Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign news
Next Post: Broadview mayor pushes back on Homeland Security, Pritzker, Biss
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
A City Council member from Lincoln Park wants to throw a financial bone to Chicago restaurants fighting for survival by allowing them to serve patrons who bring in their dogs — without fear of being fined.
Ald. Timmy Knudsen (43rd) said he drafted the ordinance at the behest of a Clark Street cafe owner whose eat-in French bakery was tied up for hours by “back-to-back” city inspections triggered by a patron complaint about the presence of dogs in the eatery.
Right now, Chicago restaurants are prohibited from serving patrons accompanied by dogs — either indoors or outdoors — unless that customer has a service dog.
Although the ban is widely ignored and sporadically enforced, usually in response to a complaint, restaurant owners allow dogs at their own risk and sometimes face the consequences.
Part of the proposal…
Dogs would be limited to one per table. They could only be provided with water — not food or table scraps — either by their owners or by restaurant employees.
Areas where food is prepared would be off limits. Tables, chairs, fixtures and floors would have to be made of hard surfaces that can be washed and sanitized.
If a restaurant employee has contact with a dog or with a surface touched by a dog, the employee “shall immediately wash their hands before continuing any food service work,” the ordinance states.
Any dog not “kept on a leash at all times” or kept “under control by its owner shall be immediately removed.” Restaurant owners could refuse to serve owners who fail to keep their dogs on a leash or “exercise reasonable control” over their pets, or have dogs that behave “in a manner that compromises or threatens to compromise the health, safety or enjoyment” of other customers.
* The Question: Should the state legislature pass a bill to allow dogs in restaurants with limits, or should this decision be left to local ordinances? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks…
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 12:53 pm
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign news
Next Post: Broadview mayor pushes back on Homeland Security, Pritzker, Biss
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Will there be dog free zones for patrons who are not dog lovers and/or find dining with dogs in their midst disgusting? One dog per table . . . . .yuck.
Comment by Really? Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:01 pm
Neither. Dogs (and other animals), except service dogs, should not be allowed in restaurants. Period.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:01 pm
===Neither===
That’s not a choice.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:02 pm
State law. If a restaurant wants to ban dogs, they can do it.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:04 pm
I think you have to keep this local. Some communities are more animal friendly than others. Personally, I like in west Springfield where they allow them outside but not inside.
Comment by Lurker Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:05 pm
I voted for local. I’m not sure that the state is in the best position to decide the issue and I suspect that it could be a +/- issue for restaurants depending on how their patrons feel about dogs.
Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:05 pm
I’m with JoanP: no dogs in restaurants, even though it’s not a choice. Some people have allergies. Some people have real fears. Some people simply don’t want dog germs around their food.
Comment by Formerly Unemployed Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:08 pm
We have to stop it with the dogs everywhere (service dogs for those with disabilities excluded). Dogs in the cabin on planes. Dogs in the shopping carts at stores. Now dogs in restaurants? Enough! They may be your special little fur baby but the rest of us do not want to be near their fur, dander, dirt, noise, etc. Also, a lot of people have a fear of dogs, even if they’re well-behaved. If this happens people will go out of their way to patronize restaurants that do *not* allow dogs.
Comment by Enough With The Dogs Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:10 pm
I think local ordinance makes sense. Let communities decide on this one. I, for one, welcome friendly dogs in restaurants. I actually thought they were allowed on patios.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:10 pm
People have allergies, I am not willing to force them to cope with animals, other than service animals, inside dining establishments (or on airplanes for that matter). Emotional support animals should also NOT be considered service animals. Now, we can let the restaurants decide to do something outside. But, inside? No.
Comment by more cowbell Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:12 pm
What a terrible idea, already way too many dogs in restaurants. Enough is enough.
Comment by Alton Sinkhole Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:12 pm
Local. There is no pressing need to make this statewide, if enough members of a community want it they can bring it to their local officials.
Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:12 pm
The state doesn’t need to get involved here.
Comment by Who else Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:14 pm
(Well-behaved) Dogs on the patio? OK.
Dogs in the restaurant? No.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:15 pm
Local. Restaurant inspections are basically conducted by local health departments. They need to be part of the local process to determine what is safe for the patrons.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:15 pm
JoanP is right. The question does not address the issue. The issue is whether dogs should be allowed in restaurants at all, not which government body should allow them.
As much as I love my dog, he has no place in a restaurant, nor do other people’s dogs, except for legitimate service dogs.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:18 pm
Local regulators should be allowed to ban dogs from restaurants. I love my Oscar, he’s the most well-behaved 80+ lb dog I know, but he’s intimidating and…big.
Also must be said - as a local shopowner here says when I say “Oscar’s a good dog!” - “They’re all good dogs.” Bad owners are the main problem. And there’s a lot of them. We don’t need to encourage them to bring their under/untrained dogs into restaurants.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:18 pm
Local.
That said, I am tired of seeing people who take their dogs to restaurants and stores. Leave them home. And, I love dogs. Aside from family and friends I love dogs far more than people. But I don’t want to have to deal with someone else’s poorly mannered pet.
‘While we are on the topic, the state needs to address service and “emotional support” animals. There should be a training and licensure requirement and that should be totally free for the disabled. I am sick of having to tell people to leash their support dog at school events. We have started to send people home it has gotten so out of hand.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:19 pm
Local Only in Frech restaurants.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:19 pm
This is just a question about how to get Oscar into the Curve
Comment by goober Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:21 pm
Local please! I live near a “dog friendly” area where the Target allowed non service dogs to come in. It became a NIGHTMARE during a local grocery shopping trips. They were licking meats & refrigerated items. Now it’s service animals only. I barely like to sit next to kids in restaurants. I chose not have children nor dogs in my home by choice. I shouldn’t be forced to tolerate a dog when I decide to spend a chunk of change on a meal. This isn’t dinner & a show. Keep it local!
Comment by Trinity Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:25 pm
Clearly, many people have strong feelings about this issue. Regulating it at the local level provides more opportunity for residents to voice their opinion on the matter.
It also feels like there are a lot of other things the city could do to support restaurants and small business owners. Is this really the issue that’s going to make or break small businesses?
Comment by AR773 Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:33 pm
===The issue is whether dogs should be allowed in restaurants===
Get your own blog.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:35 pm
I know that “neither” is not an option. I’m going to go with the other non-option and say “both.”
The best option would be for the State to pass a law granting authority to allow dogs by local ordinance. This would avoid any questions about lack of home-rule authority or conflicting jurisdictions with county health departments.
You’d want to make clear that restaurants don’t have to allow dogs if they don’t want to. Hopefully, that would go without saying.
To those who don’t like dogs in restaurants, there is no way that my dog has more germs or is more disruptive than your toddler.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:42 pm
Where is the option for a state law prohibiting dogs from food establishments?
There is nothing more off-putting than seeing a dog in a restaurant or grocery store. They’re fifthly creatures I have gladly reported these health code violations in the past.
Comment by Matty Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:56 pm
Local, because enforcement will be local.
There is a local brewery that used to allow dogs, until a vicious fight broke out one afternoon, and they made the decision to ban dogs on their patio. No need for state intervention, just common sense.
Comment by ChrisB Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 1:57 pm
=== As much as I love my dog, he has no place in a restaurant, nor do other people’s dogs ===
Don’t go to a Dog-Friendly restaurant then, my friend.
I am amazed with all of the people touting “local control” that do not believe that whether or not a cafe allows dogs should be left up to the local restaurant owner.
The first and most natural instinct of Democrats and Republicans seems to be to micro-manage, with the power to micromanage held by whichever level of government they think is most advantageous to their agenda.
“Service Animals Only” is not a fix. Everyone knows that is abused as much as “medical marijuana.” We have created a gray market of medical providers who will basically give anyone a Service Animal designation. Pettable.com will connect you with a mental health pro who will write you a letter no problem.
I voted for a state law because no one can offer a public health or public safety reason why the prohibition should be in place. Its just their personal preference to not eat in a restaurant with dogs.
Basically, you are arguing “I am a vegetarian, so no restauarant should be able to serve meat.”
My mom didn’t like salmon. But if you cannot stand the sight or smell of salmon, the right answer is “do not go to restaurants that serve salmon,” not “I am going to pass an ordinance that says no restaurants in my community can serve salmon.”
It’s not just France, BTW. The uptight and fastidious Germans, Austria along with most of Europe, Russia, Canada and Japan allow dogs in restaurants unless prohibited by the owner.
In 2017, Ireland removed its national ban (which movie fans know was never enforced, there is a dog in every pub in every movie), leaving this up to local owners.
Basically, the US is the last country where dogs are widely kept as pets that has kept dog bans in place. Even China, which considers pets in restaurants taboo, does not actually have a formal ban in place. Shenzhen is a more modern city, and dog-friendly cafes are popping up there now.
What we are debating here is the private property rights of restaurant owners, and when you are more restrictive of private property rights than Russia and China, something is wrong.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:01 pm
=== there is no way that my dog has more germs or is more disruptive than your toddler. ===
Let me say first that a ban on toddlers in restaurants and movies after 7 pm would get you a lot of votes. And I mean a lot.
But we do not need government to intervene because most restaurants are smart enough to seat all of the families with all of the kids in the same section, so that the grown-ups without kids can sit as far away as possible. And those who do not want to be anywhere near kids at dinner time avoid restaurants where they have had a bad experience or that advertise as “family friendly”, expecially at 5 pm and especially if Kraft Mac n Cheese is on the kids menu.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:09 pm
Local ordinances only. And the dogs (or even cats) have to stay outside in the patio seating. If a customer is carrying a caged animal (e.g., bird, hamster, etc.) it must stay in its cage at all times.
Comment by Leatherneck Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:09 pm
No brainer that this should be a locally decided issue. There is no statewide need for this. Local officials will have a better understanding of what businesses in their communities think about this.
Comment by ModerateGOP Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:13 pm
Leave it up to local control, and if there is local control allowing it please tell the more rabid “parents” of “fur babies” that it still is (should be) up to the business whether to allow dogs indoors or not.
But the current status quo is far too many dog owners lie and claim that their dog is a trained service animal so they can bring them indoors. And then other non-dog people call 311 to report the business is a real problem and a real pain and hopefully the Knudsen ordinance helps reduce some of those complaint driven inspections.
Comment by ChicagoBars Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:23 pm
=They’re fifthly creatures =
You are speaking about people of course.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:29 pm
Let them in. At least the floor will be clean.
Comment by Joe Schmoe Tuesday, Sep 23, 25 @ 2:33 pm