Blogstracted: May 2008

For the one or two people who may actually see and read my little corner of the internet, give a hand in saying no to a proposed ordinance in Chicago. This proposed ordinance (scheduled for a vote tomorrow) will negatively affect small entertainment venues such as my beloved Factory Theater. Here are the cliffnotes (thanks to Allison Cain who forwarded the savechicagoculture.org post detailing the ordinance):

The “Event Promoters” ordinance requires any event promoter to have a license from the city of Chicago and liability insurance of $300,000, but that’s just the start:

“Event Promoter” must be licensed and will pay $500 - $2000 depending on expected audience size.

To get the license, applicant must be over 21, get fingerprinted, submit to a background check, and jump over several other hurdles.

This ordinance seems targeted towards smaller venues, since those with 500+ permanent seats are exempt.

Police must be notified at least 7 days in advance of event.

There are many problems with this ordinance, which can be viewed in full at Jim DeRogatis' blog on the Chicago Sun-Times website. I'm specifically drawn to section A of 4-157-020 License–When required–Exclusions: "No person shall engage in the business of event promoter without first having obtained an event promoter license under this chapter." Basically, it's creating additional overhead and fees for smaller venues that are already struggling financially while not subjecting larger, richer venues to the same fees. Essentially taxing the poor while protecting the rich. The liability insurance is a valid requirement, but it seems like a small shield of legitimacy to hide behind while sneaking in additional fees (such as an Event Promoter License) for venues that already bear large financial burdens. This ordinance is being presented as something to combat illegitimate underground promotions, but it will hurt many small venues that are legitimate entertainment businesses that already have liability insurance and PPA (Public Place of Amusement) licenses. The language of this ordinance is unclear and it sets a very negative precedence of adding additional fees to entertainment venues.

Here's the latest update from Jim DeRogatis: a Q&A with Alderman Eugene Schulter, chairman of the city licensing committee. His responses are very poor, in my opinion. Here's an example:

Q [DeRogatis]. I think that many people in the music community don’t understand why a promoter’s license is necessary if you’re dealing with a venue that is already PPA-licensed.

A [Alderman Schulter]. The problem, Jim, is that you don’t know who is handling that part of the business. Unfortunately, we’ve had incidents in the city where people have been murdered, people have been accosted, there have been fights, and what we’re trying to do, our goal is not to hurt anybody, but to really help the promoter as well as the person in charge of the venue. Because right now, the only person that really is responsible is the person that runs the venue. I think that this gives a different status to the promoters, and I think that is a good and healthy thing. The community that these events are held in should know who’s hosting these events.

It's pretty bad form to jump to scare tactics (fights, accosting, murder, etc.) to push an extra layer of fees and administration on any venue. The community, the city, and anyone who is interested can check the paperwork to find who handles the PPA license, and why does "the community" need a controlling interest in who is hosting entertainment events? Entertainment is not being forced on anyone, and how will more fees and overhead protect "the community" from these vague references to violence?

I still don't see a valid response to these added fees for smaller venues, I don't see the need for adding an "Event Promoter" and I still believe this will be an extremely harmful measure. So, to the two or three (at most) people who read this, please make yourself heard if you don't agree with this ordinance.