The Chicago Music Commission opposes an increase in the Amusement tax for the following reasons: The foundation of a healthy arts infrastructure is a stable economy. An increase in the amusement tax will threaten this in the following ways.

The Amusement tax exemption:

In 2009, the City of Seattle voted to waive sales taxes on ticket sales on all venues that have a maximum capacity of 1000:
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2009/05/26/news/tax-exemption-aims-help-venues-musicians
A quote from the article: Council President Richard Conlin said the admittance tax exemption can be looked at like an investment in a project. It will hopefully help to keep musicians employed and create new music venues that will bring the city more tax revenue, he said.

The many small venues (capacity under 750) in Chicago are the backbone of the music economy. They are the ones that take the biggest chance on acts that might not draw a huge crowd, and will be affected the most by removing the exemption. Many of them book a combination of local acts and upcoming national, touring acts. Pertaining to the touring acts: There are many small venues in the surrounding suburbs (SPACE in Evanston, Viper Alley in Lincolnshire and Durty Nellie’s in Palatine that are booking the same type of music weekly. Because there is such a small margin for profit in this segment of the industry, a 9% amusement tax would force a great deal of these acts to the suburbs, where there is a much smaller percentage taken. Pertaining to the local acts, this would “trickle down” to the actual musicians, who in many of the smaller venues receive the “door” (ticket sales) as their payment with the venue making their revenue on bar and food sales. For a local band playing on a three act bill on a Friday night, this tax would probably account for a large percentage of their “take home pay” from the gig. Many times each band walks away with about $40.00 to use for gas and equipment costs. They are using these gigs to build their audiences and hopefully sign new people up to their mailing lists, giving them the opportunity to invite them to their next show. This process is how a local band builds up their following. The small amount of money that they make helps them survive until they can draw a large audience.

Economic Impact:

Another thought that must be considered in this discussion is the economic impact to the neighborhood surrounding each of these venues. At a recent visit to a concert at the Chicago Theater (Alison Krauss and Union Station) there were lines out the door for an hour and a half before the show at Subway on Wabash, Elephant and Castle on Wabash, and Potbelly on the corner of State and Lake, all on a weekday night when dinner business on a non-show day would be very slim. A show moved from this venue would result in a drop in customers to all the businesses in the surrounding area, and a drop in tax revenue from all the food and drink sold in those businesses that night.

Larger venues:

Bringing the tax to 9% will bring the Chicago tax to three times the amusement tax in neighboring suburbs (3%) resulting in promoters and booking agents having no option but to bypass Chicago venues in favor of suburban venues (similar size, convenient parking and ease of access from the expressway system. The economics of this move are as follows- for a medium sized show, the difference in the amusement tax from city to suburb would be as much as $12,000. For a larger arena show, the difference can be as much as $60,000.

As of today, our (CMC) website shows approximately 250 music venues in Chicago that program music in one form or another. As we are still in the process of obtaining information, we feel that this number is low. Rescinding the amusement tax exemption would have a distinct affect on many of these venues.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel
City of Chicago/City Hall
Chicago, IL 60614

Re: $10,000,000 SAVINGS WITH THE STROKE OF YOUR PEN

Dear Mayor Rahm Emanuel

The attached document presents our suggestion for an alternative solution for the planned intersection at Fullerton/Damen/Clybourn, one radically different than one the City of Chicago is now considering.

Our proposal is to install a Roundabout instead of the City of Chicago solution, which entails a series of stop lights staggered over a very large tract of land, tearing down buildings and taking land, and a massive construction project costing tens of millions of taxpayer money. The Roundabout solution could save tens of millions $$$.

This large tract of land, which the City is eyeing, is comprised of several different owners and businesses, and will involve extensive acquisition costs even before you consider the cost to construct the convoluted system of lights and intersections. In addition, they will be creating a large land-locked tract in the center, which will have to be maintained. The idea is to reduce the congestion at this intersection not compound it with CDOT’s awkward design. If the CDOT goes forward with its latest proposal, it will, at the very least, be very problematic, and very expensive compared to our alternate.

Our proposal presents the least intrusive solution with the minimum disruption to adjacent landowners and businesses; it is clean and simple. The footprint of the Roundabout is a fraction of the massive solution put forth by the City of Chicago. And the argument that Americans cannot deal with roundabouts is nonsense. There are roundabouts all over America, and when Americans go to Europe they do not create chaos on the highways. It takes little effort to master the continuous flow of traffic made possible by this type intersection.

We urge you, as the Mayor of Chicago, to stand up against this unwise misuse of resources when it could be done much better for a lot less investment. At a time when the Chicago is facing with financial stress, we think it is time to find a dollar-wise solution for issues such as this intersection.

Yours truly,

Richard Wallace
Illinois Architect – Master of Urban Design

There is nothing innovative here and this is so old administration. Moreover, the new administration already stated its view on new taxes.

Did anyone contemplate more taxes in a recession might encourage citizens to leave the city because they can’t afford to live here anymore. The City of Chicago as lost 200,000 citizens as of the last census. Houston Texas gained 100,000. If this trend continues we will be the fourth largest city in America. This would be a huge blow not only for Chicago but the whole region.

True creativity for a city is razing revenue without razing taxes.

Besides the tax issue, there are serious shortcomings with all of the Inspector General’s Office 16 points. I will focus on one: Fee for Blue Cart Recycling. Actually, you got this one all wrong. Citizens should receive a credit instead of a fee for recycling. 1) There is money in recyclables and this should offset any proposed fee, 2) because people will just throw recyclables in the trash to not receive, or ask for, a blue container, 3) forcing the city will pay higher fees for more garbage being taken to dump sights, 4) and it’s simply inappropriate to discourage people from recycling because of the long term consequences on public heath, the economic loss of a valuable resource, and enhanced environment degrading.

I am truly unimpressed. You may wish to look more inward, than outward, in saving our city money.