While my views really may not be too drastically different (and to be honest, who's are?) there are some important distinctions. Last night's council meeting illustrated one.
I meant to attend the meeting and speak against CB2009-029, but unfortunately I've been laid up with a cold the last couple days. Puffy red eyes and a nose with a higher gpm flow rate than the Trevi Fountain do not make for good TV. As it was, I sent an email to all the council members explaining my position and concerns but since I wasn't able to send it until 6:30 - I suspect that only CM Bruno, never without his laptop, may have read it before it was time to vote.
This is the text of the email:
"Howdy,
I had intended to come to tonight's Council meeting, but unfortunately I've got a heck of a cold and it's keeping me in. I wanted to let you know that I have some concerns about CB2009-029 and I hope you will consider them in your deliberations tonight.
Given the option presented by the LAC, to prohibit alcohol delivery by those establishments that have purchased a Class P rider, I would urge you all to reject this bill tonight until better guidelines can be proposed.
This bill is the worst kind of bill. It is solely inspired by one business (Fat Sandwich) that just wanted to try their business model here and was initially told yes, only to have that decision reversed when they came to pick up their authorizations. I have problems passing a law that specifically targets one business.
To the best of my knowledge, this type of alcohol delivery (together with food - but no provision for servers like with a CA license) has never been tried here in Champaign. There is no history to suggest if it will be successful or not and there is no history on the part of the other Class P holders to suggest that there would be regulatory difficulties. The opposition to this type of delivery seems to be solely based upon someone's puritanical fear that good golly, someone could get a delicious sandwich and a beer delivered to their home on a Saturday afternoon, or even a Tuesday night after they got back from a particularly long study-session.
It also seems to me, that perhaps given the current economic climate, that this is not the best time to be discouraging new and innovative business models. Thumbing our noses at potential increased revenues does not seem particularly smart.
Instead, why not defeat this bill and direct the LAC to establish rules that would regulate this type of delivery based upon certain delivery hours, pre-payment, and verification that everyone at the delivery address is 21 or over or is the minor child of someone at the address who is 21 or over? I was thinking verification that everyone at the delivery address is 21 or over, but then that would prevent me from getting a tasty sammich and a cold brew if my kids were home.
At the very least, give these two guys a chance and if regulatory problems crop up, then move to prohibit the practice later. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity. It would be a shame if Champaign isolated itself as the exception to this rule.
Thanks,
Matthew Peek"
I understand the city has an inherent interest to regulate alcohol. But let's face it, this decision is just plain mean-spirited and stupid. Thanks to the teetotallers of the Liquor Advisory Comission, those two guys never had a chance. As I said above, given our current economic situation and the budget shortfall projections, this is absolutely the wrong time to be discouraging new and innovative business concepts. Sure it's possible the situation could be abused, but if you never give the guys the opportunity to try, you might as well just hang up a sign on their door that says "Go Away. We don't want you here."
Great Job, City Council. Other than CMs Bruno and Pirok, you guys really blew it on this one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment