Last year, Lucia Herrejon needed to find a way to boost revenue for her restaurant in Lincoln Square, XOchimilco Mexican Restaurant, so she applied for a liquor license.
After sending in the necessary paperwork and undergoing a restaurant inspection, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission informed her that the restaurant, at 2030 W. Montrose Ave., falls within a small section of the neighborhood where alcohol sales have been banned for more than 100 years.
The ban stems from a 1907 state law that allowed voters to prohibit the sale of liquor in their individual precincts. A petition initiative that year led to the liquor ban in the area bounded by Montrose, Lincoln, Sunnyside and Damen avenues, according to the city and the Chicago History Museum.
The small pocket within the neighborhood has remained dry since, even after the nationwide alcohol prohibition of the 1920s was lifted in 1933.
“We’ve had a lot of guests who did not know. They lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and they were not aware that it is a dry area,” said Herrejon, who opened XOchimilco with her husband in 2018.
To end the ban, another petition initiative was needed to place a referendum on the ballot for voters to decide.
Lucia Herrejon and her employees went door to door in the neighborhood this summer to gather signatures for a petition to place a referendum on the Nov. 5 general election ballot. The question asks voters if the ban on alcohol should continue in the area bounded by Montrose, Sunnyside, Lincoln and Damen avenues in Lincoln Square.
Zubaer Khan/Sun-Times
Herrejon decided to take the matter into her own hands in August by knocking on doors in the neighborhood to gather signatures for a petition to place a referendum on the Nov. 5 general election ballot.
Herrejon said going door to door was “one of the hardest things we’ve done.” She said she encountered one person who said that although they like the nearby restaurants, they preferred the ban remain for the same reason it was put in place: to discourage public intoxication and potential violence.
Within five days of door knocking, she and some of the other 10 employees at the restaurant secured the required 150 signatures from registered voters for the question to appear on the ballot for voters in the 9th Precinct of the 47th Ward. The question on the ballot asks voters if they want to keep the ban.
Ald. Matt Martin (47th) said he supports lifting the ban, saying, “It’s long overdue,” and that it would help businesses in the area.
“At the risk of stating the obvious, a lot has changed in the last 117 years,” Martin said. “I’ve been heartened to hear from people all across the area who support lifting this ban, and I hope that a significant majority of voters who cast their ballots leading up to or on Nov. 5 vote to do away with the prohibition.”
Also situated within the small dry area is a Giordano’s at 2010 W. Montrose Ave., where a sign in the window reads “Now Offering B.Y.O.B.,” meaning bring your own booze.
The burger restaurant Small Cheval is planning to open a new location down the block at 2156 W. Montrose Ave. The restaurant is pushing voters to vote “No” on the referendum.
“This outdated law is holding back businesses and limiting our neighborhood’s collective growth,” Small Cheval’s website reads.
Some customers having dinner Wednesday night at XOchimilco agreed, saying it’s unfair to restaurants in the dry area.
“It had been holding back a couple of really good restaurants, like this one,” said Fernando Martinez, 72, of Andersonville. He added that not being allowed to sell alcohol hurts a restaurant’s profit margin. “The economy is dependent on that.”
Martinez and his friend, Quincy Bissic, also of Andersonville, brought a small bottle of Espolón Tequila to dinner. They both regularly dine at XOchimilco but were not aware of the local liquor ban and never questioned why it was a BYOB restaurant.
Bissic said the law is outdated and “it’s time for it to change,” especially with numerous bars and restaurants lining Lincoln Avenue near the dry area.
“It’s outdated,” Bissic said. “It’s so antiquated for this area, especially when Lincoln Avenue is right there.”
Herrejon said she opted to first apply for the liquor license not necessarily because her business was struggling, but because she wanted to ensure they have a nest egg to get through the slower times of the year.
“Summers are good and then holiday season is good,” Herrejon said. “But then there’s those four months out of the year where we have to make sure we have some savings to be able to make it through those months without having to fire any of our staff, keeping everyone because everyone has a family, everyone has bills to pay.”
Ian Ciulla, the general manager of grocery store and sandwich shop L&M Fine Foods, said lifting the ban would help all the local businesses stay open and bring more people to Lincoln Square.
The shop, which is just across the street from the dry precinct, sells beer and wine. While Ciulla said alcohol sales had slowed in recent years, it’s still allowed him to keep his staff through slower parts of the year. He said he hoped it would prevent the chain restaurant takeover he’s seen in other areas.
“It would keep businesses afloat,” he said. “It gives people a little more reason to come in and stay around. … In the slower season when it gets colder, we get a lot of foot traffic and [alcohol sales] helps float us through the winter.”
L&M Fine Foods, 4363 N. Lincoln Ave., is just across the street from the new site of Small Cheval and the dry precinct, which has banned alcohol sales since 1907.
Tyler Pasciak LaRiviere/Sun-Times
Kelly Doyle, a Lincoln Square resident who worked in hospitality for 20 years, said she previously was unaware of the ban and thought the restaurants along Montrose were just avoiding the headache that can come with getting a liquor license.
While she’s in favor of said she can understand why some might be hesitant despite liquor being available across the street in many spots.
“I understand from the business side, you wanna bring more people in, and I understand from the neighborhood side, asking what this is gonna entail,” Doyle said. “It’s just perception and not knowing if it’s going to be late nights or if it’ll be louder.”
Ultimately it’ll come down to how the businesses handle having liquor at their establishments, she said. “I don’t think it’s a bad idea if treated respectfully.”
Matt Seurth, a 15-year resident of the neighborhood, said his main concern was whether the restaurants are still going to be BYOB, as he and his wife occasionally enjoy bringing a bottle of wine with them to dinner but was in favor in general.
“There’s not much room for additional businesses to come in and exploit it or become a nuisance because of it,” he said. “It’s not a liquor store where you’re going to have people hanging around and drinking liquor out front. I have no issues with it as long as they’re running a good, clean business.”