Yesterday, I spoke with Efrat Stein, spokesperson for the Chicago Department for Business Affairs and Licensing about the promoter’s ordinance that was passed by the Chicago City Council committee on License and Protection on Wednesday, and will be voted on by the full City Council on Wednesday the 14th at 10am. At the end of our conversation, she asked me what kind of reaction it was getting from people in the clubs, as she said I was the first person to call her about it (though clearly not the last, as Jim DeRogatis of the Sun-Times has a Q&A with her posted on his blog).

The admission that the designated press contact for this issue didn’t know how it was – or would be - received by the rock and dance club crowd – as well as the response from the Chicago Music Commission, the voice of the local music community, and the comments from The Jam’s Jerry Mickelson in a recent Sun-Times article – seemed to fly in the face of her statements earlier in our conversation that this ordinance was crafted to allay the concerns from music scene insiders, unlike the first version which was proposed, and voted down, last year.

Stein said the ordinance is the result of “six or seven meetings” over the last several months with local industry players, though she declined to name them in deference to their privacy. Furthermore, she noted that during Wednesday’s committee meeting, city officials heard three hours of testimony from several people involved in the music and club scene, including Mickelson, Paul Natkin of the Chicago Music Commission, and Chris Ryan of Lodge Management, which promotes shows at several River North and Rush and Division Street bars.

Yet the CMC is expressing its opposition to the ordinance, as written, on its website, in part because of how quickly it was moved through committee. The CMC objects to the short time it was given - only four business days - to review and respond to the typically-abstruse government document before the hearing. Moreover, the CMC points out that responsible venue owners are already licensed and have motivation enough to provide for the safety of their patrons and work with responsible promoters.

To hear Stein tell it, this is all about safety, and making promoters responsible for their actions, particularly in light of the E2 disaster. Though she couldn’t name “any specific instances” where promoters acted irresponsibly in ways that weren’t punishable under current statutes, the city still feels the ordinance is necessary. When I asked her how a law like this would have prevented what happened at E2, she replied, “That’s a really hard question and I don’t think I can speak to that. I think this license just requires promoters to operate with common sense business practices.”

The other major objections expressed by those affiliated with local clubs seem to revolve around three main provisions: that all promoters must A) be 21 years of age or older; B) have $300,000 in liability insurance and C) pay a licensing fee of $500 to $2000.

TOC Clubs editor John Dugan spoke with Jordan Z, DJ and promoter at Evil Olive and Empire Liquors who told him the impact such licensing would have on live performances in Chicago:

“It’s insanity. They will put a stranglehold on an entire city’s music scene and its ability to grow creatively, naturally and independently. The best things in music always start small. If young, small-time music enthusiasts out there can’t promote, we start to lose touch with what is exactly our closest cultural aspect of Chicago music. I started promoting shows when I was 18. If someone had made these laws 12 years ago, I would not have been able to bring any out-of-town music and talent from around our country or overseas to Chicago.

Arman Razavi of Music 101, a club promoter, also spoke with Dugan and had this to say: 

As a member of Chicago’s vibrant music community, we vehemently oppose this ordinance. While the intentions of the City were good to begin with, with this ordinance they have created a tool to kill off a diverse culture. This ordinance paints all aspects of music promotion and culture with a broad brush stroke while leaving an elite few to choose what music Chicago should listen to. As a result, it shuts the door on many mom and pop operations, artists, live music promoters, DJ-driven promoters and many more without accomplishing what the ordinance set out to do, which was prevent another E2 tragedy."

On the matter of the liability insurance, Stein argues the average cost for this insurance is about $300 to $700 a year. Razavi of Music 101 suggests that the cost of such insurance is more like $5000 annually for a promotion company—as they are now considered a "high risk group." Stein says the $500 to $2000 license fee is graduated, based on the size of the venue, and the license itself is good for two years.  But promoters aren’t always exclusive to a particular venue, booking at a small venue one weekend, and a medium to large venue the next, so how the city would decide what each promoter pays is vague, at best.

And as Jordan Z and Razavi point out, many of the “mom and pop operations” that work as promoters in the city are often young, and frequently put on shows not because they’re interested in the small profits that result, but because they’re interested in fostering a scene. Even a two-year license of $500 – not to mention the additional insurance costs – would knock most small-time promoters out of business. This would then lead to a domino effect, as venue owners would have to assume the responsibility and costs of booking acts, or face several nights of empty rooms. Either way, it results in increased costs and decreased revenues for live music venues, which often have enough trouble staying open in easy times.

Plus, the ordinance, as written, is rife with double standards. First, fixed-seat venues with a capacity of over 500 are exempt from this ordinance. So a promoter putting on shows at the Beat Kitchen, a room roughly the size of a studio apartment, would be required to be licensed, whereas someone hosting a show at a venue like the Auditorium or Chicago Theatres would not, despite the fact that these venues host thousands of people. One could argue that the audiences for each show are different, and that rock or dance shows need additional precautions in place, but that only serves to further highlight the prejudice that the city seems to have against these types of venues, which are the breeding ground for Chicago’s most vital music.

Furthermore, the city itself is exempt from this ordinance, and its fees. So any events it promotes, presumably anything put on by the Department of Cultural Affairs or the Park District, would not require a promoter’s license. When I asked Stein why this was, she said, “I wont answer that one. The city doesn’t need a license.”

Echoing the grass roots protests over the possible closing of the Double Door in 2005, the CMC has posted information about the ordinance at its website, and the Chicago Independent Radio Project has expressed its opposition, and started a site, encouraging music fans to attend the 10am hearing this Wednesday, and posting tips on other ways they can voice their opposition to their local alderman. As to whether any changes are possible between now and then, Stein says that any ordinance is subject to amendments. “Nothing is ever not negotiable,” she says.      

By the time the City Council hearing starts on Wednesday, I imagine Stein won’t have to wonder anymore about what Chicago’s music community thinks about the city’s new ordinance.

Update: There’s another site organizing against the ordinance: Save Chicago Culture.