Thursday, July 19, 2007
News / Clout City Party on, people--for now
Posted by Ben Joravsky on Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM
So many people showed up at City Hall yesterday to protest Mayor Daley's proposed vendor's licensing bill that they had to move the meeting from a small hearing room to the full City Council chambers.
It was a rather unique-looking bunch for a council meeting, which generally draws middle-aged white guys in suits. There were younger men and women of all races and ethnicities -- a colorful array of T-shirts, tattoos, mohawks, tattered jeans, and piercings. Not to mention a few bushy-haired dudes who looked liked they'd just rolled out of bed.
Some of them told me it was the first time they'd been to City Hall and said they weren't really up on local politics. One fellow sheepishly admitted he voted for Mayor Daley in the last election: "He's a dictator, but he's a benevolent dictator."
It reminded me of something the late west-side politico Jerald Wilson used to tell me all the time: People in Chicago will let Mayor Daley do whatever he wants, so long as he doesn't do it to them. Plow over whole CHA communities, divert millions of property tax dollars from the schools to rich downtown developers, cover up investigations into police torture, that's one thing. But threaten our ability to throw a really good party--my God, the outrage!
Daley's proposal would, among other things, force promoters to purchase a $2,000 city license (renewable every two years) and undergo a criminal background check before they could promote any public event. According to Daley, it was intended to regulate the promotion business so there would never be another tragedy like the deadly stampede at the old E2 nightclub.
In addition, as more than one City Hall skeptic said today, it's also intended to raise more revenue for the city and shift liability from the city to promoters in the event of lawsuits from another E2-type tragedy.
After alderman Eugene Schulter (47th) called the Committee on License and Consumer Protection to order, the promoters denounced the proposal. I understand their opposition. The proposed bill is a classic cases of legislative overkill. Filled with ambiguities that raise more questions than it answers, it would cause more problems than it repairs. Plus, it threatens to throw a lot of small promoters out of business. "We say Chicago is a fun town," declared one promoter, drawing cheers from the crowd. "And this ordinance is killing the fun."
The truth was that their testimony, no matter how heartfelt, was largely for show. As with so many other matters in City Hall, the real deal had gone down behind closed doors, when none of the little promoters were around. In this case, city officials privately met yesterday with leading venue operators, including the United Center, according to a couple of city officials I talked to. At that meeting the big boys made it clear they opposed the current proposal if only because out-of-town promoters would move their concerts and circuses to competing venues, like the Rosemont Horizon, if it passed.
After yesterday's meeting it was obvious the current proposal was going nowhere. But the item was on the committee's agenda, and so they held their meeting. Knowing there would be no vote, the aldermen who showed up were free to play to the crowd without facing mayoral retribution. And so aldermen Walter Burnett (26th), Tom Tunney (44th), and Isaac Carothers (29th) turned into tigers, lacing into Scott Bruner, the director of of the Department of Business Affairs and Licensing, who'd been sent down by the fifth floor to defend the proposal.
At the end of the meeting Schulter said there would be no vote on the proposal -- surprise, surprise. It's not clear what happens next. One insider told me it's dead -- it will never come out of committee. Another told me that Daley will have it reworded to satisfy objections from the big venue operators and bring it back in a few months. At that point the little promoters who filled the council chambers will learn just how benevolent this dictator really is.
Showing 1-13 of 13
"One fellow sheepishly admitted he voted for Mayor Daley in the last election: 'He's a dictator, but he's a benevolent dictator.'" What a fucking moron. But at least he registered and voted, right?
Was this moron one of the pierced people? Maybe he likes self inflicted pain.
I'm all for personal freedoms, but, it'd be nice, if, at least on election day, those who vote would refrain from indulging, just until after they've cast their votes. Feeling mellow and voting are incompatible states of consciousness.
"People in Chicago will let Mayor Daley do whatever he wants, so long as he doesn't do it to them." And yet, the things being done ARE being done to ALL OF US. Every bullshit move made by Daley and his associates affects ALL of the citizens of this city and county, yet, the majority of the 'voters', those who vote, and those who don't, seem to believe in the 'benevolence' of this particular 'dictator'. 'Seem to believe' is the operative phrase here, as, it's, hopefully, much more likely that 'the people' don't believe in much of anything, anymore. Thanks to the workings of our 'benevolent dictator(s)' and their 'machine'.
MAYOR DALEY IS OUR GREATEST MAYOR.PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ARE NOTHLING BUT JEALOUS LOSERS. AFTER THIS LAST ELECTION WE HAVE A MANDATE,FROM THE PEOPLE.I LIVE IN THE GRATEST WARD, WITHIN THE GREATEST CITY-- THE 11TH. IF THE MAYOR WAS AS BAD AS YOU AS YOU CLAIM, WHY IS HE REELECTED WITH SUCH CRUSHING MAJORITES. IF THE MAYOR IS SUCH A DICTATOR,HOW CAN HE CONVINCE 80% OF THE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM. IN CLOSING WHY DOESN'T BEN AND HIS FOLLOWERS MOVE TO DETROIT.
"CHRISTOPHER KOZICKI July 19th - 11:02 p.m. MAYOR DALEY IS OUR GREATEST MAYOR. PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ARE NOTHLING BUT JEALOUS LOSERS. AFTER THIS LAST ELECTION WE HAVE A MANDATE, FROM THE PEOPLE. I LIVE IN THE GRATEST WARD, WITHIN THE GREATEST CITY-- THE 11TH. IF THE MAYOR WAS AS BAD AS YOU AS YOU CLAIM, WHY IS HE REELECTED WITH SUCH CRUSHING MAJORITES. IF THE MAYOR IS SUCH A DICTATOR, HOW CAN HE CONVINCE 80% OF THE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM. IN CLOSING WHY DOESN'T BEN AND HIS FOLLOWERS MOVE TO DETROIT." Thank you, Mister Kozicki.
If Ben and his followers moved to Detroit they couldn't make a living bashing Daley and the aldermen.
... if you'd move to Detroit we'd have one less Daley bootlicker.
Hey, don't be giving my boot-lickers any ideas, I need every last one of them, my boots get really filthy every day of the week.
Which precinct captain got you your job, Kozicki?
On second thought, Kozicki has a point when he asks (lowercase added to spare sensitive eyeballs), "If the mayor is such a dictator, how can he convince 80% of the people to vote for him?" Real dictators routinely pull 90 to 100 percent of the "vote." Daley's not trying hard enough.
It was a bit more than 70%, and, NOT "of the people", BUT, rather, of the people who VOTED. An accurate assessment of the 'popularity' of Daley would necessitate a calculation of: 1) Exactly how many citizens of this city were qualified to vote on election day? 2) Exactly how many citizens were registered to vote on election day? 3) Exactly how many citizens actually voted on election day? 4) Exactly how many citizens voted for Daley? 5) Exactly how many citizens voted for someone other than Daley? 6) Exactly how many votes were cast, but then invalidated? 7) Exactly how many citizens tried to vote, but were denied, for whatever reasons? The results of this audit would give us an accurate assessment of Daley's true 'popularity'.
You forgot: Exactly how many votes for daley were cast by fraudulent means? As in: Fictitious voters? Deceased voters? Former voters who've moved outside the city limits? Voters whose votes were cast for daley without their knowledge? Voters who were paid / bribed to vote for daley? Voters who were intimidated into voting for daley? Voters who voted for daley because they would never vote for a nigger? Voters who voted for daley multiple times, being registered at several addresses and nobody's purged the voter registration lists of duplicates? Voters who voted for daley multiple times, using variations on their legal names?
Latest in The Blog
-
Locust Music Hosts an Eclectic Saturday Showcase
Chicago's eclectic Locust Music label hosts a typically diverse showcase—with Starless & Bible Black, Stephen Titra's O.W.L., Paul Metzger, and more—at the Empty Bottle on Saturday night.
- Nov 6, 2009
-
Lynda Barry, Matt Groening, Chris Ware, and Jules Feiffer in a discussion Saturday at Parker
Matt Groening, Lynda Barry, Chris Ware, and Jules Feiffer join the Reader's Michael Miner for a discussion on the declining business of weekly comics.
- Nov 6, 2009
-
11/9—"Site Unseen" at the Chicago Cultural Center
Site Unseen 2009 at the Chicago Cultural Center, curated by Julie Laffin
- Nov 6, 2009
- More»
Author Archives
-
Who’ll Be the Bad Guy Now?
Manny Flores backs away from the cap he proposed on public funding for the Olympics.
- Aug 12, 2009
-
We Win!
Believe me: losing the Olympics bid is a very, very good thing.
- Oct 2, 2009
-
The Real Estate King of the Chicago City Council
Brand-new 26th Ward alderman Roberto Maldonado owns more properties than any other council rep—including ten in his own ward. That's a lot of potential conflicts of interest.
- Aug 19, 2009
- More»
Comments (13) RSS