Frosty
05-14-2008, 10:18 AM
Big decision yesterday to delay and reevaluate a proposed ordinance that could lead to the closing of some of Chicago's best music clubs. The clubs mentioned in the article are the places where we go to hear everyone from Bonerama to Sonny Landreth to Bo Deans to Stephen Stills to Chick Corea.
Music community gets 11th-hour reprieve on post-E2 ordinance
A proposed event-promoter ordinance that prominent members of the Chicago music community say goes too far was put on hold Tuesday, a day before it was to be voted upon by the City Council.
The decision to further fine-tune the measure before it's presented to the council was made by Ald. Eugene Schulter after an extraordinary meeting between aldermen and club owners at City Hall. Last week, Schulter’s committee approved the ordinance, which has been in the works for years and is widely regarded as the city’s response to the E2 nightclub tragedy, which claimed 21 lives in a 2003 stampede.
“Everyone agrees that we have to figure out a way to separate the good apples from the bad apples [in promoting live events],” Schulter said. “But how we get to that stage is something we have to spend a little more time on."
The document strives to tighten up the checks and balances of city government to ensure that only responsible promoters stage entertainment events. Among its many provisions, it would require independent promoters to buy a license for $500 to $2,000 (depending on the size of the venue) plus acquire at least $300,000 in general liability insurance.
But that provision also would apply to indie promoters aiming to stage events in clubs with fewer than 500 fixed seats that already have public-place-of-amusement licenses and insurance. The added layer of cost and regulation would be superfluous to ensuring the event’s safety and could prevent it from happening at all, members of the music community contend. The cultural and economic impact could be significant, depriving the city of numerous events generated from outside the city’s mainstream music community.
Joe Shanahan, owner of Metro for three decades, said his club holds at least two such independently promoted events a month. The measure also would negatively impact well-established clubs and theaters such as the Empty Bottle, Schubas, Park West, the Vic, Buddy Guy’s Legends, Martyrs, the Hideout, the Riviera, Uncommon Ground and dozens more in an industry where the margin between a profitable event and a losing one can be thin.
In response to the outcry, Schulter called an 11th hour meeting Tuesday on the third floor of City Hall that included club owners, members of the Chicago Music Commission, city attorneys and aldermen. At the meeting, Schulter concluded, “there are still unanswered questions and issues that should be considered” and decided against putting the ordinance on the city council’s agenda Wednesday.
More discussions with the music community will now likely take place, which leaves the door open to the ordinance being revised.
“It doesn’t mean it’s going away,” Shanahan said, “but there was a feeling of people rolling up their sleeves and saying, ‘Let’s work together, let’s talk about it.’ I felt proud to be part of the City of Chicago. The civic aspect of what we do was listened to, which is a remarkable thing at a time like this.”
greg@gregkot.com
Where does the proposed ordinance go from here? In an interview, Ald. Eugene Schulter, chairman of the City Council Committee on License and Consumer Protection, responded:
Kot: How often does a committee vote to approve something and it doesn’t come in front of the City Council?
Schulter: It happens quite frequently. It’s not uncommon where you might feel you need additional time to address various issues. It does happen.
Q: Why did you call a meeting Tuesday morning to discuss the proposed ordinance with various members of the music community?
A: It’s not my ordinance. It’s the administration’s ordinance. Since last July when I got it, we had our first hearing, and it lasted three hours. We thought we had all our bases covered since then. But lately we had a couple other groups that I felt should’ve been heard but were not. So that’s the reason I called them to the office this morning. And they presented some really good ideas. We need to look at those ideas. There have been substantive changes to the ordinance since it was originally proposed last year. I feel very strongly we need to listen, especially when we’re creating a new regulatory scheme in terms of bringing other people into the loop. Everyone agrees that we have to figure out a way to separate the good apples from the bad apples [in promoting live events]. But how we get to that stage is something we have to spend a little more time on. That’s how I operate. We are very deliberate. We don’t pass things quickly, especially when you’re creating a new license category and you’re affecting people’s lives. I felt we need to continue working on this, and address some of the issues brought up today.
Q: What are the key issues that need to be resolved before you can move forward with this ordinance?
A: One of the key ones is the one dealing with insurance [for independent promoters]. What are the costs? Do we really need the requirement if the venue operator provides insurance coverage already? And we need to look at the cost of a new license as well, especially for the small promoter. In the original ordinance there was one flat fee, and now there are four levels [ranging from $500 to $2,000]. But for the promoter who does only a few events a year, we need to look at the costs to them. The idea is to have a way of holding people accountable, but the question is how do you get to that goal? Everyone agrees we need a way to address that issue, especially with the industry growing by leaps and bounds with the use of the Web. We need to listen to everyone and figure out the best way possible to do it.
Q: How do you proceed from here?
A: We need to do additional research to see what the cost of the insurance would be. And set up additional meetings with the industry. I think we covered most groups, and we just want to take our time and reach out to everyone that has constructive ideas.
Q: In a town meeting scenario?
A: No. But we want to reach out to all levels of the industry. We’ve had countless private meetings with anyone representing an association. We just want to make sure we look at all the ideas, analyze them, and come up with a response.
Q: You say this is an administration-generated ordinance. How is Mayor Daley with the idea that his ordinance is being tabled?
A: Well, it’s not being tabled. It’s just not being reported out. We just need more time to look at it. Overall, people understand that there needs to be regulation of this business entity, it’s just a question of what is the best way of doing it.
Q: What is the timetable for revising the ordinance?
A: I don’t have an answer. It depends on the schedule of meeting with people, and how long it takes to do the additional research.
Music community gets 11th-hour reprieve on post-E2 ordinance
A proposed event-promoter ordinance that prominent members of the Chicago music community say goes too far was put on hold Tuesday, a day before it was to be voted upon by the City Council.
The decision to further fine-tune the measure before it's presented to the council was made by Ald. Eugene Schulter after an extraordinary meeting between aldermen and club owners at City Hall. Last week, Schulter’s committee approved the ordinance, which has been in the works for years and is widely regarded as the city’s response to the E2 nightclub tragedy, which claimed 21 lives in a 2003 stampede.
“Everyone agrees that we have to figure out a way to separate the good apples from the bad apples [in promoting live events],” Schulter said. “But how we get to that stage is something we have to spend a little more time on."
The document strives to tighten up the checks and balances of city government to ensure that only responsible promoters stage entertainment events. Among its many provisions, it would require independent promoters to buy a license for $500 to $2,000 (depending on the size of the venue) plus acquire at least $300,000 in general liability insurance.
But that provision also would apply to indie promoters aiming to stage events in clubs with fewer than 500 fixed seats that already have public-place-of-amusement licenses and insurance. The added layer of cost and regulation would be superfluous to ensuring the event’s safety and could prevent it from happening at all, members of the music community contend. The cultural and economic impact could be significant, depriving the city of numerous events generated from outside the city’s mainstream music community.
Joe Shanahan, owner of Metro for three decades, said his club holds at least two such independently promoted events a month. The measure also would negatively impact well-established clubs and theaters such as the Empty Bottle, Schubas, Park West, the Vic, Buddy Guy’s Legends, Martyrs, the Hideout, the Riviera, Uncommon Ground and dozens more in an industry where the margin between a profitable event and a losing one can be thin.
In response to the outcry, Schulter called an 11th hour meeting Tuesday on the third floor of City Hall that included club owners, members of the Chicago Music Commission, city attorneys and aldermen. At the meeting, Schulter concluded, “there are still unanswered questions and issues that should be considered” and decided against putting the ordinance on the city council’s agenda Wednesday.
More discussions with the music community will now likely take place, which leaves the door open to the ordinance being revised.
“It doesn’t mean it’s going away,” Shanahan said, “but there was a feeling of people rolling up their sleeves and saying, ‘Let’s work together, let’s talk about it.’ I felt proud to be part of the City of Chicago. The civic aspect of what we do was listened to, which is a remarkable thing at a time like this.”
greg@gregkot.com
Where does the proposed ordinance go from here? In an interview, Ald. Eugene Schulter, chairman of the City Council Committee on License and Consumer Protection, responded:
Kot: How often does a committee vote to approve something and it doesn’t come in front of the City Council?
Schulter: It happens quite frequently. It’s not uncommon where you might feel you need additional time to address various issues. It does happen.
Q: Why did you call a meeting Tuesday morning to discuss the proposed ordinance with various members of the music community?
A: It’s not my ordinance. It’s the administration’s ordinance. Since last July when I got it, we had our first hearing, and it lasted three hours. We thought we had all our bases covered since then. But lately we had a couple other groups that I felt should’ve been heard but were not. So that’s the reason I called them to the office this morning. And they presented some really good ideas. We need to look at those ideas. There have been substantive changes to the ordinance since it was originally proposed last year. I feel very strongly we need to listen, especially when we’re creating a new regulatory scheme in terms of bringing other people into the loop. Everyone agrees that we have to figure out a way to separate the good apples from the bad apples [in promoting live events]. But how we get to that stage is something we have to spend a little more time on. That’s how I operate. We are very deliberate. We don’t pass things quickly, especially when you’re creating a new license category and you’re affecting people’s lives. I felt we need to continue working on this, and address some of the issues brought up today.
Q: What are the key issues that need to be resolved before you can move forward with this ordinance?
A: One of the key ones is the one dealing with insurance [for independent promoters]. What are the costs? Do we really need the requirement if the venue operator provides insurance coverage already? And we need to look at the cost of a new license as well, especially for the small promoter. In the original ordinance there was one flat fee, and now there are four levels [ranging from $500 to $2,000]. But for the promoter who does only a few events a year, we need to look at the costs to them. The idea is to have a way of holding people accountable, but the question is how do you get to that goal? Everyone agrees we need a way to address that issue, especially with the industry growing by leaps and bounds with the use of the Web. We need to listen to everyone and figure out the best way possible to do it.
Q: How do you proceed from here?
A: We need to do additional research to see what the cost of the insurance would be. And set up additional meetings with the industry. I think we covered most groups, and we just want to take our time and reach out to everyone that has constructive ideas.
Q: In a town meeting scenario?
A: No. But we want to reach out to all levels of the industry. We’ve had countless private meetings with anyone representing an association. We just want to make sure we look at all the ideas, analyze them, and come up with a response.
Q: You say this is an administration-generated ordinance. How is Mayor Daley with the idea that his ordinance is being tabled?
A: Well, it’s not being tabled. It’s just not being reported out. We just need more time to look at it. Overall, people understand that there needs to be regulation of this business entity, it’s just a question of what is the best way of doing it.
Q: What is the timetable for revising the ordinance?
A: I don’t have an answer. It depends on the schedule of meeting with people, and how long it takes to do the additional research.