Alderman of 1st Ward Proco "Joe" Moreno thinks Daily Show viewers are his path to glory... (Park Ridge: insurance, live)

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Thing is, a local walk up type business would not be appropriate for the site in the Home Depot parking lot. Maybe one the bigger beef chains (Buona, Pop's Portillo) would do similar volume or higher. Of course if Proco suggested that he get flack from the folks that thing Elston should be "fixed speed bicycle only" or maybe the folks that long for the days that Elston was lined with places that had high paying union jobs.

You can't turn back the fact that Elston has been a very dramatic example of very poorly thought out car centric zoning choices that sadly has lots of negative consequences BUT ALSO a very real benefit to the CONNECTED developers that have made out like BANDITS as well as helping a handful of CONNECTED folks in the trades that built the big generic shopping district...

Partially true, but that big shopping center that used to have Cub foods has been there for ages. It's the arrival of the "must drive to pick up a loaf of bread" crowd that was the monkey wrench.

[chet everett]

...that bike of yours, fixed gear? You know brakes are for whimps and whenever your wheels are moving so must those pedals. The better to show off just how snuggly you dungarees hug your ankles...

I almost smell a bit Blago-esque bluster in Procco's outrage. You know the whole "governor is just a stepping stone to the White House" shtick worked out so well ol' 40892-424

If I was an US Attorney I would be asking for wiretap's on Proco's phone / office / cell first thing in the morning. I tell ya' it is a sure thing this guy is gonna get a big ol envelope full of cash from somebody in the development world...

Originally Posted by tomcho

I ride my bike down Elston everyday I ride into the office, I hope that qualifies me to comment. That stretch of Elston from Diversey to Fullerton might as well be Golf Road in Schaumburg, complete with 4 large chain stores and suburban parking lots. Not sure I've ever seen a hipster hanging out at Jo-Ann Fabrics or The Room Place. Chick Fil-A will do nothing to ruin the "urban-ness" of the area, nor will it substantially add to the already very crowded traffic patterns.

This alderman is grandstanding and overstepping his bounds. It's a scary country we now live in when politicians can decide how big our soft drinks can be and disallow restaurants simply because of a religious belief of the CEO. Let the constituents vote with their pocketbooks, it's not the alderman's or any politicians job to tell anyone what type of food they can eat.

[nana053]

Here's another url from Forbes about Chick fil a

The Cult of Chick-fil-A - Forbes.com

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

The company might face more suits if it didn't screen potential hires and operators so carefully. Many Chick-fil-A job candidates must endure a yearlong vetting process that includes dozens of interviews. Ty Yokum, the training manager for the chain, sat through 7 interviews and didn't get the job. He reapplied in 1991 and was subjected to another 17 interviews--the final one lasted five hours--and was hired. Bureon Ledbetter, Chick-fil-A's general counsel, says the company works hard to select people like Yokum, who "fit." "We want operators who support the values here," Ledbetter says.

Those who do say they like the member-of-the-club feel that goes along with working with Chick-fil-A. "It is very difficult to get in, but once you're in, you're in for life," says Donald Elam, a Chick-fil-A franchisee in Superstition Springs, Ariz.: "I tell all my people, 'I'm not working for Chick-fil-A; I'm working for the Lord.'"

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by nana053

Here's another url from Forbes about Chick fil a

The Cult of Chick-fil-A - Forbes.com

Yee-ikes. Ride 'em outta town, Proco Joe.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by nana053

Here's another url from Forbes about Chick fil a

The Cult of Chick-fil-A - Forbes.com

1988 and 1991 were a long time ago. Is Chick-fil-A still practicing employment discrimination in the here and now? If not, then I have no problem with them on that particular issue.

I'm gay. I've never been to a Chick-fil-A, and I probably won't give them my business now, given that I now know the owner is not only anti-gay marriage but also gives money to anti-gay marriage groups. I'm opposed to this view.

However, I don't think it is proper for an alderman to deny the company a zoning variance based on their religious views. If the variance were to be denied due to legitimate environmental concerns (traffic, parking, etc.) that's another matter, but now that Moreno has already opened his mouth about the gay marriage thing, I don't see how he can backpedal on that. That genie isn't going back into the bottle.

I say let Chick-fil-A open where they wish, and let individuals make up their own minds on whether to patronize them or not based on their own convictions and values. Let them vote with their pocketbooks, and if Chick-fil-A has made a poor decision locationwise, they won't get the business and will eventually close. That's how things are supposed to work in a free market economy.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

For that matter about "I wont support a business because they like gays", well then Mr Fundie, I guess you better stop taking your kids to Disneyland because they do support gays (Gay Day) for example. I am not going to stop patronizing business because they have some view ,, if you really wanted to do research on what businesses have as issues, you would be shocked, so now we are supposed to not patronize a perfectly good business because someone has an issue you dont agree with? That is stupid and I refuse to be put in someone's box/agenda. You can also boycott a business if an employee is ___ fill in the blank because I am sure that business supports that ___ person by giving him/her a job. so keep narrowing it down and keep on boycotting it, and by the time you are done, you will have boycotted the whole damn city!!!!

For that matter, you may as well stop using your computer because an atheist developed it.. this can get ridiculous!!!

This post is making me think of that Seinfeld episode where Jerry causes a stampede out of Poppie's restaurant after asking Poppie where he stands on the abortion issue, and Poppie launches into an anti-abortion tirade.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I still find baffling how not giving a company a zoning variance is discrimination. Anybody here able to call their alderman and have their property spot upzoned just so they can make more money?

Chick a whatevah is free to go find a spot already zoned the way they want it, the fact that the owner is a bigot isn't his problem so much as he didn't hire a real estate broker with a lick of common sense and experience. People gripe about all kinds of unwanted businesses and property conversions, nothin new here.

Chi-town Native,

I've explained it several times already on this board so you can go back and read my posts if you're curious why it's considered discrimination. But here it is one last time. If you disagree with my analysis, just let me know.

According to the First Amendment, the government is required to be remain viewpoint neutral when it comes to governmental decisions and a citizen's free speech. In other words, the government cannot discriminate against a party -- that is, make a negative decision -- simply based on that party's point of view. State and local governments are free to make zoning decisions based on a number of legitimate reasons, such as aesthetic reasons, to improve urban life, to lessen traffic and noise, to reduce crime and improve safety, etc. But if a zoning decision is going to be made on the basis of a party's viewpoint, then the First Amendment's free speech clause comes into play.

Before Moreno opened his mouth, it sounds like there were a variety of legitimate reasons for denying Chick-Fil-A the ability to open a restaurant in this particular location. But per the Chicago Tribune article, Moreno is now saying he is not allowing Chick-Fil-A into the neighborhood because of the restaurant's views on gays and gay marriage. This is pure viewpoint discrimination and it is unconstitutional. Chick-Fil-A's views on gays and gay marriage may be odious (I find them to be), but the company and/or its owners are free to hold and espouse those views without being punished by the government. That is the essence of the First Amendment.

What I think is happening here is that people are debating two separate things and conflating them a bit. First, there is a question of whether the Elston location is a good place for a Chik-Fil-A restaurant. Opinions may differ on this one but it seems that many if not most of the commenters here absolutely believe that they don't think a Chick-Fil-A belongs at this location (whether because of increased traffic, more chain restaurants, it lessens the authenticity of the neighborhood, etc.). I have no opinion on this question either way (have never even tried Chik-Fil-A before and actually find that corridor pretty trafficky when I shop at Strack and Van Till).

The second question is whether Moreno can legitimately keep a restaurant out of his neighborhood (by denying a request for a zoning variance) based on the views of the company's owners. This he cannot do. Once the government says you need to apply to us for a zoning permit or for a zoning variance, and then starts handing out permits and variances through a normal procedure, the government must act in a constitutional manner. Yes, no one has a right to a particular zoning permit or zoning variance. But once you make a request and the government decision-making process begins, the government must make its decision in a constitutionally lawful manner. It cannot deny the request for an an unconstitutional reason (e.g., based on the applicant's race, religion, or free speech).

No matter how much you hate Chik-Fil-A because of its views on gay marriage or how much you really don’t want a Chik-Fil-A in this particular location, you should be appalled at what Moreno is doing here.

[Vlajos]

They are denying the permit due to congestion issues.

Case closed. Next?

[chet everett]

... he was working on the variations needed for traffic or whatever for MONTHS and he decision to kill the deal is based on Proco's narrow (and likely unconsisitional...) views of what he wrongly calls "discrimination". Although he claims he ain't afraid of a lawsuit, and Rahm goes even further on some nut job rant about "values" (from a guy that has about as much problem with integrity as your average street criminal...) I think that if CFA wants to put the money into making this a test case about zoning and politically protected speech this could be a landmark type case just as Kelo was about the rights of property owners, cities and developers... (of course the bottom-line on Kelo was not good for either side, so I would not count on this moving through the federal courts, but there is always that possibility..)

Alderman lines up hefty support in effort to block Chick-fil-A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v....nting_opinions

Originally Posted by Vlajos

They are denying the permit due to congestion issues.

Case closed. Next?

[Vlajos]

Chet, we'll see. My guess is the stupid chain chicken sandwich place moves on.