Chicago Fines Businesses for Advertising Without Paying Them First

[GTX63]

I'm such a bumpkin. My MIL sent this to me. The city of Chicago fines business owners who advertise in their store front windows without a permit?

Once you apply/pay for the permit, you also have to pay a review fee, lol.

 

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170728/wicker-park/window-signs-permits-chicago-fines-businessowners-appeal

[Tango7]

Sumbuddys gotta get a coin... #businessasusual

[kevinmcc]

Chicago regulations are ridiculous.

 

I do not get why businesses even setup there.

[Raw Power]

I'm such a bumpkin. My MIL sent this to me. The city of Chicago fines business owners who advertise in their store front windows without a permit?

Once you apply/pay for the permit, you also have to pay a review fee, lol.

 

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170728/wicker-park/window-signs-permits-chicago-fines-businessowners-appeal

 

 

That sign takes up nowhere near 25% of the window. A good lawyer would have a field day with this case.

[spanishjames]

I'd like to hear their reason for charging a fee in the first place. It's a place of business, of course they need to advertise, and window signs are the least intrusive of all outdoor signs.

[Cerus]

 

I'm such a bumpkin. My MIL sent this to me. The city of Chicago fines business owners who advertise in their store front windows without a permit?

Once you apply/pay for the permit, you also have to pay a review fee, lol.

 

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170728/wicker-park/window-signs-permits-chicago-fines-businessowners-appeal

 

That sign takes up nowhere near 25% of the window. A good lawyer would have a field day with this case.

It says "or" according to the article.

 

A long-standing city law enforced by the Department of Buildings states that permits are required for non-illuminated painted or vinyl advertising signs or lettering that take up more than 25 percent of any single window.

 

It's a rediculous law for sure but the pizza place owner is an idiot. He wasn't "informed of the law" when he opened? It's his job as a business owner to know all the laws and regulations. "Didn't know" as a defense doesn't fly in court.

 

One more reason I'm glad I don't live in Chicago. Requiring fees to paint the name of your store on your window??? What a shitshow.

[mikew]

Let's not forget the "Going Out Of Business" license.

[BobPistol]

Gee, I wonder how this doesn't violate the 1st amendment. The left are notorious for this.

[gangrel]

I'm such a bumpkin. My MIL sent this to me. The city of Chicago fines business owners who advertise in their store front windows without a permit?

Once you apply/pay for the permit, you also have to pay a review fee, lol.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170728/wicker-park/window-signs-permits-chicago-fines-businessowners-appeal

 

That sign takes up nowhere near 25% of the window. A good lawyer would have a field day with this case.

 

It says "or" according to the article.

A long-standing city law enforced by the Department of Buildings states that permits are required for non-illuminated painted or vinyl advertising signs or lettering that take up more than 25 percent of any single window.

It's a rediculous law for sure but the pizza place owner is an idiot. He wasn't "informed of the law" when he opened? It's his job as a business owner to know all the laws and regulations. "Didn't know" as a defense doesn't fly in court.

One more reason I'm glad I don't live in Chicago. Requiring fees to paint the name of your store on your window??? What a shitshow.

If he did his due diligence on knowing the laws before opening his business, he would have opened his business somewhere other than Chicago in the first place.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

[BobPistol]

 

It's a rediculous law for sure but the pizza place owner is an idiot. He wasn't "informed of the law" when he opened? It's his job as a business owner to know all the laws and regulations. "Didn't know" as a defense doesn't fly in court.

 

 

 

 

The Code of Federal Regulations is 50 chapters and thousands of pages.

The Code of US Laws is 50 chapters and thousands of pages.

The Internal Revenue code by itself is thousands of pages.

State Law is thousands of pages.

State administrative law is thousands of pages.

County Law is hundreds of pages.

County administrative law is hundreds of pages.

City Law is hundreds of pages.

City administrative law is hundreds of pages.

And let's talk about all the thousands of pages of court rules used as precedents.

 

And you must know every single page of it because all of it applies to you. Do you? Probably not.

 

Oh, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

One day, a judge with half a brain will figure this argument is invalid and strike down that doctrine in court.

[chislinger]

It's a rediculous law for sure but the pizza place owner is an idiot. He wasn't "informed of the law" when he opened? It's his job as a business owner to know all the laws and regulations. "Didn't know" as a defense doesn't fly in court.

Easier said than done. Chicago's codes and regulations are so byzantine, convoluted, and vague it's impossible to know them all. What's fine with one inspector gets you cited by another. Any inspector can go into any business in the city and find dozens of violations.

[skinnyb82]

 

The Internal Revenue code by itself is thousands of pages. And you must know every single page of it because all of it applies to you. Do you? Probably not. Oh, ignorance of the law is no excuse. One day, a judge with half a brain will figure this argument is invalid and strike down that doctrine in court.

Actually, ignorance of the law is a defense in tax court. Usually doesn't fly but it may be used as an affirmative defense. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[MrTriple]

Chicago regulations are ridiculous.I do not get why businesses even setup there.

Same reasons why developers are building thousands of new condos and white collar, yuppie idiots are moving here. They've bought into the fantasy of Chicago being a "wonderful, vibrant city" and think that everything is going great. They want to get in before the market values rise "like in NYC and Los Angeles," ignoring the fact that that's not gonna happen (and isn't happening) and while remaining ignorant of our increasing levels of crime, burdensome taxation, corrupt government, and other myriad issues.

 

People really don't research these sort of things anymore. They honestly allow propaganda to influence their thinking.

[soylentgreen]

My brother-in-law manages a large big box store within the city limits. The stories he tells about the regulations are truly unbelievable...such as the "sign tax". They have to pay something like $1000/year for every sign on the front of the store...including the "IN" and "OUT" signs. It's truly ludicorous. Amazingly, my BIL remains a Democrat.

[billzfx4]

I'd bet the city doesn't tax them to put up a "NO GUNS" sign.

 

*Please note, this is NOT in purple.

[ChicagoRonin70]

My brother-in-law manages a large big box store within the city limits. The stories he tells about the regulations are truly unbelievable...such as the "sign tax". They have to pay something like $1000/year for every sign on the front of the store...including the "IN" and "OUT" signs. It's truly ludicorous. Amazingly, my BIL remains a Democrat.

 

I'd bet the city doesn't tax them to put up a "NO GUNS" sign.

 

*Please note, this is NOT in purple.

 

You know, I am going to see if I can file some sort of complaint or citizen action to find out if the city is doing this, and then if they are not, I might just see what sort of remedy can be forced via legal, legislative scrutiny, and/or media means to make the city do the same with GFZ signs as they do with other signage.

 

Wouldn't it be some sort of violation of equal protection if they didn't charge for GFZ signs but did for other required or "safety" signs (or any other sort of sign, for that matter)? I think this could be a really nice Constitutional violation case, if so!

 

Although, this is what the city's website says about such signs, including entrance and exit signs:

 

A sign permit from the Department of Buildings is required to place a sign on a parcel of land, a building, a structure or a place of business in the City of Chicago. There are two types of signs, on-premise signs and off-premise signs.

An on-premise sign is a business identification sign located at the address where the product or service is conducted. These signs require a permit with the following exceptions:

• an on-premise (business) sign constructed entirely of paper, vinyl, film or sticker material and attached to a window for no more than 60 days, provided that the total signs are not collectively applied to more than twenty-five percent of any single window (13-20-550);
• an on-premise (business) sign painted directly on a window, provided that the total signs are not collectively applied to more than twenty-five percent of any single window (13-20-550);
• an on-premise (business) incidental sign such as an address sign, entrance/exit sign, open/closed sign, days/hours of operation sign or restroom sign provided that the sign contains no commercial or business name or commercial business logo (17-17-0271); and
• an on-premise (business) official sign, public notice sign or waning sign required by a federal, state or municipal law, such as a no smoking sign, a high voltage sign, a consumer rights notice sign (17-17-0501).

If that regulation is the case, then soylentgreen's brother-in-law's employer is getting taken by someone who is charging for a sign permit where one is exempt from such charges.