http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/chi-0606080223jun08,1,4788789.story?coll=chi-newslocalssouthwest-hed


City Council panel OKs cigarette ban
Self-extinguishing ones are exempt

By Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 8, 2006


A Chicago City Council committee advanced a measure on Wednesday that would ban the sale of cigarettes except those that extinguish themselves when left unattended.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich recently signed into law a similar fire-safety measure. But that one goes into effect in January 2008, while the city ordinance would become effective early next year if it is approved by the full council.

Time is of the essence, said Ald. Edward Burke (14th), sponsor of the city measure, which was approved by the council's License Committee.

"The State of New York, when it adopted this law, discovered that fatalities from house fires dropped by one-third, ... which means that cigarette-related accidents ... are a significant part of what causes fatalities in homes," Burke said.

The mandated type of cigarette, wrapped in a special type of paper, "means that if somebody falls asleep with a cigarette in their hand, it'll go out at a certain point," he said.

The ban on regular cigarettes would go into effect 180 days after passage and publication in the Council Journal under Burke's proposal. The council's next scheduled meeting is June 28.

The License Committee also heard testimony from officials of the American Meat Institute, who opposed another Burke proposal, one that would regulate the sale of meat that is treated with carbon monoxide.

Burke contends the treatment, by prolonging meat's pink color, is designed to make it look attractive in the grocery case when it no longer is fresh. But the industry representatives contended the process has health benefits and charged that a company with a competing technology is behind a campaign to discredit it.

Burke told reporters later that the meat measure, which was held in committee for further study, could provide "a good jumping-off point" to look at other health-related food issues. One example is obesity and use of cooking oils high in saturated fat, he said.

"Maybe we should start thinking about local ordinances to restrict some of those unhealthy practices," the alderman said.

David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, complained of what he contended is legislative overstepping by the City Council.

"Local governments should pay more attention to educating their kids, putting police departments in neighborhoods, fire departments in neighborhoods, and leaving regulatory issues to state government," Vite said. "We are seeing so many ordinances introduced in the city of Chicago which affect the way businesses do business, affect interstate commerce ... at a time we are trying to bring new businesses and jobs to the city.

"They don't go together," Vite said.

The council recently banned the sale of foie gras because of allegedly inhumane methods used in its production. Now it's considering measures ranging from a required minimum wage for employees of "big box" stores to mandatory installation of security cameras in stores and other buildings that are open for more than 12 hours a day.


The last paragraph is what is interesting.

Banning cigarettes -- I'm cool with that.

Aldermen are weird.

The cigarette law does seem weird -- why bother, if the law will change anyway? I feel like I'd hear about the foie gras ban recently, but since it has no effect on my life, I've ignored it. The other two in that last paragraph are pretty pointless and stupid, too.

I'm all for a ban on meat treated with carbon monoxide. I can't see how the meat industry can argue that this process is good for consumers in any form. The upshot is that you can end up buying meat that, under wraps, looks fine, but is spoiled when you get it home. Treating meat with carbon monoxide is about one thing: selling more meat, even if said meat isn't in great shape.

The New York Times did an article on this a few weeks back. The journalist bought similar cuts of the same beef, one that had been treated and one that hadn't. Then he kept them in his fridge for a month. After a month, the untreated one looked pretty off, but the treated one still looked fine. Then he put them on his counter for a full 24 hours. The untreated one was (as you'd expect) nasty, but the treated one still looked A-OK fine.

You can't tell me that's ethical business.

As a Chicago resident I have no issue with any of the laws proposed in that article including the last paragraph.

As a non-Chicago resident I'm shocked that they didn't consider a resolution to call for Dusty Baker to be fired.

As a Chicago resident I have no issue with any of the laws proposed in that article including the last paragraph.

You're really fine with a different wage requirement for stores that are "big-box" compared to stores that aren't? That reeks of all kinds of discrimination.

As a non-Chicago resident I'm shocked that they didn't consider a resolution to call for Dusty Baker to be fired.

Oh God No. We have a vested interest in the Cubs continuing to suck. It's hard enough to get tickets for the World's Largest Beer Garden as it is. Imagine if they're actually good. shudder

You're really fine with a different wage requirement for stores that are "big-box" compared to stores that aren't? That reeks of all kinds of discrimination.
Sure. I have no issue at all with a law gives companies with more than x employees a different minimum wage than those with less.

So it's okay to exploit the proletariat, as long as you do it on a small scale?

REVOLUTION!!!

You're really fine with a different wage requirement for stores that are "big-box" compared to stores that aren't? That reeks of all kinds of discrimination.

What about all the tax breaks and prime development opportunities that these major corporations get? If the city is giving them certain entitlements to develop can't they put certain restrictions on them?

What about all the tax breaks and prime development opportunities that these major corporations get? If the city is giving them certain entitlements to develop can't they put certain restrictions on them?

1. I never said I was for major corporations getting tax breaks.
2. Maybe these aldermen should make up their minds as to whether or not they want to develop or restrict big business.

Sure. I have no issue at all with a law gives companies with more than x employees a different minimum wage than those with less.

Doesn't that defeat the entire idea of a free-market economy?

As for the issue of tax breaks, the city and residents gain new jobs (that a small business cannot do), as well as well as competitive pricing, and other advantages.

Doesn't that defeat the entire idea of a free-market economy?

As for the issue of tax breaks, the city and residents gain new jobs (that a small business cannot do), as well as well as competitive pricing, and other advantages.

Free market economies should not have the government picking winners and losers.

Small businesseses employ many more people as a percentage of revenue than big box national retailers. Sure, it takes a few of them together to equal a large format store but why don't they get any tax breaks when they open new stores?

Free market economies should not have the government picking winners and losers.

Small businesseses employ many more people as a percentage of revenue than big box national retailers. Sure, it takes a few of them together to equal a large format store but why don't they get any tax breaks when they open new stores?

It's quid pro quo. The local governements try to develop business to build their local economy. Small business is difficult to invest in. Most fail. If local governments over invest in failed businesses, then they have used their assets, and have nothing to show for it. The "Big Box" type stores get incentives because they deliver the jobs the local governments want, and do so in a convenient package. I'm all for giving small business owners a break, but I don't like the idea of penalizing larger business at the same time.

I'm all for giving small business owners a break, but I don't like the idea of penalizing larger business at the same time.

Penalizing larger businesses? Everything is set up for them to succeed. They get to build distribution networks with massive subsidies, they get to build their stores with huge tax breaks, and they often get the choices of prime redevelopment opportunites not afforded to small businesses. (The worst part is that they do not even need to make a profit on individual stores. They are rewarded by Wall Street for building market share even if some stores do not make money. Small businesses do not get rewarded for just selling more without turning a profit.)

In reaction to this Chicago is mitigating some of the negative factors that these types of development cause. Any project receiving city aid is required to either build a green roof or be LEED certified to minimize environmental impacts and now they are exploring the option of forcing them to pay living wages to mitigate some of their economic concerns.

This couldnt work everywhere but chains are flocking to move here so why shouldnt the city demand something from them that has a positive impact on our citizens? I guarantee this will not stop them from coming into Chicago the market is just so lucrative.

Penalizing larger businesses? Everything is set up for them to succeed. They get to build distribution networks with massive subsidies, they get to build their stores with huge tax breaks, and they often get the choices of prime redevelopment opportunites not afforded to small businesses. (The worst part is that they do not even need to make a profit on individual stores. They are rewarded by Wall Street for building market share even if some stores do not make money. Small businesses do not get rewarded for just selling more without turning a profit.)

In reaction to this Chicago is mitigating some of the negative factors that these types of development cause. Any project receiving city aid is required to either build a green roof or be LEED certified to minimize environmental impacts and now they are exploring the option of forcing them to pay living wages to mitigate some of their economic concerns.

This couldnt work everywhere but chains are flocking to move here so why shouldnt the city demand something from them that has a positive impact on our citizens? I guarantee this will not stop them from coming into Chicago the market is just so lucrative.

Doesn't the city also decide to give out these tax breaks? If the problem is that there's too much incentive for these big businesses to come here, why not just get rid of the tax breaks?

Doesn't the city also decide to give out these tax breaks? If the problem is that there's too much incentive for these big businesses to come here, why not just get rid of the tax breaks?

I agree, they should get rid of them or at least ensure that locally-owned businesses should have equal access to them. Especially on the north side where we seem to have enough retail options already.

I can see them being used to stimulate development on the south and west sides though that need to have a way to stimulate activity. I don't have any problems with addng clauses to these developments though.

Penalizing larger businesses? Everything is set up for them to succeed. They get to build distribution networks with massive subsidies, they get to build their stores with huge tax breaks, and they often get the choices of prime redevelopment opportunites not afforded to small businesses. (The worst part is that they do not even need to make a profit on individual stores. They are rewarded by Wall Street for building market share even if some stores do not make money. Small businesses do not get rewarded for just selling more without turning a profit.)

In reaction to this Chicago is mitigating some of the negative factors that these types of development cause. Any project receiving city aid is required to either build a green roof or be LEED certified to minimize environmental impacts and now they are exploring the option of forcing them to pay living wages to mitigate some of their economic concerns.

This couldnt work everywhere but chains are flocking to move here so why shouldnt the city demand something from them that has a positive impact on our citizens? I guarantee this will not stop them from coming into Chicago the market is just so lucrative.


Weird way to look at business. What benefit does a small business bring to a city that a big box retailer can't provide? They get tax breaks, but they are usually anchors of a large development project that will bring in more tax revenue than a small business could ever do.

Weird way to look at business. What benefit does a small business bring to a city that a big box retailer can't provide? They get tax breaks, but they are usually anchors of a large development project that will bring in more tax revenue than a small business could ever do.

Locally-owned businesses are much better for a local economy. When you shop at a national chain the profit and all back-office jobs are somewhere else in the country so that money leaves your local economy at the end of the night. Local businesses hire local computer techs, accountants, lawyers, etc., and tend to buy more equipment locally. Having this money stay locally is a major boon for a city. These economic impacts also have fiscal impacts for the city that do not show up right away (like the accountant taking his money and buying stuff which generates more sales tax.)

And in Chicago some of the more popular shopping districts get by just fine without having a national anchor. Wicker Park, Armitage, Andersonville, and many others attract droves of shoppers with very little or any chains.

I'm not saying Chicago shouldn't have any chains. But as I've been saying they take subsidies and I don't think there is anything wrong with the city mitigating some of their negative effects as a requirement.

Locally-owned businesses are much better for a local economy. When you shop at a national chain the profit and all back-office jobs are somewhere else in the country so that money leaves your local economy at the end of the night. Local businesses hire local computer techs, accountants, lawyers, etc., and tend to buy more equipment locally. Having this money stay locally is a major boon for a city. These economic impacts also have fiscal impacts for the city that do not show up right away (like the accountant taking his money and buying stuff which generates more sales tax.)

And in Chicago some of the more popular shopping districts get by just fine without having a national anchor. Wicker Park, Armitage, Andersonville, and many others attract droves of shoppers with very little or any chains.

I'm not saying Chicago shouldn't have any chains. But as I've been saying they take subsidies and I don't think there is anything wrong with the city mitigating some of their negative effects as a requirement.

Compare a Home Depot to a local hardware store, which the later may have one or two employees to a store that has a much larger workforce with better benefits (how many small businesses offer 401ks, health benefits, stock, bonuses, ect.). How many small business owners actually hire people to do the back office stuff? I'm not familiar with the city, so I do not know about those districts.

Just FYI, the "new" cigarettes that are spoken of here have been proven to contain higher amounts of atleast 5 cancer causing ingredients in cigarette smoke. Somehow in the same breathe they claim that this doesn't make the smoke more toxic. Somehow I don't buy that.

Locally-owned businesses are much better for a local economy. When you shop at a national chain the profit and all back-office jobs are somewhere else in the country so that money leaves your local economy at the end of the night. Local businesses hire local computer techs, accountants, lawyers, etc., and tend to buy more equipment locally. Having this money stay locally is a major boon for a city. These economic impacts also have fiscal impacts for the city that do not show up right away (like the accountant taking his money and buying stuff which generates more sales tax.)

And in Chicago some of the more popular shopping districts get by just fine without having a national anchor. Wicker Park, Armitage, Andersonville, and many others attract droves of shoppers with very little or any chains.

I'm not saying Chicago shouldn't have any chains. But as I've been saying they take subsidies and I don't think there is anything wrong with the city mitigating some of their negative effects as a requirement.

Again the big box stores get the incentives, precisely because they do deliver the things that the cities are looking for. While true that profits are banked out of the region, those payroll checks are cashed locally, and the sales tax stays right at home. So they are giving the cities exactly what they promise. Namely jobs and revenue.

My point is that the incentives used to attract these large employers because the cities want what the big box employers have to offer. If those incentives are watered down by laws penalizing the big employers, then those big employers might just go elsewhere to setup shop. That might end up costing the neighborhoods affected.

Again the big box stores get the incentives, precisely because they do deliver the things that the cities are looking for. While true that profits are banked out of the region, those payroll checks are cashed locally, and the sales tax stays right at home. So they are giving the cities exactly what they promise. Namely jobs and revenue.

My point is that the incentives used to attract these large employers because the cities want what the big box employers have to offer. If those incentives are watered down by laws penalizing the big employers, then those big employers might just go elsewhere to setup shop. That might end up costing the neighborhoods affected.

Along with a higher level of property tax revenue.

My point is that the incentives used to attract these large employers because the cities want what the big box employers have to offer. If those incentives are watered down by laws penalizing the big employers, then those big employers might just go elsewhere to setup shop. That might end up costing the neighborhoods affected.

Chicago is not Fresno. These businesses will want to be here regardless. And if they dont we can do without chains offering $8.00/hr jobs. Again, not every city can do this but Chicago can. The #1 Target store in the country is here- chains love it here and will continue to come here regardless of the parameters the city sets for them.

Chicago does not offer incentives to have chains come here. They are merely part of TIFs that are set up to redevelop land. The problem is that the way redevelopment works is that only projects with national chains are elgible to take advantage of them.

Businesses negotiate for the best deals they can get why can't cities do the same?

Chicago is not Fresno. These businesses will want to be here regardless. And if they dont we can do without chains offering $8.00/hr jobs. Again, not every city can do this but Chicago can. The #1 Target store in the country is here- chains love it here and will continue to come here regardless of the parameters the city sets for them.

Chicago does not offer incentives to have chains come here. They are merely part of TIFs that are set up to redevelop land. The problem is that the way redevelopment works is that only projects with national chains are elgible to take advantage of them.

Businesses negotiate for the best deals they can get why can't cities do the same?

That's right play the big city card. I've been addressing this in fairly general terms. Yes employers want to go to Chicago. I hear there is this place they call the Magnificent Mile there. So is all of Chicago that popular of a commercial district? There are places, presumably, that aren't in such demand. Places that the, albeit fine, city of Chicago would want, or maybe even need, to entice employers to in order to redevelop bad neighborhoods. Oh maybe there isn't. Chicago is a beautiful place without a slum, or even a neighborhood in need of redevelopment in sight.

That's right play the big city card.

Look at the title of the topic. I have said throughout that not every city can demand this higher wage from chains and get away with it but Chicago can.

How many small business owners actually hire people to do the back office stuff?

Of course they dont hire these people but they contract out for their services. Even the smallest businesses use local accountants, lawyers,and computer techs. As you get bigger you might hire one of these people half or full-time. The chains don't have any of these people at their branch stores.

Are you familiar with economic multipliers? A locally-owned store has a much higher multiplier than a national chain. It keep much more churning in your local economy. Cities like Chicago are finally realizing this and doing things to help level the playing field for them to compete with national chains.

Look at the title of the topic. I have said throughout that not every city can demand this higher wage from chains and get away with it but Chicago can.

And apparently you are immune to sarcasm. I certainly wasn't suggesting that there were actually no neighborhoods in Chicago that would need to offer incentives for.

I guess the thing I don't get -- local businesses hire more accountants, computer techs, and lawyers. Big chains hire WAY more people who do manual labor. Which type of jobs does Chicago need more of?

I guess the thing I don't get -- local businesses hire more accountants, computer techs, and lawyers. Big chains hire WAY more people who do manual labor. Which type of jobs does Chicago need more of?

Manual labor at chain stores? did i miss the rock quarry in the back of Best Buy? :)

The strength of chains is their high productivity (meaning that sales per employee is very high and why it is generally harder to get good service there) but that is a problem for workers. So as sales in a city move from locally-owned businesses to larger chains the sales stay the same but the number of employees needed drops.

Sales stay the same because you can only sell as much as people have money for. Opening a new best buy doesnt make people spend more money on consumer electronics.