I also think that this pamphlet does a great job of describing the program and promoting Chicago as a place that values music and art. Hopefully the cabaret license will be completely revamped, not just tweaked, and the communications to the business community will show that Oakland values its arts community as well.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/ppaguide0509.pdf

I was very pleasantly surprised to hear that Councilmembers Quan and Kernighan wanted even more flexibility and accommodation than what was put on the agenda. Their primary concern was that accessory music in small restaurants and cafes should be allowed as-of-right.

What appears to be in the works at this point is some variation on a three tiered system. One category would have no permits required at all, and would likely apply to restaurants and cafes, possibly with a curfew or other restrictions. The second category seems to be shaping up as close to the mini-cabaret license that was proposed above. The third is the cabaret license we currently have, for larger and more impactful establishments.

And what’s more, OPD and the Committee were both willing to try a pilot program for after-hours clubs. No alcohol would be served past two due to state law, but softdrinks and snacks would be available. It was totally non-controversial, because it seemed clear to everybody in the room that staggering the exodus of drunkards from clubs makes for easier law enforcement. Plus, giving people some alcohol-free time to calm down will also likely decrease DUIs.

To put it mildly, I was floored by what happened. I really couldn’t have hoped for a better result.

Many thanks to Councilmembers Nadel and Kaplan for taking the lead on this. In some ways, I think that because they chose to ask for something modest, it gave an opening for other Councilmembers to add their own common sense ideas, which really helped build consensus.

It looks like we’re on our way some very sensible reforms. Entertainment regulations are making a leap to the 21st century (from the 19th century!).

I wish I didn’t have a job interview today, I would so rather have been @ the Public Safety Committee meeting.
Very much looking forward to hearing how things transpired.

The regulation and compliance overload in our world pervades everything, and possible it is to the point now were it is a deterrent to enterprise, especially to small start-up entrepreneurs.

Seasoned corporate operations of course have the capital and operations infrastructure to handle this, advance teams and what not. Fire safety regulations, sanitation and public safety aside, (already handled by other code), I wonder if investing and promoting our various communities, marketing the neighborhoods, shop local programs and focusing on innovation, vitality and how to increase sales and employment could generate similar returns for the tax shortfall that seems the underlying play here.

Disallowing cover charges reduces the intensity of the impact, because it means that the band is a bonus feature, not the main event or the main source of revenue.

Our plan does not require additional fire inspection unless the owner substatially alters the interior seating layout. If you just put a band in the corner of a restaurant, you haven’t changed fire safety. Patrons still sit at the same tables and have the same egress routes.

Focusing on ideas to present for discussion will and can only foster necessary changes.

Matt, sort of good, but not much different for being free for some categories and charging for others.

Also that kind of hoop-jumping and extra staff labor costs money.

The easiest ordinance to pass is a low-maintenance, clearly defined law that’s short and easy to read. Any opportunity to split hairs and parse words is trouble both for the legislators as they review the law, and for the staff who have to administer it afterwards.

Max has entertainment experience, wants free permits and is optimistic about business owners taking responsibility for their premises as well as the ability for entertainment to bring up a neighborhood. Ralph and Robert want there neighborhoods to stay civilized and livable and see a $600 permit fee as a way to cover the cost of what they believe to be inevitable externalities related specifically to small cabarets.

A win-win would be to have a permit/agreement with a fee based on a list of yes and no questions with a value placed on each yes or no for its cost to the city. If you score below a certain level you receive a free cabaret permit. This would be public record allowing the community to police its cabarets. Last, the fine for violating the agreement should be enough to discourage most violations as well as to pay for the admin costs of the do-gooder’s free permits.