for a signature against this proposal. This would be a terrible thing for the city of Chicago.

Looks like my band is playing in WI and IN from now on! I really hate driving to the machine shop in MI..gotta do what I gotta do!

Looks like my band is playing in WI and IN from now on! I really hate driving to the machine shop in MI..gotta do what I gotta do!

Aldermen, please vote NO on this ordinance. It is blatantly unfair to small theater companies which are the backbone of Chicago theater. Many companies would need to get either a Class D or C license. A lot of them only have a budget of $2000 OR LESS per show. Having to obtain a licence costing $500-1500 to promote a show would make producing said show not just difficult, but outright impossible!

Chicago storefronts put on a wide range of theatrical pursuits, enabling Chicagoans to be exposed to pieces that are not just mainstream, not just the same old chestnuts that are hauled out year after year. Chicago theater is a breeding ground for creativity and innovation. Shows put on by smaller companies sometimes get remounted at bigger venues, and occasionally some even go on to New York.

Alderman Gene Schulter, you have a LOT of people involved with small theater companies living in Ward 47. Technicians, actors, designers, and several company members of The House Theatre of Chicago and Barrel of Monkeys, to name a few. Please don't put a stranglehold on the livelihood of your constituents.

VOTE NO on the "Event Producers" ordinance.

No is the only acceptable Vote.

Are you CRAZY, City Council????

As a resident of Chicago for over twenty years, and as an actor and singer who has performed in many small venues in this city, I am outraged at what appears to be an attempt to make a law that will overburden small venues of both music and theatre and the other performing arts in this city. Certainly there needs to be much more time to allow for public discussion on this proposed legislation.

First foie gras, and now this! Over-regulation.

Chicago aldermen, please do not vote in favor of the proposed promoter's ordinance.

I grew up in Evanston and my rock band moved back to Chicago a year ago. I never even heard about these"dangerous underground performers" ? Is this a thing? Where is the thing to fix here for the council to come in and legislate?

venues like the ones mentioned above - and smaller ones like the Elbo Room, Abbey Pub, and Beat Kitchen are the LIFEBLOOD of young and fresh Chicago music.

this cant go down

It is only through the independent creative spirit that the world of the arts evolves. It is only through art that the minds of the human species evolves.

There for VOTE NO

I note that "Licensee or agent of licensee" is part of the overall language. This indicates to me that such an ordinance could create the long-term situation where larger corporate promoters (who can afford these licenses) can become the controlling agencies for booking all the smaller venues and special events - I'm thinking of corporations like Clear Channel here - making it impossible for individuals and bands to book into places without working through them (i.e., becoming an "agent of the licensee"). Kind of like the mob ...

As a Chicago resident of over ten years, I am opposed to the passage of this ordiance and encourage the City Council to reject the proposed changes as they would do more harm to our city than good.

Dear City Council Members: it has taken a very long time for Chicago to establish itself as a major theatre center. May I remind you that Steppenwolf Theatre began as store-front theatre here in Chicago and is now receiving all the major national accolades possible for the best production of 2007-08, August: Osage County. Hobbling fledgling theatre companies with costly licensing fees will KILL the impetus that has been so important to their genesis. I work at Northwestern University's renown theatre department. One of my favorite things to tell prospective students is that Chicago is a town for young artists, esp. theatre artists. They will have the opportunity to attend exciting and very promising "store-front" theatre conveniently (the CTA & Metra) and regularly as we have so many offerings. And when they have graduated, they can find an affordable, welcoming city in which to begin their professional careers.

Please do not pass this ordinance. It will be a death knell for so many young artistic companies and a major obstacle to future artists who may contemplate making Chicago their home.

Sincerely, Elizabeth Luby, Dept of Theatre, Northwestern University

This will change the face of music entirely for both local and touring acts alike within this city and this market place. Essentially wiping out independent promoters that invest in the promotion and development of the stars of tomorrow will have a big impact not only locally, but on the regional and national level as well. i dont know of any act that has made the transition from garage to shed, nor have i seen any buzz created to induce record sales without playing the small venues and on the backs, blood, sweat and sometimes tears of the indi promoters that risk their hard earned dollars for a piece of tomorrow. You cant expect any tree to grow by cutting off its roots, and artists, labels and radio stations alike will suffer greatly because of this. Chicago plays a major role in the development of EVERY artist that makes it to the big stage, dont take away the stairs that got them there.

Interesting to see that this legislation is the work product of a year of effort. Of course, if they had put it in the sunlight and actually worked with the community they probably could have gotten some feed back a whole lot earlier and (proof is look how much feedback is on just this page). How many years ago was the E2 incident? This barely seems to address the issue is seems it was intended to go after. There appears to be a major flaw in the system the generates this type of stifling legislation. I put up with the challenges and costs of the city to be near its culture. This looks like a good way to drive my dollars away from the area - that would be counterproductive.

It is essential for creative artist to have as many opportunities as possible to develop through live performance. Some venues find it all to easy to just go with recorded music thereby stifling a tradition of live music that makes Chicago a great city. The local government needs to encourage live music for the sake of cultural enrichment and artistic development. Don't let the "bad apples" spoil the bunch. Most of us are responsible and working in small venues that pose no problem to the community or patrons.
Please vote NO on this ordinance

It is imperative there is a NO vote for this ordinace, as promoters and creatives of smallers shows and in small venues will be blocked out of the creative and management development with a price tag associated with promoting events in Chicago. Chicago has been a democratic artistic environment since its early history and has promoted self sufficiency through arts and culture - how disturbing would it be that this tradition would be supressed by the idea of only deep pockets having the advantage to promote arts and culture based on their ideals and not the collective cultural ideals of the smaller upcoming innovative creative community.

Daley et al have made their motives abundantly clear: maximize city revenues; minimize potential liabilities (the reason for this ordinance); cater to corporate interests and affluent individuals who can/will pay to be here and are on this same page. This is systemic. They are not targeting the arts, the poor, per se but are doing so in pursuit of these goals and they will not stop unless their own goals and finances are hurt by their actions. This ordinance was tabled for tweaking for a month. Unless it can be made abundantly clear that this ordinance hurts the goals of the corporatization of chicago, it will pass in a form that probably lets a few more businesses like Metro in the door for a fee and that will be that. There needs to be a case made for a severe negative economic impact on the city of this ordinance and the art it will kill versus the potential liabilities it seeks to prevent and it needs to be presented to the council. Otherwise something close will very likely pass, in my opinion.

I have always loved Chicago and their appreciation for the Arts. I am from Austin Tx and our city would be lost without the Artist that play here. We are rich because of it! Who's idea was it to rob small venues and Artist that barely make it and primarily play for the love of their craft? You should be ashamed! Get your heart back in the right place and put the fool who sold out live music back in his money hungry palace where he or she belongs! Lets lift up our people through song! VOTE NO! We believe in you Chicago! Vote No!

Please don't pass this legislation.

As is customary in Daley's Chicago, the sub and countercultures of mainstream America are not just being pushed aside, they are being eradicated. With the "prohibition" of spray paint in '92, Daley has created what most other cities in the world would look at as a ridiculous and foul act against something that has weaseled its way into mainstream American culture. What is America without the ability to be who we are? As musicians, artists and HUMANS we are all connected and HAVE the FREEDOM to gather peacefully, listen and believe whatever we so shall choose. Chicago's underground music scene is something that is, yes, smaller than that of LA or NYC, but something BETTER, because we are CHICAGO, the greatest city in the world. How are we expected to uphold ANY sort of diversity in culture? How is Chicago able to thrive without its shoulders?

Taking music out of Chicago is like putting ketchup on a hot dog, flattening a pizza, calling it soda, calling the Sears tower short, amputating the arms up to the shoulders, agreeing with the CTA, having an East side, living in a district and not a neighborhood, or hating the city you live in.

We are CHICAGO, and bitter unification against the corruption and sickening actions of OUR city's government is what makes US Chicago. We have every right to yell at the Government through power chords in some basement in Humboldt Park, dance to a set at the Subterranean; break dance at the Funky Buddha or improv a set as "THE SECOND CITY."

WHERE IS OUR CULTURE GOING? WHERE IS CHICAGO?

Ridiculous. Daley gives sewer contracts to son and claims to not know anything about it and the work doesn't get done. But he feels he should be able to basically tax art in the city of Chicago. What is more important, paying attention to sewer work to make sure that there isn't human excrement flowing on the streets of the city. Or taxing art and artists. I guess ignorance really can be bliss if you have the ability to claim it and no one can call you out on it.

WHAT THE F**K! Henry Paulson had the whole $700,000,000,000 T.A.R.P. bailout scribbled on 3 sides of paper! This Ordinance is a crock of Shit! Help save cutting edge music and perfomance in Chicago!

"We also decided that we needed to up the ante at Chicago events by going the extra mile for our crowds.
"

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jim DeRogatis published on May 7, 2008 8:05 PM.

UPDATE: Promoters law passes committee was the previous entry in this blog.

The promoter's ordinance: The view from City Hall is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.