Showing posts with label liquor licenses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liquor licenses. Show all posts

Saturday, August 4, 2018

School proximity restrictions about politics more than public safety

The political reporter-type person in me always found humorous the laws that were meant to restrict proximity to a school or church – usually based on the concept that certain individuals or businesses have no business locating hear the youthful or the overly-holy amongst us.
BERRIOS: Name in news despite himself

No strip clubs or dive taverns across the street from a church or convent (remember that bar in west suburban Stone Park that ultimately lost its liquor license because the nuns nearby didn’t appreciate the drunken neighbors?).

THEY ALWAYS STRUCK me as something overly simplistic, and not always easy to enforce. Particularly if they come down to issues of “How close is too close?”

So I was intrigued by a pair of stories I stumbled across Friday.

One involved Gov. Bruce Rauner signing off on a long-standing change to state law that requires the General Assembly to approve amendments to the state’s Liquor Control Law for every instance for every instance where alcohol is served within 100 feet of a church or school.

Now, municipal officials will have the authority to issue exemptions. No more having to get the legislative types who, theoretically, ought to be preoccupied with bigger issues instead of worrying about where taverns are located in the neighborhoods.

THERE ALSO WAS a Chicago Sun-Times report about the company that oversees parking of cars for various public events at privately-owned lots.

In the instance that has the newspaper all worked up, people attending ballgames at Wrigley Field are parking their cars in, amongst other places, a lot that is part of the Inter-American School property two blocks away on Waveland Avenue.

The “controversial” part is that the Blk & Wht Valet LLC employed an individual to work at that lot who has a criminal record for sex offenses – and part of his penalty is that he is required to list himself as a sex offender, which limits the places where he can be.
RAUNER: Giving local officials more control

And as the Sun-Times chose to phrase it, their reporters found the employee in question at work, “with kids swinging on the monkey bars behind him.”

FOR THE RECORD, that employee has since been fired from his job, although it seems the company may wind up losing its contract for claims they didn’t do an adequate background check on their employee.

Although the Sun-Times reports the company saying the worker in question didn’t indicate his criminal record on his job application. Which would put this incident in the category of a person with a record hoping it wouldn’t catch up with him.

In short, an incident where such restrictions aren’t the easiest thing to enforce. I suspect, however, this particular worker is going to think he’s the victim – yet another incident of “the system” working to keep him unemployed.

One thing that caught my attention is the political connections of the company that, basically, is using other peoples’ property to park cars near Wrigley, along with Guaranteed Rate Field and the United Center.

ONE OWNER IS the son-in-law of soon-to-be former Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios (he’s married to former state Rep. Toni Berrios) and also is a grandson of a former Chicago Public Schools official with ties to the 11th Ward Democratic Organization (a.k.a., the Daley family).
How tame is parking nearby?

By comparison, Rauner indicated his support of the state law change is meant to create greater local control, since he told the Chicago Tribune that many state legislators used the law to maintain a sense of local influence in their home neighborhoods.

After all, getting the legislator to support your measure would require a campaign contribution to the appropriate authority, with other legislators across the state sticking up for their colleagues even though they often knew nothing of the local situation.

So no matter how much people spew rhetoric about these laws somehow benefitting children and the public safety, in the end, they all come down to political concerns.

  -30-

Monday, April 11, 2016

Is a drink while leering at the strip club as essential as a beer at the ballpark?

I still remember the last time I was in a strip club. Not in Chicago, but it was one of those places that didn’t have a liquor license and didn’t think much of the idea of people bringing their own liquor inside.

Does alcohol really make her attainable?
Hence, they served soft drinks. The group I was with (I seem to recall it was a bachelor party) guzzled down heavily iced (and I suspect watered-down) soda pop. It may well have been diet. It was definitely flat.

CERTAINLY NOT ANYTHING that would have provided the “manly” image we’d like to think we were projecting that night.

I actually do recall one of my colleagues making a public comment to complain about the lack of liquor on the premises.

However, we had engaged in other activities prior to entering the strip club, all of which involved alcoholic beverage consumption. Which is why when one of the strip club staff snapped back, “You guys look like you don’t need another drink,” we had to laugh.

It was true.

SOMEHOW, I CAN’T help but think that response to us is one that many strip club patrons in Chicago need to hear, particularly since city officials are; considering lightening up their opposition to liquor licenses being issued to businesses where the female staff expose their nipples to the public for show.

Some let you bring your own liquor, while others follow the lead of that strip club I was in all those years ago (seriously, once you’ve seen one, there really isn’t much point to making repeat appearances; it’s not like you’re allowed to “touch” the merchandise, unless you’re willing to risk the wrath of the bouncer).

Do you need beer to tolerate bobbled double plays?
Ninth Ward Alderman Anthony Beale says he’s willing to issue liquor licenses to such clubs because he thinks the potential for problems on the premises is worse if people bring their own liquor.

Who knows exactly what they’re bringing with them? And he says he’s aware of instances where people brought gallons of alcoholic beverages with them to consume while they leered (and ONLY leered) at the overly-tattooed ladies.

CHEAP HOOCH, AND easy women. Not a nice combination.

Whereas if you let the clubs sell drinks, they’re going to have to comply with the regulations that come with a liquor license. Plus, they’re going to be serving people watered-down drinks at ridiculously-absurd prices.

You may wind up paying more than the $9 or so that one has to cough up for a beer at the ballpark.

Which is another place where it seems some people think it is a part of the atmosphere to consume alcohol.

I HAVE TO wonder how many people managed to endure the capacity crowd on Friday of Chicago White Sox Opening Day by getting as ripped as their wallets would let them.

How much beer wound up being consumed within U.S. Cellular Field? Was it a combination of the white of beer foam and snow, along with the chill of the temperatures of the air and the beer that resulted in some parts of the crowd to start getting all rowdy that day?

Did these guys check out a strip club following the game?
Will at least some of those people wait anxiously for the day this week when the City Council takes up the strip club liquor license issue? Will Mayor Rahm Emanuel feel compelled to get involved – although I can’t help but believe the mayor’s sarcastic praise last week for aldermen being able to find the time to research the strip club issue was somehow right on the mark.

Personally, I’m not going to be impacted by whatever the council chooses to do. I’m not a strip club regular; I can find enough places where I can’t touch the women on the premises without having to pay for the experience. Having a drink isn’t going to make it feel any less tawdry to me!

  -30-