Chic-Fil-A (Chicago, Orland Park, Crystal Lake: store, health, park)

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Thepreacherswife

Actually, there would be a big problem. See Robb v. Hungerbeeler, 370 F.3d 735 (8th Cir, 2004) and its related cases. KKK sued the Missouri DOT to let them into the Adopt-a-Highway program and a federal judge ruled in favor of the KKK. It's all about the first amendment.

Because they had no policy against any organization adopting a stretch of the highway. It's not as though the KKK wanted to start an adopt-a-highway program and required the approval of a government entity to make that change. I don't think this is going to work as a precedent. You're reaching.

[Chi-town Native]

Let's cut this to the core: nobody is denying Chic-fil-a a permit. They are not being blocked either from operating in Chicago or opening more restaurants.

What they are not getting is permission to subdivide a specific lot from Home Depot.

That's not a request that gets granted automatically. It's not a "fill out an application and send a check and you're golden" kind of deal like getting a city sticker or a permit to install a fence where if you follow the rules it's guaranteed.

See the difference?

I'd bong this sucker just due to the fact we don't need a drive through fast food chain operating on a street designated on every Chicago map as a bike route.

Bikes and drive thrus don't mix.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Let's cut this to the core: nobody is denying Chic-fil-a a permit. They are not being blocked either from operating in Chicago or opening more restaurants.

What they are not getting is permission to subdivide a specific lot from Home Depot.

That's not a request that gets granted automatically. It's not a "fill out an application and send a check and you're golden" kind of deal like getting a city sticker or a permit to install a fence where if you follow the rules it's guaranteed.

See the difference?

I'd bong this sucker just due to the fact we don't need a drive through fast food chain operating on a street designated on every Chicago map as a bike route.

Bikes and drive thrus don't mix.

Hmm. But didn't Proco Joe say this:

"Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage.
There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."

Also, no one is denying that this type of request gets granted automatically. But, as has been said numerous times here, once the decision-making process begins on the request, the government isn't allowed to make the decision based on a constitutionally prohibited reason (race, religion, or content of speech).

(Now if you're just making the argument in general that CFA shouldn't be in this location on Elston, that's fine. I really have no opinion on that issue one way or the other.)

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Hmm. But didn't Proco Joe say this:

"Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage.
There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."

Also, no one is denying that this type of request gets granted automatically. But, as has been said numerous times here, once the decision-making process begins on the request, the government isn't allowed to make the decision based on a constitutionally prohibited reason (race, religion, or content of speech).

(Now if you're just making the argument in general that CFA shouldn't be in this location on Elston, that's fine. I really have no opinion on that issue one way or the other.)

This is the problem with pandering in the media.

Moreno may have said that, he may even have meant that, but unfortunately for him that power is not in his job description.

He doesn't have the authority (officially, anyway) to deny anyone a permit to operate. What he has is the long-standing tradition of aldermanic prerogative over zoning changes. That is quite literally it.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

(Now if you're just making the argument in general that CFA shouldn't be in this location on Elston, that's fine. I really have no opinion on that issue one way or the other.)

My point is simply that in this specific case, Moreno is well within his rights as an alderman to not approve a zoning change for the Home Depot property.

This is really not even close to an abuse of power the way this works in Chicago - aldermen have been more extreme and have threatened to downzone/change zoning on a property just to prevent a given company from moving in.

[Lorielicious]

Aaaaand their head PR guy croaks of a heart attack. The bad press has been good -- I don't care about people's personal beliefs, but I lose all patience when those beliefs turn into legislation that suppresses people's civil rights -- however, their PR guy suddenly dying (wild speculation ahead: due to massive stress?) is bad.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Lorielicious

(wild speculation ahead: due to massive stress?)

Probably that combined with 29 years of eating fried "chicken" patties and waffle fries. Or maybe it's just their God working in mysterious ways, as they say.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

My point is simply that in this specific case, Moreno is well within his rights as an alderman to not approve a zoning change for the Home Depot property.

Agreed, so long as he acts constitutionally. Aldermanic privilege, no matter how long-standing, well-respected, well-entrenched, etc., does not trump the First Amendment.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Agreed, so long as he acts constitutionally. Aldermanic privilege, no matter how long-standing, well-respected, well-entrenched, etc., does not trump the First Amendment.

This is Chicago, compadre! Go try and exercise your right to assemble freely and watch when the gubmint tells you that first you need a permit and then denies the permit.

And in this case, I don't think it is as simple as the first amendment, as the company has a littany of discrimination lawsuits in its past, in addition to the funneling money to lobbyist groups. That crosses a line from speech to unprotected actions.

[jlawrence01]

Since the "scandal" has begun, store sales in the Chicagoland area are up about 25%. The franchisees have to be really happy for all of the free advertising.