The draft ordinance is available here (Thanks to the Chicago Reader).

Stay tuned to the Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce's website for more developments on this ordinance, including press coverage and its status in the various Committees it has been referred.

Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce Statement: Vacation Rental Regulations
New Fees Hurt Businesses, Neighborhoods

CHICAGO (June 30, 2010) – It is no secret that Chicago is a destination locale on a global scale.  With visitors traveling to Chicago from all corners of the globe, the diversity of accommodations offered is a valuable marketing tool for the city’s tourism industry. The Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce (LPCC) is opposed to the new ordinance regulating Vacation Rental properties as the new fees associated with the legislation will hurt small business owners and the neighborhoods in which they operate.

“The LPCC is against this ordinance because the legislation makes it more difficult and expensive for yet another industry to conduct business in the City of Chicago,” said Kim Schilf, LPCC President and CEO.  “Businesses operating these unique rental units to tourists are both an asset to, and a marketing tool of, Chicago’s vibrant neighborhoods that are often lacking in adequate hotel rooms.

“This issue speaks to the businesses operating Vacation Rental units, their employees and the shops, restaurants and entertainment venues in the neighborhood that benefit from out of town guests.  With an additional bi-annual $500 per unit tax, as well as specialized licensing, the fact of the matter is that businesses may close, and people may lose their jobs,” Schilf said.  “Now is not the time to jeopardize the well-being of the tourism industry and its diverse accommodations.”

This ordinance makes Chicago the first major city to place regulations and fees on the Vacation Rental industry.  Additionally, it should be noted that more than 100 drafts of this ordinance and nearly a year of debate were required to get the support necessary from the Chicago City Council to approve the measure. 

“While the LPCC supports efforts to provide safe, quality lodging to Chicago’s visitors, we are concerned about mounting fees across the hospitality and other industries,” Schilf continued. 

Unless a new law is passed by the Assembly and signed into law by the Governor, Illinois' minimum wage will now remain at $8.25 per hour. As of this writing, Illinois' minimum wage is $1.00 per hour higher than the Federal minimum wage, $1.00 per hour higher than all of our border states (i.e. Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin), and the third highest in the country behind Washington and Oregon.

Through Put Illinois to Work, unemployed and underemployed Illinois residents can be placed into subsidized employment positions for up to six months. Under the subsidized employment model, the wages of the participant are provided by state/federal funding, and the employer must provide supervision and training of the participant for the duration of the placement.
 
The funding expires on September 30, 2010. Therefore all subsidized employment placements must end by that date.

For more details go to: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=48877

April 7, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today released a new form that will help employers claim the special payroll tax exemption that applies to many newly-hired workers during 2010, created by the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act signed by President Obama on March 18.

New Form W-11, Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act Employee Affidavit, is now posted on IRS.gov, along with answers to frequently-asked questions about the payroll tax exemption and the related new hire retention credit. The new law requires that employers get a statement from each eligible new hire, certifying under penalties of perjury, that he or she was unemployed during the 60 days before beginning work or, alternatively, worked fewer than a total of 40 hours for anyone during the 60-day period. Employers can use Form W-11 to meet this requirement.

Most eligible employers then use Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, to claim the payroll tax exemption for eligible new hires. This form, revised for use beginning with the second calendar quarter of 2010, is currently posted as a draft form on IRS.gov and will be released next month as a final along with the form’s instructions.

Though employers need this certification to claim both the payroll tax exemption and the new hire retention credit, they do not file these statements with the IRS. Instead, they must retain them along with other payroll and income tax records.

The HIRE Act created two new tax benefits designed to encourage employers to hire and retain new workers. As a result, employers who hire unemployed workers this year (after Feb. 3, 2010, and before Jan. 1, 2011) may qualify for a 6.2-percent payroll tax incentive, in effect exempting them from the employer’s share of social security tax on wages paid to these workers after March 18. This reduction will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits, and employers would still need to withhold the employee’s 6.2-percent share of Social Security taxes, as well as income taxes.

In addition, for each unemployed worker retained for at least a year, businesses may claim a new hire retention credit of up to $1,000 per worker when they file their 2011 income tax returns.
These two tax benefits are especially helpful to employers who are adding positions to their payrolls. New hires filling existing positions also qualify but only if the workers they are replacing left voluntarily or for cause.

Family members and other relatives do not qualify for either of these tax incentives. Businesses, agricultural employers, tax-exempt organizations, tribal governments and public colleges and universities all qualify to claim the payroll tax exemption for eligible newly-hired employees. Household employers and federal, state and local government employers, other than public colleges and universities, are not eligible. IRS.gov has more details.

Business Credit for Retention of Certain Newly Hired Individuals in 2010: FAQ

Q: What is the new hire retention credit and what does it apply to?
A: This is a general business credit to encourage retention of the new hires.  The employer may claim the credit for each employee who is a qualified employee for purposes of the payroll tax exemption and who remains an employee for 52 consecutive weeks, provided that the employee’s pay does not decrease significantly in the second half of the year. The amount of the credit is the lesser of $1,000 or 6.2 percent of wages (as defined for income tax withholding purposes) paid by the employer to the retained qualified employee during the 52 consecutive week period. The credit cannot be carried back but may be carried forward.

Q: How will the new hire retention credit be claimed?
A: The new hire retention credit will be claimed on the employer’s 2011 income tax return. 

April 1, 2010
WASHINGTON - Many small businesses and tax-exempt organizations that provide health insurance coverage to their employees now qualify for a special tax credit, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Included in the health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, approved by Congress and signed by President Obama on March 23, the credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health insurance coverage for the first time or maintain coverage they already have. In general, the credit is available to small employers that pay at least half the cost of single coverage for their employees.

“This credit provides a real boost to eligible small businesses by helping them afford health coverage for their employees,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “We urge small businesses and tax-exempt employers to look closely at this important tax break — which is already effective — to see if they qualify.”

The maximum credit is 35 percent of premiums paid in 2010 by eligible small business employers and 25 percent of premiums paid by eligible employers that are tax-exempt organizations. In 2014, this maximum credit increases to 50 percent of premiums paid by eligible small business employers and 35 percent of premiums paid by eligible employers that are tax-exempt organizations.

The credit is specifically targeted to help small businesses and tax-exempt organizations that primarily employ low and moderate income workers. It is generally available to employers that have fewer than 25 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees paying wages averaging less than $50,000 per employee per year. Because the eligibility formula is based in part on the number of FTEs, not the number of employees, many businesses will qualify even if they employ more than 25 individual workers.

The maximum credit goes to smaller employers — those with 10 or fewer FTEs — paying annual average wages of $25,000 or less.

Eligible small businesses can claim the credit as part of the general business credit starting with the 2010 income tax return they file in 2011. For tax-exempt employers, the IRS will provide further information on how to claim the credit.

The IRS will use postcards to reach out to millions of small businesses that may qualify for the credit. The postcards will encourage small business owners to take advantage of the credit if they qualify.

More information about the credit, including tax tips, guides and answers to frequently asked questions, is now available on the IRS Web site, IRS.gov.

Small Business Health Care Tax Credit: Frequently Asked Questions

The new health reform law gives a tax credit to certain small employers that provide health care coverage to their employees, effective with tax years beginning in 2010.  The following questions and answers provide information on the credit as it applies for 2010-2013, including information on transition relief for 2010. An enhanced version of the credit will be effective beginning in 2014. The new law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed by Congress and was signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010.

Employers Eligible for the Credit
1. Which employers are eligible for the small employer health care tax credit?
A.  Small employers that provide health care coverage to their employees and that meet certain requirements (“qualified employers”) generally are eligible for a Federal income tax credit for health insurance premiums they pay for certain employees.  In order to be a qualified employer, (1) the employer must have fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees (“FTEs”) for the tax year, (2) the average annual wages of its employees for the year must be less than $50,000 per FTE, and (3) the employer must pay the premiums under a “qualifying arrangement” described in Q/A-3.  See Q/A-9 through 15 for further information on calculating FTEs and average annual wages and see Q/A-22 for information on anticipated transition relief for tax years beginning in 2010 with respect to the requirements for a qualifying arrangement.
2. Can a tax-exempt organization be a qualified employer?
A.  Yes.  The same definition of qualified employer applies to an organization described in Code section 501(c) that is exempt from tax under Code section 501(a).  However, special rules apply in calculating the credit for a tax-exempt qualified employer.  See Q/A-6.

Calculation of the Credit
3. What expenses are counted in calculating the credit?
A.  Only premiums paid by the employer under an arrangement meeting certain requirements (a “qualifying arrangement”) are counted in calculating the credit.  Under a qualifying arrangement, the employer pays premiums for each employee enrolled in health care coverage offered by the employer in an amount equal to a uniform percentage (not less than 50 percent) of the premium cost of the coverage.  See Q/A-22 for information on transition relief for tax years beginning in 2010 with respect to the requirements for a qualifying arrangement.
If an employer pays only a portion of the premiums for the coverage provided to employees under the arrangement (with employees paying the rest), the amount of premiums counted in calculating the credit is only the portion paid by the employer.  For example, if an employer pays 80 percent of the premiums for employees’ coverage (with employees paying the other 20 percent), the 80 percent premium amount paid by the employer counts in calculating the credit.  For purposes of the credit (including the 50-percent requirement), any premium paid pursuant to a salary reduction arrangement under a section 125 cafeteria plan is not treated as paid by the employer.

In addition, the amount of an employer’s premium payments that counts for purposes of the credit is capped by the premium payments the employer would have made under the same arrangement if the average premium for the small group market in the State (or an area within the State) in which the employer offers coverage were substituted for the actual premium.  If the employer pays only a portion of the premium for the coverage provided to employees (for example, under the terms of the plan the employer pays 80 percent of the premiums and the employees pay the other 20 percent), the premium amount that counts for purposes of the credit is the same portion (80 percent in the example) of the premiums that would have been paid for the coverage if the average premium for the small group market in the State were substituted for the actual premium.

4.  What is the average premium for the small group market in a State (or an area within the State)?
A.  The average premium for the small group market in a State (or an area within the State) will be determined by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and published by the IRS.  Publication of the average premium for the small group market on a State-by-State basis is expected to be posted on the IRS website by the end of April.

5. What is the maximum credit for a qualified employer (other than a tax-exempt employer)?
A.  For tax years beginning in 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent of the employer’s premium expenses that count towards the credit, as described in Q/A-3.
Example.  For the 2010 tax year, a qualified employer has 9 FTEs with average annual wages of $23,000 per FTE.  The employer pays $72,000 in health care premiums for those employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's State) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit.  The credit for 2010 equals $25,200 (35% x $72,000).

6. What is the maximum credit for a tax-exempt qualified employer?
A.  For tax years beginning in 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit for a tax-exempt qualified employer is 25 percent of the employer’s premium expenses that count towards the credit, as described in Q/A-3.  However, the amount of the credit cannot exceed the total amount of income and Medicare (i.e., Hospital Insurance) tax the employer is required to withhold from employees’ wages for the year and the employer share of Medicare tax on employees’ wages.
Example.  For the 2010 tax year, a qualified tax-exempt employer has 10 FTEs with average annual wages of $21,000 per FTE.  The employer pays $80,000 in health care premiums for those employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's State) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit.  The total amount of the employer’s income tax and Medicare tax withholding plus the employer’s share of the Medicare tax equals $30,000 in 2010.
 
The credit is calculated as follows:
(1) Initial amount of credit determined before any reduction: (25% x $80,000) = $20,000
(2) Employer’s withholding and Medicare taxes: $30,000
(3) Total 2010 tax credit is $20,000 (the lesser of $20,000 and $30,000).

7. How is the credit reduced if the number of FTEs exceeds 10 or average annual wages exceed $25,000?
A.  If the number of FTEs exceeds 10 or if average annual wages exceed $25,000, the amount of the credit is reduced as follows (but not below zero).  If the number of FTEs exceeds 10, the reduction is determined by multiplying the otherwise applicable credit amount by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of FTEs in excess of 10 and the denominator of which is 15.  If average annual wages exceed $25,000, the reduction is determined by multiplying the otherwise applicable credit amount by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount by which average annual wages exceed $25,000 and the denominator of which is $25,000.  In both cases, the result of the calculation is subtracted from the otherwise applicable credit to determine the credit to which the employer is entitled.  For an employer with both more than 10 FTEs and average annual wages exceeding $25,000, the reduction is the sum of the amount of the two reductions.  This sum may reduce the credit to zero for some employers with fewer than 25 FTEs and average annual wages of less than $50,000.
Example.  For the 2010 tax year, a qualified employer has 12 FTEs and average annual wages of $30,000.  The employer pays $96,000 in health care premiums for those employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's State) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit.
The credit is calculated as follows:
(1) Initial amount of credit determined before any reduction: (35% x $96,000) = $33,600   
(2)  Credit reduction for FTEs in excess of 10: ($33,600 x 2/15) = $4,480
(3) Credit reduction for average annual wages in excess of $25,000: ($33,600 x $5,000/$25,000) = $6,720
(4) Total credit reduction: ($4,480 + $6,720) = $11,200
(5) Total 2010 tax credit: ($33,600 – $11,200) = $22,400.

8. Can premiums paid by the employer in 2010, but before the new health reform legislation was enacted, be counted in calculating the credit?
A.  Yes.  In computing the credit for a tax year beginning in 2010, employers may count all premiums described in Q/A-3 for that tax year.
Determining FTEs and Average Annual Wages

9.  How is the number of FTEs determined for purposes of the credit?
A.  The number of an employer’s FTEs is determined by dividing (1) the total hours for which the employer pays wages to employees during the year (but not more than 2,080 hours for any employee) by (2) 2,080.  The result, if not a whole number, is then rounded to the next lowest whole number.  See Q/A-12 through 14 for information on which employees are not counted for purposes of determining FTEs.
Example.  For the 2010 tax year, an employer pays 5 employees wages for 2,080 hours each, 3 employees wages for 1,040 hours each, and 1 employee wages for 2,300 hours.
The employer’s FTEs would be calculated as follows:
(1) Total hours not exceeding 2,080 per employee is the sum of:
a. 10,400 hours for the 5 employees paid for 2,080 hours each (5 x 2,080)
b. 3,120 hours for the 3 employees paid for 1,040 hours each (3 x 1,040)
c. 2,080 hours for the 1 employee paid for 2,300 hours (lesser of 2,300 and 2,080)
These add up to 15,600 hours
(2) FTEs: 7 (15,600 divided by 2,080 = 7.5, rounded to the next lowest whole number)

10. How is the amount of average annual wages determined?
A.  The amount of average annual wages is determined by first dividing (1) the total wages paid by the employer to employees during the employer’s tax year by (2) the number of the employer’s FTEs for the year.  The result is then rounded down to the nearest $1,000 (if not otherwise a multiple of $1,000).  For this purpose, wages means wages as defined for FICA purposes (without regard to the wage base limitation).  See Q/A-12 through 14 for information on which employees are not counted as employees for purposes of determining the amount of average annual wages.
 
Example.  For the 2010 tax year, an employer pays $224,000 in wages and has 10 FTEs.
The employer’s average annual wages would be: $22,000 ($224,000 divided by 10 = $22,400, rounded down to the nearest $1,000)

11. Can an employer with 25 or more employees qualify for the credit if some of its employees are part-time?
A. Yes. Because the limitation on the number of employees is based on FTEs, an employer with 25 or more employees could qualify for the credit if some of its employees work part-time.  For example, an employer with 46 half-time employees (meaning they are paid wages for 1,040 hours) has 23 FTEs and therefore may qualify for the credit.

12. Are seasonal workers counted in determining the number of FTEs and the amount of average annual wages?
A.  Generally, no.  Seasonal workers are disregarded in determining FTEs and average annual wages unless the seasonal worker works for the employer on more than 120 days during the tax year.

13. If an owner of a business also provides services to it, does the owner count as an employee?
A.  Generally, no.  A sole proprietor, a partner in a partnership, a shareholder owning more than two percent of an S corporation, and any owner of more than five percent of other businesses are not considered employees for purposes of the credit.  Thus, the wages or hours of these business owners and partners are not counted in determining either the number of FTEs or the amount of average annual wages, and premiums paid on their behalf are not counted in determining the amount of the credit.

14. Do family members of a business owner who work for the business count as employees?
A.  Generally, no.  A family member of any of the business owners or partners listed in Q/A-13, or a member of such a business owner’s or partner’s household, is not considered an employee for purposes of the credit.  Thus, neither their wages nor their hours are counted in determining the number of FTEs or the amount of average annual wages, and premiums paid on their behalf are not counted in determining the amount of the credit.  For this purpose, a family member is defined as a child (or descendant of a child); a sibling or step-sibling; a parent (or ancestor of a parent); a step-parent; a niece or nephew; an aunt or uncle; or a son-in-law, daughter- in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law.

15.  How is eligibility for the credit determined if the employer is a member of a controlled group or an affiliated service group?
A.  Members of a controlled group (e.g., businesses with the same owners) or an affiliated service group (e.g., related businesses of which one performs services for the other) are treated as a single employer for purposes of the credit.  Thus, for example, all employees of the controlled group or affiliated service group, and all wages paid to employees by the controlled group or affiliated service group, are counted in determining whether any member of the controlled group or affiliated service group is a qualified employer.  Rules for determining whether an employer is a member of a controlled group or an affiliated service group are provided under Code section 414(b), (c), (m), and (o).

How to Claim the Credit
16. How does an employer claim the credit?
A.  The credit is claimed on the employer’s annual income tax return.  For a tax-exempt employer, the IRS will provide further information on how to claim the credit.

17. Can an employer (other than a tax-exempt employer) claim the credit if it has no taxable income for the year?
A.  Generally, no.  Except in the case of a tax-exempt employer, the credit for a year offsets only an employer’s actual income tax liability (or alternative minimum tax liability) for the year.  However, as a general business credit, an unused credit amount can generally be carried back one year and carried forward 20 years.  Because an unused credit amount cannot be carried back to a year before the effective date of the credit, though, an unused credit amount for 2010 can only be carried forward.

18.  Can a tax-exempt employer claim the credit if it has no taxable income for the year?
A.  Yes.  For a tax-exempt employer, the credit is a refundable credit, so that even if the employer has no taxable income, the employer may receive a refund (so long as it does not exceed the income tax withholding and Medicare tax liability, as discussed in Q/A-6).

19.  Can the credit be reflected in determining estimated tax payments for a year?
A.  Yes.  The credit can be reflected in determining estimated tax payments for the year to which the credit applies in accordance with regular estimated tax rules.

20. Does taking the credit affect an employer’s deduction for health insurance premiums?
A.  Yes.  In determining the employer’s deduction for health insurance premiums, the amount of premiums that can be deducted is reduced by the amount of the credit.

21. May an employer reduce employment tax payments (i.e., withheld income tax, social security tax, and Medicare tax) during the year in anticipation of the credit?
A.  No.  The credit applies against income tax, not employment taxes.
Anticipated Transition Relief for Tax Years Beginning in 2010

22.  Is it expected that any transition relief will be provided for tax years beginning in 2010 to make it easier for taxpayers to meet the requirements for a qualifying arrangement?
A.  Yes.  The IRS and Treasury intend to issue guidance that will provide that, for tax years beginning in 2010, the following transition relief applies with respect to the requirements for a qualifying arrangement described in Q/A-3:
(a) An employer that pays at least 50% of the premium for each employee enrolled in coverage offered to employees by the employer will not fail to maintain a qualifying arrangement merely because the employer does not pay a uniform percentage of the premium for each such employee.  Accordingly, if the employer otherwise satisfies the requirements for the credit described above, it will qualify for the credit even though the percentage of the premium it pays is not uniform for all such employees.
(b) The requirement that the employer pay at least 50% of the premium for an employee applies to the premium for single (employee-only) coverage for the employee.  Therefore, if the employee is receiving single coverage, the employer satisfies the 50% requirement with respect to the employee if it pays at least 50% of the premium for that coverage.  If the employee is receiving coverage that is more expensive than single coverage (such as family or self-plus-one coverage), the employer satisfies the 50% requirement with respect to the employee if the employer pays an amount of the premium for such coverage that is no less than 50% of the premium for single coverage for that employee (even if it is less than 50% of the premium for the coverage the employee is actually receiving).

Council balks at massage parlor ordinance

Posted by Hal Dardick and John Byrne
April 14, 2010

Facing opposition from licensed massage therapists and business interests, the City Council today balked at approving a measure that would have prevented the opening of massage establishments on blocks that are mostly residential.

Ald. Ray Suarez, 31st, had proposed the ordinance, citing his concern over prostitution businesses masquerading as massage establishments. He said he had trouble with such a situation in his ward.

Ald. Joe Moore, 49th, however, said he had heard from many massage therapists opposed to the ordinance.

“This is a legitimate business, and they have a right to operate a legitimate business without going through undo hurdles,” Moore said, saying the proposed ordinance was too broad. “I think it’s like swatting a mosquito with a fly sledgehammer....There are enough regulations on business in this city.”

Ald. Mary Ann Smith, 48th, said she supported delaying a final vote on the ordinance because it would create a burden for the physical therapy businesses that are proliferating in her North Side ward.

"Perhaps it's an indication of the fact our population is aging that suddenly we have a physical therapy operations in our neighborhood that are very, very highly recommended," Smith said.

Smith termed the proposed ordinance "ridiculous."

The Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association and the nationwide Massage Envy chain all opposed the ordinance, saying it would damage the livelihood of licensed massage therapists.

“It’s effect will be to jeopardize a licensed element of Chicago’s business community that provides quality, well-paying jobs and a sought-after service in almost all of Chicago’s 50 wards,” said Tracy Smodilla of the Massage Therapy Association.

A better approach, she said, would be to have all massage establishments to submit proof they have state licenses. She also said the ordinance will affect businesses like salons that offer massage therapy as an added service.

“Not only is this ordinance unnecessary, but it does not specifically address one of the key issues it is set out to stop,” said Kim Schilf, president and CEO of the Lincoln Park chamber. “Massage parlors are licensed, taxpaying businesses in Chicago and deserve the support of the community.”

The proposed ordinance would ban massage parlors in confined business districts that essentially serve the surrounding neighborhoods. They will be allowed in areas that have more commercial development. A council committee had recommended approval.

Does your business have a sign, canopy, awning, marquee or banner? Do you have all the required permits?  Is there a sign, canopy, awning, marquee or banner outside your business? If so, 2 types of permits may be required.
1. A Building Permit – to install
2. A Public Way Use Permit – if it hangs over the public way

If you don’t have these permits, you could be fined! But not during the Amnesty, you will actually save
money.

NO FEES

Apply for all the right permits during the Amnesty and have all your fees waived for the first year.

NO FINES

Avoid being fined in the future for not having the required permits.

What is the Amnesty Program?

The Amnesty program is for existing businesses with existing signs, canopies, awnings, marquees and banners that advertise the business at the business location, that do not have permits. The following do not qualify: businesses installing a new sign, businesses with existing permits and businesses with advertising signs located at another location.

For more information, call 312-74-GOBIZ (744-6249) or visit www.cityofchicago.org/bacp

Apply in person:
Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection
121 N. LaSalle St. • Room 800, Business Assistance Center
Chicago, IL 60602
Hours: 8:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. Appointments are recommended

Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce Statement:
Proposed Ordinance to Ban Massage Parlors
Ban Would Affect Every Chicago Neighborhood

CHICAGO (April 13, 2010) – As signs point slowly toward economic recovery the focus in Chicago and across the country should be on job creation and new business development.  The Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce (LPCC) appreciates and encourages entrepreneurial spirit as a key element in filling empty storefronts along key commercial districts and as a result, strictly opposes the proposed ordinance banning massage parlors in business areas near residential properties.

“Due to its purpose of shutting out new business development at a time when growth is desperately needed, the Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed ban on massage parlors along commercial zones and streets,” said Kim Schilf, LPCC President and CEO.  “Not only is this ordinance unnecessary, but it does not specifically address one of the key issues it is set out to stop.  Massage parlors are licensed, tax-paying businesses in Chicago and deserve the support of the community.

“We also believe that the ordinance carries a damaging message to the condition of the profession and the livelihoods of more than 8,200 licensed massage therapists in Illinois,” Schilf said.  “While it is important to offer the residents of all of Chicago’s neighborhoods the safest and most reputable business environment possible, an ordinance completely banning massage parlors in these areas is not only unfair and unnecessary, but dangerous as well.”

Alternatives to a complete ban include anything from increased fines for unlicensed facilities to requiring more prevalent license signage and enforcement.  Now is not the time to jeopardize the well-being of commercial districts across Chicago by installing more disincentives to entrepreneurship and business growth.  A proposed ordinance eliminating potential entrepreneurs by barring them from certain commercial zones would cost the city jobs and revenue.

“During a difficult economic landscape, when neighborhoods and commercial districts are struggling to fill empty store fronts, is not the time to compromise the success of those areas by telling an entire industry that they’re not welcome,” Schilf continued.  “In many cases, the services provided by massage parlors are prescribed by doctors or physicians and are necessary for individuals to live a normal life.”

# # #
 

Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce Statement: Proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance
Vacation Rental Properties Serve Wide Population, Help Market Chicago

CHICAGO (April 7, 2010) – Chicago is a diverse city with international charm and visitors.  Helping welcome thousands of tourists each year from across the globe is the city’s equally diverse stock of hotels, motels, guest houses and other accommodations for visitors.  With this in mind, the Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce (LPCC) is against the proposed Vacation Rental Ordinance and $500 per unit fee associated with it.

“The Lincoln Park Chamber of Commerce supports the provision of quality, unique options for Chicago’s visitors to maintain the city’s reputation as a shopping, dining and cultural destination on the international stage,” said Kim Schilf, LPCC President and CEO.  “The Vacation Rental operators of Chicago are active members of the community and offer a service like any other small business.

“High-quality, vacation rental-style homes are a respected and often sought after component of Chicago’s tourism business and lodging portfolio that draws a unique visitor to our City,” Schilf said.  “The Chicago Vacation Rental Owners Association (CVROA) is a key element of the tourism industry in the City and a respected business organization dedicated to providing quality, safe and legal establishments.  Businesses operating these unique rental units to tourists are both an asset to, and a marketing tool of, Chicago’s vibrant neighborhoods that are often lacking in adequate hotel rooms.”

CVROA has a record of operations extending back 25 years without an insurance claim, health and safety issue or complaint to the City of Chicago from guests or neighbors.  The LPCC does not see the need for regulation or licensing by the City beyond that already provided by the Landlords and Tenants ordinance and Chicago’s building codes.  A proposed $500 per unit fee to operate these facilities would lead to further businesses closing and more jobless claims.

“While we recognize that safety is a potential issue, and that enhanced city regulation may bolster the condition of many of these properties both inside and out,” Schilf continued.  “Unfortunately, this ordinance looks like another attempt at boosting revenue generation at the expense of our small business owners.”

# # #