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 11^th 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-

Schaller’s Pump a disappearing part of the old Sout’ Side Irish part of Chicago

Schaller’s Pump is a Bridgeport neighborhood tavern that could claim the distinction of being the oldest in the city of Chicago – tracing its lineage from 1881 until Sunday, when it closed for good.

One-and-a-third centuries of Bridgeport drinking now complete

It could also claim its current ownership by George Schaller and his family, which has held the property since the days following Prohibition. We’re bound to get a few sentimental reports in coming days (the Chicago Tribune kicked in with theirs on Monday) about this “cultural” loss to the city.

YET LET’S BE honest. There were elements of that place near 37^th and Halsted streets that weren’t exactly the most welcoming aspects of Chicago. It wouldn’t shock me if a great number of Chicagoans had never been there and probably wouldn’t have given much thought to setting foot in a place that viewed itself principally as existing to serve the people of Bridgeport.

The pea soup, meatloaf and Prime Rib on weekends? I never experienced them.

Personally, I only visited the place once. It was back in 1999 and several of my work colleagues and I wound up going together to a ballgame – at then-New Comiskey Park to see the White Sox take on the visiting Chicago Cubs.

It’s actually the only time I ever have gone to see a Sox/Cubs game (too many knuckleheads feel compelled to show up, which is why I usually catch those games on television or by reading a box score). Afterward, the batch of us decided to try to hit an area bar for a quick drink.

WHICH IS HOW we wound up walking over from Shields Avenue to Halsted Street and spent a bit of time at Schaller’s Pump. Bridgeport ain’t like Wrigley Field with the Cubby Bear Lounge located across the street,

The place was (I recall) in a good mood, largely because the White Sox that particular night had come from behind to beat the Cubs.

Our group took up a separate table and was pretty much watched quietly by people who wondered if we’d cause trouble because it was pretty obvious we weren’t Bridgeport native.

Will Sox fans have to drink in stadium bar now?

I do recall one guy asking me “what the story was” about our group, which had several younger obviously-suburban women and also some of the non-white types that a certain element of Bridgeport had long feared coming into their neighborhood.

WHEN TOLD THAT we were a batch of people who worked together, he kind of sighed, rolled his eyes then focused his attention back to his beer.

Like I already said, it helped that the White Sox won, so people were in a good mood. If the Cubs had won, maybe his reaction would have been more harsh.

But people were happy, particularly when the one colleague of mine who had worn a Cubs jersey into Schaller’s Pump was immediately told upon entrance to take it off (he did, and the bar’s staff kept it behind the counter; returning it upon his departure).

There also was the semi-humorous moment; when the bar’s patrons – upon seeing a televised recap of how the Sox beat the Cubs that night wound up bursting out in song. Giving us a genuine take on “South Side Irish,” which one of my work colleagues mocked by referring to it as the “Band Aid jingle.”

A GOOD THING that the Schaller’s crowd didn’t hear that wisecrack. It might have been contemplated as “fightin’ words.”

But no, there wasn’t a fight. In fact, we had our drink there, then moved on. Which probably kept the night from escalating into an incident.

Sox' ballpark doesn't have a Cubby Bear-like bar across the street

Although I recall one of my former colleagues saying she had now “experienced” the South Side, and I recall her asking me what it had been like to have “grown up” in the area. Even though the part of the South Side I call home is about 60 blocks further south and way to the east.

We of South Chicago and the East Side (and the 10^th Ward in general) think of Bridgeport as being “way up North,” which is a thought that I’m sure would grossly offend the 11^th Ward locals who now won’t have Schaller’s to hang out at to console themselves.

  -30-

Does video poker, slots have potential to become the “blob” that ate Illinois?

I felt a bit of relief this week when I read the reports that the Illinois Gaming Board rejected the desire of officials in suburban Hometown to establish a strip mall filled entirely with businesses that have video poker machines on the premises.

Gamble, or eat?

We’re talking about the laws from a couple of years ago that permitted businesses such as restaurants and taverns to install up to five gambling machines so as to help bring in more business.

PERSONALLY, I THINK they’re gaudy. I know of a half-dozen such businesses within a half-mile of where I live – including one Mexican restaurant just one block from home.

It’s not a place I regularly ate at (I know of other places where I can get better Mexican edibles). But the sight of those machines and the flashy lights and noises they emanate can make eating there a more tacky experience.

Although I am aware there are people who feel exactly the opposite – to the point that they go to that restaurant and other businesses SPECIFICALLY SO THEY CAN spend some time playing the slots.

They want to gamble, and like the idea of not having to make the trip to a casino.

WHAT INSPIRED THE idea of a gambling strip mall was the idea of expanding on the idea of legal gambling taking place within walking distance of home – at least if you happen to live in Hometown or its neighboring suburb of Oak Lawn.

If anything, the storefronts in this strip mall would have been less concerned with having to maintain a restaurant or a tavern because it turns out the kind of people who go to gamble at these places aren’t the least bit interested.

They view the primary business as being a distraction; something that would cost them money they’d rather stick into the slot machine out of a deluded belief they’ll walk away with more money than they entered with.

 

More likely, those people will leave with less. Possibly nothing at all. Which is a concept I just don’t understand. I work too hard for what little cash I have to lose it to the appeal of spinning wheels, digital symbols or flashing lights.

IT WAS ENCOURAGING to see the Gaming Board take the attitude that such a strip mall amounts to a casino – which have their own sets of regulations that must be followed to be licensed by the state of Illinois.

Honestly, I think we have plenty of those riverboat casinos scattered around the state for those people who absolutely feel compelled to put their money at risk in exchange for a cheap thrill.

And I think those establishments made a serious concession when they pretty much gave up on the requirement that the gambling take place on board boats that sailed around bodies of navigable water – because the same people who just want to play a slot machine without the distraction of a restaurant also didn’t want to have to take a gambling “cruise” (not even one that was just a lap around a river of sorts).

Now I know that some people claim these places aren’t casino-related. They’re just slot machines – none of the other, more hard-core games of chance are being played. No black jack. No roulette wheels.

JUST A CHANCE to pull a rod or push a button and hope you can get something other than three lemons – followed by the sight and sound of flashing lights and sirens and a flow of coins spewing from the machine.

Sounds kind of lame to me. Particularly since I remember one time I went to that previously-mentioned Mexican restaurant to place a takeout order and had the cashier suggest I play some slot machines to try to win the money to pay for the meal.

Why do I think the end result would have been losing $50 or so, in addition to the $20 I spent on food?

And that going to a gambling-oriented strip mall would merely change that to a $70 loss from gambing, and nothing left to grab a bite to eat later on?

  -30-

Tavern tries to put bigotry to rest, but should it be that easy to cover up?

Bigotry is bad for business.

That is the lesson to be learned from the behavior of a Near North Side tavern that likes to cater to the tourist crowd that perceives itself as “hip.”

IT WAS EARLIER this month that Chicago had another racial incident – one involving students from Washington University in St. Louis who were in the Second City for an academic conference.

After their official activities in the city, six students (all of whom are African-American) decided to behave like many other out-of-towners who are in Chicago – they did the town, and hit the bars in the Rush Street area.

That is what had them at the Original Mothers tavern, where they were turned away on the grounds that their attire was inappropriate.

Their attire was the hip-hop influenced clothes, particularly baggy pants, which was supposedly the item that had the tavern’s managers all upset.

NOW IN A quirk of the moment, the six commiserated with some other people who happened to be in the area – including some white students who happened to be wearing similar clothing. Those students then tried to get into Original Mothers, and wound up being admitted without hassle or incident.

They then cooperated in telling officials what happened, to provide some credence to the stories of six students from St. Louis.

Now for those who are going to wonder whether the students somehow did something else to give off an ominous appearance, I’m going to admit I don’t know. I doubt it, in large part because Washington University isn’t exactly some dinky community college.

It is academically a top-flight school in the Midwest, and it is highly unlikely that any students there would fit the “gang-banger” image that some people might mistakenly associate with those baggy pants (which I have seen on so many rural white kids who speak with drawls that they no longer carry any racial connotation in my mind).

THERE HAVE BEEN countless stories about the incident in recent weeks, with the tavern getting lots of negative publicity for creating the appearance that they were singling out black people when it came to deciding whom to admit.

But Original Mothers officials showed a willingness to bargain, and that caused them to reach a deal that will keep the six students from filing any kind of discrimination lawsuit or taking any other action that would result in them getting money from telling their story.

They got an apology, along with a promise that tavern officials will participate in a protest march against discrimination scheduled for next month and make the employees of their tavern take sensitivity training courses.

They also will participate in four fundraising events for causes considered worthy by the six students.

ATTORNEYS FOR THE tavern told reporter-types this week that the managers don’t believe they based their behavior that night on racial reasons.

But it all comes down to bigotry being bad for business.

They eat a little crow now, avoid having to pay a legal settlement of any type in the future, and there’s a good chance that by year’s end most people will have forgotten this incident ever occurred.

After all, there’s an excellent chance (I’d say 100 percent) that some other business will do something stupid that will draw the attention of people on the watch for racial prejudice in our society.

BUT SHOULD IT really be this easy to get rid of a negative incident?

I have a problem with the idea that the tavern can make this go away so quickly with a “non-denial denial” that never admits to anything being done wrong (their apology technically is for not showing the six students a good time while they were in Chicago).

It makes it seem like the students are upset because a cocktail waitress spilled a drink on one of them and rudely refused to clean up the mess.

Because it is guaranteed that incident would have snowballed into something much more significant if Original Mothers weren’t willing to take a little abuse right now. One member of Congress, Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., had asked the Justice Department to begin an investigation.

THE LAST THING the tavern would have wanted would have been some sort of case in U.S. District Court against them based on a civil rights violation.

Or worse, the possibility of Congressional hearings into race relations, using the incident as its motivation. Just think of how stupid the tavern, and Chicago by reflection, would have looked with such hearings turning up in newscasts.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Washington University’s chancellor used the incident against six students (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/students-bar-reach-agreement-in-race-dispute.html) at his school to write a negative letter to Mayor Richard M. Daley.

In large part, I’m acknowledging this Chicago incident against St. Louis people out of a sense (http://chicagoargus.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-get-haughty-it-could-happen-here.html) of equal time for an incident I wrote about last month in the St. Louis area.