Please read it, repost it and repost it again. ANY and ALL feedback welcome.
Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected
[27 May 2008]
- The proposed ordinance does not address any public need
- Often justified as a response to the 17 February 2003 stampede in the E2 nightclub, which killed 21 people, the proposed ordinance does not address the problems that led to that tragedy:
- Too many people (1100) were in a venue that could safely accommodate only 300
- The City of Chicago had not determined the safe capacity of the venue
- The City had not acted on known building and fire code violations
- The venue’s security staff did not respond appropriately
- The proposed ordinance does not strengthen the City’s inspection and enforcement resources, powers, and will to act; instead it indemnifies the City from liability
- The ordinances regulating places where food is offered for sale require periodic city inspections; neither the proposed ordinance nor the existing PPA requires inspections
- The proposed ordinance targets event promoters rather than venue owners, although circumstances leading to the E2 tragedy were within control of the venue manager and not third-party promoters
- Venue owners, not third-party promoters, are in a position to control everything that might jeopardize the health or safety of fans
- The proposed ordinance does not fit the realities of how some of Chicago’s best music is made and promoted
- The 2007 Chicago Music City report prepared by a group at the University of Chicago for the Chicago Music Commission concluded that music in Chicago generates a payroll in excess of $1 billion annually and fuels the overall economy in Chicagoland.
- Significantly, it concluded that Chicago offers more kinds of music regularly than anywhere else except Los Angeles and New York, mostly in small clubs
- Most of the small clubs are operated informally and present bands and other performers that operate on a financial shoestring, rarely earning more than a few hundred dollars for a performance, and rarely netting more than a few thousand dollars per year for their music
- These bands and performers and the venues in which they perform scramble to attract an audience, relying on the band’s circle of friends and an occasional part-time amateur street team to distribute flyers and generate word of mouth
- The proposed ordinance contains several provisions that would burden small venues and less-known bands disproportionately
- It defines the regulated activity ( § 1-157-010, definition of “Event Promoter”) to include advertising so broadly that it would include:
- Word of mouth generated by a band or its supporters
- Distribution of flyers or posters publicizing a performance
- Free notices of performances on websites such as MySpace music pages, while exempting paid newspaper advertising
- It imposes unnecessary insurance requirements on promoters who have no control over safety in venues and thus are unlikely to be liable for injuries
- It prohibits fans under the age of 21 from engaging in promotion activities, although younger fans other play a crucial role in encouraging turnout for performances
- It would intimidate fans and band members from promoting a performance by requiring them to be fingerprinted and to fill out burdensome forms and keep burdensome records
- Paradoxically, it would regulate promoters for events at small venues while leaving intact the existing exemption for the venues themselves (PPA § 4-156-305(c))
- It exempts instrumental performances by groups with fewer than eight pieces (§ 4-156-305(f)) while providing no such exemption for small groups performing other kinds of music
- It exempts large venues, where any risk to public health and safety is greatest
- The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional
- It violates the First Amendment by regulating speech in the form of advertising over-broadly
- It violates due process by excluding ex-felons who have paid their debt to society and persons convicted of petty theft; federal court cases require a rational relationship between regulation of entertainment and risks to public health and safety; there is no such relationship here
- It violates equal protection of minority groups by disproportionately burdening promoters from such groups
- The City of Chicago should be supporting and promoting its smaller venues and lesser-known bands, but the ordinance imposes burdens instead
- The City should publish and distribute to hotels and airports a directory of smaller venues and lesser-known bands
- - It should provide links on its websites to private websites that offer current information about scheduled performances
- - It should provide financial support to smaller venues and lesser-known bands
Henry H. Perritt, Jr.
Professor of Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Member of the Illinois Bar
hperritt@kentlaw.edu
(312) 906-5098
No comments:
Post a Comment