Alderman of 1st Ward Proco "Joe" Moreno thinks Daily Show viewers are his path to glory... (Chicago: buy, taxes)

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Come on, there are certainly plenty of folks that play to their base with condemnations of Roe v Wade and all sorts of show boaty speachify, but I can't think of too many politicians that actually do anything to actively limit such a thing.

Do you live in a cave? There is an actual term used for onerous zoning, permitting, and licensing requirements created to block abortion clinics: "TRAP" laws, "targeted regulation of abortion providers". The term and strategy was created by anti-abortion groups and they've had incredible success in using it.

In Texas Planned Parenthood has been blocked from participating in state program to provide basic check ups. Virginia has required all abortion clinics to have the same capabilities as a hospital (there is no medically sound reason for this requirement, and no other types of clinics are impacted). South Carolina created requirements for abortion providers that even dictates how frequently the grass outside needs to be cut. Kansas has refused licenses for all of it's abortion clinics.

Do a quick Google search, this is happening all over the country.

[DanielWaterhouse]

Originally Posted by chet everett

...DRIVE THRU WINDOWS!!!

Elston is a now a rather hideous slice of autocentric development but you can't "put the genie back in the bottle". I predict that within a year there will be some other crappy drive thru window equipped place on the site and Proco will have a nice fat campaign donation from that business...

You're probably right. Depending on the genre of food that may be the end of the line for Nikkos which has a monopoly on drive-thru's in that immediate vicinity and still seems to struggle (unless you count the Popeye's and DD down at Fullerton and Elston)

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Attrill

The existing situation is that they CANNOT build a store there. It would be different if the Alderman were changing the zoning to block them, but they are asking for special considerations and due to a variety of factors (including their dishonesty in meetings and traffic concerns) he opts to take no action on their behalf. Legally they don't have a leg to stand on and there's no way they could win a lawsuit.

This is in no way a situation that is unique to Chicago, every community in the country has zoning fights all the time for both practical and political reasons. Aurora went through a fight over a Planned Parenthood clinic, Twisted Kilt has had a difficult time opening restaurants around the state with politicians and competing businesses using zoning and liquor licenses to deny them permits, Hooters always has problems opening new restaurants. There is nothing unusual about controversial businesses running into difficulties getting permits and zoning approval.

This is wrong. Let's use a hypothetical to illustrate why.

Area One is zoned for a certain type of activity (let's say big box stores and strip malls, but no standalone fast food restaurants). Los Pollos Hermanos, a popular chicken outfit, comes along and files a special request to have Area One zoned for a different type of activity (here, the existence of a standalone restaurant in the parking lot of a big box store). Once the request is made and the proper paperwork is filed, the local alderman needs to make a decision on this request (grant, deny, or request more information).

The alderman can make the decision to grant or not grant the request based on a variety of different legitimate reasons. As you point out, this happens everyday across America. What Alderman cannot do is make the decision for an unconstitutional reason. Thus, even though no party is entitled to a particular zoning permit or a variance in existing zoning laws, the Alderman must still act in a constitutional manner when he makes the decision.

1. Race - So if Alderman says to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because you are Hispanic, and I strongly dislike Hispanics; they just don't fit in to this neighborhood well," the Alderman's decision would be unconstitutional. (Why? Because it would constitute governmental discrimination on the basis of race, which is prohibited under the 14th Amendment.)

2. Religion - If Alderman says to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because you are Catholic, and I strongly dislike Catholics; they just don't fit in to this neighborhood well," the Alderman's decision would be unconstitutional. (Why? Because it would constitute governmental discrimination on the basis of religion, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.)

3. Free Speech - If Alderman says to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because I dislike your views on the U.S. War on Drugs, and I believe your views do not comport with Area One," the Alderman's decision would be unconstitutional. (Why? Because it would constitute governmental discrimination on the basis of the content of the proprietor's speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.)

Now of course, Alderman could have initially said to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because there is already way too much traffic in this area, and the addition of your restaurant will lead to even more traffic." This would have been totally fine. End of story. Or Alderman could have said, "I am denying your request because your business is a cheesy fast food chain restaurant, and we are trying to maintain a semblance of authenticity and class to Area One." This would have been totally fine. End of story.

But what Alderman can't do is state that his decision to block Los Pollos Hermanos is for an unconstitutional reason. Presumably Alderman would have been educated on how the Constitution works before he would make a decision. That is because his first duty -- even before getting to his constituent's desires or his own personal preferences -- is to uphold the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men (even Alderman), and the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, most politicians either have a poor understanding of the Constitution, or just don't really care about it.

[Attrill]

The Alderman is saying that he won't make the change because the values of the chain don't match the values of the ward. The same EXACT reasoning is used all the time when places like Twisted Kilt and Hooters are denied zoning variances (never mind non profits like Planned Parenthood or ACORN). There is nothing unique about this at all.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Attrill

The Alderman is saying that he won't make the change because the values of the chain don't match the values of the ward. The same EXACT reasoning is used all the time when places like Twisted Kilt and Hooters are denied zoning variances (never mind Planned Parenthood or ACORN). There is nothing unique about this at all.

Stop trying to be reasonable.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Attrill

The Alderman is saying that he won't make the change because the values of the chain don't match the values of the ward. The same EXACT reasoning is used all the time when places like Twisted Kilt and Hooters are denied zoning variances (never mind Planned Parenthood or ACORN). There is nothing unique about this at all.

Exactly. Let's not forget, if the CEO instead said something bad about jews, hispanics, african americans, etc instead of gay people, I guarantee there would be way more people for this, even though it's essentially the same thing.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Attrill

The Alderman is saying that he won't make the change because the values of the chain don't match the values of the ward. The same EXACT reasoning is used all the time when places like Twisted Kilt and Hooters are denied zoning variances (never mind non profits like Planned Parenthood or ACORN). There is nothing unique about this at all.

Generally, it is fine if Alderman denies the request because the values of the chain don't match the values of his ward. In most circumstances this would be perfectly alright. But in certain circumstances, the Constitution forbids Alderman from making a decision even if he thinks the decision matches up with the values of his ward. I gave you three concrete examples.

Think also of the folks in Tennessee who went out of their way to block an Islamic mosque from going up in their neighborhood. And maybe they were right -- maybe the entire neighborhood was Christian, no one was from an Islamic nation, and the mosque would have been a total fish out of water in that neighborhood. It doesn't matter though -- politicians are prohibited from making a governmental decision based on race, religion, national origin or free speech. It's that simple. (And in the TN example, the mosque owners had to go to federal court to vindicate their rights. I hope they won attorney's fees!)

Now just because it happens all the time doesn't make it right. I understand very well that many southern and midwestern states use the zoning laws to lessen the number of abortion clinics. I think this is totally wrong as a woman's right to choose is a constitutional right. But just because there's nothing unique about this situation doesn't make me wrong or Moreno right. All across America local governments are frequently the biggest violators of constitutional rights, and they probably get away with it the most. That's sad.

[aragx6]

^I hate hate hate that I agree with this, but I kinda think I do.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Los Pollos Hermanos, where something delicious is always cooking!

[LittleMartha]

Originally Posted by DanielWaterhouse

You're probably right. Depending on the genre of food that may be the end of the line for Nikkos which has a monopoly on drive-thru's in that immediate vicinity and still seems to struggle (unless you count the Popeye's and DD down at Fullerton and Elston)

Nikko's...Probably the worst gyros I've ever had.