Fwd: Fwd: [ORDCamp] Homebrewing is in Trouble in Illinois - Please help

[Eric Stein]

Does anyone with more free time than me know what's going on with this? This seems a change since the last time it came up...

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Fwd: [ORDCamp] Homebrewing is in Trouble in Illinois - Please help
Date:	Thu, 2 May 2013 13:30:53 -0500
From:	Tim Saylor <tim.s...@gmail.com>
To:	Eric Stein <to...@des.truct.org>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Conrad <conrad....@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ORDCamp] Homebrewing is in Trouble in Illinois - Please help
To: ORD...@googlegroups.com


Thanks James. The bill passed the house 118 - 0. Talking to some of the Senators, none knew what was actually in the bill...

Thankfully our club is covered for the interim as our lease is at a location that is also a residence. We also don't lease the space as the club as it's tied to one of our members that lives there. So we are currently brewing at a residence. But in the future we might not always be at this space and would love to have coverage. We just got our formal 501c3 processed so we are now seeking an amendment to the bill that allows clubs with 501c3 status or a non-profit status within city limits to allow fermentation on premise.

Conrad

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 2:25:35 PM UTC-5, kennedyjames wrote:

For those of you still following the homebrewing controversy brought up in the mailing list a few weeks ago -- this, from my knowledgeable friend:

--

FYI, the bill we discuss below is almost certainly dead. The homebrewing bill that is virtually certain to pass is this one:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB0630eng&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=70842&DocNum=0630&GAID=12&Session=0

:

This is bill Conrad refers to:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/PDF/09800HB1947ham001.pdf

Here's where it stands in the process:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1947&GAID=12&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=73200&SessionID=85&SpecSess=0&Session=0&GA=98#actions

It's up in the House Executive Committee on Monday, April 15. If it passes committee, it goes to the floor of the House. If it passes there, it goes to the Senate. If it passes the Senate, it goes to Governor. If he signs it, it's law. So, we're still early in the game.

Conrad and friends should contact the Chair of the House Executive Committee, Rep. Burke:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1825

Perhaps a series of e-mails justifying killing the bill from various folks would make the biggest impact. Also, here are the other Chicago reps on the committee:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1881

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1932

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1820

All of these people should be included on the e-mail. The e-mail should explain why it's bad bill and ask the reps to oppose it.

--
www.jameskennedy.com

--
www.jameskennedy.com

--
--
Please ask before blogging.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ORDCamp" group.
To post to this group, send email to ORD...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
ORDCamp+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ORDCamp
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ORDCamp" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ORDCamp+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

@tsaylor

http://www.timsaylor.com/

[Tucker Tomlinson]

The text does indeed appear different from the last version I read.

Looks like we technically need a 'special event license' for our brews at any event where the public might be present. Presumably this would include the weekly meetings and any of the courses like NERP or lockpicking.

The language on where the brewing must take place to be considered a home-brew is also clarified in a way that doesn't sound good for us. Since PS1 is neither a place of residence, nor a business engaged primarily in selling brewing equipment, we may run afoul of the location rules in this bill.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beer Church: Chicago" group.
To post to this group, send email to beer-chur...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beer-church-chicago?hl=en.
 
 

[malerie kaplan]

You should go talk to Brew and Grow about this since they brew beer and wine in the shop

--
-Malerie

[Tucker Tomlinson]

The text of the bill allows brew and grow to make their own beer so that customers can sample it. It will not, as far as I understand, allow us to brew on their premises and take the beer back to PS1. I could be wrong though, I'm certainly not a lawyer.

Also, the fermentation seems to be included as part of the brewing as far as the bill is concerned, so we'd be asking them to store our fermenting brews as well as letting us make them at their store.

Cheers

[malerie kaplan]

I didn't mean that we would brew there or store anything there, just that they might be able to give some advice

[Tucker Tomlinson]

mmm, good point. I had been thinking of ways to get legal advice without bothering our pro-bono lawyers since they are busy with bigger issues at the moment. (haven't come up with anything though)

Cheers

[Ryan Pierce]

My thoughts, note that IANAL so I could be completely wrong, and it also
hasn't even passed yet:

First, check this out:

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/19590893-418/homebrew-sampling-rules-pass-state-house.html

This is being spun as a PERMISSIVE bill, not a restrictive one. The
implication here is that offering any homebrew sample to the general public
today is not allowed under state law, and this allows it with payment of a
$25 permit fee.

Bringing a homebrew to the space to consume there with a friend, or even
by yourself, outside of Beer Church appears to be illegal as we are not a
residence.

Doing mashes here might be permissible, if you take the wort home and
pitch yeast there. Not a very attractive alternative, though.

Doing fermenting here is right out. Arrrgh.... After all that work Tucker
did on the new fermenter, Toba's work wiring Chillmon last night....
I'm glad we didn't shell out lots of money on large stainless steel
conical fermenters.

Alternately, if someone nearby has a big house/garage, we could look
into relocating to a residence, which should eliminate the legal problems
of production.

We could still do Beer Church if we got a permit for each and every one
at $25 a pop. Technically, we could charge a cover fee (but not a per beer
fee) so we could recoup it, and perhaps even fundraise for the space.
However, we would be limited to providing no more than 16 oz total of
samples of beer per person, or 4 oz total of wine. (Cider is wine.) (The
bill references another section on the quantity limit, which I looked up).
I'm also not sure if there are limits on the numbers of permits one could
get, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Locktoberfest or the PS:One birthday party could not be held with us
providing homebrew, given that the average person will want to consume
>16 oz. We did nothing for the PS:One birthday party as we had no notice
and nothing was ready, but this would have affected Loctoberfest where
Toba and I contributed stouts.

The bar / draft system isn't totally a waste. It will hold at least one
Sankey keg, possibly two if we got a separate coupler, so it would be
useful for events where a keg is purchased / donated. (Speaking of which,
who determined that the Atlas keg wouldn't fit? The one from Revolution did
last time.) I suppose people could lug their own Corny kegs in from home
for future Beer Church samplings, but we certainly couldn't leave a keg of
homebrew on unattended as permits are for specific days, and we'd have no
way of enforcing the limit of <16oz per person if left unattended.

I really hate to say this, but we may want to reconsider the kitchen
plans, as we'd been assuming an expansion of brewing at the space, not
its elimination.

This is all well and truly terrible. The General Assembly once again
disappoints me. Why am I even surprised....

Ryan

> >>>>> 2013 13:30:53 -0500 From: Tim Saylor <tim.s...@gmail.com><tim.s...@gmail.com> To:
> >>>>> Eric Stein <to...@des.truct.org> <to...@des.truct.org>

[malerie kaplan]

You could also contact the Chicago Beer Society. http://chibeer.org/

They have meetups at Goose Island on the first Thursday of every month where people bring their own homebrew for other people to try and comment on. I'm not sure that puts the group in the same position as us.

[Avner Shanan]

I have not read the bill, but according to the Homebrewers Association sharing home brew at club meetings (ie Beer Church) should be legal: http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/recent_alerts/show?title=illinois-attention-il-homebrewers

It may be too late, but maybe we should contact the Illinois Homebrewers Association or the Illinois Homebrewers Alliance (who are apparently behind this bill).

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Ryan Pierce <rdpi...@pobox.com> wrote:

--
-Avner Shanan-

[Ryan Pierce]

Ehhh.... legal if you get a $25 permit, and provide samples under 16 oz total, it seems.

[KathyW]

Yeah, the concerns of most homebrew clubs like the Chicago Beer
Society aren't the same as ours because most of those folks brew at
home. But we should still be able to share our brew. This section is
in the bill:

(c) Homemade brewed beverages made in compliance with the limitations
specified in subsection (a) may be consumed by the person who made it
and his or her family, neighbors, and friends at any private residence
or other private location where the possession and consumption of
alcohol is permissible under this Act, local ordinances, and other
applicable law, provided that the homemade brewed beverages are not
made available for consumption by the general public.

There doesn't seem to be a definition of "private location" (though
the liquor control act does define "private function" at 235 ILCS
5/1-3.36) but PS:One would seem to qualify. And hopefully we can
describe one another as "friends."


On May 7, 12:57 pm, malerie kaplan <kawaiib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You could also contact the Chicago Beer Society.http://chibeer.org/

>
> They have meetups at Goose Island on the first Thursday of every month
> where people bring their own homebrew for other people to try and comment
> on. I'm not sure that puts the group in the same position as us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Ryan Pierce <rdpie...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > My thoughts, note that IANAL so I could be completely wrong, and it also
> > hasn't even passed yet:
>
> > First, check this out:
>

> >http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/19590893-418/homebrew-sampling...

> > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, malerie kaplan <kawaiib...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > > I didn't mean that we would brew there or store anything there, just
> > that
> > > > they might be able to give some advice
>
> > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Tucker Tomlinson <
> > > > tuckertomlin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> The text of the bill allows brew and grow to make their own beer so
> > that
> > > >> customers can sample it. It will not, as far as I understand, allow
> > us to
> > > >> brew on their premises and take the beer back to PS1. I could be wrong
> > > >> though, I'm certainly not a lawyer.
>
> > > >> Also, the fermentation seems to be included as part of the brewing as
> > far
> > > >> as the bill is concerned, so we'd be asking them to store our
> > fermenting
> > > >> brews as well as letting us make them at their store.
>
> > > >> Cheers
>

> > > >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:25 AM, malerie kaplan <kawaiib...@gmail.com

> > >wrote:
>
> > > >>> You should go talk to Brew and Grow about this since they brew beer
> > and
> > > >>> wine in the shop
>
> > > >>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Tucker Tomlinson <
> > > >>> tuckertomlin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> The text does indeed appear different from the last version I read.
>
> > > >>>> Looks like we technically need a 'special event license' for our
> > brews
> > > >>>> at any event where the public might be present. Presumably this
> > would
> > > >>>> include the weekly meetings and any of the courses like NERP or
> > lockpicking.
>
> > > >>>> The language on where the brewing must take place to be considered a
> > > >>>> home-brew is also clarified in a way that doesn't sound good for
> > us. Since
> > > >>>> PS1 is neither a place of residence, nor a business engaged
> > primarily in
> > > >>>> selling brewing equipment, we may run afoul of the location rules
> > in this
> > > >>>> bill.
>

> > > >>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Eric Stein <t...@des.truct.org>

> > wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>  Does anyone with more free time than me know what's going on with
> > > >>>>> this? This seems a change since the last time it came up...
>
> > > >>>>> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: Fwd: [ORDCamp]
> > > >>>>> Homebrewing is in Trouble in Illinois - Please help  Date: Thu, 2
> > May

> > > >>>>> 2013 13:30:53 -0500  From: Tim Saylor <tim.say...@gmail.com><
> > tim.say...@gmail.com>  To:
> > > >>>>> Eric Stein <t...@des.truct.org> <t...@des.truct.org>

> >http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB0630eng&G...
>
> > > >>>>>>  :

>
> > > >>>>>>>       This is bill Conrad refers to:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/PDF/09800HB1947ham001.pdf
>
> > > >>>>>>>>  Here's where it stands in the process:
>

> >http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1947&GAID=12&Do...

> ...
>
> read more »

[KathyW]

At this point, probably hopeless, but it's always worth a try.

Dear Senator Martinez,

As a homebrewing hobbyist, I am happy to hear that the Illinois
legislature is working to make it clear that homebrewing tasting and
judging events are legal in our state. However, while HB0630 is a
good idea in general, I'm sorry to say that it makes things worse for
me.

It places an unfair burden on homebrewers in urban areas such as your
district.

I'm a member of a non-profit arts and cultural educational
organization that has homebrewing as one of the activities of its
members. Because brewing is space-intensive and therefore hard for
people who live in urban apartments, the organization has allowed us
to brew on its private premises. This has been a wonderful way for us
to share our brewing knowledge as well as build our community.

But because the bill only allows homebrewing at private residences and
at homebrew supply shops, we will no longer be able to brew
together.

Please amend the bill to allow homebrewing to be conducted by members
of non-profit organizations on the organizations owned or rented
premises, so long as the resulting homebrew remains the personal
property of the brewers and not of the non-profit.

In summary, this bill is a good idea in general, but it is too
limiting in ways that make things worse for homebrewers in your
district.

Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,

KathyW

> ...
>
> read more »

[Eric Stein]

Did you send this or is it a draft that you suggest we could send? I'd
be really sad if we have to change how we do stuff, we're not hurting
anybody.

Eric

>> read more �

[Tucker Tomlinson]

Well written Kathy. I will have to find time to draft a similar piece (I hope you don't mind if I crib from your letter)

There also is a vague distinction between the cooking stage and the fermenting stage (Eric, Ryan and I were chatting a little after the tuesday meeting)- Up to the addition of yeast, we are just making funnily flavored sugar water.  We might, therefore, be able to get away with 'cooking' at PS1 and fermenting at someone's house. It would be a shame to have to discard the fermentation chamber plans, but otherwise I think we could keep operating essentially as-is.

Tucker

> ...
>
> read more »

[malerie kaplan]

What about C.H.A.O.S.? http://www.chaosbrewclub.net/
They must be in the same boat as us?

--
-Malerie

[Avner Shanan]

They're part of the coalition that's behind this law, so presumably they're covered in some way.  Anyone know someone over there we can chat with?

-Avner Shanan-

[Ryan Pierce]

The bill seems pretty clear that fermentation has to take place in a
residence or brewing supply shop, so if C.H.A.O.S. is in support of this,
are they operating out of a residence?

Also, the whole "private location" thing concerns me. On a different message
board where I discussed this, I heard talk of the possibility of
raids of homebrew club meetings prior to this bill being introduced because
the Illinois Liquor Control Board didn't want homebrew consumed outside
the home. This also affected public brewing events / contests that gave out
free samples. Hence the bill was less restrictive because it allowed the
option of paying $25 and not having to worry about it.

I'm not sure how true that is, but at the same time, I have to wonder. We
publicize Beer Church on the calendar, on Twitter, etc. People can come in
off the street and get free homebrew. Nearly every event PS:One offers is
open to the general public. So how does the whole public/private distinction
work?

[KathyW]

It is something I sent.  However, Eric, because I was trying to
convince my senator that there's a problem I simplified things a
little and took an alarmist tone.

They seemingly aren't changing the part of the Liquor Control Act that
says that brewing is legal, which we've been hanging our collective
hats on all this time.  235 ILCS 5/2-1, “Scope of Act”:  “No person
shall manufacture, bottle, blend, sell, barter, transport, transfer
into this State from a point outside this State, deliver, furnish or
possess any alcoholic liquor for beverage purposes, unless such person
has been issued a license by the Commission or except as permitted by
Section 6-29 of this Act or except as otherwise specifically provided
in this Act; provided, however, nothing herein contained shall prevent
the possession and transportation of alcoholic liquor by the possessor
for the personal use of the possessor, his family and guests, nor
prevent the making of wine, cider or other alcoholic liquor by a
person from fruits, vegetables or grains, or the products thereof, by
simple fermentation and without distillation, if it is made solely for
the use of the maker, his family and his guests….”

So if the bill were to pass in its current form, one might argue that
what they are doing is defining something they are calling "homebrew"
but which one might as easily have called "magic juice" which you can
take to tastings and submit to competitions.  But-- here comes the
argument-- personally-fermented beverages already allowed that don't
qualify as "magic juice" may still be legal to make, they just can't
be submitted to competitions or shared at public tastings.  As long as
only you, your family, your friends, and your guests drink it, you may
be okay.

It would probably mean locking the tap and not serving our homemade
beverages to non-members unless the person who brewed it is there to
pour it. It might also mean keeping track of that beer and where it
goes. Serving PS1 premises brew at something like Locktoberfest would
probably be out.

Note that I'm not an expert on liquor law, and I haven’t researched
this fully. So as usual, I urge you to draw your own conclusions.

You guys are welcome to crib from my email if you want to contact your
own various legislators.  One thing I didn't realize when I wrote to
Martinez was that this bill apparently is modeled on the Wisconsin law
allowing homebrew tastings and competitions.  But the Wisconsin law
explicitly states that homebrew does not have to be made at home.  You
might mention that.

Does anyone live in Cullerton's senate district?  If so, please do
write to him or call his office, he's the senate sponsor of the bill.
 He is the go-to guy whenever someone is trying to get liquor
legislation passed and he probably has read the thing.

Someone might also contact the Illinois Homebrew Alliance, they are
the ones behind the bill and seem to be mighty proud of it:
http://www.illinoishomebrew.org

--K

> ...
>
> read more »

[d34dfish]

Chaos is behind a residence - I've been there. It's a garage.

I don't think this is anything to worry about and all the big homebrew groups were behind it and see it as an improvement.

I don't think we're at any more risk than we were before.

[KathyW]

I still think people should call or write if this is something they
care about. Be supportive, but ask for brewing to clearly be
permitted outside the home.

Cullerton's district is Lakeview / Lincoln Park, for those of you who
don't know. Surely someone lives in that district & is willing to
share our concerns with the guy.

[Tucker Tomlinson]

Hi Kathy,

I'd have to check but I think I fall in his district. Sounds like I have a target.

Cheers

[KathyW]

I got an email this morning from Peter Rzeminski-- I'd emailed the Illinois Homebrew Association about the bill since they are behind it, complaining that they are making things worse for us.  He asked which brew club I'm in since it sounded to him like I was describing CHAOS and they have determined that they are fine, and seemed surprised to hear that there was another group out there that might have an issue, saying that if there is someone out there other than CHAOS they want to know about it.   (I have written back to say that we aren't CHAOS and our situation is different.)  

Anyway, he suggests that a representative from our group join IAH so we can get our input in as they are planning follow-on legislation in the fall:

We probably should join, clearly we need to get the homebrew lobbyists on our side.  http://www.illinoishomebrew.org/

Yes, JFDI, but I don't think as a random PS:1 member/Beer Church member I have the authority to join us up.

--K

[Eric Stein]

It's too late, it passed the senate today.  I should have paid more attention, we are possibly the only brew club that this will screw over.

Eric

[Eric Stein]

That's a good question Ryan. We may have to change how Beer Church
works. Let's discuss it on Sunday.

I'm also going to the CHAOS open house tomorrow for a short while
sometime between 10 and 6 tomorrow (they've got a long one). I met one
of their members, Will, at a party last week and we shared a rant about
HB630.

Eric

[Ryan Pierce]

Assuming nobody amended the bill since Kathy and I looked at it....

Regarding the brewing portion of Beer Church and the fermenter:

I'm of the opinion Kathy's interpretation is right. We can still brew and ferment at PS:One. All this means is that what we brew at the space just cannot be served at an event with the newly created $25 special permit; otherwise the new law doesn't affect us.

We are not brew-on-premises. The fact that we allowed Andy to brew without being a member proves that nobody has to pay to brew. We may need to make sure brewing certification is different from other PS:One certification in that membership is not required.

We can never serve any kind of homebrew at PS:One public events, brewed in a residence or at the space, e.g. Locktoberfest, the birthday party, etc. where people will drink for effect e.g. more than 16 oz. will be consumed. It was true before the bill (we just didn't know), and will be true afterwards.

Regarding the tasting portion of Beer Church itself, that's interesting. We have two routes:

1. Go completely public, get the $25 permit per event, pass the hat to recoup it. I haven't researched this to see if there are limits on how many of these you can hold. We need to make sure we limit people to 16 oz total. Technically anything we brew here is ineligible to be tasted, but I'm not sure how this even could be enforced. There are no record keeping requirements for homebrew, so proving location of brew is difficult with the burden of proof on the space. This route might limit our ability to have people bring in commercial microbrews (mmmm, Three Floyds) to sample at such an event (not sure of the specifics here) which, if true, would be sad. But the brewer doesn't have to be present.

2. Go completely private. The brewer must be present to share his brew, so everyone there would be his or her guests. This probably limits how we advertise this. IANAL but I think advertising it on the blog as open to the general public to drink could be a problem. Word of mouth may be needed. Again, this doesn't have to be top secret like a speakeasy, we just need to make sure each brewer conceivably knows the people who are drinking. No limit here on serving brews openly made at PS:One vs. at home, or people sharing commercial microbrews with each other.

Regarding the draft system:

The space still got a good deal. We can serve purchased or donated kegs with the Sankey coupler. (OK, why could the Atlas keg not fit in the fridge if the Revolution one did? Aren't the sizes standardized? Who hooked it up?) Now charging admission to the general public may cause problems with the public amusement tax the city nails people with, and I don't know if cover charges are OK seeing as we have no liquor license, but these are different matters.

This could be a blessing in disguise. Regardless of the bill, we weren't supposed to leave homebrew kegs on tap at all. And we were getting pissed off when we did so and they were guzzled in 24 hours. So an RFID lock system where the brewer must be present and unlock the tap for guests would work here. Expanding from 2 to 4 taps will help because more brewers can be represented at once. However, this may result in brewers being cursed with "Hey, I see you in the middle of X project, but could you stop what you are doing to unlock the tap system?"

However, this reduces the need to upgrade our standard batch size since we are not able to serve homebrew for mass guzzling purposes.

Ryan

[Ryan Pierce]

Correction below: burden of proof on the State.

[Steven Finkelman]

Ryan,

Read the document that was posted on the house site and quit assuming.

[KathyW]

I haven't seen the final law as passed, I've been out of town and
offline for several days. The folks who helped draft the law are
pretty clear that brewing anywhere is meant to be allowed. But I
would be cautious about using PS:1 funds to purchase brewing equipment
or fermenting anywhere but home.

On May 18, 5:39 pm, Ryan Pierce <rdpie...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Assuming nobody amended the bill since Kathy and I looked at it....
>
> Regarding the brewing portion of Beer Church and the fermenter:
>
> I'm of the opinion Kathy's interpretation is right. We can still brew and ferment at PS:One. All this means is that what we brew at the space just cannot be served at an event with the newly created $25 special permit; otherwise the new law doesn't affect us.
>
> We are not brew-on-premises. The fact that we allowed Andy to brew without being a member proves that nobody has to pay to brew. We may need to make sure brewing certification is different from other PS:One certification in that membership is not required.
>
> We can never serve any kind of homebrew at PS:One public events, brewed in a residence or at the space, e.g. Locktoberfest, the birthday party, etc. where people will drink for effect e.g. more than 16 oz. will be consumed. It was true before the bill (we just didn't know), and will be true afterwards.
>
> Regarding the tasting portion of Beer Church itself, that's interesting. We have two routes:
>
> 1. Go completely public, get the $25 permit per event, pass the hat to recoup it. I haven't researched this to see if there are limits on how many of these you can hold. We need to make sure we limit people to 16 oz total. Technically anything we brew here is ineligible to be tasted, but I'm not sure how this even could be enforced. There are no record keeping requirements for homebrew, so proving location of brew is difficult with the burden of proof on the space. This route might limit our ability to have people bring in commercial microbrews (mmmm, Three Floyds) to sample at such an event (not sure of the specifics here) which, if true, would be sad. But the brewer doesn't have to be present.
>
> 2. Go completely private. The brewer must be present to share his brew, so everyone there would be his or her guests. This probably limits how we advertise this. IANAL but I think advertising it on the blog as open to the general public to drink could be a problem. Word of mouth may be needed. Again, this doesn't have to be top secret like a speakeasy, we just need to make sure each brewer conceivably knows the people who are drinking. No limit here on serving brews openly made at PS:One vs. at home, or people sharing commercial microbrews with each other.
>
> Regarding the draft system:
>
> The space still got a good deal. We can serve purchased or donated kegs with the Sankey coupler. (OK, why could the Atlas keg not fit in the fridge if the Revolution one did? Aren't the sizes standardized? Who hooked it up?) Now charging admission to the general public may cause problems with the public amusement tax the city nails people with, and I don't know if cover charges are OK seeing as we have no liquor license, but these are different matters.
>
> This could be a blessing in disguise. Regardless of the bill, we weren't supposed to leave homebrew kegs on tap at all. And we were getting pissed off when we did so and they were guzzled in 24 hours. So an RFID lock system where the brewer must be present and unlock the tap for guests would work here. Expanding from 2 to 4 taps will help because more brewers can be represented at once. However, this may result in brewers being cursed with "Hey, I see you in the middle of X project, but could you stop what you are doing to unlock the tap system?"
>
> However, this reduces the need to upgrade our standard batch size since we are not able to serve homebrew for mass guzzling purposes.
>
> Ryan
>

> >>>> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/beer-church-chicago?hl=en.

> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beer Church: Chicago" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to beer-chur...@googlegroups.com.

> >> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/beer-church-chicago?hl=en.

[KathyW]

My father has a quote he likes to repeat: "No man's liberty or
property is safe when the legislature is in session." (Gideon Tucker)

As I mentioned, Peter reports that follow-on legislation is planned,
they want to get rid of the location restrictions. So perhaps
there's hope.

> >     <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> >         I still think people should call or write if this is something
> >         they
> >         care about.  Be supportive, but ask for brewing to clearly be
> >         permitted outside the home.
>
> >         Cullerton's district is Lakeview / Lincoln Park, for those of
> >         you who
> >         don't know.  Surely someone lives in that district & is willing to
> >         share our concerns with the guy.
>
> >         On May 9, 10:45 pm, d34dfish <kind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >         > Chaos is behind a residence - I've been there. It's a garage.
>
> >         > I don't think this is anything to worry about and all the
> >         big homebrew groups were behind it and see it as an improvement.
>
> >         > I don't think we're at any more risk than we were before.
>
> >         --
> >         You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >         Google Groups "Beer Church: Chicago" group.
> >         To post to this group, send email to

> >         beer-chur...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

> >         Visit this group at
> >        http://groups.google.com/group/beer-church-chicago?hl=en

> >         <http://groups.google.com/group/beer-church-chicago?hl=en>.

[Ryan Pierce]

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=630&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=70842&SessionID=85#actions

No amendments since Kathy and I last read it.

It passed unanimously in the Senate, too.

Ryan

[Ryan Pierce]

100% of Beer Church brewing equipment is privately owned, or was financed via the pass the hat method. No money coming from the PS:One bank account was used for it.

[Steven Finkelman]

Looks like we're safe.. I read it too.
What we do is for love not money or contests we hold.