Modified On June 18, 2008
Some Chicago political hack wants to pass a law that will require mountains of paperwork, fees, proof of insurance, fingerprinting and licensing for people wanting to produce live entertainment in the Windy City. Some folks who participate in/promote improv in that town are understandably agitated.
Speculation is rampant. Some believe it will kill all but the most established promoters/venues that present standup and improv. (Conversely, it would stifle or outright obliterate any upstart or independent who wanted to produce comedy at smaller venues in the city– open mikes, plucky, new improv troupes seeking to establish themselves, etc.)
Jim Derogatis of the Sun-Times runs the entire text of the ordinance on his blog along with the reaction of one group with a stake in the outcome. Paragraph one of that reaction:
The Chicago Music Commission shares the City’s commitment to ensuring the safe and responsible enjoyment of entertainment in Chicago and strongly concurs with the City’s goal of rooting out illegitimate “underground” promoters operating in Chicago with sometimes dangerous consequences while not overburdening Chicago’s vibrant music scene. However, we cannot support this ordinance in its current form.
Is the CMC being way too deferential there? Perhaps that’s the Chicago Way. Exactly what are the “sometimes dangerous consequences” that result in someone putting on a show? (Points will be taken off for those who mention the E2 stampede. It seems the owners were acquitted of any wrongdoing.)
Read the comments at the end of Derogatis’ lengthy post for more insight and speculation.
What it comes down to is this: Is there really a whole lot of danger to the life and limb of Chicago theater/club/rave attendees because of independent, out-of-town promoters, and, if so, should the solution involve fingerprinting, licensing and bureaucracy? Or is this just a naked power-/money-grab by politicians who spend a good portion of their day dreaming up ideas for new revenue-streams for the government?
We’ll save you the trouble: It’s the latter.
Or is it just a convenient way for Chicago to essentially grab a huge piece of the pie when Just For Laughs comes to town in November of 2009? (Do the math… it’ll add up to a nice piece of change and a great way for local politicos to have a say in when, where and how the Canadians conduct their business inside the city limits.)
It’s a great week for greedy, busybody lawmakers and their pals– as the FCC prepares to approve the merger between XM and Sirius, the Congressional Black Caucus is pulling out all the stops, trying to get a piece of the post-merger pie. They’re not happy with the 24 channel set-aside for “minorities and women.” They want more channels set aside for what one businessman (who stands to make a lot of money) calls “independent new entrants.” They want five times that number of stations!
Background: The Wall Street Journal’s fascinating breakdown of how the FCC’s members may vote and why. Engadget.com has run the DOJ’s Antitrust Department’s decision to drop their investigation. And an unblinking analysis of the political dealings in the background, particularly focused on Chester Davenport of Georgetown Partners.
Thanks to FOS Sharilyn Johnson for spotting the Chicago Improv discussion!