Chicago Scene Publisher Takes Boat Party to Hammond

Unfortunately, douchey behavior is not illegal in Chicago. Although I'm not sad to see this thing move to Hammond, I do hope we don't miss out on any valuable revenue. With word coming in that Taste lost money this year, we need any cash we can get at the moment.

I think I've already made it pretty clear, but I generally agree with you. I just don't think that there's really very much revenue at all that's attributable to this party. Combine that with the douchey behavior and utter unwillingness to play by what are fairly easy-to-follow rules and... yeah, buh-bye.

And I think that's what I'd say to Ted Widen: You can't have it both ways. Either it's a small enough affair that it truly doesn't warrant any permitting -- in which case it doesn't generate significant revenue. Or it's big enough to generate significant revenue -- in which case it's also big enough to warrant permitting. It's gotta be one of the two, and given the fact that his stance is basically, "Whatever, it's just a party!" then I have to believe even he'd have to concede that it just doesn't bring in much dough to the city.

"Good riddance"

I'd say the same to the Cubs, the Sox, the Bears, the Bulls, the Blackhawks, Taste of Chicago, Lollapalooza, Pitchfork, all the neighborhood street/art/music/mobs-walking-around-with-plastic-cups-of-cheap-beer festivals, and every other gathering of more than four people. Fuck all y'all.

Have you considered moving to another city without sports teams or festivals where all the people are just as negative as you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+equ...

Good riddance.

I'm copyrighting "Harbor Hedonism".  You heard it here first.

This is today's installment of "... And Nothing Of Value Was Lost" news.

I know as refined gentleman (and ladies) we would all turn up our nose at such displays, but when viewed economically it is hardly advantageous to the city to reject people spending money here.

As I think I've already made clear, I'm not at all bothered (if not downright happy) by this annual maritime goatfuck/douche-off relocating somewhere outside of the city. If it spontaneously imploded in the giant vortex of idiocy general suck that it creates on a yearly basis, that wouldn't bother me either. At the same time, however, I see your point -- and don't generally disagree.

But from a purely practical perspective, I'm just not very inclined to believe that the amount of any lost revenue totals to a very significant figure. In fact, I'd probably be more of the mind that the Scene party probably ultimately represents a cost; I have to imagine that CPD and Coast Guard resourcing had to be stepped up somewhat for the party, and that alone has to at least go a long way toward eating whatever revenues it generated.

So on the whole, yes, the idea that the city might discourage people, via excessive regulatory measures, from spending money in the city is a troubling consideration. Yet in this specific instance, I think the only real takeaway is, "good riddance to bad garbage."

That's the thing about this discussion, at least the form it has taken here on Chicagoist. Your first two paragraphs discuss the issue logically and pragmatically, and then you finish up with "good riddance to bad garbage."

I just wonder where that gets us, to just dismiss people and events so callously. Look, I'm sure there are probably hundreds of people in the neighborhood who wish the Pitchfork Festival would be regulated out of existence...or the Gay Pride Parade...or Lollapalooza...or what have you. These events are not for everyone...the Boat Party is certainly not for me. But I think its wrong to say that these people are rubbish for wanting to have some fun in Lake Michigan for one afternoon each year. Parties like this bring  millions of dollars to places like Fort Lauderdale, Daytona Beach, Galveston TX, and Lake Havasu every spring. To say that Chicago is too good for this, or that this activity is wrong is just silly. It changes the story from one about permits and proper signage to a "We don't want their kind here" classism.

Why shouldn't we dismiss these people callously? You don't think they do the exact same thing? You think if a boat full of unattractive people pulls up they won't be turned away? And again, they probably end up costing the city money more than anything else. Extra cops both on land and in the lake, probably arrests made for DUIs and fighting or public drunkeness. Possibly traffic management. And for what?

A few points.

First, there's a key difference between the other Chicago events you mentioned and this one: They all pay their fees and get their permits. They can complain about the level of cost or hassle involved in doing so and protest as they see fit. In this case, however, the organizer's contention wasn't that the fees or permits that the city requested were onerous; it was that he didn't believe they should be required of his event at all. Therein lies the difference between an event that aims to be a partner in citizenship, for lack of a better term, and an event that thinks it's somehow owed something.

Second, I think your comparison to things like Lake Havasu is off. For one thing, this party is dwarfed in size by those others. Also, it's far from being unique: it's just a slightly bigger, slightly more coordinated instance of what happens in the Playpen every weekend during the summer -- and one from which at least some people are trying to profit somehow.

In the end, it's a combination of two things for me: One is that, yes, I think it's a decidedly low-brow, low-rent event for comparative lowlifes. Sure, that's just my opinion, but I hardly think I'm alone in that assessment. And is that snooty and judgmental? Yeah, maybe, but it's a factor. But add in to that the fact that its organizers apparently believe they're somehow God's gift to the city's culture that they believe they're somehow above even the most basic measures of regulatory scrutiny, and any attempts at applying any of that scrutiny will result in them petulantly saying, "Waaaaah! Waaaaah! I'm taking my ball and playing somewhere else! Waaaaah!" and it's not difficult for me to tell them not to let the door hit them on their fake-tanned ass on their way out.

Fine, fine, as long as you recognize you have one legitimate argument (the party needs permits and needs to follow the laws) and one illegitimate argument (I don't like what they do and therefore they can leave).

My point about the other events was not that they don't follow the city's laws (they do), my point was that there are plenty of people who would rather that they didn't exist. If you asked old lady Agnes who lives across the street from Union Park, you can bet she would say she doesn't want dirty hippies and loud rock combos taking up her view for three days each July.

I would prefer that people learn to coexist, even if they find certain things distasteful.

The Good Rev beat me too it.  The crux of this is that this dude wants to create a huge expense for the city, but feels that he shouldn't have to be a good citizen and pay for permits.  With all the advertising involved that shouldn't be such a burden, especially considering that this event is now really more at a big business level. 

If you asked old lady Agnes who lives across the street from Union
Park, you can bet she would say she doesn't want dirty hippies and loud
rock combos taking up her view for three days each July.

Sorry to split hairs, but if there's an Agnes across the street from Union Park, then she must be in the drug rehab center on Ashland, because there's really not any actual residences immediately bordering the park.

Ah! Geography fail on my part.

Ultimately, I don't give half a shit whether the people who go to that party "exist" or not. I'm not bothered by the existence of the clubs of which the Scene party is more or less a waterborne equivalent.

But it does exist, and exists loudly and obnoxiously in an area that a lot of people would also like to share, so it's entirely "legitimate" for me to make a judgment as to the general quality of the event. Let's not pretend that this is some event of cultural significance; pointing out that its target audience is a narrow one and its general tone is one that many people who'd also like to occupy the public space in which it occurs find offputting is no less "legitimate" an argument than any other.

Edit: Put another way, the party's organizer has made a value judgement and apparently decided that this city and its people who (like me) would like to also share the space in which his party occurs are not worth the effort to partake in even the most basic permitting process. Consequently, I'm entirely comfortable making a similar value judgement, using my past first hand experience to conclude that their party is shit, and without compunction telling anyone who's willing to listen that we should be glad they're gone.

All the events I listed earlier take place in areas people like to share. Public parks, or public streets. They have narrow audiences (Lolla's target audience is narrow, P4K's narrower still. The Gay Pride parade gets a bigger crowd than P4K but still has a narrow appeal I would say). And ALL of them have a tone which someone could find offputting (depending on that person's outlook).

Someone that came to Chicago to see the Buckingham Fountain may be very put off by the sound of Kanye West or Tool blaring from down the street.

Its all relative.

All of which, again, showed the city and its residents the tiny modicum of courtesy and respect required to go through a permitting process. 

Given the fact that this party's organizers and participants didn't feel at all inclined to show us the little bit of respect involved in just following the rules -- and not to mention, added a healthy dose of preening, self-righteous condescension on top of it -- I don't personally feel it necessary or appropriate to extend any to them.

And to compare their activities to "Nudes a poppin" or titty bars is equally offensive. People are having some fun on a boat...its not the end of the world.

You're right. Even titty bars play by the rules. These clowns don't even believe they apply.

(Parenthetically, I find about 75% of the crowd at P4K and 95% of the crowd at Lolla to be "douchey," as you called the boaters. If being a douche is enough to get your event cancelled, these would've been gone long ago).

I don't think it's fair to say that's the sole rubric by which this party's being judged. If it did, in reality, add a giant chunk of change to the city's coffers or if the organizers appeared to be at least trying to play by the rules, that'd be one thing. It'd be a party I'd never go to (again) and one that I'd do my best to avoid, but hey, whatever. But put the two things together? Good riddance.

That's why I'm hoping Mayor Emanuel can lure Nudes A-Poppin' to Oak Street beach, as well as some of those jobs-creating titty bars that Northwest Indiana seems to have cornered the market on.

A more apt comparison has never been made in the history of the internets. Congrats.

FYI, Chicago already has titty bars.

I'll try to include the #sarcasm next time.

It was not needed. I understood your post completely and responded in kind.

So, Hammond is now the new Jersey Shore?

Don't know where I found this but it could apply to this situation as well as Jersey Shore, at least from the videos above I saw:  Jane
Goodall discovered that chimps in the wild use tools, and the producers
of Jersey Shore discovered that tools in the wild act like chimps.

I can't wait to read the next issue of Hammond Scene Magazine