Chick-fil-A to be denied zoning permit in Chicago

[Apex]

Attempts are being made to block the construction of a Chick-fil-A in a Chicago ward. The reason being given is the anti-gay stance of the CEO.

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A's plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain's top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Part of me would like to see the fast food restaurant actually be blocked from construction. But thinking about it more, I think this could lead down a very bad road if it succeeds. Should it (or is it) be legal to deny a business a zoning permit based solely upon the views of the owner, and not the practices of the actual business?

Chicago alderman wants to block Chick-fil-A from opening in his ward - chicagotribune.com
Chicago Alderman Says Chick-fil-A Is Not Welcome In His Ward

 

[Revoltingest]

What a great idea!
Let's deny building permits to businesses who don't meet all of our progressive standards.
Chicago has always been the short bus in the fleet.

 

[Wirey]

What's Chick-fil-A? A place for fat girls to eat?

 

[xkatz]

What a great idea!
Let's deny building permits to businesses who don't meet all of our progressive standards.
Chicago has always been the short bus in the fleet.

I agree! Sure, we may not like what some people think or believe but, it's not like Chick-Fil-A is doing anything inherently unlawful. We shouldn't deny companies the ability to expand just because of their beliefs. That's impractical and detrimental to the economy. If you don't like what they do, then just don't do business with them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Chick-fil-a has not done anything wrong so this alderman is using them to promote his own agenda and that is wrong. If we justify our own prejudices against Chick-fil-a then we are also justifying theirs.

 

[Wirey]

Is Chick-fil-A a fast food joint?

 

[xkatz]

Is Chick-fil-A a fast food joint?

Yup. They specialize in chicken, hence the name.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Attempts are being made to block the construction of a Chick-fil-A in a Chicago ward. The reason being given is the anti-gay stance of the CEO.

Part of me would like to see the fast food restaurant actually be blocked from construction. But thinking about it more, I think this could lead down a very bad road if it succeeds. Should it (or is it) be legal to deny a business a zoning permit based solely upon the views of the owner, and not the practices of the actual business?

Chicago alderman wants to block Chick-fil-A from opening in his ward - chicagotribune.com
Chicago Alderman Says Chick-fil-A Is Not Welcome In His Ward

I don't think that either should be legal grounds to deny a zoning application. All that should be relevant are whether the development is in accordance with legitimate urban planning objectives. The alderman mentioned a concern about traffic; this could be a legitimate objection (though it also shouldn't be used as an excuse when the issue is really something else). Disagreeing with the owner's opinions is not.

Provided that Chick-fil-A can address any concerns like traffic, environmental impact, sewer capacity, etc., they should be allowed to build their restaurant. I would never choose to be a patron myself and I would hope that it goes out of business due to lack of customers, but zoning is about having an effectively working and well-planned city, not about imposing views on people on matters of conscience... even if they're views that I personally agree with.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think that either should be legal grounds to deny a zoning application. All that should be relevant are whether the development is in accordance with legitimate urban planning objectives. The alderman mentioned a concern about traffic; this could be a legitimate objection (though it also shouldn't be used as an excuse when the issue is really something else). Disagreeing with the owner's opinions is not.

Provided that Chick-fil-A can address any concerns like traffic, environmental impact, sewer capacity, etc., they should be allowed to build their restaurant. I would never choose to be a patron myself and I would hope that it goes out of business due to lack of customers, but zoning is about having an effectively working and well-planned city, not about imposing views on people on matters of conscience... even if they're views that I personally agree with.

Agreed. And let the operation sink or swim according to the wishes of the community. Personally, my hope is . . .

 

[Jainarayan]

Is Chick-fil-A a fast food joint?

They are also closed on Sundays.

 

[ZZKBKB55]

But thinking about it more, I think this could lead down a very bad road if it succeeds. Should it (or is it) be legal to deny a business a zoning permit based solely upon the views of the owner, and not the practices of the actual business?

This is a bad idea. Surely if a Christian mayor attempted to block the building of a McDonald's because it's corporate bigshots were pro-gay marriage, there would be a huge outcry and the mayor would be forced to step down. It should be no different when the roles are reversed.

 

[Levite]

While I sympathize with the alderman's desire not to support Chick-fil-A, unfortunately I don't see any legal reason to deny them zoning permits. Zoning permits have nothing to do, under the law, with whether the business owner happens to be a douche bag or not. Nor should there be, I think. A** holes have just as much right to make a living as the rest of us: if we object to them, we take our business elsewhere. But it's a free country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I sympathize with the alderman's desire not to support Chick-fil-A, unfortunately I don't see any legal reason to deny them zoning permits. Zoning permits have nothing to do, under the law, with whether the business owner happens to be a douche bag or not. Nor should there be, I think. A** holes have just as much right to make a living as the rest of us: if we object to them, we take our business elsewhere. But it's a free country.

I got into a conversation with someone on Facebook about this issue. He pointed out that Chicago has some rather strange laws that allow for "alderman privilege" on issues like this, and they use it fairly regularly to block things like sex shops (and, I was told, on one occasion a falafel place). Does this change things?

I lean towards "no" myself, I think. Even though blocking Chick-fil-A would be consistent with blocking those other applications, I don't think they should have been blocked, either.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I got into a conversation with someone on Facebook about this issue. He pointed out that Chicago has some rather strange laws that allow for "alderman privilege" on issues like this, and they use it fairly regularly to block things like sex shops (and, I was told, on one occasion a falafel place). Does this change things?

I lean towards "no" myself, I think. Even though blocking Chick-fil-A would be consistent with blocking those other applications, I don't think they should have been blocked, either.

Monkey wrench -

How is this any different than state legislators creating laws that prohibit gay marriage (or, as they say, defending traditional marriage)?

The alderman is simply the municipal legislative official that is prohibiting discriminatory businesses (or, as they say, defending equal opportunity). Which is why I thought I'd throw in that wrench for anyone who might suggest that the topic of gay marriage ought to be left in the hands of the state governing bodies.

For the record, I believe Chick-fil-A ought to be able to open a new branch in his ward. Let the public vote with their dollars.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Monkey wrench -

[youtube]aKp5v588-Vs[/youtube]
Foo Fighters - Monkey Wrench - YouTube

How is this any different than state legislators creating laws that prohibit gay marriage (or, as they say, defending traditional marriage)?

Now, now, two wrongs don't make a right.

The alderman is simply the municipal legislative official that is prohibiting discriminatory businesses (or, as they say, defending equal opportunity). Which is why I thought I'd throw in that wrench for anyone who might suggest that the topic of gay marriage ought to be left in the hands of the state governing bodies.

True, but I'm against politicians using legislature to police morals, on both sides of the equation.

For the record, I believe Chick-fil-A ought to be able to open a new branch in his ward. Let the public vote with their dollars.

Me too. The owner of Chick-fil-A has a right to his opinion and the right to run his business as he sees fit. He will also have to suffer the consumer backlash which is where any retribution should come from.

 

[HonestJoe]

Like others, I disagree with the stance the owner of Chick-Fil-A reportedly holds but I think this response is wrong.

The furore over the proposed Islamic Centre/Mosque close to the Twin Towers site came to my mind (what did happen with that BTW?). Not quite the same thing but I think there are certain interesting parallels that many of the most vocal might find them selves on opposite sides of this time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Monkey wrench -

How is this any different than state legislators creating laws that prohibit gay marriage (or, as they say, defending traditional marriage)?

The alderman is simply the municipal legislative official that is prohibiting discriminatory businesses (or, as they say, defending equal opportunity). Which is why I thought I'd throw in that wrench for anyone who might suggest that the topic of gay marriage ought to be left in the hands of the state governing bodies.

For the record, I believe Chick-fil-A ought to be able to open a new branch in his ward. Let the public vote with their dollars.

From my perspective, I disagree with the idea of legislating morality, but I do see your point: those who have decided that legislating morality is okay when banning same-sex marriage don't have grounds to cry foul when the same thing works against them.

 

[Penumbra]

Give them the permit and then voluntarily boycott the business.

 

[Apex]

I got into a conversation with someone on Facebook about this issue. He pointed out that Chicago has some rather strange laws that allow for "alderman privilege" on issues like this, and they use it fairly regularly to block things like sex shops (and, I was told, on one occasion a falafel place). Does this change things?

I lean towards "no" myself, I think. Even though blocking Chick-fil-A would be consistent with blocking those other applications, I don't think they should have been blocked, either.

But there is another factor to consider here, do they use this "alderman privilege" to block specific businesses, or do they use it to block all businesses of a specific type? For example, blocking all sex shops in a particular area, or just blocking one particular sex shop. I would think blocking all businesses of a particular type would be acceptable, but singling out one particular business should not be acceptable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But there is another factor to consider here, do they use this "alderman privilege" to block specific businesses, or do they use it to block all businesses of a specific type? For example, blocking all sex shops in a particular area, or just blocking one particular sex shop. I would think blocking all businesses of a particular type would be acceptable, but singling out one particular business should not be acceptable.

I'd have to check, but my guess is that it's only used at the discretion of the individual alderman.

And personally, I would still disagree if they were blocking all of one type of shop. The purpose of zoning is to integrate land uses in a well-planned and functional way, not to arbitrarily prohibit what people can and can't do.

Regardless, this is a moot point, because I doubt they're blocking all fast food chicken places.