BYOB ban proposed for dry precincts in Chicago

Ban on BYOB proposed for dry precincts in Chicago

So, where are the dry precincts?

That link did not work for me. Ah, figured it out. I think this link works.

http://voices.suntimes.com/none/graphic ... precincts/ (from the article linked in the OP)

=R=

Katie wrote:Chicago City Council prohibits BYOB in dry precincts

So, where are the dry precincts?

That and the title of this thread—BYOB banned in dry precincts in Chicago—might be a bit misleading.

Fran Spielman, in the Chicago Sun-Times wrote:The City Council’s Committee on Public Safety reluctantly approved the ordinance at the behest of West Side Ald. Deborah Graham (29th).

That makes it sound like the ordinance has been passed and BYOB is now banned. I don't think that's the case as this excerpt from the Tribune explains.

Hal Dardick, in the Chicago Tribune wrote:. . . the alderman [Graham] won initial approval for a proposal to further limit drinking in areas that residents have voted dry.

The measure, to be considered later this month by the full council, bans businesses from allowing patrons to bring their own booze into businesses located in dry precincts.

So I think it's far from a done deal but it's an issue that Chicago diners should be concerned about. As the Sun-Times article points out, 12 percent of the city's precincts have been voted dry.

I get what you're saying and I admit I am not clear on whether this being voted on in committee is any indication of it being approved by the full City Council. You might agree with me that the wording of the Sun-Times article suggests that it is a done deal. For example, "The citywide crackdown was then approved over the objections of several other aldermen." I gather that you're saying that a committee can't really approve a crackdown, it can only recommend that the full council vote on approving a crackdown, but that's not how the text of the Sun-Times article is worded. There is no discussion in the article of when or if this would go to the full City Council for a vote or its likelihood of being approved if/when it does. I appreciate your posting the link to the Tribune article.

p.s., so, as the original poster, can I change the thread title to "BYOB ban proposed for dry precincts in Chicago"?

Katie wrote:p.s., so, as the original poster, can I change the thread title to "BYOB ban proposed for dry precincts in Chicago"?

Yes. Just edit your original post and change the title.

Katie wrote:I get what you're saying and I admit I am not clear on whether this being voted on in committee is any indication of it being approved by the full City Council. You might agree with me that the wording of the Sun-Times article suggests that it is a done deal. For example, "The citywide crackdown was then approved over the objections of several other aldermen." I gather that you're saying that a committee can't really approve a crackdown, it can only recommend that the full council vote on approving a crackdown, but that's not how the text of the Sun-Times article is worded. There is no discussion in the article of when or if this would go to the full City Council for a vote or its likelihood of being approved if/when it does. I appreciate your posting the link to the Tribune article.

My earlier post was meant as a criticism of the Sun-Times article, not so much of your original post. I suspect most readers of the article came to the same conclusion you arrived at because a critical part of the story went completely unexplained. I happened to read the Tribune article first so the title of your thread jumped out at me. I'm no expert on the workings of Chicago government but I agree with your summary of the current situation (quoted here). I also completely agree with your assessment of the Sun-Times article—it's highly misleading (though probably factually correct).

Whoa! I never knew about dry precincts - seems I live across the street from one - and it also looks like Nookie's would have to stop allowing BYOB!

WTF - the whole idea of dry precincts is crazy - does anyone know the history of these? are they leftovers from prohibition or more recent invasions of uber morality?

Siun wrote:Whoa! I never knew about dry precincts - seems I live across the street from one - and it also looks like Nookie's would have to stop allowing BYOB!

WTF - the whole idea of dry precincts is crazy - does anyone know the history of these? are they leftovers from prohibition or more recent invasions of uber morality?

You are right to be alarmed. This should be required reading for every Chicagoan: Local Option in the Encyclopedia of Chicago. The Local Option is more than a pleasant Lincoln Park beer bar.

HI,

For whatever it matters, the precinct where Tre Kronor is located is dry due to North Park University across the street.

Regards,

The precinct where the Sauganash Whole Foods is located was dry, but was voted wet again so the store could sell beer & wine.

And some background on the charming alderwoman who is pushing this: West Side Alderman Gives Away Money Donated by Controversial Liquor Store

Apparently Ald. Graham received a sizable donation from a convicted drug dealer who wanted to open a liquor store - and helped smooth the way to city funds and zoning waivers. She says the two were not connected - but did not give this back until this past Friday when it was reported by the Trib in connection with the BYOB move.

@Rene - thanks so much for that link! Everyone indeed should read it. I'm going to find our neighborhood historian and see if she can tell me how recently these odd bits of Old Town went dry. Just stunning.

Siun wrote:Whoa! I never knew about dry precincts - seems I live across the street from one - and it also looks like Nookie's would have to stop allowing BYOB!

WTF - the whole idea of dry precincts is crazy - does anyone know the history of these? are they leftovers from prohibition or more recent invasions of uber morality?

Years ago the only retail establishment in our precinct was a bodega-esque convenience store that sold airplane bottles of booze and single cans of beer (not 40's, 12-oz cans of Bud). After a year or so of walking out the front door to a pile of miini-bottles/cans/to-go cups we pleaded with the owner to sell less wino-friendly options. He refused, we voted him dry.

In my neighborhood, the opposite is happening. Although several local precincts were voted dry a number of years ago, people have discovered the error of their ways and have been steadily voting them wet again in an attempt to lure restaurants and pubs to the area.

stevez wrote:In my neighborhood, the opposite is happening. Although several local precincts were voted dry a number of years ago, people have discovered the error of their ways and have been steadily voting them wet again in an attempt to lure restaurants and pubs to the area.

The corner store in our neighborhood was literally the only business in the precinct; the restaurants across the street were in another precinct and unaffected by the dry vote. We clearly would have adopted a different tactic if there were other establishments.

spinynorman99 wrote:The corner store in our neighborhood was literally the only business in the precinct; the restaurants across the street were in another precinct and unaffected by the dry vote. We clearly would have adopted a different tactic if there were other establishments.

Yeah, that tactic has been used for years. Anyone remember the Ultimate Sports Bar & Grill down the street from Park West?

Ah I had forgotten about this when I was recently complaining about West Town's lack of cocktail bars in comparison to the glut in Logan Square. There are not only dry wards, but Liquor Moratorium Districts in Chicago. Given places like the one spinynorman99
mentioned, it's understandable.

The news of Chicago Aldermen Deborah Graham pushing for the ban of BYOB restaurants isn't just an event or media story. It's goddamn self-sabotage on our city's food scene. Just when we finally got beyond the green tape of food trucks we're going to put ourselves back at square one.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... nquet-hall

I would be beyond stunned if Rahm and a majority of aldermen voted to ban byo in dry precincts. You would have had to have been asleep for 50 years to be unaware of the enthusiasm for byo restaurants and the dollars they bring into neighborhoods. Just hang out on Western Ave between Wilson and Lawrence on a weekend evening and watch the steady flow of people into and out of the liquor stores and right into the various Thai restaurants there. In any event, something I certainly plan to keep an eye on, but given my Alderman's (Pawar) push to get brew pubs and the like into Lincoln Square, I think I already know his position on dry precincts.

According to the Tribune (so, take it with a grain of salt), perhaps there's some hope that this proposal will die a just death . . .

A controversial move to stop businesses in dry parts of the city from letting patrons carry in their own liquor will be put on hold as city officials try to work out a compromise, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday.

City Law Department officials said it would not be possible to set the new rule only for Graham's ward, and numerous aldermen have said privately in recent days that her bill as written would have trouble getting enough votes to pass the full City Council on Wednesday.

BYOB ordinance delayed

=R=

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131016 ... ty-council

> she'll pursue a comprehensive BYOB ordinance citywide

Ugh. Can't she deal with her problem banquet hall through existing noise and other ordinances?

> Waguespack said he is concerned about a new ordinance creating problems where there aren't any, something he has raised with Graham. "We talked about it, and I told her I know you've got issues in your area, but nothing's ever come up by us."

At least there seem to be a few aldermen who have some sense.

Looks like Graham's attempt to distract from her own issues is now going to lead to the city imposing fees or devising another way to mess with BYOBs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9284367E6X

Bring-your-own-bottle has been part of the fabric of Chicago neighborhoods for decades, allowing folks to bring their own liquor to businesses that can't or won't go through the lengthy, expensive and uncertain process of applying for a license to sell it.

Though it's an imbibing practice found mainly at hundreds of restaurants, Chicago has at least one BYOB strip club and a handful of art studios where people can drink their own booze while painting or sculpting. And yuppies at upscale art galleries and beauty salons in River North are just as likely to carry in a chilled bottle of pinot grigio as pool sharks at Chris's are to enjoy a cold Budweiser while hustling tourists.

BYOB's popularity is widespread in large part due to the lack of government regulation. But City Hall recently was reminded of that fact, and the attention is putting Chicago's anything-goes BYOB tradition under the microscope and in possible jeopardy.

Is there anything we can do about this?

Good question - I guess we can call our alders. Does anyone know if there would need to be a hearing if changes were proposed? It would be good to organize a response if there is.

Siun wrote:Good question - I guess we can call our alders. Does anyone know if there would need to be a hearing if changes were proposed? It would be good to organize a response if there is.

I'm willing to bet that if this actually goes any further, there will be countless hearings and precious little action. I'm hoping that lessons were learned from the foie debacle.

Siun wrote:Good question - I guess we can call our alders. Does anyone know if there would need to be a hearing if changes were proposed? It would be good to organize a response if there is.

If they follow typical Council shenanigans any hearing would be announced with little fanfare and the barest minimum of warning.

You know if they could show the public some actual documentation in the form of lots of complaints or similar about BYOB I'd be willing to listen to *reasonable* discourse as to why some increased oversight of BYOB might be needed and how such oversight might be implemented. As it is I have no reason to suspect any such documentation exists as I don't believe most people have issues nor do most establishments present issues to concern people; I don't even think they are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken but rather, having been alerted to the opportunity, the City sees this as yet another money grab chance.

The jokers in city hall are really something. There aren't enough important issues in Chicago for them to worry about? They should be spending 95% of their time on fixing the financial mess THEY created and improving the schools. Another example of governmental over regulation.

"There is no ordinance in the municipal code that regulates the practice of BYOB in the city of Chicago. None," city Liquor Commissioner Gregory Steadman told aldermen at a hearing this month. "So therefore, currently any type of business that wanted to allow their patrons to bring alcohol can do so."

So what?

Why can't a private business do what it pleases on it's premises? What is the difference if someone opened a bottle of wine in their home or another property owner's restaurant. If the the property owner doesn't have a problem with it, who cares? One of the big reasons for BYO restaurants is because the restaurant owners want to part of the city hall nonsense liquor regulation. If people can't BYO, it will severely impact their business, since MANY people like to have a drink with their meal and will just go somewhere that has a liquor license. Shouldn't the government be helping small business owners?

The big question is why now? There was no mention of problems. There are many more problems with people being over served in licensed bars and restaurants. I have frequented BYO restaurants often and for over 30 years and I can't recall an instance of public drunkenness.

It would be great if folks would call their alders and say they don't like this - and also ask what the process is or when there will be hearings etc. I suspect that the sense that a lot of folks are not happy and might show up for hearings might create some positive pressure. I'm also wondering what the BYOB restaurants are doing - when I get back home (on the road in Montreal this week) I'll ask the folks at Nookies as this would impact them. It just seems like something we should be aware of and ready to raise a bit of fuss over if need be.

Just a sign of the horrible "priorities" of our city govt ...

I am consistently amazed at the City of Chicago's incompetence and lack of logic. The diametrically opposed thing to that is we still manage to be one of the best cities in the world that has excellent prospects for growth and prosperity both economically and culturally... Go figure.