As Roger Amador sees it, one day a few years ago for no reason at all the city took $350,000 out of his pocket. More specifically, the City Council passed a ban on issuances of new liquor licenses and transfers of old liquor licenses in the 25th Ward. As a result, a prospective buyer withdrew a $350,000 offer on Amador’s store, Amador Liquors, at 1167 W. 18th St.
But many aldermen say the bans are needed to halt the spread of crime, litter, and noise that accompany obnoxious bars and stores. “Many civic organizations feel that this is a wonderful tool to stop any new bars from being established,” says 47th Ward Alderman Eugene Schulter, chairman of the council’s Committee on License and Consumer Protection. “A weekend hardly goes by when I don’t get some complaint about fights or drug sales in a bar or people stumbling out of a bar and urinating on lawns. There are too many liquor establishments in this city; the problem must be brought under control.”
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Amador says he didn’t know the ban had been proposed, let alone passed, until he attempted to sell his business. “My wife and I wanted to sell our store and buy a vending outfit in Riverside,” he says. “I had an offer for $350,000, for the building and the business. But when I went to the bank to finalize the deal they said I couldn’t do it because I couldn’t transfer the license. I can’t even transfer the license to my wife or son. So, now what happens if I die? My family can’t sell the store and they can’t operate it. Everything I worked for is gone and they have no means to support themselves.”
Schulter says he sympathizes with licensees in good standing who want to transfer their businesses to family members (indeed, he has proposed an amendment that would allow them to do so). But their laments do not tell the full story, he adds. Last year the police made 6,942 arrests at bars and taverns, most involving people under 25. At least 64 taverns and liquor stores were repeatedly cited by the city for such offenses as selling booze to minors or blasting their loudspeakers.
The ordinance that permits the bans was unsuccessfully challenged in 1991, but Siegel says he might file a new suit. “The city will tell you the law has been tested in court, but what happened is that a lawyer without a great deal of experience filed a suit and lost,” he says. “We have carefully analyzed that complaint, and we are convinced that the proper issues were not raised. We’re talking about a serious constitutional violation: you don’t have to be a lawyer to know that you can’t take people’s property without due process. And that is what is happening here.”
