According To Jim

Jim DeRogatis has been doing yeoman's work on the controversial Promoters' Ordinance that's moving through the City Council right now. He recently posted his article for the Sun-Times on his blog, which is probably the best reference material on the subject that I've seen -- but that's not hard when you're going up against the painfully over-the-top saveourculture.org.

Perhaps most importantly, he also attached a letter from Metro and Smart Bar to that post, and to me, that's been one of the more compelling arguments against the ordinance that I've seen. A lot of the opposition seems to have been hypothetical, a sort of romanticization of the small, independent promoter, but Metro is going to be a pretty authoritative source on just how much of their business comes from these types of shows.

I also have to say that Time Out Chicago has been covering this story really well, even giving lie to Jim's alarmist citation of $300,000 in insurance coverage -- the actual cost of which would only be $700, according to Alderman Scott Waguespack.

This gives the issue a bit more clarity, at least for someone who hasn't read the ordinance in its entirety. What I understand is this: The license costs between $500 and $2000 dollars. The insurance coverage is "up to $300,000," which allegedly costs about $700. What determines the points on that range? Size of venue would seem logical, except that an independent promoter might not always use the same size venue. And is $700 the low end of how much it would cost for the insurance? So what we're talking about, for a promoter interested in just doing one show, is an increase in costs of $1,200. If this show is at a venue like Schubas, which maybe can hold 200 people in the main room -- and I may be guessing generously high on that -- then we're talking about $6 per person assuming it sells out just to break even on the ordinance costs, before you even get into the talent and the marketing and whatever rent the venue might charge.

DISCLAIMER: All of these calculations are completely pulled out of my ass. I may be really, really wrong. But if I understand this right, even the show I'm playing this Friday at the Abbey Pub could be affected, as it's being put on by Shoeshine Boy Productions.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I do wonder about the insurance. One of the main arguments DeRo and others have been making is that the venues already have insurance, but let's say there was an incident at a club for an independently promoted event. If the venue is the only one holding insurance, would their premiums increase? And if so, is that fair? It may very well be, which is why I'm asking. But the venue is then absorbing all the liability for the events of the independent promoters.

I don't even think I'm against this in principle, but it has to scale. Tacking an extra $1,000 in costs to a one-off event may not be a big deal once you're past a certain size, but if, say, list.in.to.chicago wanted to do a showcase at Elbo Room, I'd be SOL, and no, not because of the provision about denying permits to people with criminal records. I have an alibi.