OK, say we're talking about Chicago, where the elected alderman has considerable latitude in granting or denying permits. AFAIK the alderman can legally deny Chik-Fil-A's application for opening a store. Then I would agree with the decision to keep Chik-Fil-A from opening a store in the alderman's ward.

Still depends on the legal mechanism. Does Chicago law say that the final decision is up to the unfettered discretion of the alderman? Can he deny a permit to a Republican political group because they're Republican? Or is it merely "how things are done"? In which case, just because it's done doesn't make it constitutional.

I would say that, in general, denying a governmental service (like a planning permit or a zoning waiver) to a business solely because of political positions taken by the owners, which are unrelated to the business or service in question, and which are not otherwise illegal (like inciting the violent overthrow of the government), could be successfully challenged in court.

Does Chicago law say that the final decision is up to the unfettered discretion of the alderman? Can he deny a permit to a Republican political group because they're Republican? Or is it merely "how things are done"?

I'm not really sure. From what I've read, an alderman can do that. Not sure if it's just a "how things are done" issue.

I am somewhat conflicted about this, so hearing other views is good.

This reminds me of an issue when I lived in San Francisco back in '94-'95. There was some controversy on whether the city could prevent fast-food places from opening on Upper Haight (that's the West end, right?) Some people thought fast-food places would harm the character of the neighborhood.

Anyone know what happened with this?

TCG said that in MA the best Boston could do is make life difficult for a business to get the necessary permits and such and even that would open them up to potential lawsuits.

Anyone know what happened with this?

Are you referring to the McDonalds right at the corner of Haight and Stanyan where the Haight begins?

Generally, though, there've been successful efforts to kill off or quell chains that are deemed economically predatory to local businesses. I know that in the 90s Le Video (9th and Irving) successfully fought to prevent a Blockbuster from opening in the neighborhood. Similarly, I know that in Noe Valley there was a successful effort by local salons to stop Super Cuts from opening on the main drag.

It's not automatic, but there are rules in place against Big Box stores from opening within the city limits and local neighborhood groups have been very successful about pushing chains out of local neighborhoods and towards downtown/tourist zones.

There have also been some successful fights against Starbucks in places which have established local cafes.

Are you referring to the McDonalds right at the corner of Haight and Stanyan where the Haight begins?

No, that was already there. The controversy was over another fast-food place (or maybe another McDonalds) that wanted to open further East on Haight.

In my old neighborhood, there were a million drug stores, and then a CVS replaced one of the few grocery stores. There were pickets out front for weeks, and the one time I went in there, I was the only customer. They moved out within the year. Community action! [link]

No, that was already there. The controversy was over another fast-food place (or maybe another McDonalds) that wanted to open further East on Haight.

No other chains opened.

When Walgreens tried to open a store on Haight Street it was burned to the ground and they decided to go elsewhere.

Pretty strong local resistance to chains on the major commercial strips in neighborhoods throughout the City.

At this point, there's a much stronger understanding of what Buying Local means to a community.

People have seen the numbers and understand how chains funnel money out of a community whereas local stores plow money back into a community.

When Walgreens tried to open a store on Haight Street it was burned to the ground and they decided to go elsewhere.

That makes me miss San Francisco.

OK, maybe not the "burning of private property" part....