The whole thing has been carefully worded to intentionally allow arbitrary denials of permits, while having an argument to raise when it is challenged as unconstitutionally arbitrary. I suspect they used the word "substantial" too many times, and eliminated too much of the city, to withstand a constitutional challenge, but somebody will have to pay to find out. Essentially the whole regulations says that "if you can find any spot in Chicago that would comply with these regs, then we can give you a permit, if we want to
Pigeon chess - "having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory."
Last edited by Bren; 07-11-2011 at 05:11..