Well since this has now turned to the silly rather than serious side of this issue I think I will just go ahead and photoshop Mayor Bumbleweed to see what he looks like wearing both a Hooters and a Show-Me's uniform.

Certainly good for a laugh... and who knows may come in handy on his resume if his day job does work out for him come next election.

The million dollar question... if I send the picture into the Naperville Sun... will they have the guts to run it as a parody????

OWVY wrote: NOW is suing Hooters for having kids bibs that says, "Future Hooters Girl". I'd be more upset with the parent who actually puts it on their child! Nice that they have such great expectations!

_____________

I agree, I'll go even further to ask why in the world someone would bring their Kids to Hooters in the first place? Do they have high chairs and kids booster seats?

Thought you might like to see this...

NOW is suing Hooters for having kids bibs that says, "Future Hooters Girl". I'd be more upset with the parent who actually puts it on their child! Nice that they have such great expectations!

http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/12/20/now-sues-hooters/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl5%7Csec2_lnk3%7C32699

Ask me 99 times out of a 100 and I'll tell you Bill Mego has his cranium firmly planted up his keester. In today's Sun article Bill finally did what he has a hard time doing and that is getting it right.

All of the stupid Liquor Commission discussions about what servers can wear really just point out two things:

First, the rules exist only because no one has challenged the constitutionality of the liquor commission rules in open court.

Second, those who appear before the Liquor Commission want a liquor license and the money they can make off it worst than they want to risk not getting a license by "rocking the boat". As a result applicants pretty much cave in to whatever the Liquor Commission demands which results in the kind of extortion we saw in this decision.

The Liquor Commission knows this and exploits this to get their own way. The term "bully" comes to mind here. However, it is important to note the Liquor Commission is not enforcing a mandate of community standards as expressed by the Citizens of Naperville. All seven (7) members of the Liquor Commission are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the Liquor Commissioner. The Liquor Commissioner has a history of appointing "yes men" and anyone who "rocks the boat" simply won't get reappointed. As a result the Liquor Commission is just a rubber stamp to the personal opinion and beliefs of the Liquor Commissioner and that is just fundamentally wrong.

The choice to the applicant in this case was pretty much down to change the uniforms and we will grant you a license. Don't change the uniforms and we won't grant you a license.

Maybe one day an applicant will come along with the fortitude to fight and teach these guys a lesson.

Rumor has it the last time Bumbleweed opened his wallet to pay for his own meal a moth flew out. Rumor also has it the last time Bumbleweed picked up the check for someone else was the day after never.

As for all the free meals Bumbleweed gets invited to around town... civic events, community organizations, grand openings, etc. it isn't good enough for him to just enjoy all the free meal but he expects the good citizens of Naperville to get him there and back at our expense with a city car and free gasoline. Then he truly shows his class as our mayor when he walks out with a "doggy bag" after stuffing himself full on free meal.

Yeah, he's a real class act.

Well now it is official... there is going to be a Naperville "dump" too! Customers will vote with their feet and wallets as to whether or not it will come and go or be around for a while.

As for Mayor Bumbleweed... he voted as expected and was predicted. With tax dollars at stake, a ribbon cutting coming up, and a few free wings in the deal for him did anyone really expect him to decide this any other way?

The interesting question is why he waited so long to do what everyone knew he was going to do all along? All Bumbleweed ended up doing was screwing a new business by needlessly delaying their opening but then again needlessly delaying the opening of just about every new business in Naperville and especially those serving food or alcohol has become something for which all of the bumbling bureaucrats at city hall have become famous.

Business friendly Naperville? Child friendly Naperville? Both sound good as sound bites yet nothing could really be further from the truth.

Det. 1085,

You wrote: "They could erect a barrier and block the street completely in line with the property boundary of the property in dispute."

Actually no. "They" can not do what you propose. Closing streets like this has been tried before and the courts have consistently tossed it and made them reopen the streets because they are public property to be used and enjoyed by all. Read the case law of the dispute between Skokie and Evanston for starters. There are others. I'm also aware of a few streets in the Naperville area that have been closed off and the only reason these streets remain closed off to this day is because no one has challenged the closing in court. There are all kinds of things like this the City of Naperville gets away with because no one challenges them in court.

Even changing the direction of a street takes a whole lot of consideration and cooperation. Most likely the only way to keep Show Me traffic off of Burlington would be to make it one way westtbound. That would have consequences for all of the residents who depend upon it now as a two-way street and greatly inconvenience them forever in the future. Most likely the Naperville Fire Department would object the most because it would seriously impact their response time.

Show - Me only has one exit on Burlington and it would be a lot simpler and a lot easier to have the city require that exit to be designated as a right turn only and force all exiting traffic westbound to Ogden Avenue. Why bring a bazooka to the party when all you need is a pea shooter? Heck Show-Me would probably be glad to do this voluntarily just to demonstrate they are trying to be a good neighbor.

You might find "buyer beware 'to be hilarious even though the truth is there are people all over who regret purchasing their present home because they either didn't take the time to get all of the facts or made wrong assumptions about where it was located and what was/will be going on immediately around it. And when something changes they all start making a bunch of noise... which is exactly why we have the expression NIMBY.

Anon 11/8 @ 11:33 am: I am fully aware of the law and usage of public streets. You are wrong about what can happen to Burlington Ave. I did not write close the street. I wrote change the traffic flow. Columbia and Julian for example were not always one way streets. They could in the future be changed to one way in the opposite direction or if the City Council decided, changed back to their original two-way traffic flow streets. However for your information, since it is a township road, the township board can do whatever they want with the street in addition to changing the traffic flow. Just like whatever government entity is responsible for your street or mine. They could erect a barrier and block the street completely in line with the propoerty boundary of the property in dispute. You and others could go to the township meeting and protest your right to access and usage of Burlington Ave. as a "taxpayer" and then they can do what they decide they want to do. But this buyer beware argument is hilarious.

No doubt Show Me will open.

Once it does we will see that all of the fear mongers have been wrong the entire time.

Just a couple of thoughts for One Who Values You:

Yours is one of the most over-the-top pieces I've ever read on this blog, and that's saying a lot. While I agree with you that this restaurant looks to be a dreary, tacky Hooters-style ripoff (and THAT's saying a lot!) that would attract dreary, tacky patrons, it's hardly the end of the earth. You seem to indicate that the people who step foot in this place would be the dregs of society. I doubt that's the case. A Show-Me's in Naperville does not foretell the end of society as we know it.

You seem to be holding all people -- men and women -- to an unrealistic standard of not only behavior but also of thought. I have confidence that men can restrain themselves from objectifying women in other venues if they have set foot into a Show-Me's; just because men see a woman in skimpy clothing doesn't mean that they expect all women to dress that way in every venue. People can compartmentalize; we do it all the time.

Third, I really doubt that any woman who works there would wear a scarlet letter for the rest of her life. Anyone who would judge a woman based on that is applying a very dated, very puritanical point of view. Scary.

Finally, you ask, "Naperville has a decision to make. What does it stand for?" I'd like to think that we stand for freedom of choice, even if that choice means that a low-rent, rather pathetic restaurant be given a chance to compete. I'd like to think we're a community that does not hold our community to a standard that has been set by a judgmental minority.

By the way: "Peckers" and "Woody's?" Well done. Really.

OWVY -

I believe the Beach references were in response to comments that the Show Me's waitresses' attire would be an attractant to perverts, deviants, etc. It was merely pointed out that if that were the case the Beach would be pervert central due to the (yes, situation appropriate) attire (or lack thereof).

My thoughts are that Naperville is not as puritanical as some make us out to be or maybe wish we were. But we always seem to have a vocal minority. Ultimately, money talks and if Naperville truly is this puritanical then I assume the Show Me's will fail and do so in record time.

So Naperville needs to decide what we stand for and what message we want to put out? I guess then the question becomes who gets to decide on the message and what, exactly, that message should be.

And what's next? After Show Me's, what else would you eliminate? Should the Lover's Lane go, too? Is that the right message for the city and, oh my, so close to NNHS? Would you try to stop a Victoria's Secret from coming to downtown? What about retailers who sell “appropriate” attire yet for an unrealistic vision of the “perfect woman”? Is this sending the wrong message?

Just wondering.

T.B.

P.S. Your comments that it wouldn't be surprising for a woman to possibly be sexually harassed due to where she works or what she wears sounds as if you're blaming the victim.

Sun editors, sorry about the comment re: you missing the Police Union story, My appologies. Like others, I'd like to know what's going on now that they cut people. What aren't they going to do?

If morality of what the wait staff will be wearing is truly an issue then why haven't we legislated seemingly same standards for public wear at all of our local swimming pools where our precious Naperville children might be exposed to too much skin?

If morality is an issue and the potential attraction of any number of perverts, degenerates, and sundry low-lifes to this establishment then how do we explain the free and open pipeline of pornography into every single home in Naperville with cable TV or internet access? We have already seen a number of Naperville residents arrested for child pornography and or attempting to lure underage children for a variety of sexual trysts which pretty much confirms the internet is being used by perverts, degenerates, and sundry low-lifes yet these same people who are clamoring against this establishment are not up in arms despite the fact that we all know there are more degenerates living amongst us who just haven't been caught yet.

Sadly, the morality argument is just a convenient excuse and is paper thin. The neighbors just are exhibiting their god given right to be a bunch of NIMBY's and they will say or use any argument they think will further their cause. If there were a lot of people buying their argument I might be concerned, but so far it seems just about everyone has seen it for what it is.

Det 1085,

There is not legal argument for "cut-through" traffic, "their street", etc.

ALL streets are public property and all motorist have the right to drive down a road any time they want. We all pay taxes for the general building, upkeep, and maintenance of public roads and therefore are entitled to the free and unencumbered use of public roads. If someone thinks it is "their road" or is that bothered by "cut through" traffic then maybe they should relocate to inside a gated community where they will truly enjoy all of the benefits and responsibilities of actually owning the street. Until then buyer beware. If you are concerned about the amount of traffic on a road then that is something a homeowner should think about it before they purchase a home at any given location. Years ago I considered purchasing a home on River Road just north of Jefferson and turned down the idea because, IMO, the amount of traffic was likely to increase over the years. I'm glad I did and my predication was correct. It doesn't take a genius to spend a few minutes watching what is happening on the street at different times of day and to look at a map and see where the road connects before putting down your hard earned dollars. Granted, there are cases where the city and developers do things that may not have been easy to predict that can negatively change a traffic pattern, but that is not the case with this location or this street.

LaCuc

I have been to the Show-Me's in Terre Haute and St. Charles (a very nice town BTW) and found the food very good. If you are not willing to drive a few hours to make an informed statement about the business, then you really cannot care all that much.

Det, the weeping woman was on ABC, and also mentioned in a Tribune article. I myself have cut through that neighborhood after eating at Ponderosa...over 30 years ago. If this was a real problem, it would have already been addressed. I doubt many of the original owners are still living there, so that goes back to doing your research when buying a home. Many neighborhood streets are used as short cuts; that's life.

OWVY, give me a break. We are not talking about schools, strip clubs, or porn movie theaters, so much of your rant is nonsensical. I'm surprised you didn't bring convents into your little rant. Having bathing suits in the right work environment makes sense; all the ones you mentioned are obviously not that environment. While restaurants like Hooters and Show-Me's don't actually have their waitresses wear bathing suits, they do wear uniforms appropriate for the businesses theme. And quite frankly, if you don't like that business theme, don't go there, just as you would not go to a strip club or porn theater. I don't go to any of those businesses (I have never even been in a Hooter's), but I don't hold it against those who do want to go there.

By the way, nude swimming and beaches, even nudity in television shows and advertising are not a problem in many other countries; I wonder why the are here? Is it because we have never gotten over our Puritanical roots? And is this also why many people are making such a big deal over nothing?

OWVY said "The owners of the restaurant keep proclaiming it is a "family restaurant" "

Not even close to true. What made you think that?

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101104/news/711059701/

"Why is it there are no male equivalent restaurants? " If it could be a revenue maker for the free market owner, there would be one.

While I agree that the economy should have nothing to do with lowering any perceived standards in the city, your argument seems to want to disallow Show-Me's because someone might have trouble getting a future job or be sexually harassed at work because they worked there in the past.

Thanks for valuing all of us.

Naperville has MEN who enjoy being around attractive women.

Naperville was WOMEN who enjoy being around attractive men.

This is true of about every city in every country in the world. Attractive wait staff seems to get better tips, regardless of location.

Let me also tell you what also doesn't happen at school -- people drinking beer.

This title of the recent article, about whether they can afford to be whining in bad economic times is quite concerning to me. Are you suggesting that when the economy goes down our standard values should be compromised? If it is not a good idea when the economy is good, it is probably not a good idea at any time. What else would you suggest is ok just because the economy is a problem? Should we tell our children hey it is ok to shoplift now because money is tight? I don't think I need to provide more examples, you should get the idea.

Next, the issue of the waitresses at Show Me's & Hooters & the like. The owners of the restaurant keep proclaiming it is a "family restaurant" trying to convince us that the waitresses attire & the suggestive title of the restaurant is within the norm of family oriented values rather than objectifying women. Well, lets look at this idea. If this were actually true, then we should see this type of attire and labeling in other family oriented establishments. How would people feel if your child came to school and their teacher was dressed like this? Why don't the ladies at the grocery stores wear this style of uniform? Well, they certainly can pick "other employees" to do so! Which also brings up the point, there are also many older women, who have lovely bodies, who could wear those uniforms. Why are they only young women? Movie theaters are for families, why aren't the hiring women to wear this attire there? Heck, if the city wants to increase revenue why don't the officers get similar attire? :-) Again, I think you get the idea.

Why is it there are no male equivalent restaurants? Where are the Peckers or Woody's restaurants with men wearing tight spandex short shorts and some thin veil of a shirt, just to meet the requirements. Heck, the economy is bad maybe some women should create a restaurant like this. Would women go to it WITH their children? And yes...then the male officers should have on skimpy uniforms as well! :-)

If the food is wonderful then why would you need this to draw customers? And who are you drawing? Certainly you have some who will not walk in the place, so why is it worth it for the owners? If that is not the draw with such a message then they should be able to get rid of it and it would not matter at all to their sales right?!

If a young boy goes around and calls women's breast "hooters" would that be a problem? Is it a problem if a man did so at work? My college male students could not say Hooters referring to female breast in our classrooms! They could not treat any women in this innappropriate manner. They could discuss the idea of whether it is ok or not or research why, but they could not simiply refer to breasts as such. Are female students can not dress like this in the classroom. We have dress codes in our catalog and actually in our mall. NIU and others even have been warning the frats & soriorities to not have Halloween parties that are prejudicial and reinforce stereotypes. This should indicate the idea whether it is right or wrong. So it is not ok when they are pre college but you graduate & go right ahead it is fine now! ???

Further, research has demonstrated that when men view unrealistic images of women (either rare or because they have had tons done to look a certain way) they view their girlfriends, wives and potentials less attractive. It is just also sad that these young women think it is ok to use their body to get more tips rather than working at Dennys or any other higher class restaurant. What does it say when you have it on a resume? Or do you leave it off? Why? I also wonder, similar to how businesses are using Facebook to check out potential employees, how it will go over when some college female is working at one of these places "just to pay for college" and then tries to interview for a business after the man hiring her (if a male) has seen her there. And then if a female is hiring and sees it on a resume? Hmmm, perhaps it actually may get her the job, but for what? Not her intellect! And then her fellow employees recognize her when she is on the job and she wonders why they are making jokes etc. Is it still Sexual Harassment then? YES, but not surprising why they may treat her this way, it sends a double message from women. Yes, I know there are wonderful men out there who would not behave in this manner, but there certainly will be some that do, no doubt!

And for those who are trying to equate this to the Beach, WOW...did you ever hear of dress appropriate for the environment. It is appropriate to be in a bathing suit at a beach. Now what if they were naked? I would think people would make a rukus on that. Not appropriate for there. Having a bathing suit on in a work environment or in a classroom? Not appropriate. Geez not hard to figure out.

Those stating, "If you don't like it don't go there", well you can certainly use that argument for many other places also. You can say this about a strip club or many other types of "businesses", using that VERY loosely! If your school was doing something like this would you say, "Well just don't send your child there." Why don't we have porn in the theaters then & just say "Well if you don't like it, then just don't go to see the movie"? It is based on what is acceptable to the majority of society. Yes, values have changed quite a bit as the years go by, but this is exactly why people are upset. We complain and even have to make some laws because people don't behave appropriately and then we do things which encourage it and wonder why society continues to decline in their behavior.

As for amount of crime and home value etc that is certainly something that one can find stats on.

Naperville has a decision to make. What does it stand for? What image does it want to have? What type of customers does it want? Who do they want to draw into the community? What type of "MEN" does Naperville have? What message do they want to send to the women of the world and the women who they love in their life (wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers and daughters etc) Do the men of Naperville want their wives or daughters working there?

Hey, La Cuc:

How can you be so myopic? Bloomington is not a dump. Ditto Indianapolis, Terra Haute, Lexington, St. Charles ... the list goes on.

And while Ogden certainly needs an upgrade -- to put it mildly -- your repeated reference to it and other fine towns as "dumps" certainly betrays your snobbishness.

Have you been to a Show-Me's? If so, tell us what it's like. If not, how can you know it isn't a Shakey's for the 21st century?

Ken: I watched the local fox coverage of the meeting. I do not recall seeing anyone crying and talking about a bus stop but will take your word for it. Impassioned people sometimes are overcome with emotion. If I lived there, it would be a reasonable solution to simply block the street off leading into the sub divsion and do not allow traffic into it. It is a township residential street so the City of Naperville does not figure into the equation for traffic control. All the transient people coming to Show Me leave by Show Me and not through a residential neighborhood. When it was Famous Daves I used to drive through that sub division and were I living there, I would not like any business traffic flowing down my street as a normal couse of flow either. In case you do not know, traffic flow from Ponderosa and Famous Daves as well as general cut through traffic to Naperville and Plank Roads has been an issue there for years. Now the residents are simply trying to address it again. No other NIMBY in this town would want transient people leaving a business establishment through their streets either. That accounts for ALL of the property owning people in town including you.

La Cuc -

You're right. The Mayor shouldn't compare this restaurant to a Shakey's.

As for the rest..."I have been to a number of those towns, and they are mostly dumps." Yet you lump them all in together. So by your logic, I've read what you wrote and it's "mostly" crap. I will therefore lump all your comments into the crap column.

Have a nice weekend.

T.B.

TB,

I'm not trying to disparage the other towns. They did it to themselves. I have been to a number of those towns, and they are mostly dumps. O'Fallon, dump, Paducah, dump. Yes, TB, dumps. I'm not saying they can't be successful there, that's another matter. They are just crappy towns, that's all-Springfield being the worst. You think that there's money there? Wait, the politicians go to Springfield, there's a Show-Me's there, I see the connection. And DF does hang out at Hooters. Seen him many times. Sipping his coke.

Allow me to explain about Ogden Ave. using my words. It's a dump compared to the rest of town.

I cleary stated a decent argument. I suppose your vaunted opinion trumps mine. Fine. Ogden is still a dump. I really don't care about the morality of Show-Me's. I find it offensive that the Mayor thinks so little of us that he compares it to Shakey's. It's no Shakey's.

Det. 1085, you must not have watched the news. Some woman at the liquor license hearing was in tears because all the drunk patrons from Show-Me's are going to run over her children at the bus stop. Many people are crying a river...over nothing. As usual, those who have no real argument fall back on the "what about the children" nonsense.

Those who are against Show-Me's have not shown me a valid reason for their stand, and deserve to be laughed out of town.

Denny you are hilarious. I will bet you $100 when Show Me opens at least 30 days will go by before the first 65 yr old couple walks in the front door. Unlike Omega and Grandma Sallys where the average age of the partron is 50+. You need to get real son. The city can grant a liquor license to who whomever it decides to. It is a privilege not a right.

Of course it's overblown. The type of patron that goes to these type of places is not really much different than those who attend Omega or Grandma Sallys'. These NIMBY folks really have some unrealistic fears. The building is zoned for a restaurant, and the city has little leagal recourse other than to grant them occupancy. For Pete's sake, even Quincy right down the road has a liquor license.

Let's leave QUIGLEY's out of this-they do not need more rumors spread about the immigration status of employees. amish-wear opens in closed KROEHLER plt. that's so TN

This is so overblown it’s ridiculous. Like this restaurant is supposed to be some mecca for perverts or something? Get real. Have you been to Centennial Beach on a summer day lately? The Show Me’s girls will be much more covered than anything you might see at the beach.

The Show Me’s outfits aren’t much worse than what you’ll find at other local establishments. Are the short skirts and high socks of the servers at Quigley’s OK “Irish” wear or a perverted schoolgirl look?

Maybe Naperville can ease the naysayers’ minds by instituting a dress code for all servers…would burquas suffice?

*

And to La Cucaracha --

Seriously? To try and prove your point you’re going to disparage other cities & towns?

“Anyone look at the towns that these places are in? Not classy. Not only that, but where are they in those towns? With the other dumps, that's where.”

Have you ever been to Fairview Heights, Indianapolis, Gape Girardeau, Springfield, etc.? No successful restaurant chain would place locations in areas you describe as they wouldn’t be successful. They place their restaurants in areas with money.

Or, under your reasoning, are you trying to say that Naperville isn’t “classy” and that Ogden Ave is the “dump” of this town? Your words…please explain.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are exhibiting the snobbish behavior Naperville is infamous for.

T.B.

Where does councilman Dick Furstenau stand on this issue? I guess we can go to the Fox Valley Hooters and ask him, since he is always there....

According to the city annexation map the residential area closest to this location is unincorporated. Surrounding the unincorporated area are other residential areas that are incorporated.

To me the difficult thing about "neighbors" who have been reported to be protesting this business at this location have not been clearly identified as to whether or not they are Naperville residents or unincorporated residents. Those who reside outside city limits and who don't pay city taxes, are entitled to their opinion but I don't think elected Naperville officials should take what they have to say in the same stead as someone who actually lives and votes in Naperville.

I also note that there have been multiple reports of these "neighbors" stating that locating this business somewhere along Rt 59 would be just fine with them. Talk about arrogance! Talk about a bunch of NIMBY's! Clearly these self-appointed fools and morality police for their neighborhood could care less about what may or may not go on in another part of town. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites! Let me point out that there are quite a lot of residential areas along Rt 59 from the north end of town all the way down to Plainfield. And there is residential areas surrounding all of the commercial zoned areas along Rt 5 9 just like residential surrounds commercial along Ogden Avenue. If these so called "neighbors" have a logical argument buried in there somewhere they need to try again because their first few attempts have fallen short of making any valid points.

Sorry Ken, no one is crying a river and to Mark, I am calm. I always remain calm. Citizens have the right to petition the government when they determine they want to do so. This includes changing "set" zoning laws just as a municipality can change "set" zoning laws. In this case, they do not like the business application and as stakeholders in the area, have the responsibility to protect their intertests over people such as Ken and Mark and me. So you go be tired of their opinion. The fact they reside in Naperville or unincorporated Du Page is irrelevent to the argument. If they decide they want to litigate the useage of the property, they have the legal standing to do so regardless of residing incorporated or not. But I think one solution would be to simply make Burlington Avenue one way out of that subdivision and everyone leaving this wonderful addition to the Naperville tax base has to drive out on Ogden Ave. for egress. Presto: problem solved Ken.

Mark, not a needless insult or condescending...just the truth. I am tired of people who think their opinion should rule over set zoning laws, and then cry a river when their demands are not met.

Anonymous:

I agree that our neighbors who buy property close to retail/business districts need to understand that businesses come and go; however, I also believe that they have a right to make their voices heard about just who moves in next to them. And none of us should simply shrug our shoulders if a potentially disruptive business tries to set up shop.

That said, I believe this group of neighbors is barking up the wrong tree. If they're so concerned about the types of businesses along that strip, why not do something about the cheap motels that seem to be a haven for prostitutes? If they're so concerned about this restaurant coming in so close to schools, why aren't they concerned about Lover's Lane? They need to get a grip.

Denise Crosby is right.

Why let all the tax revenues go to Woodridge with Tilted Kilt?

Common sense. Just try it.

Mark,

Ken probably could have phrased it a little better, but in the end I think I agree with him. Anyone who purchases a piece of property knows going in who their neighbors are, the zoning, etc. If they didn't bother to do their own due diligence they have to accept the responsibility. When they purchases they knew the property wasn't worth as much as similar property in other Naperville locations because it abutted commercial. If they don't like the noise, traffic, light, etc that comes from being next to commercial property then they never should have purchased in the first place. Of course if they are bother that much they can always move somewhere else and is something they might be advised to do because the commercial businesses aren't leaving any time soon.

Now these "neighbors" may have grown used to a quiet location because the building has been vacant for a year or so and are clamoring because it might even be busier or nosier than before.
Reality is that noisy and busy is what it takes to be successful in the competitive restaurant business... quiet just doesn't cut it... we only have to look at how many different venues have come and gone along Ogden Avenue in recent years as proof of that.

Which dump should we visit? Maybe the Mayor should visit them for us?

ILLINOIS INDIANA MISSOURI KENTUCKY
Carbondale
Fairview Heights
Springfield
Bloomington
Evansville West
Evansville East
Indianapolis
Terre Haute
Cape Girardeau
Laclede's Landing
O'Fallon
South County
St. Charles
Paducah
Lexington

To det 1085:

I think you need to calm down. The kind of activity you're talking about likely goes on regardless of what kind of business operates along Ogden. And what's with the comment, "If you believe this behavior by these young people especially our daughters is something to be proud of, then you should get your head examined"? Why the double standard for young women? Aren't you concerned about the behaviors of our young men?

And to Ken, who wrote, "when I bought both my houses, I made sure I was not backing up to commercial property so I wouldn't have to put up with any type of business in my back yard. Too bad the neighbors of the new Show-Me's were not smart enough to do the same thing." -- what's with the needless insults? Talk about condescending...

I would suggest you VISIT a Show-Me's before objecting to one. Websites exist to drive business, they are not an accurate representation of the real world. Visit one, enjoy the food, look around, then decide.

I'm going for a different take on this... since this is on the North side of town, and not near any city coucilmen, it's ok. Anyone look at the towns that these places are in? Not classy. Not only that, but where are they in those towns? With the other dumps, that's where.

Finally, we are all missing this. The Mayor thinks it's like Shakey's pizza parlor. It is clearly not. Can we call him on this? Seriously bad judgement. He's not a good Mayor. He does not run the Council meetings, he's the weakest link, he controls the alcohol places in this town, which is very strange. What exactly does he stand for? Less taverns, more taverns, strip clubs, churches? Very confusing.

I an anonymous at Nov 1 10:21

I had looked at the website when all of this came up.
I would compare their outfits to some pro cheerleaders and pro beach volleyball players.They are also similar to what professional marathoners wear. If you actually look through every location, you will see that the uniforms are not the same at every single one either. There are some locations where the uniforms seem to be more like Hooters. (Laclede's Landing being one.)

Actually go to a high school volleyball game nowadays and you will see the the bottom part of their uniform has become pretty "brief-like" and the uniforms tops are far more fitted than they were ten years ago.

Not sure what the SOBE bikinis are that you are referencing. When I googled the term, the results for teh term sure weren't anything like what is on the Show Mes website.

Personally it is not a place I would frequent. I don't go to Hooters either. But I have no problem if others want to spend their money... on mediocre food at a bar with pretty girls.

At this point, Show Me's will probably be a great neighbor. They know people there don;t want them, so they are going to make darn sure there aren't problems.

Anonymous | October 31, 2010 7:51 PM | Reply
*****
Hello! Where did you get the idea that Naperville as precincts?

------------------------------------

Let me know where you are voting Tuesday if there are no precincts. That of course assumes that you are voting.

"It is really funny how people who don't own homes in a specific area of Naperville feel the need to be condescending to those who don't want a particular establishment in their neighborhood. If it was in your backyard (and it isn't unincorporated Naperville by the way) you might have a different view on things."

What is really funny is how a small group of nimby's try to hold the whole town's tax base hostage. If they want to dictate what business can go on a commercial road near their residences, they need to open their own businesses. Until they take control of the property, they have to accept that any business that fits the zoning description can and should be allowed to operate there.

If it was my back yard, I would not protest. The thing is, when I bought both my houses, I made sure I was not backing up to commercial property so I wouldn't have to put up with any type of business in my back yard. Too bad the neighbors of the new Show-Me's were not smart enough to do the same thing.

well the girls are cute.

If the food sucks, don't expect them to hang around for long. The food quality part of the market is brutal in Naperville, quality or death.

Basically, this looks like a soft porn restaurant entering a market where there are probably 100 or more real strip clubs in the Chicago area. I give them two years at best.

Before you all cry this is an example of overly-sensitive "moral police" perhaps you should eiter go visit one or look at them online ---- the outfits are MUCH more revealing than any Hooters I have ever seen. They are literally SOBE bikinis.

Is it right or wrong? I don't know or care, but I can say most of you are blogging on this woth little to no info..

. Some of the kind of activity does not belong parked in front of someone's home on a dark street in that neighborhood or any other residential neighborhood my friend. Nor in a town that bought and paid for the DuPage Childrens Museum.

I own and run a reputable business on a major street which is very not-unlike Ogden, and there is a residential zone behind us. Some mornings, I find (presumably) used condoms and condom wrappers in the parking lot in a place hidden from view from the street. Trust me, nobody is getting the idea to do that behind my building because of workers in short shorts and small tops.

Having people there may actually discourage such behavior.

-1

Diamonds and Blackjacks have specific activities (stripping, etc.) there that are usually not allowed in any business within most city limits. There are codes that ban the activity from the areas. That is why they are usually located in unincorporated areas. That is why you are not going to see them move into the Famous Daves location.

Show Mes is not the same as Diamonds and Blackjacks. It does not have the activities that Diamonds and Blackjacks have that relegate those businesses to the outskirts of towns. Show Mes is just another Hooters-type restaurant.

The area has been zoned for business and restaurants for a very long time. (Yes, even before the homes were built - the Bargain Barn was a business.) As much as the residents may not like it, this restaurant does fall into the appropriate zoning for that location.

Det. 1085,

Don't be ridiculous. Now all you are trying to do is spread fear of the unknown through the suggestion that others don't REALLY know what goes on somewhere... in this case the Hooters in Downers Grove. What a bunch of B.S. Don't anyone fall for this load of horse hockey. If anything has "happened" at the Downers Grove Hooters it is part of the public record IF it has been reported to police. IF something that serious happened and wasn't reported to police then we all have the right to question whether or not anything really happened.

And BTW the kind of activity you are alluding to can and probably does happen at all kinds of other establishments that serve alcohol... along Ogden Avenue, downtown, out at Fox Valley Mall, etc. It is fair to note that that there are all kinds of establishments up and down Ogden Avenue that serve alcohol and this has never been a problem that has been reported. If such activity is going on and the local police aren't doing anything about it I'd be surprised because they actively arrest people downtown for public urination and indecent exposure. Bottom line, there is no factual basis to support a claim that there would be any likely increase in such activity just because a Show Me's goes into operation.

This site is properly zoned for Show-Me's and Odgen Avenue has been a commercial strip forever. Yes, some of the homes behind Show-Me's were built around '68 though I'm not sure if there is more than one or two original owners, but even they knew they were building behind a commercial strip. Commericial zoning on Ogden goes way back before '68.

Let's also not forget that the closest "neighbors" to Show Me's are not in incorporated Naperville. If they want to get to complain about what we do in Naperville then let them vote to get annexed... then give them a chair at the table as a stakeholder in this. Until then tell those who are too cheap to pay city taxes to suck it up.

It is really funny how people who don't own homes in a specific area of Naperville feel the need to be condescending to those who don't want a particular establishment in their neighborhood. If it was in your backyard (and it isn't unincorporated Naperville by the way) you might have a different view on things. I would encourage all to visit the Show Me's website and check out the gallery pics of the various Show Me's girls from the other restaurants in the Midwest...you might end up changing your thinking that this is the type of establishment that would be good for a Naperville neighborhood. (http://www.showmes.com/ ) Having a liquor license until 1am on weekdays and 2am on weekends also is a concern. The current site maybe holds 50 cars...Show Me's will have a 220 patron capacity. Where will those people be parked?? Yes, in the neighborhoods. The area residents are fine with Show Me's going out to Rt 59 or some other location, but not in the Famous Dave's site.

When "those" people bought back there, there was nothing on that corner. It was the Bargain Barn located in that vicinity. Then in about 1968 as I recall came the Ponderosa. Just because the lot is zoned B-1 does not mean that any business that wants to come there has a cart blanche right to be there. For example, another "Diamonds" of "Blackjacks" does not have some right to open there because its B-1. Yes Ken, maybe I look at the extreme example but that is what I am used to dealing with. I know some things that "happen" at the Hooters in Downers that you don't. I will tell you they are very isolated incidents but it is a good thing Hooters backs up to other businesses and office buildings in Downers. Some of the kind of activity does not belong parked in front of someone's home on a dark street in that neighborhood or any other residential neighborhood my friend. Nor in a town that bought and paid for the DuPage Childrens Museum.

Give me a break.

"...the kind of people it would attract who may use their neighborhood in a quest for prey. I am writing about predatory people and this is the kind of place that attracts them."

You have got to be joking. Has their been a rash of this type of behavior around the local Hooters? Heck, when I was growing up, we used to have pizza at Jake's, where the waitresses wore tight shorts and revealing tops, and I and my friends never felt the urge to prey on the neighborhood people behind that place. Talk about overblown, extremist reactions...

I bet the Show-Me people will be glad for the free publicity that a picket event gives them, as any one with common sense will realize that the picketers are just a bunch of crazy extremists.

"If neighboring residents are really upset about this restaurant, they have a solution. They should petition for a referendum and vote the precinct dry."

Hello! Where did you get the idea that Naperville as precincts?

Besides, Odgen Avenue has been zoned commercial forever and the "neighbors" new they were buying next to a commercial property. They should be glad some developer isn't putting in a 24 hour gas station with a convenience store if they are concerned about noise, traffic, and lights. Plus all of the late night drunks who dive into a convenience store for one more six pack on their way home.

There simply isn't anything worth getting worked up into a lather abut Show Me's and considering how desperate city hall is for sales tax revenue don't expect George to put up any kind of a roadblock. If the morality police want to get worked up there are a couple of other "adult" businesses and one or two new massage parlors in town they would be far better focusing their efforts on.

RJW | October 30, 2010 11:34 PM |
Precincts? Really? Must be something new in Naperville.
------------------------------------

No. It's been the law in IL since at least 1982.

The act has the language for the petition and the ballot proposition if sufficient electors sign the petition.

235 ILCS 5/9-1 et seq

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=023500050HArt%2E+IX&ActID=1404&ChapterID=26&SeqStart=15600000&SeqEnd=17900000

I am sympethetic to the people that live near this place and are concerned about this kind of "business" starting in their neighborhood. I would not like it either. There are two main issues to the problem as I see it. First, it is the drunken behaivior that would spill out into their neighborhood. This is a valid concern along with the kind of people it would attract who may use their neighborhood in a quest for prey. I am writing about predatory people and this is the kind of place that attracts them. The Sheriff's Police response: well lets just say when seconds count, they are minutes away. As far as the scantily clothed women are concerned, not so much of an argument. You should take up a position in downtown Naperville at Chicago Ave. and Washington St. at 1:30am. You will witness excessive drunken behavior and what can only be described as the "tramp walk". What is especially sad is the 40 and 50 yr old women who think they look good in clothes they bought at Forever 21 and work the troll at Jillys or Hugos. Yikes. The 20 something young men and women are the graduates of our esteemed school districts and colleges. If you believe this behavior by these young people especially our daughters is something to be proud of, then you should get your head examined. I for one am glad the place was crawling with cops and those were just the one's in uniform. You won't have this kind of proactive police presence at Show-Me.

Precincts? Really? Must be something new in Naperville.

If neighboring residents are really upset about this restaurant, they have a solution. They should petition for a referendum and vote the precinct dry. That will chase the restaurant out. Neighbors do it all the time in Chicago to get rid of offending bars.

I don't like the location, but I'm not the moral police, so nothing we can do. However, I cannot believe the stupid and pointless comments by our Mayor. How can he possibly tell us that it's like Shakey's used to be. Come on! Shakey's, if I remember correctly, had some goofy pianner guy in stiped sleves, and women in puritan garb serving pizza. This is slightly different. I read the comments by out city manager and agree that there is not much we can do. The zoning is correct, etc. But the Mayor's comments? Vote him out, please. He's not a smart guy. Again, he was great when the money was rolling in, now that we have to rely on his judgement, look out. There's really not much there. I know a lot of people don't love Miller, but in a debate, which George should run from, he'd get smoked. If he does do it, I could see it... hellooooooo Naperville. Let's have a Big Wheel race. Let's get rid of him. He has a great pension and other jobs. He'll be okay.

Of course it is overblown. Hooters has been around for years without all the 'doom and gloom' predictions coming to fruition.

This is nothing more than the morality police attempting to get rid of anything deemed offensive or against their beliefs.

Overblown? Absolutely.

The complaints seem to be focused entirely on what the wait staff may be wearing... yet it is a bit ironic that patrons of just about any business establishment could wear the same or less and that is perfectly ok.

I guess the people who are against it are also against Centennial Beach because both the female lifeguards and swimmers there are wearing a heck of a lot less than the wait staff at Show-Me's and there is no outcry about that.

BTW, isn't most of the "residential" area behind the proposed location unincorporated anyway? Since they aren't paying city taxes I'm not sure they should get to complain about anything.

Want to be represented? Then get annexed. Until then sit down and shut up!