Introduction to the Council Vote
A divided City Council let the fur fly on Wednesday before deciding not to make Chicago a fur-free city. Facing opposition from the Black clergy and the Black Caucus, the Council voted 26 to 19 to reject a citywide ban on the sale of new fur products championed by Ald. Ray Lopez (15th).
Opposition from the Black Caucus
Black Caucus Chair Stephanie Coleman (16th) led the charge against the ban in defense of Island Furs, a Black-owned furrier at 1827 W. 103rd St. in Beverly. Island Furs owner Gerard Brown was in the Council chambers as the City Council decided not to sign what he said would have amounted to a death warrant for his business.
Arguments Against the Ban
“Colleagues, I urge you to reject this ordinance and let’s support policies that uplift businesses rather than shut them down,” Coleman implored her colleagues before the final vote. “Let’s respect consumer choice rather than dictate personal decisions. And let us protect Chicago’s rich retail and fashion industries rather than dismantle it. And let’s focus on policies that actually matter to people.”
Historical Context
Budget Chair Jason Ervin (28th) noted Chicago was “founded by a Black man who is a fur trader” — Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. “I don’t think historically this makes a lot of sense,” Ervin said.
Economic Consequences
Ald. Matt O’Shea (19th), whose Far Southwest Side ward includes Island Furs and Adriana Furs, 2201 W. 95th St., joined Coleman in warning of the “devastating economic consequences” from the latest animal cruelty crusade by a Council that also passed the much-ridiculed — and ultimately-repealed — ban on foie gras.
Reaction from Ald. Lopez
Lopez, the Council’s most outspoken animal-rights advocate, made no apologies for the failed attempt to make Chicago the nation’s 17th city to go fur-free. He argued there was more behind the opposition than defending two-Beverly-based furriers. “The Black Caucus is rallying about this because many in clergy as a whole — not just in the Black community — find furs to be a status symbol. They are trying to ensure that they have access to that status symbol,” Lopez said. “The majority of these businesses are not Black-owned businesses. This is just about who’s able to buy fur products and wear them in church.”
Other Business
Gerard Brown, owner of Island Furs, works at a sewing machine in the back of his store at 1827 W. 103rd St. Brown has been selling and servicing fur coats at the store since he came out of design school 40 years ago.
Opposition from Coleman
Coleman has insisted her opposition has nothing to do with the “love of fur coats” in her “entire family.” With “so many businesses leaving our city, I don’t think that we, as a City Council, should punish those businesses that have committed to our city,” Coleman told the Sun-Times last week. “When there is below-zero weather, historically among, not just the African American community, but those who have lived in Chicago — they wear mink coats. … There may be vegetarians, but people still eat meat. So should we close every steakhouse? Is that next?”
Cultural Landscape
During a City Hall news conference before Wednesday’s meeting, Black clergy joined the Black Caucus in arguing that closing businesses like Island Furs would diminish the “cultural landscape” in African American neighborhoods and eliminate a “gathering place” that has been a “source of pride.”
The Ordinance
The ordinance shot down Wednesday would have made it a crime to “sell, offer for sale, trade or otherwise distribute for monetary or non-monetary consideration a fur product in the city.” Lopez called it “a matter of compassion and empathy for animals. When people say there are much more pressing issues going on in our communities, they’re absolutely right and most of them stem from the fact that we have a whole generation of young people who don’t understand compassion or empathy.”
Other City Council Business
2 Committee Chairs Demand CPS Cover Pension Payment
Two Council committee chairs have fired off a letter to embattled Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez demanding that he “follow through on his commitment” to reimburse the city for a $175 million pension payment for non-teaching school employees.
Settlements, Landmark Status for Loop Office Building Also Approved
By a vote of 34 to 15, the Council agreed to pay anti-police activist Miracle Boyd $280,000 to compensate her for being roughed up and having her front tooth knocked out by a police officer during a 2020 protest at the Christopher Columbus statute in Grant Park. Alderpersons also signed off on nearly $3 million in settlements for the families of two people killed in high-speed police chases and a third person seriously injured when a Chicago Police officer ran a red light.
Conclusion
The City Council’s decision not to ban the sale of new fur products in Chicago has sparked a heated debate about animal rights, cultural heritage, and economic consequences. While some argue that the ban would have been a step towards compassion and empathy for animals, others believe that it would have had devastating effects on local businesses and the cultural landscape of African American neighborhoods.
FAQs
- What was the outcome of the City Council vote on the fur ban?
The City Council voted 26 to 19 to reject the ban on the sale of new fur products. - Who led the opposition to the ban?
The Black Caucus, led by Chair Stephanie Coleman, opposed the ban in defense of Island Furs, a Black-owned furrier in Beverly. - What were the arguments against the ban?
Opponents argued that the ban would have had devastating economic consequences, would have dictated personal decisions, and would have dismantled Chicago’s rich retail and fashion industries. - What other business did the City Council approve?
The Council approved settlements for police-related incidents, granted landmark designation to the Rector Building, and confirmed the appointment of Ivan Capifali as commissioner of the city’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection.
