Slashdot Mirror


Chicago To Shutdown Composting Business Because Regulations Don't Cover Worms (blockclubchicago.org)

schwit1 shared an article from Reason's "Volokh Conspiracy" blog: Nature's Little Recyclers is a father-son business that does composting on empty residential lots, transforming organic waste into nutrient-rich soil. Last year, the business's worms processed 10 tons of banana peels and cups from the Chicago Marathon that would otherwise have gone to a landfill. But Chicago officials are going to shut the business down -- and not because the city doesn't think composting is a good thing (the city's sustainability website directs people to Nature's Little Recyclers). Rather, the city's business and zoning regulations weren't designed to accommodate small and innovative operations like Nature's Little Recyclers.
"None of these operations met the criteria for garden composting or an on-site organic waste composting operation," said Anel Ruiz, spokesperson for the Department of Public Health, in a statement to Block Club Chicago, adding "Further, these sites are not properly zoned for commercial composting."

But another perspective was shared by lawyer Amy Hermalik, associate director of the Institute for Justice Clinic on Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago. "The city will unofficially imply there's wiggle room, saying it only enforces certain ordinances against 'bad operators,' but that leaves businesses subject to shifting political winds or personal whims, Hermalik said. 'They [the city] have an incredible amount of power to do as they please.'"

97 comments

  1. Regulation by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Is one of the largest issues with the economy today. I'm spitballing a bit, but I'd say half of the regulations are great and keep people safe and business operating properly. Half are protectionist, nonsensical, outdated or so broad or vague nobody knows how to follow them.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the "regulations are bad, the sky is falling" crowd.

      Got a source for any of your nonsense? We'll be waiting. Thx.

    2. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Chicago

    3. Re:Regulation by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Close but not quite. Most are their to allow arbitrary enforcement. Can't rule a country filled with innocent people.

    4. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What planet do you live on? The country IS filled with innocent people from sea to shining sea.

    5. Re:Regulation by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem is the justice/legal system is far too much by the books. There are too many people who use the word of law and regulations to do things that are in contradiction to what benefits society or are worded in a way where innovative way to help society are not allowed because of flaws in the law.

      Americans and the English culture seems to encourage following the Letter of the Law, and people will protest and fight people who break the letter of the law, even though what they are doing is beneficial to them because they are told that the law needs to be followed so carefully.

      Because the culture wants to follow the law, this makes laws very complex, because an easy general law, will be abused because if someone says you are causing them harm, they just point out to the letter of the law and state they are not doing anything wrong.

      There is a lot of debate on either too much or too little regulation, however, it is more of a problem on how we enforce the regulation when to let something slide, or crack down further.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liquidation and takeover of small banks in past 2 decades. I have never found a single reputable source that does not attribute it largely to enormous costs of following banking regulations that clearly benefits the largest players.

    7. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 50% of our regulations are in banking? Because I asked for a source for half of all regulations being "protectionist, nonsensical, outdated or so broad or vague nobody knows how to follow them."

      Please try to keep up, sport.

    8. Re:Regulation by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Nah, this just sounds like the same stupid zoning shit you get everywhere in the US. Chicago is nominally a city, or is at least on the interior, so it's not immediately obvious that the same stuff applies to Anytown USA stuff, but it does.

      Most countries do not zone in the same way as the US does where the precise use of a property is strictly controlled. Instead the cities regulate the effects of business, using noise ordinances, pollution/environmental laws, etc, to prevent a location from being a nuisance to its neighbors. So it's easy to run a grocery store or a pub or a restaurant in the middle of a mostly residential area, but if you want to put an automobile repair shop there, you're going to have to make it the world's quietest automobile repair shop or else face so many fines you'll be out of business within a month.

      The US doesn't do this, and there's a reason for that: lobbying by car companies. People need to be able to reach the businesses that serve and employ them. By forcing people to live in large areas that contain no businesses, you're forcing them to make journeys that are usually too far to do by foot, and by creating a patchwork of "zones" with no center, you're making it impossible for public transit to profitably (or at least sustainably) provide those journeys.

      That's what's going on here. The business hasn't been regulated out of existence, in fact REGULATION WOULD HAVE HELPED IT. Regulation would have meant that as long as it complied with reasonable noise and environmental rules (which by all accounts it would have done) it would have done fine. It's instead been ZONED out of existence, legally banned from operating where it is because the type of business its in is banned.

      What's ironic is that Reason usually is one of the chief cheerleaders for this kind of shit. It'd be nice for them to recognize zoning is stupid and anti-freedom, but I suspect they'll be back to promoting free parking mandates and bans on high density mixed use development next week anyway.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illinois ... corrupt since Lincoln.

    10. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The country is filled with uncharged people who commit three daily felonies per capita. Most are honest, good people. You could hang them. Yes, I'm channeling Richeliu.

      Or maybe I missed your /s.

    11. Re:Regulation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nah, this just sounds like the same stupid zoning shit you get everywhere in the US.

      Not everywhere. For instance, Houston has no zoning.

    12. Re:Regulation by tsqr · · Score: 1

      The law that causes the most trouble for people who think laws should be simple and "flexible", is the law of unintended consequences.

    13. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave the pedantry to the pedants.

      This was a zoning issue. End stop. And probably par for Chicago when it comes absolute bullshit, getting in the way of what progress. If I had to bet, this is somehow hurting someone's bottom line, and they finally said F it and called in the favor to the.Mayors office.

      It's hard to imagine anywhere that is more corrupt than Chicago in America, but DC probably gives it a running.

    14. Re: Regulation by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I didn't give the original figure, but I'll jump in on the topic with some sources:
      Regulations Cost U.S. Business More Than Canada’s GDP
      The accumulation of rules over the past several decades has slowed economic growth, amounting to an estimated $4 trillion loss in US GDP in 2012 (had regulations stayed at 1980 levels)

      A study published in the Journal of Economic Growth in 2013 finds that between 1949 and 2005 the accumulation of federal regulations slowed US economic growth by an average of 2 percent per year.[5] Had the amount of regulation remained at its 1949 level, 2011 GDP would have been about $39 trillion—or 3.5 times—higher than it was.

      From: John W. Dawson and John J. Seater, “Federal Regulation and Aggregate Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Growth 12, no. 2 (2013): 137–77.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    15. Re:Regulation by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Complexity has nothing to do with how good the law is.

      Here's an actual, complex law:

      Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns any building, structure or vessel, any machinery or building materials or supplies, military or naval stores, munitions of war, or any structural aids or appliances for navigation or shipping, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be imprisoned for not more than 25 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or both.

      Here's a simpler, more flexible version of the same law:

      Any person who intentionally sets fire to property and presents a danger to others, shall pay for the damages they caused and/or be imprisoned for less than 25 years.

      Now, suppose somebody sets fire to a platter of thermite. In the first version, the prosecution would have to spend time to convince the jury that thermite is a building material or munition. In the second, they would spend that time arguing that burning thermite endangers others. Which is the more important question? Which do you think the court should spend time deliberating on?

    16. Re:Regulation by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Australia is zoned as tight as it can be, detailing use and look, extremely strictly enforced. Everyone knows what they are buying into and if they try to change use, they will be shut down hard, good. The only sane way to manage property zoning.

      Else you get capitalist chaos. Oh look there is a nice neighbourhood, let's buy a property, put the worst industry you can get away with to drive out the other residents and oh look, no one wants to buy now and down go property prices. Buy up cheap and shut down the business and ohh look you now have a nice neighbourhood you can sell at a much higher price.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about if taxes on corporations had stayed at 1980's levels? You want to see those studies too, to pretend you're being balanced? Or not so much?

    18. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or L.V., L.A., or LA. Take your pick.

    19. Re:Regulation by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Australia is zoned as tight as it can be

      "Australia" is nothing. The zoning restrictions varies greatly from city to city. Local councils are in control of it.

    20. Re:Regulation by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say, comrade. gotta have extreme micromanagement because anything less is anarchy. Dictators always love those false dilemmas.

    21. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, when they start claiming that GDP would have been 3.5 times higher than it is now, I think we have to take that with a big grain of salt. That seems to be "as you can see, by late next month, you'll have over four dozen husbands" logic (with apologies to XKCD). For one thing, it ignores the fact that regulations prevent costly incidents. Consider that one Bhopal incident, if it happened in the US, would have destroyed Union Carbide through litigation (unless we're imagining a situation where not only regulations, but the very concept of corporate legal responsibility is removed). What's the cost to the economy of that?

    22. Re:Regulation by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Coral Springs Fl. is so whacko that one must get approval for any paint used on a home before painting. We have so many homeless here that we need to allow all kinds of nonsense in order to shelter the homeless and also not restrain where they can camp as they essentially try to drive the poor away by making life impossible for them. A tent or cardboard box is a whole bunch better than nothing at all.

    23. Re:Regulation by piojo · · Score: 1

      I applaud you for taking the time to come up with such a concise and clear example. I think it really illustrates that the complex laws are clearer in their intent. The first law is clearly not meant to cover setting a dumpster on fire, and possibly not thermite (depending on what it's used for). This is an ideal case, because real world laws are written with special interests in mind, often being written in entirety by special interest groups.

      When a law is vague, application is left up to the discretion of the executive and judicial systems. This can be good, but good police make bad decisions, and bad officers are also hired. Among other issues, a vague law is an opportunity for corruption (as this article's summary alleges). A vague law could be enforced strictly or not, depending on whether an inspector is feeling happy.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    24. Re:Regulation by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I think what you're seeing as clarity in the first example is exactly what I see as a problem. You'd think a dumpster fire is not covered, but if by chance there was a piece of 2x4 in it, prosecution can now argue it's setting fire to construction material.

      More importantly, it gives no consideration to the danger caused by the action. If someone set fire to a discarded pile of 2x4s in the middle of an empty desert, then it's not particularly harmful to anyone, and probably shouldn't even be prosecuted. But if they light the same fire in the middle of a crowd, they should face more serious consequences.

      I do share your concern for selective enforcement, but I don't think trying to remove discretion from prosecutors and judges is the right way to do it. After all, even with extremely detailed laws that we have today, they still have discretion to not prosecute, or to bring so little evidence to the grand jury so as to prevent any indictment. There are better alternatives like having a panel of peers review a random selection of their decisions. And of course for a high profile case, a watchful public is more powerful than any formal system.

  2. Changing regulations requires time + effort, true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the city's business and zoning regulations weren't designed to accommodate" - So change them. Get a waiver from the city council, lobby, etc. You have to do these things to change existing legislation regardless of merit.

    Public awareness is a key component. This article is part of that. This is how it begins to move, whether or not it attains the momentum required.

    It's an unfortunate realization that the system isn't perfect and requires effort to change, but the (retarded) Libertarians will be sure to make their obsequious whining about government rants on this, no doubt.

    Small business has a legitimate gripe, they're small and affording lobbying campaigns is impossible by comparison to big ones. Still the only solution remains the same, if they want to change the law in the current structure.

    There's just no use whining about it because the existing plan didn't cover this contingency, there is no choice but to try to get it fixed - it's a long road to hoe, but it sure beats Libertarian fantasy-world anarchism rants, sheesh lol.

  3. Wrong Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The city will unofficially imply there's wiggle room, saying it only enforces certain ordinances against 'bad operators,' but that leaves businesses subject to shifting political winds or personal whims, Hermalik said. 'They [the city] have an incredible amount of power to do as they please.'"

    Selectively enforcing regulations and turning a blind eye towards violators of statutes that you agree with is the wrong approach.
    The statutes should be updated to make proper allowances so that the composters are no longer considered to be in violation of regulations.

    1. Re: Wrong Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the process for changing regulations is more difficult than selective enforcement then selective enforcement may be one interests of the people. Of course knowing how and when something might be selectively enforced is a can of, well it's difficult

    2. Re: Wrong Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt the government of Chicago has the time or the inclination to say to someone they won't enforce and then enforce. They don't have time to play it in some confusing way. They want to improve the city not persecute people who are also trying to improve it.

    3. Re:Wrong Approach by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's based on worms, if course there's going to be wiggle room.

  4. Another example of zoning ruck amok by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is another example of how zoning and business regulations in the US have run amok where the default is that something can't happen. This is the same sort of trend that is making it so difficult to build even residential homes in the Bay Area and elsewhere. And this isn't a problem in many other parts of the world; look for example at how zoning in Japan functions based on nuisance level http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html. Not only does this sort of thing cause economic harm, not only does it unnecessarily restrict basic liberties, but it causes environmental damage by encouraging urban sprawl and interfering with businesses and ideas that are even slightly outside the ordinary in how they are trying to be helpful or reduce waste.

    1. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what zoning was expected to prevent; someone running what is essentially a landfill transfer station next door.

    2. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather not have someone running a waste dump in my neighborhood, despite it being a "green" waste dump. These people aren't zoned to be a waste dump. The rest of their arguments about selective enforcement etc. are just deflections. Zoning and regulations are working perfectly in this example. The argument about selective enforcement just means we should clamp down harder elsewhere.

    3. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but if we didn't have zoning, you'd be infringing on my right to drive everywhere! Liberalizing zoning would give people the right to not drive, and that's the same as banning driving! We can't have that, that's COMMUNISM!

    4. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit?

      Seriously, if it's safe, and not a nuisance (smelly, emitting pollution, or whatever), why do you care that it's technically a landfill transfer station?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a joke? Do you for a second think that a large scale composting operation can be done without being a nuisance to the neighbors? Start with the heavy machinery and truck traffic then move onto the odor and pests. That is the kind of thing that gets done down next to the smelters and junkyards in the heavy industrial section of town or outside in the ag areas.

    6. Re: Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuisance laws cover businesses that promote public drunkenness, lewd behavior, etc. They do not cover "smelly" businesses. And ten tons of decomposing banana peels are almost certain to produce a smell.

    7. Re: Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off my lawn!

    8. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well if it's not (insert all the reasons why something zoned as a landfill transfer station is bad) then you wouldn't care. But all those reasons are precisely why zoning exists, and nuisance has a very broad definition.

    9. Re:Another example of zoning ruck amok by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is another example of how zoning and business regulations in the US have run amok where the default is that something can't happen.

      The default with all zoning laws is that something can't happen. Nuisance has a broad definition. Slight smell coming over? Nuisance. Delivery truck in the street? Nuisance. The Japanese system is somewhat retarded in that it promotes low value slums and poverty without city planning to prevent it by allowing things like residential buildings to be built in industrial complexes naturally keeping land value low while also impacting citizens health.

      There's a lot wrong in the Bay Area with zoning, but absolutely none of it can be fixed by the Japanese system.

    10. Re: Another example of zoning ruck amok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think so, but your intuition would be wrong in this case. The worms do a good job of eating the rotting parts first. But vermicomposting does attract pests, in the same way that parking attracts traffic.

  5. "shut down" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not "shutdown"

  6. "Wiggle room" by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I get it.

  7. This being Chicago... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0, Troll

    There is probably some large, mob-owned trash business that is benefiting from this ruling. That's why the biggest line of business in the city is gangland shootings.

  8. I bet there's a replacement soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a feeling that soon after NLR goes out of business another company will find a loophole that the city gov't will allow. The hard part will be finding the connection between that new entity and whoever suggested to shut down NLR.

  9. In other words, you forgot the Payola by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The city will unofficially imply there's wiggle room, saying it only enforces certain ordinances against 'bad operators,' but that leaves businesses subject to shifting political winds or personal whims,"

    So the real story here is the busses missed the subtle hints as to who they needed to pay off to let the business keep working.

    Why anyone would start a business in Chicago of all places is beyond me, unless you were sure of profitability after paying out the substantial graft required.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:In other words, you forgot the Payola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably started a business there because that is where they happened to live.

  10. Fuckin Shit-cago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    1. Re: Fuckin Shit-cago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a free country and you're entitled to your opinion, among many many other things citizens are entitled to, but do you really want to turn Chicago into rubble?

    2. Re: Fuckin Shit-cago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a totally unredeemable shithole. It's an example of how far fucked America has gotten.

  11. Revolt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Chicago people can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. Chicago, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for Chicago and the world, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate, tear down these regulations!

  12. Chicago is incredibly corrupt by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    A friend of mine ran a commercial building in Chicago. He was constantly getting fined for obscure and trivial building code violations, like a cracked window or burnt out light bulb (someone might trip and get hurt at night if they're walking around inside an unrented warehouse space where the lights aren't even turned on at night!). I happened to accompany him during one of the inspections, and it was obvious the inspector was expecting a bribe. He stated the problems he found and how much the fine would be, then he paused to give my friend a chance to respond. When my friend missed the unspoken message and asked how much time he would have to fix everything, the inspector didn't answer the question, reiterated the amount of the fine again, and paused. My friend's problem was that he was too principled to bribe anyone. It never even occurred to him that an inspector would expect a bribe.

    That's probably what's going on here. The guy running this composting business either refused to or doesn't know he's supposed to bribe the city officials.

    1. Re:Chicago is incredibly corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen" for $1000, Alex

    2. Re:Chicago is incredibly corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hay everybody! It's another Big Government bootlicker. I bet you like being gang banged by junkie bikers too, huh?

    3. Re:Chicago is incredibly corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey solandri... why lie faggot? Lol, and why so obviously? You and Kendall need to fuck and get the bullshit out of your systems. It's pathetic.

    4. Re:Chicago is incredibly corrupt by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      It being Chicago, this is exactly what is going on. Once the Alderman gets his envelope, the zoning problems go away.

    5. Re:Chicago is incredibly corrupt by sfcat · · Score: 1

      I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen" for $1000, Alex

      You must be incredibly naive. When I die, I'm moving to Chicago so I can still vote.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    6. Re: Chicago is incredibly corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faggot troll sure does love licking capitalist boots.

  13. Selectively applied laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city will unofficially imply there's wiggle room, saying it only enforces certain ordinances against 'bad operators,' but that leaves businesses subject to shifting political winds

    The real problem is that the laws nowadays are being applied selectively. Officials allow their political allies to violate the laws, but strictly enforce the same regulations against their political opponents. You can especially see this in the way that online mobs and violent protests are being dealt with: conservatives will excuse the alt-right mobs, and liberals will excuse the social justice mobs.

    Personally, I feel that this should violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees all persons "equal protection of the laws".

    1. Re:Selectively applied laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The violence is certainly being committed by both sides. In Portland in October, for example, both sides engaged in violent attacks.

      But my point is that that the mayor of Portland, who is a Democrat, appears to enforce the laws less strictly against the social justice rioters.

  14. Re: Changing regulations requires time + effort, t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amateurs fail to read the zoning code.
    Declare it a home farm-ish thing which creates it's own soil and sell the excess less than 'perfect' by product.

  15. Re:Your "50 percent" is a complete lie you made up by NoobyNoobyDoo · · Score: 1

    He was making a "guesstimate" and stated as such. That's not lying in the least. It's more accurate to claim you're lying by calling him a liar.

    He could be right... Or he could be low... Or he could be high. I'd gamble he's right on or low.

  16. Re: Changing regulations requires time + effort, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except when you're operating on the edge of a regulation you tend to do best explaining at least approximately what's really going on. "We are trying to clean the city" is approximately correct. "We are running some bizarre business that is completely different than what it looks like" is not approximately correct even though many people would buy the explanation.

  17. And Money by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Just how much do you think a composting business can be shook down for ?

  18. the US is a fascist country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't have private property rights. The state owns and controls everything and there are no more limits to state power now that all branches of government are working together against us.

  19. Re:Your "50 percent" is a complete lie you made up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least he ADMITTED he was full of shit, that's almost refreshing here. Imagine if Kendall or "Shanghai" Bill were capable of that? I should give him more credit, true.

  20. Re:Your "50 percent" is a complete lie you made up by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

    Credit from AC's. That, and a sack, is worth exactly the sack.

  21. Re:Composting vs Landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 tons of bananas, one cup.

  22. In Chicago? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen" for $1000, Alex

    I'll take the "things that happen daily - Double" for $2000, Alex.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:In Chicago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take "SuperKendall Sucks Cock" for $1, Alex

  23. Steps by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    They probably started a business there because that is where they happened to live.

    Step 1) Have great idea for business.
    Step 2) Move to some place where the government is not so corrupt they will be sure to eventually shut you down or bankrupt you.
    Step 3) Profit.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably started a business there because that is where they happened to live.

      Step 1) Have great idea for business.
      Step 2) Move to some place where the government is not so corrupt they will be sure to eventually shut you down or bankrupt you.
      Step 3) Profit.

      That's what I've been telling people, but they are still anti-immigrant.

  24. The whole damn planet is zoned for it by nctritech · · Score: 1

    They say "these sites are not properly zoned for commercial composting" but "composting" is ultimately nothing more than letting nature take its course. It happens absolutely everywhere: an organic thing hits the dirt, that thing gets consumed and literally becomes the freaking dirt. I didn't realize that the fundamental way things work on this planet required permission from a zoning board, nor that worms give a crap about the board's opinion of their diet. This whole mess is a good example of why being strongly libertarian (small L, not the party, the political philosophy) is the only correct way to be. Government needs to be small and out of the way, especially considering we're in the most innovative and rapidly changing time period in the history of humanity.

    1. Re:The whole damn planet is zoned for it by tsqr · · Score: 1

      It happens absolutely everywhere: an organic thing hits the dirt, that thing gets consumed and literally becomes the freaking dirt.

      When someone drops a french fry on the ground and it goes through the process of becoming the freaking dirt, no one notices and no one cares. When a commercial enterprise causes ten tons of banana peels to "hit the dirt" and go through the process of becoming the freaking dirt, it causes a powerful stench and lots of people notice and lots of people care. See the difference?

    2. Re:The whole damn planet is zoned for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really; in Chicago, banana peels rotting are probably an improvement to the odor.

    3. Re:The whole damn planet is zoned for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say "these sites are not properly zoned for commercial composting" but "composting" is ultimately nothing more than letting nature take its course. It happens absolutely everywhere: an organic thing hits the dirt, that thing gets consumed and literally becomes the freaking dirt.

      Read much? The key word here isn't "composting", it is "commercial". It literally says not zoned for commercial composting and you turn your failure to read into an anti-government rant. I don't mind if my neighbor composts, but if my neighbor sets up a commercial composting site, I sure the hell will call the city to shut it down.

  25. Every city is incredibly corrupt by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Funny

    You notice Chicago more because the mainstream media likes to cover it, that's all.

    I'll give you the classic example I like to trout out from my little town. Down here there was a land owner who wanted some state trust land. Trust land, if you don't know, is when the state holds land in "trust" until a developer is ready to do something with it so they don't have to pay property tax in the meantime.

    Anyway, this particular plot of land wasn't for sale, because it was full of an endangered species of goat. But that landowner wanted it. So what did he do? Bought a plot of land next to it, put up some rickety fences, put a bunch of sheep with syphilis on the land, waited for the sheep to jump said rickety fence and for the goats to do what goats do to sheep. The sheep had various immunities, the goats did not. Wasn't long and the goats were all dead. After that he got his land.

    This is nothing new. Go drag your ass down to your local community college and pull up microfiche of the left wing rags in your local city and you'll find they're full of crap like this. Nobody cares and nobody does anything about it.

    If you want crap like that to change you have to start voting and pay attention to who you vote for. And you have to vote in your primary. Otherwise the local businesses will just buy up the politicians. And local politicians are _cheap_.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Every city is incredibly corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would just prefer to zone Chicago out of the US because we our regulations obviously dont cover worms.

    2. Re:Every city is incredibly corrupt by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      this is false, chicago is consistently at or near the top when cities are ranked by quantitative metrics, such as number of officials going to prison on federal corruption charges

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  26. Re:Composting vs Landfill by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    ...what real difference does it make if they were placed in a landfill?

    Unfortunately, the low-oxygen conditions inside landfills makes for a very poor environment for the aerobic bacteria that eat organic material like paper and plant waste. Without those bacteria and a good supply of fresh air, that waste won't decompose in a landfill much better than plastic.

    That's one reason why worms are so important in composting. Their tunnels carry enough oxygen to keep the bacteria alive, reducing the need to constantly turn the soil.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  27. Move to a great city/state by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    That allows for and welcomes productive private sector work.
    Set up the worms and grow a state that welcomes production and jobs.
    A state and city where officials welcome jobs and support work.

    Cities all over the USA that have regulations to attract new jobs.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  28. "Shutdown" is not a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking moron

  29. That Darned Disease Again by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Here we have a situation in which officials consider rules more important than reality. All of the rules must be designed to serve people. When a rule does not serve it must be taken down.

    1. Re:That Darned Disease Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see you failed to recognize that the rules serve the people whose pockets need to be lined with cash. From TFA:

      Large companies can afford to pay fines or use connections to pull strings on their behalf, options not available to small entrepreneurs and low-income owners, Hermalik added.

  30. There is probably more to this story by guruevi · · Score: 1

    The problem with composting is that it’s not commercially viable, hence why commercial com posters typically use heavy chemicals to ‘assist’ the process, they also concentrate a lot of the toxic waste like pesticides from the things they are composting and a commercial composting facility/process in a residential neighborhood will cause a lot of problems with odor or may even be outright dangerous.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  31. Re:Your "50 percent" is a complete lie you made up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sack is exactly 100% more than you've got... if you think I need to post some fake name to get your respect, then it's probably worth nothing also. Good luck finding your sack someday though.

  32. Re:Composting vs Landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a landfill you get degraded biomass producing methane and um, not much else useful. It takes up landfill space (which is in short supply) and provides no benefit.

    With a large composting operation, you get useful compost which can be sold or given to people trying to grow things. The same lots can be used to compost over and over again, since the end result is shipped to the happy recipients. No landfill space taken.

  33. that is just plain stupid by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Ppl used to grow worms for fishing with inside of Chi-town back in the 60s.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  34. shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://notaverb.com/shutdown

  35. Missing bribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody simply forgot to pay off the local bureaucrat...

  36. Please don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully Chicago will come to their senses and allow this to continue -- we need operations like this, in larger numbers even.

  37. Random piles of crap? by Vanyle · · Score: 1

    This is litteraly worm crap right? And they purchased undeveloped residential plots, and are making massive piles of this stuff? Compost stinks. I bet if this went up next door while you were trying to sell your house the value would drop 30%. How locally do they sell their worms and compost?

    They were then selling all this stuff for a profit right? I didn't read anything that said they were a non-profit. So we are now demonizing the city for protecting neighborhoods from a corporation who are making crap (literally) to sell for a profit.... whats the problem?

  38. You get what you measure by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Like I said, the guy in my example committed a crime and got away with it because nobody particularly cared to prosecute him (nobody important anyway).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. So... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    ... What mob-and-Chicago-City-Hall-connected enterprise wants to take over the composting business, and is using this to take out the competition?

    Better than their traditional "break kneecaps" method, I suppose.