At last night's St. Marys City Council meeting, Cedar Oak Cafe got their license approved. The only nay vote was Councilwoman Hase. Hower, the entire council, one-by-one, each presented their own little kabuki dance trying to appease the group from the church across the street and do right (as they had no legal option but to do) by the applicant. I missed the brief public hearing at 5:30, but when I arrived, the church's minister was out on the porch surrounding by fawning, hard-core, hard shell, militant tee-totalers immersed in a miasma of self-rightousness. It was related during the meeting that they had complained that although the church was outside the 100 foot exclusion zone for the "festival district," the nearest edge of the church grounds were not. Their argument was that at times (Sundays, I assume) some of the children attending the church would gambol on the lawn immediately across the street from the cafe where drinking would be going on, ergo the license should be denied. While Hase argued that denying an otherwise valid and qualifying application for a liquor license should be at the discretion of the council, if only to appease church members, the remaining councilmen pretended to deeply regret that the ordinance was not worded in such a way as to measure from the edge of the church lawn rather than the building itself. They all alluded to how they would be willing to change the rule in future iterations of the alcohol ordinance. Ah, such political courage!
The usual assortment of anti-airport relocation nuts were there, egged on by "No-Conflict Bird." "Hawaii 5-0 and Holding" Rillo and Bob Nutter both spoke and read during both public comment segments.
Alex Kearns and Barbara Ryan both took to the podium to congratulate themselves on their wonderfulness then promptly left - as they always do.
The council approved a memorandum of understanding with Family Matters Counseling. That's the mental health outfit that got a DDA loan to refurbish Kyle Lewis' old hardware store for an office. Here's the deal. When the SMPD encounters someone who is exhibiting symptoms of mental illness, they can call the on-call psychologist from Family Matters for an immediate evaluation. The ladies who own Family Matters are doing this pro-bono. It's a good thjing, however, during the last public comments, drawing on my insurance / risk management experience, I pointed out that there is a potential risk for the city. For example, if the SMPD refers an arrestee to Family Matters for a pre-incarceration evaluation; the psychologist clears the arrestee for immediate incarceration; 4 hour later, the arrestee is found hanging in his cell; decedent's estate's attorney names not only Family Matters but City of St. Marys in ensuing law suit. I suggested that the city attorney take a look at the professional liability policies of Family Matters psychologists to make sure they are covered for pro-bono pre-incarceration evals and take whatever other steps he deems prudent to insulate the city from liability.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
As Justice Kennedy so neatly puts it, "the issuance of a permit is not a matter of grace." If the provisions have been complied with (such as completing an application or taking a driving test), then the permit must be issued. It is presumed that the individual has the right to engage in a particular action and the state's interest is ancillary--such as, in the case of a marriage license (a misnomer), having a public record of who's agreed to look out for whose welfare. The issuance of a license is not an opportunity to make a judgment as to the rightness of the behavior. That's already presumed.
Exactly! Well done - even if it is a sneaky polemic for same-sex-marriage.
I think we should say a good word here for Councilmen Howell. Although he is outspokenly anti-liquor, he voted in favor of the permit. According to him, the ordinance does not allow for the permit to be denied.
Deborah is off in la-la land trying to gain votes by appeasing the hard core relgiosos.
Did they discuss the voting referendum? My wife and I didn't make it last night.
Great location. Because if there were ever a bunch that will take a drink it is the church folks. I think all that singing makes them dry. All you have to do is put up a fence or windows you can't see through and they will come. Sidney was right. It is a right not a priviledge. If you meet the terms of the ordinance you have that right. Hase should refrain from voting if she can't do her duty as required. Better yet just keep on and will take care of her. Again.
I believe Ms. Hase is a Member of said church across the street....hence her Nay vote.
Yes, she is. I spoke with her this morning. She noted that she went home and had a glass of wine after the meeting. I know she does - I've seen her do it.:-)
She went on to say something that she should have said last night then her point would have ben clear. During her comments, she was tryimg to make the point that in certain other situations where the applicant has met all of the requirements the council noetheless turns the applicant down because of objections from neighbors. In the height of irony, the case she had in mind was one in which none other than No Conflict Bird had asked for a special use permit and been turned down because the neighbors objected. She pointed out that she has voted for liqour licenses before, but that last night was a sort of protest vote against the inequities - i.e., that no amount of neighbor objection could trump a complying liquor license application as was the case in other situations.
Dan,
Sorry I missed your post earlier.
Thanks for reminding me. The referendum came up only insoifar as the city attorney read the wording he had come up with. I will not try to recall it. I imagine you will find it verbatim in tomorrow's T&G.
However, I can assure you that it was very well done. Only totla idiots will fail to understand the questions. He has 3 separate questions: one for the matter of switching from plurality to majority elections; one for going to 6 geographically dfefined districts for councilmembers to represent while leaving the mayoir to be elected at large; and the third about syncing our elections with state and federal elections.
For the idiots who clearly do vote in local elections, I would hope that they would publish the questions in advance with matching explanations for idiots.
Liquor licenses are not the same thing as zoning special use permits. They are covered by totally different laws for a reason. Zoning laws are set up to segregate property use of areas of the city and, thereby, to protect property values and the owners rights to peaceful use of their property. For instance, a property owner would not be allowed to operate a business, be it junk yard or jewelry store in an R-1 residential neighborhood. But that property owner is allowed to apply for a special use permit to operate the business. The special use application would come before the council for approval. Built into this procedure is the assumption that a special use will not be granted unless all of the applicants neighbors agree.
Liquor licenses are a different situation. They usually do not require a special use permit because they are typically located in business zoning districts. They are a retail or restaurant business like any other. Because of the contentious nature of the business, they have unique licensing requirements regulated by separate ordinances and laws. A public hearing is required but, as some over zealous councils have learned the hard way, the license cannot be denied if the applicant meets all of the requirements of the ordinances.
The requirement for the public hearing leads to a lot of misunderstanding. Church groups, typically, think they can flood the hearing with their members and convince the council to deny the license. Pastors sermonize, little children cry, members of the congregation tell fanciful tales of the evils of liquor, all to no avail. Unless they can give evidence that the application for the liquor license is in violation of the ordinance, the license must be granted. The result is that the church group leaves in frustration thinking that they and religion in general is being discriminated against and in the process, the council members have been on a guilt trip and been forced make fools of themselves trying to placate both sides.
We could, and maybe we should, modify our ordinance. Unfortunately, that will not alleviate the problem; that will just move the boundaries. There will always be those who favor liquor sales and use and those who do not. Some churches will always believe that liquor should not be sold or served anywhere.
Bravo!! That was exceedingly well stated. In my case, if you've followed my blog for some time, you will know that you are, dare I say, preaching to the choir.
I would suggest to you that preachers organize these little protests with the intent of making their "flock" feel picked upon by those who are "in the world." It's kind of like a mini-revivial. They don't actually believe that their children;'s playing across tghe street, totally oblivious to what is going on inside thge cafe, will lead any of them to demon rum. It's all part of their little morality play.
Doesn't the Lone Star Steakhouse have a liquor license? Seems to me it is "just as close" as the cafe.
"Doesn't the Lone Star Steakhouse have a liquor license? Seems to me it is "just as close" as the cafe."
Yes and yes.
The state law does not provide for measurement from lawn to lawn. Further the city ordinance is broken up by c-1 and c-2 zoning. The rules are either building to building or door to door. The city should have learned from the Fins fiasco. How much did the city have to pay to settle that complaint? That should be public record.
Council neds to wake up and realize it is legal for adults to choose to drink, the establishment in question will not have falling down drunks in the sidewalks during church. The churches do not pay taxes. Where were they during the public meetings for input on the alcohol ordinance? They prefer to wait until the work is done and then complain. Wake up the downtown is dying and I applaud the efforts of those trying to make us move into a progressive state for the future growth of the city.
Post a Comment