Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Morning shorts

Posted in:

Illinois

Faced with soaring demolition and environmental cleanup costs and a recalcitrant property owner, the Daley administration has broken off talks aimed at moving the $1.1 billion Olympic Village to the campus of Michael Reese Hospital.

Mayor Daley wanted to roll the dice that a depressed real estate market would come roaring back — by borrowing $85 million to finance the hospital purchase and sell it to a private developer.

* Cozying up to Stroger

We hope the four Republicans extracted something special from Stroger’s financial wizards during private huddles with them last week, because this vote could cost them their careers. Lots of potential GOP candidates covet their seats: They see voters fed up with this board—and the cozier these four get with Stroger and Finance Chair John Daley, the greater the opportunity to bounce them out of their baby-blue leather boardroom chairs.

* Neighborhood school plan angers magnet school parents

But a proposal under consideration by Chicago Public Schools officials to allow students from the neighborhood to enroll in the new Skinner building set to open next fall has Lora-Stepan and other parents fearing the school’s high standards will be lost. Since at least 2002, the school has scored above the district and state averages on state tests, according to Illinois State Assessment Test (ISAT) program.

“I think every person that goes to a classical school must earn their spot,” Lora-Stepan said. “Why change a program that is excelling?”

* Save money and futures: Get dropouts into school

* 3 more Illinois counties declared disaster areas

* FEMA completes tour of Kane County, homeless await help

* Wrigleyville bars warned: Play ball or risk your license

“This is not about a lot of fans and a lot of drinking. We don’t want to see any incident outside, because if there is, that whole area will be voted dry tomorrow. Those citizens will get together and say, ‘I’m gonna vote every precinct dry. I’ll even vote Cubs Field dry,” Daley said.

* Daley Supports Liquor Limit During Cubs Playoffs

* Daley proposes that ballpark-area bars cut off alcohol sales

* The Navy sinks a modernist gem in North Chicago

* A makeover!? The penny needs a mercy killing

* Edgar wows crowd in Mundelein

“The biggest change is I now stand in line,” Edgar quipped. “It really hit home for me — and any governor — when you get in the back seat of your car, and it doesn’t move.”

* Felon with pistol in car arrested near Obama home

posted by Kevin Fanning
Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 8:56 am

Comments

“Cubs Field” — could you imagine if Obama or McCain had made that remark?

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:04 am
or Jeff Gordon?

Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:11 am
The reasoning seems to be the unfortunate actions a few after the Bulls Championship. That makes no sense. We have had a Championship since. I think the White Sox had one not long ago with few problems.I don’t recall liquor being restricted on the Southside. Why now? Sounds like the argument could be made that this is another TAX on the businesses in one area over another. Are all the bars in Chicago going to stop serving after the 7th inning? Most people just want to be a part of history.

Comment by North vs. South Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:15 am
“…that whole area will be voted dry tomorrow”

Holy cow, this man really thinks he *is* a god…

Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:25 am
There are no bars across the street from where the Sox play.

I am mixed on this. I’ve been around Wrigley on the weekends and during the week…and it makes no difference what day it is, there are always incidents involving people that were overserved.

I agree the Cubs winning in the playoffs and the WS would cause some serious partying. More people will be in the area, “just to be there.”

Having said that, while I am sure there would be less intoxication by some if they stopped selling booze, the fact that they get to start back up after the game makes no sense. If you are going to ban sales of booze, do it for the entire day (and that is NEVER going to happen).

People may leave the bars, but they’ll be back after the game. Oh wait, how will they watch the end of the game if they leave?

It is a nice gesture to trying to keep the neighborhood at peace, however, it isn’t going to work by stopping the sale of alcohol for an hour.

And who is going to be enforcing this if it were to happen?

Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:27 am
Just do all your drinking in the suburbs. Wheaton just raised its sales tax and many other suburbs could use the extra revenue from the Cubs fans.

Comment by Mr. Ethics Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:27 am
I’m not sure what the two-inning ban is supposed to accomplish. A smoothing-over period? What’s that? As Daley said, you’ve got plenty of time to drink in the first seven innings.

Which raises the real point. The bars and Cubs have shown no interest in cutting off obviously over-served patrons.

I’m no prude, I like a couple of beers at the ballgame. But you can’t go to a Cub game anymore without having to deal with the hard-core minority that is smashed out of their minds and still being served. Same in the bars after the game.

Send the cops into the bars and Wrigley and have them write citations for that. I believe there are laws already on the books.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:45 am
North vs. South, did you have red herring for breakfast?

Draw a 3 mile radius circle around Comiskey Park and “Cubs Field” (LOL). Count the number of licensed retail liquor establishments inside the circle for each facility. Now examine a micro section of the most recent U.S. Census Bureau population information for the geography contained in the same circle for each facility.

The issue at hand here seems to be the concentration level of idiots ( and those not yet so designated; auditioning for the role) in a single; otherwise already densely populated geographic area.

There will always be a greater concentration of idiots in and around “Cubs Field” whenever the Cubs are playing at home; that’s just the nature of the beast.

The proposed changes in alcohol service policy for licensed retail liquor establishments in the area of “Cubs Field”, would actually bring the neighborhood establishments closer (but not entirely) in line with the alcohol policy in force inside “Cubs Field”; which right now affords the neighborhood places a significant economic advantage.

Alcoholic Beverage Policies:

{Alcoholic beverages will not be sold after the last out of the 8th inning during day games and the last out of the 7th inning or 9:20 p.m. for night games.

Guests who appear to be under age 35 are required to show a valid photo ID indicating legal proof of age when purchasing alcohol at Wrigley Field.

The Cubs reserve the right to deny any individual who appears intoxicated entry to Wrigley Field. The Cubs and Levy reserve the right to deny beverage services to any customer that appears intoxicated.}

“Most people just want to be a part of history.”

The law of unintended consequences sometimes imposes itself on innocent bystanders who don’t want to be a part of history; especially if that means their familes have to try to quickly round up 6 friends to help carry them in and out of church in a box.

This has nothing to do with penalizing fans in and around “Cubs Field”, and has everything to do with public safety, and helping law enforcement maintain some semblance of control.

Bottom Line:

See Dick drink

See Dick Drive

Don’t be a Dick

Comment by South vs. North Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:48 am
South, if you think the Cubs are vigorously enforcing their policy, you probably believe Sammy got his home-run stroke from Flintstone vitamins.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:51 am
Schneider I can’t figure out. I can’t see the district that put Carl Hansen into office for decades returning Hansen there if he has a viable opponent. Silvestri & Goslin? They do sometimes vote the other way. And Gorman’s dealings are pretty much same old same old, but she didn’t have any serious opposition the last time around.

They way I see it, Schnieder and Gorman will be very vulnerable to opponents who can run a good campaign and have the bucks to get their message out. Maybe they just feel safe in the knowledge that there aren’t too many people willing to spend half a million dollars to win an $80,000 job.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:52 am
Ooops, I meant “returning Schneider there,” of course.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:53 am
Does anyone think that Daley’s “Cubs Field” remark was on purpose to annoy north siders?

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:55 am
lol. Should we give those Cub Field stories their own, separate post?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:57 am
Schneider ran a heck of a campaign against Hansen.

Comment by Admiral Wumpus Akbar Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:13 am
If Blagoof was excommunicated as a Cubs fan would Daley refer to Wrigley Field by it’s correct name and stop raining on the Wrigleyville party?

Comment by Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:17 am
I can see the confusion. Despite all the $ spent by that cellular company to get the naming rights to Sox park, it is routinely referred to as Sox field (or the Cell, which sounds vaguely prison-like). So perhaps he was thinking Sox field and simply referred to it as Cubs field. At any rate, no one was in doubt about what he meant.

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:20 am
What about dude with the gun and the vest near the Obama home? His previous arrests included theft of a cell phone and forgery (for trying to buy clothing with a forged traveler’s check), in other words, no history of violence. Was the arrest made by the Secret Service or the Chicago PD?

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:24 am
Word,

if the vendors at “Cubs Field” are not vigorously enforcing their own alcohol policy, then they do so to some extent at their own peril. The unfortunate part is that the rest of us also have to suffer the consequences; albeit some far,far worse than others.

I don’t get to “Cubs Field” but on your next visit when a late inning beer gets spilled on you, perhaps you could drop a note in the “Suggestion Box” that the Cubs should dial up the Meadowlands in New Jersey, and see how inconsistent and lax enforcement of their alcohol policy worked out for them:

{Sports and entertainment concession companies are waiting nervously for fallout from a lawsuit that hit industry giant Aramark Corp. with a $105 million liability judgment following a drunk-driving incident that involved one of its customers.

Last month, a jury in Hackensack, N.J., socked Aramark with $30 million in compensatory damages and another $75 million in punitive damages after hearing the case of Daniel Lanzaro, who was served a number of beers at a New York Giants game in 1999 and later was responsible for a car crash that left Antonia Verni, now 7, paralyzed from the neck down. (Lanzaro was assessed $30 million.)

Aramark declined to comment on the case except to say that the amount awarded was excessive and that it plans to appeal.

(Tell that to Antonia and her family, and then ask for volunteer families from Aramark to trade places with them)

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4591304-1.html

Comment by South vs. North Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:49 am
South, I agree with you. The bars and the Cubs, every game, consistently continue to sell beer to obviously over-served patrons at their and the public’s peril.

Catch a Metra train after a day game. You’ll see. Unfortunately, a lot of these folks aren’t taking public transportation — they’re piling into cars and driving long distances.

Again, I like a couple of beers at the ballgame. I’m a Cubs fan. But the Cubs violate their own policy every day in the interest of maximizing revenue. Why else would you do it?

I think the two-inning cutoff doesn’t address the obvious problem. Why cut off folks who are drinking responsibly? Why continue to serve people who are smashed at any time?

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:07 am
I can’t believe everyone’s left this one alone:

“It really hit home for me — and any governor — when you get in the back seat of your car, and it doesn’t move.”

Comment by JonShibleyFan Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:27 am
He’s said that so many times I’ve lost count. I put that in as sort of an inside joke for those of us who have heard him say it over and over again.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:38 am
Being a member isn’t the same as being on the board. It just means you join and hope to get some business from other members. I think he can dash those hopes now, though.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:39 am
Sorry, posted to wrong thread.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:40 am
Before anyone jumps on “South vs. North” and wonders how a girl who is “now” 7 years old could have been injured in 1999 — the article cited was published in February of 2005.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:42 am
Actually; as Paul Harvey would say, now for The Rest of the Story.

By 2003, the original plaintiff’s attorney had secured a $115,000 payment from the plaintiff’s own car insurance company, which was supposed to be used for the plaintiff’s care, but had subsequently had been diverted to an investment in a condominium. The plaintiff’s attorney brought that to light in court, and was subsequently fired. The plaintiff’s mother however was also removed from the case as guardian ad litem and another guardian was appointed by the court to act on the plaintiff’s behalf.

In a subsequent opinion relative to the fee dispute the prior attorney was awarded $227,000 in fees for her 4 1/2 year work.

An Appeals court ultimately vacated the $105 million award against Aramark, and ordered a retrial in August 2006 on grounds that dramatic testimony about the culture of drunkenness at the stadium was impermissible in a dram shop case and had the capacity to enflame the jury.

In late January 2007, the Supreme Court declined to review the Appellate ruling setting the stage for a trial along the lines mandated by the Appellate Division:

concentration on whether the fan was served when he was visibly intoxicated, not whether a culture of drunkenness existed.

In an amicus brief, MADD had asked the court to consider the case as a vehicle to expand dram shop law and lift restrictions on testimony about drinking establishments that MADD deems unfair to the victims of drunken drivers.

“Under these restrictions servers may present evidence of its policy and training, but the victim can’t counter with evidence of violation of that policy or inadequate training,” John Keefe Jr. of Keefe Bartels in Shrewsbury wrote in MADD’s amicus brief.

The Appeals court ruling however permited the plaintiff to introduce evidence of observations over the years that people were served at the stadium while they were intoxicated and testimony by employees that they would serve people who were slightly intoxicated.

The appeals court said such evidence is relevant to the issue of whether the concessionaires were likely to serve Lanzaro when he was visibly intoxicated.

Remember that the case against Aramark also previoulsy included defendants such as the NFL and the Giants, from which the second lawyer secured settlements totaling $783,000 which were made public.

The accident itself had occurred on October 24, 1999; when the plaintiff was 2 years old. At this point the plaintiff was now 9 years old.

On the basis of the Appellate decison and conditions for retrial; on June 1, 2007, Aramark entered into a Settlement Agreement with the plaintiff for…………….. drum roll,

“an undisclosed sum”

in which it admitted no liability, and which was subsequently approved by th New Jersey courts.

The lesson remains the same however;

See Dick drink

See Dick drive

Don’t be a Dick.

Comment by South vs. North Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 3:25 pm
Emperor Daley strikes again - It’s my city - do it my way or the highway! There is absolutely no legal basis for his request.

Maybe he should declare martial law in Wirgleyville or order “shoot to kill” orders for all drunkards,louts,and unruly celebrants on the public way.

The bars/restaurants/restaurant association should seek a temporary injunction to remind the Emperor about the rule of law.

Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 8:08 pm
Is Harry Caray’s (Wrigleyville) receiving special treatment from the city? Are they being allowed to increase their capacity during the playoffs by removing tables and getting a temporary “incidental” food license while other bar owners are being threatened like a mobster?

Just askin’.

Comment by Boulevard of Broken Dreams Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 8:44 pm