By now, most people are aware of the biggest complaints about the Chicago promoter’s ordinance (PDF copy here): the expensive license fees, the need for $300,000 in liability insurance, the over-21 age requirement, etc. But the biggest problem with the ordinance is the way it’s written: in overly broad language, that’s subject to interpretation.

The interpretation of the ordinance (as Alderman Brendan Reilly told me in our interview yesterday) is left to the Department of Business Affairs and Licensing, during the five-week rulemaking process. This process often involves local stakeholders, but could also be conducted with even less public comment than has been offered so far, if the department so chose.

The city is trying to present this ordinance as a positive, an effort to rid the industry of so-called “bad apples.” But in both on and off the record conversations with the people who ought to know the ordinance best, it’s clear to me that many haven’t had a chance to fully understand its implications. As someone who’s done everything to understand this ordinance but sleep with it under my pillow, I think I’ve got as good a read on it as anyone. So here are a few of the contradictions and concerns about the ordinance that I haven’t seen reported so far:

Why non-profits and artists still need to worry
Julie Burros, who works for the city’s Department of Cultural Affairs, and is a board member with the League of Chicago Theatres, sent out a fact sheet yesterday about the ordinance, aimed at the city’s vibrant downtown and non-profit theater scenes. The document was intended to allay fears within that community that this ordinance would apply to them as well. As written, the ordinance offers an exemption for both non-profits and artists who plan and promote their own events.

But the ordinance suggests that anyone who is not an employee of the non-profit – a publicist, for example – or is doing something that involves the planning or financial affairs of said event – a band’s manager, for example – is not exempt from the ordinance.

Also, theater blogger Don Hall, who is a company member of the non-profit theater group WNEP, posted this morning about a call he made to Alderman Schulter’s office. Schulter is the chairman of the Business Affairs and Licensing committee on the City Council. According to Hall, he was told by someone in Schulter’s office "that this does include storefront theater promoters and lesses of licensed venues for theatrical production. I was told that if I continued to operate out of compliance there would be cease and desist orders, fines and potential jail time for non-compliance."

Is it possible that the city’s non-profits are, in fact, safe from this ordinance’s reach? Yes. But it’s also possible that they’re not. And it’s up to the department of Business Affairs and Licensing to determine who is and who isn’t.

The Lollapalooza question
Speaking of non-profits that the city works with, will Lollapalooza’s organizers need to get a promoter’s license? While C3 Presents is the promoter that deals with all of the organizational and financial details of the event, Lollapalooza is technically “presented” (a fancy word for the folks that operate as promoters) by The Parkways Foundation, the non-profit, fundraising arm of the Chicago Park District. Since there’s also an exemption in this ordinance for any city entities, I wonder if the department will consider C3 exempt, which is ironic since C3 would actually have the kind of money for the additional insurance and licensing required by this ordinance.

Throwing bad money after good
Alderman Scott Waugespack and others have said that any business ought to be expected to have some kind of startup costs. And while there is truth to that, it ignores the fact that this ordinance completely changes the existing business model, and ignores the fact that most reputable venues and promoters already work with contracts that involve purchasing insurance, or providing for security - the exact safety measures the city says are needed.

And then there’s the proposed licensing structure. Alderman Reilly lauded this new draft of the ordinance for establishing four two-year licenses that are based on the size of the venue that a promoter books. He believed this helped smaller promoters to avoid exorbitant costs of business. The problem with this is that the first license structure – Class D, which costs $500 – is only for venues that hold 100 people or less. If a promoter books at a venue between 100 and 500 – the size of many of Chicago’s “small” rock clubs - he or she will need a Class C license, which costs $1000. I don’t know anyone who books at venues that small who would be able to afford that. Moreover, since the licenses are based on venue size, promoters who book at multiple venues will need to apply for the largest capacity license available.

Finally, there are many, many details in this ordinance that would put an undue burden on the average promoter. Not the least of which is the need for promoters to keep records of the event for up to three years that  - among other things - specify all advance ticket sales, how many tickets were sold at the door, and any illegal activity that occurred at the event, with a summary of the incident, names of those who reported it and the number of the cell phone used to report the incident, if applicable. Also, the promoter is responsible for immediately reporting any illegal activity that occurs.

At least the ordinance does offer a few laughs now and then. According to section 4-157-120, in addition to noting whether fireworks are used, promoters must specify in their contract with the venue, “whether any special effects…of a type posing a danger to the public health, safety or welfare will be used during the course of the promoted amusement or event, including, but not limited to, sound concussions, lasers, animals, flying objects, [or] people with rigging or electrical hazards associated with computer-generated effects or water effects.”

I think we can definitively say Roger Waters will never again be able to tour in the city of Chicago. Also, water effects? Fill in your own R. Kelly joke here.

Kris Vire contributed reporting to this post.