ShareThis Page
South Side restaurant ordinance still in discussion |

South Side restaurant ordinance still in discussion

Adam Brandolph
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:00 p.m

A recently introduced ordinance limiting the number of restaurants on the South Side is legally enforceable but could be overturned in court, according to the city’s top attorney.

Daniel D. Regan issued his legal opinion earlier this week on the measure, introduced by Councilman Bruce Kraus. City Council voted to postpone discussion on the bill until Wednesday.

The ordinance would limit the number of restaurants, not including fast-food establishments, to one per every 50,000 square feet along East Carson Street between 10th and 27th streets. It stems from the city’s 2007 measure to stop bars from opening once a neighborhood reaches a “saturation point.” Judge Joseph M. James struck down the ordinance last month, saying it infringed on the power of the state Liquor Control Board.

Kraus said he plans to ask for another two-week hold on the ordinance to have further discussions with other elected officials.

“I didn’t want to pursue this and I would have rather it not have happened,” Kraus said. “But it has sparked rather recent conversations.”

Calling the measure “unconstitutional,” Councilman Ricky Burgess said it handcuffed restaurant owners and removed the public from the decision-making process.

“The bill itself was bad policy,” Burgess said. “Any attempt to usurp a judge’s ruling is inappropriate.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.