For Immediate Release
Contact: Scott Bowling, 443-822-3170
Corey Stottlemeyer (301) 331-8028
Bowling vows to repeal 54% increase in Liquor Fees
(Annapolis, MD, October 19,2009) Today, Scott Bowling (Candidate for Alderman, Ward 3)
denounced Mayor Ellen Moyer, Finance Committee Chair Classie Hoyle, and the rest of the
Annapolis City Council for the 54-percent increase in liquor fees for restaurants, taverns,
package goods stores, and hotels and vows to introduce a budget amendment to repeal this
increase when elected on November 3rd• These fee increases on residents and businesses that are buried in the budget and passed by the Council under a cloud of secrecy must end.
According to The Capital editorial on Sunday, October 18,2009, Finance Committee Chair,
Alderwoman Classie Hoyle stated "the liquor license fees were in the budget, had anyone
bothered to look". The Capital goes on to say, "That's the problem: The council thinks it's the
taxpayer's responsibility, not its own, to know about fee increases. The Alderman would rather
tell us about awards and plastic bag bans."
"Once again, the Mayor and Council are going out of their way to hurt our local businesses in
Annapolis," said Bowling. "Worse yet, they are making these laws in a vacuum. They are not
talking to the businesses that are affected by the fee hikes."
These new fees come on top of a 30-percent increase from the previous year, placing liquor fees
in Annapolis significantly higher than Baltimore City and other Maryland municipalities.
"In these tough economic times, the Mayor and City Council should be working with businesses,
not taxing them," said Bowling. "Unfortunately, this is what we have come to expect from
Alderwoman Hoyle, Mayor Moyer, and their cohorts at City Hall."
"At best the Council was negligent in approving these fees without a more transparent process," said Bowling. "At worst, they were deceptive."
####
Showing posts with label 2 am licenses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2 am licenses. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
City Council Meeting 9/14/09: Live Blog!
Many people tell me that the live blogs are their favorite feature on this blog. I am proud of that compliment, because turning the painfully boring into something useful and interesting is a key skill for anyone seeking a future career in economics. Some people have told me that they follow the live blog while watching the telecast of the meeting on television. Wow. In some jurisdictions that's known as 'double jeopardy', and is prohibited by law. I haven't heard of that much masochism since Mrs. Politics agreed to go on a first date with me more than 3 years ago*.
(Within 2 weeks of that first date, Mrs. Politics left for Spain--with a one way ticket and no plans to return. This is a true story.)
7:13
There is a work session going on right now, preceding the council meeting. Arthur, the historian whose last name I don't know, came up to me expressing anger. Trudy McFall, he says, always brags about how she goes to everything. "Is she here now?...no". Technically he is correct, but I pretended to ignore him just so he knows that he can't be a ghost writer of this blog.
7:15
Arthur just asked Tony Evans "what if there's inflation". I will now permanently ignore him.
7:15:30
Actually, deflation is a scary thing. I think it's scarier than inflation and I'll tell you why. With the case of inflation, the economy and the authorities can react. Employers can raise salaries to keep up with cost of living, banks can raise the interest rate on loans so that they make a real (meaning inflation-adjusted) profit, and central banks can raise their target interest rate to try and 'ease the expansionary pressure'. If you have deflation, it's harder to do the opposite. It's more painful and difficult to lower wages, even if the cost of living falls more than wages and your standard of living increases. Plus, interest rates don't rarely go below 0%. Banks would have to be SURE of deflation to actually pay you to take a loan. Conclusion: inflation and deflation are both scary. Inflation is the bigger concern now.
7:26
ALERT: SHROPSHIRE PLANS TO RE INTRODUCE CITY MANAGER BILL. So far nobody support him, including Doug Smith apparently.
7:29
An early start! Not a heavy crowd, but several luminaries. All elected officials are here. Alderman Israel sports a fresh haircut and receives a compliment from the Mayor. How nice. I have since learned that when receiving his new buzz cut, he requested "give me the Doug Smith". Funny.
7:32
A new 2 a.m. bill is on first reader, and there are people here who do not like this. The mayor knows this, and tries to deflect some ire by reminding people that there will be a public hearing for this bill, and that hearing is not taking place right now. As a result of her suggestion, nobody did anything different.
7:36
There are several council meeting hallmarks to look for when you are watching a meeting. The most famous is Alderman Shropshire addressing the crowd on television, but there's also Stankivic voting "no" on a first reader, committee chairmen cancelling their meetings, Alderman Paone growing another 6 inches, and the city attorney declining to comment on something. Tonight, I'm looking for something special--more than 2 Alderman asking to be added as co-sponsors to any bill submitted by Alderman Israel, an event that reflects the belief that Israel actually researched the legislation he submitted.
7:39
The public is now allowed to speak. First is candidate Cohen, opposing the 2 AM bill (on first reader). He pledges that, if Mayor, and if this bill passes, he will try to repeal the law when he becomes mayor.
THIS will tell you about 95% of what you need to know about the 2 AM "Bar Wars" back story.
7:42
A common theme is that even for things that might make sense, we should wait for the next council to consider it. I guess this makes sense for big issues, but city government shouldn't shut down just because there's a campaign going on.
(Note: There is a campaign going on. The primary is tomorrow.)
7:43
Arthur is telling the council the same thing he told me earlier. They seem equally appreciative of the information.
7:51
Minor Carter: Midnight bars knew what they were getting into when they opened.
7:54
Alderwoman Finlayson just made a surprisingly lucid argument, asking Minor "we make changes all the time to laws that were previously in place...are you telling me we shouldn't consider ever changing anything". I use the word "lucid" in the hopes that it means logical--I apologize for not knowing the meaning of the word, it's just that there's not that many chances to use the word 'logical' or any of its synonyms while at a city council meeting.
7:56
Tony Evans: The Market House is an example of why outgoing councils shouldn't decide on things. Tony calls Ward 1 a "tax colony" for the rest of the city, perpetuating the Ward 1 superiority syndrome that has plagued Annapolis for longer than this blog can document.
7:59
Ugh, more people are testifying against the 2 am bill, and my fingers are getting tired of typing. So, until something different happens, I am not going to type. Here is how it works. There is a certain population of Ward 1 who really does not want more 2 am licenses. They claim that the extra 2 hours of being opened cause exponential damage to their flower pots, and overall quality of life. Broadly, they are not all that interested in suggestions to enforce the laws (i.e. nuisance, vandalism) that already exist, or to recognize that parking reform could be a solution--since most people who urinate in flower pots do so on the way back to their illegally parked cars. They also tend to define fairness not necessarily as a level playing field for businesses, but as full disclosure of the unfairness at the time of inception of the business.
I tend to think of this as a squeaky wheel problem...the people who vigorously oppose this are also the people who come to meetings and are politically active. If you surveyed every citizen of Annapolis--not to mention the tourists on whom the city depends to create revenue--and more than 25% of those people opposed the 2 AM idea, I would do the unthinkable and let a Ward 1'er actually write a paragraph on this blog!
8:06
While various citizens debate with various Aldermen, let me take a moment to address a comment I received on my last post. The commenter suggests that blogging is so "passe", suggesting that I should "twitter" the proceedings of the meeting. I want to nip this idea in the but. For those of you that don't know, Twitter is a torture mechanism created by the Internet itself aimed at making obsolete the social networking site you just learned about, and making you feel inferior for not understanding what is a tool of only modest effectiveness.
The Internet has become self-aware, much like the robot in I Robot and the computer in War Games. First it created MySpace, which was replaced by Facebook due to the latter's ability to weed out creepy people. Sadly, Facebook actually requires people to mutually acknowledge that they are friends in real life before they can be friends on the web site. With Twitter, you can search for your favorite celebrity, non-celebrity, friend, victim, or other entity, then unilaterally sign up to "follow" that person, which allows you to receive 140-letter updates of what the person you are following is doing or thinking at any given time.
Twitter is useful in some circumstances, but one outlet for me to articulate my brain activity is more than adequate.
8:19
In my life, I have heard the words "Ward 1 Sector Study" just as many times as I have heard the words "would you like a lime in that", a correlation that highlights the measures a sane person must take to counteract the effect of political involvement.
8:28
Voting Time.
Shropshire moves to add CA-08-09, a new city manager charter amendment.
They are doing something regarding the new parking fees but it's not on the agenda and I can't hear what they're saying.
O-25-09: Requires the Public Works Department to establish and implement at 10-year water and sewer plan. PASSES 9-0.
O-32-09: Directs the order of voting for a roll call to be a "rotating sequence". FAILS 5-4 (I think...the PA system is too damn inaudible.) (voting no: Moyer, Israel, Cordle, Stankivic, Arnett).
Bills Passed on First Reader:
O-27-09: 2 AM licenses.
O-50-09: Lease of dock space for a sailboat race.
O-52-09: Rules for foreclosure properties.
R-56-09: Fines to accompany the foreclosure ordinance.
R-54-09: To declare September 2009 as "Family Day"! (Not a joke). Rules suspended. "Family Day" adopted on final reader.
There are some appointments and budget revisions that you may want to look at, perhaps particularly Carl Snowden to the HACA board.
September 28th meeting moved to October 5 because of Yom Kippur.
910: adjournment.
(Within 2 weeks of that first date, Mrs. Politics left for Spain--with a one way ticket and no plans to return. This is a true story.)
7:13
There is a work session going on right now, preceding the council meeting. Arthur, the historian whose last name I don't know, came up to me expressing anger. Trudy McFall, he says, always brags about how she goes to everything. "Is she here now?...no". Technically he is correct, but I pretended to ignore him just so he knows that he can't be a ghost writer of this blog.
7:15
Arthur just asked Tony Evans "what if there's inflation". I will now permanently ignore him.
7:15:30
Actually, deflation is a scary thing. I think it's scarier than inflation and I'll tell you why. With the case of inflation, the economy and the authorities can react. Employers can raise salaries to keep up with cost of living, banks can raise the interest rate on loans so that they make a real (meaning inflation-adjusted) profit, and central banks can raise their target interest rate to try and 'ease the expansionary pressure'. If you have deflation, it's harder to do the opposite. It's more painful and difficult to lower wages, even if the cost of living falls more than wages and your standard of living increases. Plus, interest rates don't rarely go below 0%. Banks would have to be SURE of deflation to actually pay you to take a loan. Conclusion: inflation and deflation are both scary. Inflation is the bigger concern now.
7:26
ALERT: SHROPSHIRE PLANS TO RE INTRODUCE CITY MANAGER BILL. So far nobody support him, including Doug Smith apparently.
7:29
An early start! Not a heavy crowd, but several luminaries. All elected officials are here. Alderman Israel sports a fresh haircut and receives a compliment from the Mayor. How nice. I have since learned that when receiving his new buzz cut, he requested "give me the Doug Smith". Funny.
7:32
A new 2 a.m. bill is on first reader, and there are people here who do not like this. The mayor knows this, and tries to deflect some ire by reminding people that there will be a public hearing for this bill, and that hearing is not taking place right now. As a result of her suggestion, nobody did anything different.
7:36
There are several council meeting hallmarks to look for when you are watching a meeting. The most famous is Alderman Shropshire addressing the crowd on television, but there's also Stankivic voting "no" on a first reader, committee chairmen cancelling their meetings, Alderman Paone growing another 6 inches, and the city attorney declining to comment on something. Tonight, I'm looking for something special--more than 2 Alderman asking to be added as co-sponsors to any bill submitted by Alderman Israel, an event that reflects the belief that Israel actually researched the legislation he submitted.
7:39
The public is now allowed to speak. First is candidate Cohen, opposing the 2 AM bill (on first reader). He pledges that, if Mayor, and if this bill passes, he will try to repeal the law when he becomes mayor.
THIS will tell you about 95% of what you need to know about the 2 AM "Bar Wars" back story.
7:42
A common theme is that even for things that might make sense, we should wait for the next council to consider it. I guess this makes sense for big issues, but city government shouldn't shut down just because there's a campaign going on.
(Note: There is a campaign going on. The primary is tomorrow.)
7:43
Arthur is telling the council the same thing he told me earlier. They seem equally appreciative of the information.
7:51
Minor Carter: Midnight bars knew what they were getting into when they opened.
7:54
Alderwoman Finlayson just made a surprisingly lucid argument, asking Minor "we make changes all the time to laws that were previously in place...are you telling me we shouldn't consider ever changing anything". I use the word "lucid" in the hopes that it means logical--I apologize for not knowing the meaning of the word, it's just that there's not that many chances to use the word 'logical' or any of its synonyms while at a city council meeting.
7:56
Tony Evans: The Market House is an example of why outgoing councils shouldn't decide on things. Tony calls Ward 1 a "tax colony" for the rest of the city, perpetuating the Ward 1 superiority syndrome that has plagued Annapolis for longer than this blog can document.
7:59
Ugh, more people are testifying against the 2 am bill, and my fingers are getting tired of typing. So, until something different happens, I am not going to type. Here is how it works. There is a certain population of Ward 1 who really does not want more 2 am licenses. They claim that the extra 2 hours of being opened cause exponential damage to their flower pots, and overall quality of life. Broadly, they are not all that interested in suggestions to enforce the laws (i.e. nuisance, vandalism) that already exist, or to recognize that parking reform could be a solution--since most people who urinate in flower pots do so on the way back to their illegally parked cars. They also tend to define fairness not necessarily as a level playing field for businesses, but as full disclosure of the unfairness at the time of inception of the business.
I tend to think of this as a squeaky wheel problem...the people who vigorously oppose this are also the people who come to meetings and are politically active. If you surveyed every citizen of Annapolis--not to mention the tourists on whom the city depends to create revenue--and more than 25% of those people opposed the 2 AM idea, I would do the unthinkable and let a Ward 1'er actually write a paragraph on this blog!
8:06
While various citizens debate with various Aldermen, let me take a moment to address a comment I received on my last post. The commenter suggests that blogging is so "passe", suggesting that I should "twitter" the proceedings of the meeting. I want to nip this idea in the but. For those of you that don't know, Twitter is a torture mechanism created by the Internet itself aimed at making obsolete the social networking site you just learned about, and making you feel inferior for not understanding what is a tool of only modest effectiveness.
The Internet has become self-aware, much like the robot in I Robot and the computer in War Games. First it created MySpace, which was replaced by Facebook due to the latter's ability to weed out creepy people. Sadly, Facebook actually requires people to mutually acknowledge that they are friends in real life before they can be friends on the web site. With Twitter, you can search for your favorite celebrity, non-celebrity, friend, victim, or other entity, then unilaterally sign up to "follow" that person, which allows you to receive 140-letter updates of what the person you are following is doing or thinking at any given time.
Twitter is useful in some circumstances, but one outlet for me to articulate my brain activity is more than adequate.
8:19
In my life, I have heard the words "Ward 1 Sector Study" just as many times as I have heard the words "would you like a lime in that", a correlation that highlights the measures a sane person must take to counteract the effect of political involvement.
8:28
Voting Time.
Shropshire moves to add CA-08-09, a new city manager charter amendment.
They are doing something regarding the new parking fees but it's not on the agenda and I can't hear what they're saying.
O-25-09: Requires the Public Works Department to establish and implement at 10-year water and sewer plan. PASSES 9-0.
O-32-09: Directs the order of voting for a roll call to be a "rotating sequence". FAILS 5-4 (I think...the PA system is too damn inaudible.) (voting no: Moyer, Israel, Cordle, Stankivic, Arnett).
Bills Passed on First Reader:
O-27-09: 2 AM licenses.
O-50-09: Lease of dock space for a sailboat race.
O-52-09: Rules for foreclosure properties.
R-56-09: Fines to accompany the foreclosure ordinance.
R-54-09: To declare September 2009 as "Family Day"! (Not a joke). Rules suspended. "Family Day" adopted on final reader.
There are some appointments and budget revisions that you may want to look at, perhaps particularly Carl Snowden to the HACA board.
September 28th meeting moved to October 5 because of Yom Kippur.
910: adjournment.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Fun With Wine
I am happy to bring you not one, but two wine-related stories as we head into this weekend. The first comes from the notorious 1st Ward, and Alderman Israel, who is proposing to change the permitted operating hours for wine bars in the MX zone, specifically to allow them to stay open until midnight 7 days a week.
The first thing that strikes me is that I only know of 1 wine bar in the MX district: The Purple Tooth. Catchy name, good cheese, old fire station, fine by me. I just don't like the specificity of the bill--instead of writing a bill for one constituent, how about relaxing the Ward 1 Superiority Doctrine and allowing the rest of the city to operate under the same rule. I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare this bill to Alderman Israel's stance on the 2 a.m. issue, but it's interesting to see how Alderman Israel is willing to extend the business hours for 1 wine bar in his district, yet favors reducing the business hours for the regular bars that comprise the majority of hospitality business in his ward.
The second wine story comes from a letter writer to The Capital. For the ever-increasing new readers of this blog, I enjoy having debates with these letter writers for 2 reasons:
1. These letters writers are either more fanatical, or less fanatical, than me.
2. They cannot debate back.
I have not done one of these in a while. A couple of months ago I cancelled my subscription to The Capital, the result of a joint collaboration of this blog's "save-the-blog-publisher-money" and "stick-it-to-the-man" initiatives. However, I have located a gem on the internet version.
The original text of the letter writer appears in bold, with my uncontested commentary in regular font.
Open letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley:
Since you could not be bothered to attend the Maryland State Wine Festival and present "The Governor's Cup" in person for the second year in a row, I can't be bothered to support you on slots, or for any re-election attempt you may make.
Sadly, I have never won the Governor's Cup. However, I have won the Mayor's Cup, a fictional award that my fictional social club has awarded itself for the past 20 years, in recognition of having the best float in the city's 4th of July parade.
By the way, what an insignificant reason to drop your support for someone!
Dear John McCain: In these troubling economic times with major world issues, I cannot support you on anything because when you had hair, you parted your hair to the right and I part mine to the lef. Dear Gov. O'Malley: I cannot support you, for many other reasons.
Wine production in Maryland is a growing and thriving business. As such it brings in an increasing amount of revenue to this state, which you say is much needed to make up for the shortfall that your tax increases did not bring in.
What O'Malley says about the budget shortfall cannot be believed. He spent us into a deficit by withdrawing $1 billion from the rainy day fund and increasing spending, then "solved" that problem with a special session that raised taxes AND ADDED $600 million or so in new spending, but now there is a deficit again, so O'Malley calls for cuts, but also doesn't call for cuts. Got it?
Many liberals do not understand that raising taxes can actually have a negative effect on total taxes collected, a relationship suggested by the Laffer curve. Not always, not immediately, but eventually. Raising taxes depresses total business output, and encourages businesses to move to lesser taxing jurisdictions (think India, offshore bank accounts, etc.), meaning that the government loses income and payroll taxes. The evidence is too vast for me to enumerate here (mainly because I have a doctor's appointment in an hour), but if commenters press me on the issue, I may be forced to comply.
However, I have noticed that you and your band can play every pub and bar in Baltimore.
Do they take requests?
So I can assume that you're not personally opposed to the sale or consumption of alcohol by adults, just opposed to supporting the entire state instead of just one city.
Have you ever considered a career in politics?
RHONDA RYAN
Gambrills
Dear Rhonda,
I live a maverick's life outside of Annapolis, which is near Gambrills. Please send the wine you set aside for Gov. O'Malley to "The Fourth Most Popular Political and Economic Blog In the General Vicinity of The Annapolis Mall, Annapolis, MD, 21401", so I can surprise Mrs. Politics with a fancy dinner.
The first thing that strikes me is that I only know of 1 wine bar in the MX district: The Purple Tooth. Catchy name, good cheese, old fire station, fine by me. I just don't like the specificity of the bill--instead of writing a bill for one constituent, how about relaxing the Ward 1 Superiority Doctrine and allowing the rest of the city to operate under the same rule. I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare this bill to Alderman Israel's stance on the 2 a.m. issue, but it's interesting to see how Alderman Israel is willing to extend the business hours for 1 wine bar in his district, yet favors reducing the business hours for the regular bars that comprise the majority of hospitality business in his ward.
The second wine story comes from a letter writer to The Capital. For the ever-increasing new readers of this blog, I enjoy having debates with these letter writers for 2 reasons:
1. These letters writers are either more fanatical, or less fanatical, than me.
2. They cannot debate back.
I have not done one of these in a while. A couple of months ago I cancelled my subscription to The Capital, the result of a joint collaboration of this blog's "save-the-blog-publisher-money" and "stick-it-to-the-man" initiatives. However, I have located a gem on the internet version.
The original text of the letter writer appears in bold, with my uncontested commentary in regular font.
Open letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley:
Since you could not be bothered to attend the Maryland State Wine Festival and present "The Governor's Cup" in person for the second year in a row, I can't be bothered to support you on slots, or for any re-election attempt you may make.
Sadly, I have never won the Governor's Cup. However, I have won the Mayor's Cup, a fictional award that my fictional social club has awarded itself for the past 20 years, in recognition of having the best float in the city's 4th of July parade.
By the way, what an insignificant reason to drop your support for someone!
Dear John McCain: In these troubling economic times with major world issues, I cannot support you on anything because when you had hair, you parted your hair to the right and I part mine to the lef. Dear Gov. O'Malley: I cannot support you, for many other reasons.
Wine production in Maryland is a growing and thriving business. As such it brings in an increasing amount of revenue to this state, which you say is much needed to make up for the shortfall that your tax increases did not bring in.
What O'Malley says about the budget shortfall cannot be believed. He spent us into a deficit by withdrawing $1 billion from the rainy day fund and increasing spending, then "solved" that problem with a special session that raised taxes AND ADDED $600 million or so in new spending, but now there is a deficit again, so O'Malley calls for cuts, but also doesn't call for cuts. Got it?
Many liberals do not understand that raising taxes can actually have a negative effect on total taxes collected, a relationship suggested by the Laffer curve. Not always, not immediately, but eventually. Raising taxes depresses total business output, and encourages businesses to move to lesser taxing jurisdictions (think India, offshore bank accounts, etc.), meaning that the government loses income and payroll taxes. The evidence is too vast for me to enumerate here (mainly because I have a doctor's appointment in an hour), but if commenters press me on the issue, I may be forced to comply.
However, I have noticed that you and your band can play every pub and bar in Baltimore.
Do they take requests?
So I can assume that you're not personally opposed to the sale or consumption of alcohol by adults, just opposed to supporting the entire state instead of just one city.
Have you ever considered a career in politics?
RHONDA RYAN
Gambrills
Dear Rhonda,
I live a maverick's life outside of Annapolis, which is near Gambrills. Please send the wine you set aside for Gov. O'Malley to "The Fourth Most Popular Political and Economic Blog In the General Vicinity of The Annapolis Mall, Annapolis, MD, 21401", so I can surprise Mrs. Politics with a fancy dinner.
Monday, November 19, 2007
11/19 City Council Meeting: Real-Time
In an landmark moment in journalistic history, this post is being brought to you real-time, from the rear of the city council chamber while the meeting is going on!
(If you are watching on TV, channel 99, you will see me in the back at the conference table. I have 2 browser windows open: one for this post, and one for the gamecast of the Maryland-UCLA game.)
Early speculation is that the 2 a.m. bill will be pulled. Reporters from The Post, The Sun, and The Capital are here. There are like a billion people here: the public, the special interests, and TV station(s)!
7:45: A local historian says some things.
7:51: Sam Shropshire's environmental scientist is making a last-minute plea to the council in support of plastic bags.
(UCLA 25, UMD 16)
7:55
Even though this is not a public hearing meeting, the public is being heard. The good thing about legislative meetings is that usually fewer people speak. The bad thing is that if people want to speak at the beginning of a legislative meeting, they can say whatever they want. Some actual examples from today:
"Please consider a levy on take-home food containers".
(UCLA 28, UMD 18)
7:58
The 'cool' crowd is seated here in the back. While various environmentalists are making various claims, we are snidely quipping under our breaths that this is not a public hearing.
7:59
If everyone goes over their allotted time to speak, we will be here until the next round of bar wars in, 2017.
Also, my right foot is falling asleep....oop, there goes the left one too.
(UCLA 28, UMD 18, halftime. HALFTIME! Geez, I can score more points than that shooting half-court shots as a novelty act during intermission.)
8:02
Tony Evans! I love him. He says he would like to be 18 years old so he could debate the plastic bag bill in high school. To quote: "This bill is an economic, bureaucratic, and logistical nightmare...let's make the best of it! Vote for the ban."
8:06
Sam Shropshire is arguing with a speaker who was against the bill. This is not the time! This is terrible! All of my limbs are asleep! My brain is soon to follow!
8:07
Alderman Sam just finished--oop, and started again--a quasi-tirade that is sure to be caught by the TV camera. The mayor seems to be getting annoyed. I am annoyed. My feet hurt. Maryland is losing. Sentence sizes are decreasing.
8:11
The 2 a.m. bill appears to be set for a vote. No early moves by the sponsor to remove it from the agenda.
8:14
Oooh, O'Brien's is here. Two people are dressed in fancy suits. They are THE PROBLEM BAR that everyone talks about when talking about the evil bars downtown.
They need 8 security personnel on Friday and Saturday nights--umm, maybe you should let in different people.
Now, they are not here to speak on any given bill, as far as I can see. So why are they here? Maybe they are afraid that there will be a movement to ALL midnight licenses. Don't count on that. More likely: a new 2 a.m. bill will be introduced that actually punishes a bar that causes problems. (GASP!!) They want to start beating the drum that they try hard; that they are good; and that they should keep their valuable 2 a.m. license.
Also possible: they are feeling the heat for not meeting food/booze sales ratios.
8:18
Alderman Israel suggests levying fees on bars to pay for additional police.
Also, public testimony is still going on. This is a legislative meeting, yet there has not been a single vote cast (except to approve the minutes).
(UCLA 36, UMD 23)
8:21
Sam Shropshire is arguing again--I have never seen such a violent meeting! The mayor just had to bang her gavel! This is total acting! Get the TV cameras out of here so we can get some work done!
A speaker pointed out that the Downtown Business Association submitted a letter against the ban, and Alderman Sam said "they didn't say they were against it, they said they didn't support it."
No bullshit.
The speaker just called out Alderman Sam for speaking into the camera. Good stuff.
8:25
Hopefully there is at least 1 bar that will be open until 2 a.m. today, because I will need a drink and this meeting will go on until then!
8:26
The cameras are leaving!
8:26:30
A speaker just compared what we do to what other countries do: "In other countries, people bring their own bags and baskets; the retailers don't provide it." I hate that. We have plastic bags because the private market has arrived at that outcome. There are avagadro's number of factors that contribute to this. Enough with the comparison.
(#1 UCLA 43, UMD 29)
8:31
Public testimony threatens to end.
8:31:45
The supply of speakers is exhausted. Time to vote.
8:33
I just re-applied my chapstick.
8:33:07
Damn it! The cameras just came back.
8:34
The voting is starting. I have to spend my time writing with a pen (a traditional, pre-blog-era communication device) to make notes. I will real-time post the 2 am and plastic bag results, and summarize the rest tomorrow.
(UCLA 46, UMD 35)
Ok I lied, they are dragging their feet and I can keep up real-time for now.
R-63-07 is moved to the front of the agenda, and passes.
Twin bills to establish a department of economic development, CA 01-07 and O-11-07 are being debated. Vote to postpone for more time to study. Postponed.
O-56-06 passes. Adds Compromise St. to parking District 2.
0-14-07: fire prevention: postponed.
O-22-07: Notifying public of information regarding sign applications. Amendments. Terribly boring and technical.
(UCLA 56, UMD 43)
8:55
Receive real-time email from real-life reader. Encouraged to keep typing.
8:57
We are still talking about signs*. Actually, we are staring into space while the aldermen and city attorney talk about signs. The aldermen don't really know parliamentary procedure, which is frustrating to me** and I'm sure to the city attorney.
(*Quote from the cool back-room crowd: "We're talking about signs here.")
(**I was parliamentarian in 7th grade for the Annapolis Middle School Student Government Association.)
9:00
The signs bill, O-22-07, passes, I think.
2 a.m. time.
9:01
Classie Hoyle JUST NOW moves to withdraw the 2 a.m. bill. She could have done this before. For example: 1.5 hours ago, when I still could have caught the UCLA-UMD game on TV.
Alderman Israel opposes postponement, calls for a vote today.
9:05
Still debating the postponement.
(If you are watching on TV, channel 99, you will see me in the back at the conference table. I have 2 browser windows open: one for this post, and one for the gamecast of the Maryland-UCLA game.)
Early speculation is that the 2 a.m. bill will be pulled. Reporters from The Post, The Sun, and The Capital are here. There are like a billion people here: the public, the special interests, and TV station(s)!
7:45: A local historian says some things.
7:51: Sam Shropshire's environmental scientist is making a last-minute plea to the council in support of plastic bags.
(UCLA 25, UMD 16)
7:55
Even though this is not a public hearing meeting, the public is being heard. The good thing about legislative meetings is that usually fewer people speak. The bad thing is that if people want to speak at the beginning of a legislative meeting, they can say whatever they want. Some actual examples from today:
"Please consider a levy on take-home food containers".
(UCLA 28, UMD 18)
7:58
The 'cool' crowd is seated here in the back. While various environmentalists are making various claims, we are snidely quipping under our breaths that this is not a public hearing.
7:59
If everyone goes over their allotted time to speak, we will be here until the next round of bar wars in, 2017.
Also, my right foot is falling asleep....oop, there goes the left one too.
(UCLA 28, UMD 18, halftime. HALFTIME! Geez, I can score more points than that shooting half-court shots as a novelty act during intermission.)
8:02
Tony Evans! I love him. He says he would like to be 18 years old so he could debate the plastic bag bill in high school. To quote: "This bill is an economic, bureaucratic, and logistical nightmare...let's make the best of it! Vote for the ban."
8:06
Sam Shropshire is arguing with a speaker who was against the bill. This is not the time! This is terrible! All of my limbs are asleep! My brain is soon to follow!
8:07
Alderman Sam just finished--oop, and started again--a quasi-tirade that is sure to be caught by the TV camera. The mayor seems to be getting annoyed. I am annoyed. My feet hurt. Maryland is losing. Sentence sizes are decreasing.
8:11
The 2 a.m. bill appears to be set for a vote. No early moves by the sponsor to remove it from the agenda.
8:14
Oooh, O'Brien's is here. Two people are dressed in fancy suits. They are THE PROBLEM BAR that everyone talks about when talking about the evil bars downtown.
They need 8 security personnel on Friday and Saturday nights--umm, maybe you should let in different people.
Now, they are not here to speak on any given bill, as far as I can see. So why are they here? Maybe they are afraid that there will be a movement to ALL midnight licenses. Don't count on that. More likely: a new 2 a.m. bill will be introduced that actually punishes a bar that causes problems. (GASP!!) They want to start beating the drum that they try hard; that they are good; and that they should keep their valuable 2 a.m. license.
Also possible: they are feeling the heat for not meeting food/booze sales ratios.
8:18
Alderman Israel suggests levying fees on bars to pay for additional police.
Also, public testimony is still going on. This is a legislative meeting, yet there has not been a single vote cast (except to approve the minutes).
(UCLA 36, UMD 23)
8:21
Sam Shropshire is arguing again--I have never seen such a violent meeting! The mayor just had to bang her gavel! This is total acting! Get the TV cameras out of here so we can get some work done!
A speaker pointed out that the Downtown Business Association submitted a letter against the ban, and Alderman Sam said "they didn't say they were against it, they said they didn't support it."
No bullshit.
The speaker just called out Alderman Sam for speaking into the camera. Good stuff.
8:25
Hopefully there is at least 1 bar that will be open until 2 a.m. today, because I will need a drink and this meeting will go on until then!
8:26
The cameras are leaving!
8:26:30
A speaker just compared what we do to what other countries do: "In other countries, people bring their own bags and baskets; the retailers don't provide it." I hate that. We have plastic bags because the private market has arrived at that outcome. There are avagadro's number of factors that contribute to this. Enough with the comparison.
(#1 UCLA 43, UMD 29)
8:31
Public testimony threatens to end.
8:31:45
The supply of speakers is exhausted. Time to vote.
8:33
I just re-applied my chapstick.
8:33:07
Damn it! The cameras just came back.
8:34
The voting is starting. I have to spend my time writing with a pen (a traditional, pre-blog-era communication device) to make notes. I will real-time post the 2 am and plastic bag results, and summarize the rest tomorrow.
(UCLA 46, UMD 35)
Ok I lied, they are dragging their feet and I can keep up real-time for now.
R-63-07 is moved to the front of the agenda, and passes.
Twin bills to establish a department of economic development, CA 01-07 and O-11-07 are being debated. Vote to postpone for more time to study. Postponed.
O-56-06 passes. Adds Compromise St. to parking District 2.
0-14-07: fire prevention: postponed.
O-22-07: Notifying public of information regarding sign applications. Amendments. Terribly boring and technical.
(UCLA 56, UMD 43)
8:55
Receive real-time email from real-life reader. Encouraged to keep typing.
8:57
We are still talking about signs*. Actually, we are staring into space while the aldermen and city attorney talk about signs. The aldermen don't really know parliamentary procedure, which is frustrating to me** and I'm sure to the city attorney.
(*Quote from the cool back-room crowd: "We're talking about signs here.")
(**I was parliamentarian in 7th grade for the Annapolis Middle School Student Government Association.)
9:00
The signs bill, O-22-07, passes, I think.
2 a.m. time.
9:01
Classie Hoyle JUST NOW moves to withdraw the 2 a.m. bill. She could have done this before. For example: 1.5 hours ago, when I still could have caught the UCLA-UMD game on TV.
Alderman Israel opposes postponement, calls for a vote today.
9:05
Still debating the postponement.
9:09
Postponement fails! Vote on the bill coming now.
O-23-07 fails. No votes for the bill, not even the sponsor. Bill fails on second reader. Current 2 a.m. rules remain.
O-26-07, relating to food/booze sales ratios, postponed.
9:13
Plastic bags. Ban moved by Shropshire, seconded by Stankivic. Arnett moves to supercede with O-27-07 (revised), or O-55-07--we don't really know!! A lot of shadiness and politics, I can't even follow it! Neither can the guy who is responsible for writing the legislation.
Shropshire is giving a soliloquy. Various environmentalists are holding up signs, which I cannot view because I am with the cool crowd in the back of the room. My left eye is drooping a bit because I am sleepy. I haven't seen this much propaganda since my second grade teacher tried to make me believe that I wouldn't be able to function in society without learning how to write in cursive.
What we know is that there is new legislation to kill the original bill. As of the start of the meeting, only the city attorney had copies of the new bill.
Stankivic makes substantive change motion, which postpones the bill and requires a new public hearing. DAMN ALL OF THEM!! WHY DID WE GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS??
This is freeking horsecrap. Vote yes or no so we can be done with this issue. They should have introduced a separate bill so that we could vote on that bill and not a substantive change of the original bill.
Wait, maybe they did. I have no idea what's going on...and as you loyal readers know, I usually know everything! I will do my best to figure out what's going on. This may take a while.
Shropshire warns that people in Arizona and Colorado are waiting for the decision of the council on this bill, handily forgetting that he was not elected to serve Arizonians or Coloradians.
(UCLA 71, UMD 59, final)
The best I can see, O-27-07 revised and O-55-07 are the same thing! So, if they vote on the "revised" bill, they can postpone based on substantive change to a bill. If they vote on O-55, they can end this thing today!
Moyer and Shropshire are arguing. Arnett and Shropshire are arguing...on the floor!! Shropshire is demanding the floor! Mayor ignores!
It is 9:33.
Shropshire requests a vote on O-27-07 (original) and a separate vote on O-55-07. He is absolutely right on this.
O-27-07 REVISED is accepted! Stankivic moves a substantive change has been made. Plastic bag ISSUE is postponed!!
Unbelievable cowardice. I can't believe they sidestepped the vote like this. I will be sending the city a bill for my time.
That's enough for this post. I'll finish the rest later.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Cause For Pessimism
Today's Capital includes a guest column by the Honorable Ward 3 Alderwoman, Classie Hoyle, arguing her case (which happens to be the correct case) for passage of the 2 a.m. license bill. As a supporter of this bill---umm, let's just say she could have done better.
Let's examine:
Anyway, back to the point. We are talking about 2 a.m. licenses here:
(*For more political advice like this, I can be retained as a political strategist for $500 per hour, or the cost of making 1000 copies at city hall, whichever is greater.)
This next part is terrible:
(This blog has officially adopted 1992 as the reference date for the Ward 1 Sector Study, but who really cares?)
Sly Fox and Castlebay, the two bars you just mentioned like 17 seconds ago, are not in the MX district! They are in the Conservation Business (CA) and/or the Special Conservation Business (CA-2) districts! Unbelievable! This is, like, a major point of the whole bill--and you didn't get it right. What chance does the bill have of passing if its sponsor isn't familiar with the details?
Alderwoman Hoyle makes some relevant points about why the bill should be passed, but it won't matter. Too many people are too against it, and if this column is any indication, there's not enough persuasive power to change their minds.
Let's examine:
During my six years on the City Council I, more than any other alderman, haveShe is, of course, referring to R-16-07--which requests the the United States Navy (read: not the city of Annapolis) confer graduation upon a (black) midshipman who violated rules. At least that's what I think she's referring to--maybe she can point to some bills that an Alderman actually has business worrying about.
promulgated legislation addressing equality issues.
Anyway, back to the point. We are talking about 2 a.m. licenses here:
The city needs one standard of fairness for establishments with liquor licenses.Strike one. Even if you need someone to tell you about the laws you are paid to enact, you don't admit it! Next time: "I know from experience that the current laws are unfair." It makes it look like you are acting on personal principle*.
Many residents and business owners have told me our current law is
discriminatory and unconstitutional.
I was asked by Castlebay Irish Pub on Main Street and Sly Fox Pub on ChurchStrike two. In theory you would know this better than me, but I am quite convinced that Sly Fox was asked to participate-- only Castlebay came to you. Also, neither of these businesses are in your ward. I'm with you, and I support the cause, but why open yourself up to criticism?*
Circle to introduce legislation that would permit them to have 2 a.m. licenses.
(*For more political advice like this, I can be retained as a political strategist for $500 per hour, or the cost of making 1000 copies at city hall, whichever is greater.)
This next part is terrible:
So it is with Ordinance 0-23-07, the legislation to lift the moratorium onStrike 3. Alderwoman Hoyle: get with the program. The MX district is West St. They can still get 2 a.m. licenses. You'll notice that Kyma, Fado, and Metropolitan are all in the MX district, are all more recent than 1993**, and all received 2 a.m. licenses.
2 a.m. liquor licenses in the MX zone.
In 1993, Ward 1 residents established a sector study to stop the granting
of any additional 2 a.m. liquor licenses in the downtown MX zone. So for 14
years, some establishments in the MX zone have been granted permission to work
these profitable hours while others were denied it. Is this economic parity for
the business community?
(This blog has officially adopted 1992 as the reference date for the Ward 1 Sector Study, but who really cares?)
Sly Fox and Castlebay, the two bars you just mentioned like 17 seconds ago, are not in the MX district! They are in the Conservation Business (CA) and/or the Special Conservation Business (CA-2) districts! Unbelievable! This is, like, a major point of the whole bill--and you didn't get it right. What chance does the bill have of passing if its sponsor isn't familiar with the details?
Alderwoman Hoyle makes some relevant points about why the bill should be passed, but it won't matter. Too many people are too against it, and if this column is any indication, there's not enough persuasive power to change their minds.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The 2 A.M. Magnum Opus
Governor Ehrlich, on several different occasions, has preached the need to put up a fight, and not run away. And as we know from the new taxes, elected officials can pass bills that are not the right things to do. With such things in mind, I will now endeavour to present a comprehensive analysis of the arguments, subtleties, and ant intricacies surrounding the issue of closing times for bars.
The Back Story
I suppose the original roots of the issue trace back 300 years, when the attitude towards drinking developed in conjunction with the maritime industries of the city. But more specifically, we can look to the 1992 Ward One Sector Study.
From all accounts, a lot of people worked on this report. Most of those people feared that uncontrolled expansion of night life would be a detriment to their quality of life, and set out to strike a compromise regarding proliferation of bars. In exchange for lifting limits on restaurant seating, it was agreed that no new 2 a.m licenses would be granted in the Historic District, thereby enacting what is now referred to as a moratorium on 2 a.m. licenses in that area.
The problem with the moratorium is that it created an uneven playing field. Existing 2 a.m. licenses enjoy grandfathered protection, and can still stay open late. Downtown bars are further penalized in comparison to surrounding areas—as close as inner West St.—where new liquor licenses can apply for a 2 a.m. closing time because they are in another zoning district. The result is that bars located within 500 feet of each other may have different mandated closing times:
Sly Fox (midnight) and Ram’s Head (2 a.m.)
Castle Bay (midnight) and Acme (2 a.m.)
Mangia (midnight) and O’Briens (2 a.m.)
The owners of the midnight licenses were aware of the moratorium, and decided to go into business anyway. Yet, they couldn’t help but notice the inequity of having to kick out loyal customers at midnight, only to see them continue their enjoyment at another bar only several hundred feet away.
Probably the most aggrieved owner, and the angriest, is Vincent Quinlan of Castle Bay on Main Street. Not only was he not allowed a 2 a.m. license, he was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install brewing tanks in his small space, as brewing beer in-house was a requirement of his license.
Mr. Quinlan’s protests to his Alderman were useless; Alderman Israel party-poopingly favors rolling all licenses back to midnight. But his song tempted the sympathies of Ward 3 Alderwoman Classie Hoyle. In May, Alderwoman Hoyle introduced O-23-07, which would allow all classes of liquor licenses in all districts to operate until 2 a.m.
The bill has been heavily debated, and comes up for a final vote on Monday.
The Kurmudgeons
Unfortunately for the bar owners, the bill is opposed by the loudest, most active, best organized, and most well-funded political activists in the city: the Ward 1 residents*.
The first objection to the bill is a procedural objection, which goes something like this:
The residents have to realize that most businesses are net benefits to the community. Sly Fox brought life back to a historic site that long sat idle as a dark corner of unrealized potential. High end restaurants and bars have transformed inner West Street into a vibrant, walkable district. If it weren’t for the bars and restaurants, the city couldn’t support the necessary services for the people who make the houses in Ward 1 so valuable.
Solve The Actual Problem
The time that a bar closes is not a problem—it is a circumstance. The problems are the underage drinking, drunk driving, flower pot destruction, vandalism, loudness, and idiocy that are ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. And when things that are already against the law continue to happen, we have an enforcement problem.
Ask yourself this question: If bars were soundproof, required DNA scans to verify identity and age, and all patrons quietly took cabs home, would you care if all of this happened at midnight compared to 2 a.m.? Answer: no, you wouldn’t care.
The problems that happen to Ward 1 residents are not unique. They were going on in Canton, a subsection in Baltimore:
It also happened in Newport, with a similar result:
Everyone except for Ward 1, and presumably the city council, understands that the way to deal with late night hooliganism is to disincentivize such behavior by levying heavy fines and getting the police you need to enforce the rules. The responsible bars have even offered to help with this process—they live here too, and they hate bad customers and bad bars just as much as you do.
Businesses Deserve A Level Playing Field
I attended the Planning Commission hearing when this issue was discussed. Many people made the argument that the current zoning arrangement is unfair, and needs to be fixed.
After patiently hearing all of the testimony, at least one of the commissioners came to the conclusion that zoning was inherently unfair, and a right to fairness was not a qualification for a change in zoning.
When hearing this, I just sighed. It is true that on occasion, the RESULT of a zoning decision is unfair. But the zoning process should not aim to be unfair. It should not be arbitrarily unfair.
If you want to be unfair, you have to prove that the unfairness is in the best interest of the city. To suggest that such is the case with the bars is laughable. Whether a bar closes at 2 a.m or midnight has nothing to do with how much the bar contributes or detracts from the community. This is what everyone forgets! The majority of businesses, bars included, are net benefits to communities. They increase property values, provide employment, and provide services to the residents. Where would Ward 1 be without businesses to make investments in the community, the same as the residents do?
Imagine the frustration of the midnight bars. They follow the rules, yet have to literally take the drinks out of their customers’s hands and throw them away, only to see their customers spend money 300 feet away for the next 2 hours. How is this fair? Better yet, what is the justification for keeping things so UNfair?
Even if you don’t agree with the 2 a.m. closing time (which makes no sense because the time is not the issue), you certainly must acknowledge that all bars should be evaluated the same. If you want to keep the same number of 2 a.m licenses, let all bars make a case for themselves. No more protection for the bars that were grandfathered in—make all of the bars go before the Liquor Board and prove how they are following the rules, and how the help the community. Protecting problem-causing 2 a.m. bars at the expense of the responsible bars needs to stop.
There Are 8 Wards In The City—The Rest Of Us Want This To Happen
The Back Story
I suppose the original roots of the issue trace back 300 years, when the attitude towards drinking developed in conjunction with the maritime industries of the city. But more specifically, we can look to the 1992 Ward One Sector Study.
From all accounts, a lot of people worked on this report. Most of those people feared that uncontrolled expansion of night life would be a detriment to their quality of life, and set out to strike a compromise regarding proliferation of bars. In exchange for lifting limits on restaurant seating, it was agreed that no new 2 a.m licenses would be granted in the Historic District, thereby enacting what is now referred to as a moratorium on 2 a.m. licenses in that area.
The problem with the moratorium is that it created an uneven playing field. Existing 2 a.m. licenses enjoy grandfathered protection, and can still stay open late. Downtown bars are further penalized in comparison to surrounding areas—as close as inner West St.—where new liquor licenses can apply for a 2 a.m. closing time because they are in another zoning district. The result is that bars located within 500 feet of each other may have different mandated closing times:
Sly Fox (midnight) and Ram’s Head (2 a.m.)
Castle Bay (midnight) and Acme (2 a.m.)
Mangia (midnight) and O’Briens (2 a.m.)
The owners of the midnight licenses were aware of the moratorium, and decided to go into business anyway. Yet, they couldn’t help but notice the inequity of having to kick out loyal customers at midnight, only to see them continue their enjoyment at another bar only several hundred feet away.
Probably the most aggrieved owner, and the angriest, is Vincent Quinlan of Castle Bay on Main Street. Not only was he not allowed a 2 a.m. license, he was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install brewing tanks in his small space, as brewing beer in-house was a requirement of his license.
Mr. Quinlan’s protests to his Alderman were useless; Alderman Israel party-poopingly favors rolling all licenses back to midnight. But his song tempted the sympathies of Ward 3 Alderwoman Classie Hoyle. In May, Alderwoman Hoyle introduced O-23-07, which would allow all classes of liquor licenses in all districts to operate until 2 a.m.
The bill has been heavily debated, and comes up for a final vote on Monday.
The Kurmudgeons
Unfortunately for the bar owners, the bill is opposed by the loudest, most active, best organized, and most well-funded political activists in the city: the Ward 1 residents*.
(*If the Ward 1 and Murray Hill Residents Associations opposed global warming, Mother Nature would fix up the ozone layer above Acton's Landing. If they opposed aging, Father Time would be forced to commission a fountain of youth.)
To boot, some assorted non-alcohol-vending business owners don’t much like the idea either. There are 3 main objections to allowing all bars to stay open until 2 a.m.
The first objection to the bill is a procedural objection, which goes something like this:
The zoning process exists for a reason. We took a lot of time to compose
the 1992 Ward One Sector Study, and made every effort to be fair. A
compromise was made that no new 2 a.m licenses would be given. Perhaps
it’s time for another sector study, but until then, we should be guided by the
old one.
The second objection is my personal favorite, the claim that businesses knew what they were getting in to:
Those bar owners knew what they were getting in to when they chose to open their
bars. We told them not to even think about a 2 a.m. license, and the fact
that they are doing so now validates our fears.
The most violent objection is the quality of life one:
I live downtown and I can’t get a good night’s sleep anymore! Hooligans
are outside of my house at 3 a.m. urinating on my flowers, yelling into their
cellular phones; and one time, I saw a drunk driver plow his car into another
car, then into my garden!
The Fun Lovers
The first argument is the level playing field argument, espoused by both bar owners and disinterested citizens who simply care about fairness:
The first argument is the level playing field argument, espoused by both bar owners and disinterested citizens who simply care about fairness:
Hey, this is poppycock. We should be on the same playing field as every
other bar. Not allowing us to apply for 2 a.m. licenses is unfairly
discriminatory. We’re not asking for carte blanche, we just want to have
every bar apply for a 2 a.m. license, then each be punished or rewarded on its
own merit.
The second argument, and the one that I have presented until I was blue in the face, is that bar closing times is not really the issue:
Littering, vandalism, excessive noise and nuisance, public intoxication—these
things are already against the law! All or your points are valid, but they
suggest action regarding police enforcement. We support giving more
resources to police so that they can better address the problem bar customers,
and the problem bars. Don’t punish the responsible bars for the sins of
the offenders—if the current laws were being followed, closing times wouldn’t be
an issue.
Who Is Right?
The fun-lovers, of course.
Time and time again, people argue on emotion. Ward 1 residents observe a problem, and make the erroneous assumption that all bars are bad. Once this happens, there is no turning back, and the battle lines are drawn. I shall try to explain why the 2 a.m. side is the place to be.
EVERYONE Knows What They Are Getting
I will stipulate that the bar owners knew what they were getting in to; any businesses that didn’t know what they were getting in to are probably bankrupt by now. But the residents also knew what they were getting.
The downtown homes are desirable because they are precisely that: downtown. The allure of living in the Historic district is that you are side-by-side with a CITY. The downtown part of a city! And when you live in an urban environment, there will be some give and take. Any resident who didn’t expect night life, foot traffic, or commercialism is crazy. If you value peace and quiet that much, go live in South County, because this is a CITY.
Ward 1 residents and historic preservationists have conspired to make zoning requirements nearly impossible downtown. I’m not saying we shouldn’t preserve our character, but if you’re too hard on businesses, this is what happens:
The fun-lovers, of course.
Time and time again, people argue on emotion. Ward 1 residents observe a problem, and make the erroneous assumption that all bars are bad. Once this happens, there is no turning back, and the battle lines are drawn. I shall try to explain why the 2 a.m. side is the place to be.
EVERYONE Knows What They Are Getting
I will stipulate that the bar owners knew what they were getting in to; any businesses that didn’t know what they were getting in to are probably bankrupt by now. But the residents also knew what they were getting.
The downtown homes are desirable because they are precisely that: downtown. The allure of living in the Historic district is that you are side-by-side with a CITY. The downtown part of a city! And when you live in an urban environment, there will be some give and take. Any resident who didn’t expect night life, foot traffic, or commercialism is crazy. If you value peace and quiet that much, go live in South County, because this is a CITY.
Ward 1 residents and historic preservationists have conspired to make zoning requirements nearly impossible downtown. I’m not saying we shouldn’t preserve our character, but if you’re too hard on businesses, this is what happens:
The residents have to realize that most businesses are net benefits to the community. Sly Fox brought life back to a historic site that long sat idle as a dark corner of unrealized potential. High end restaurants and bars have transformed inner West Street into a vibrant, walkable district. If it weren’t for the bars and restaurants, the city couldn’t support the necessary services for the people who make the houses in Ward 1 so valuable.
Solve The Actual Problem
Should we ban cars because people speed? Should we ban the internet because people use it to steal identities? Should we abolish our entire government because Congressmen are involved in scandals? NO!!! Get it? It's the PEOPLE that are the problem!
The time that a bar closes is not a problem—it is a circumstance. The problems are the underage drinking, drunk driving, flower pot destruction, vandalism, loudness, and idiocy that are ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. And when things that are already against the law continue to happen, we have an enforcement problem.
Ask yourself this question: If bars were soundproof, required DNA scans to verify identity and age, and all patrons quietly took cabs home, would you care if all of this happened at midnight compared to 2 a.m.? Answer: no, you wouldn’t care.
The problems that happen to Ward 1 residents are not unique. They were going on in Canton, a subsection in Baltimore:
Residents' complaints are plenty: beer bottles through car windows, blocked
streets, fights, screaming and drunken driving. In the past five years, Ratiner
said he has received about 6,000 e-mails from Northshore residents distressed by
bar patrons' behavior. A friend recently videotaped a man leave a bar, climb
into a black sport utility vehicle, run into a female pedestrian and keep
driving.
Sound familiar? Let's see how the businesses, citizens, and government of Canton responded:
Residents and bar-goers on Boston Street will see new faces - and more
police uniforms - in Canton this week. Two off-duty police officers will begin
patrolling the nearby Northshore at Canton townhouse community Wednesday, and instead of the usual bouncers or security guards, Good Love Bar, a Boston Street hangout, has already hired two of its own off-duty officers. Huckas, a sports bar and hookah lounge, has also agreed to hire uniformed officers, according to officials.
Amazing! They hired more officers to better enforce laws that already exist. The fight in Canton is actually over who should pay for the officers, and Annapolis can't even figure out that getting more officers is the solution to the problem in the first place!
It also happened in Newport, with a similar result:
Newport, a historic waterfront town, faced a similar situation, said
Richard Sardella, owner of Sardella's Italian Restaurant and Newport mayor from 2000 to 2005.
Up until 1983, bars in Newport were allowed to stay open until 2
a.m.,he said. In response to rowdiness late at night, city officials passed
an ordinance that rolled back bar hours from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m., he said.
He said the new rule resulted in a "mass exodus" of late-night
customers who left Newport for surrounding towns, such as Middletown and
Jamestown, where bars stayed open later.
"They would go half a mile down the road from me to bars that were
open until 2 a.m.," he said.To cut down on liquor violations for late-night
drinkers, Mr. Sardella said he ran for mayor on a platform of "zero tolerance."
He instituted $500 fines for violations such as urinating in public and or
having an open container of alcohol on the street. Mr. Sardella said his efforts
resulted in a dramatic change in the number of violations issued.
Everyone except for Ward 1, and presumably the city council, understands that the way to deal with late night hooliganism is to disincentivize such behavior by levying heavy fines and getting the police you need to enforce the rules. The responsible bars have even offered to help with this process—they live here too, and they hate bad customers and bad bars just as much as you do.
Businesses Deserve A Level Playing Field
I attended the Planning Commission hearing when this issue was discussed. Many people made the argument that the current zoning arrangement is unfair, and needs to be fixed.
After patiently hearing all of the testimony, at least one of the commissioners came to the conclusion that zoning was inherently unfair, and a right to fairness was not a qualification for a change in zoning.
When hearing this, I just sighed. It is true that on occasion, the RESULT of a zoning decision is unfair. But the zoning process should not aim to be unfair. It should not be arbitrarily unfair.
If you want to be unfair, you have to prove that the unfairness is in the best interest of the city. To suggest that such is the case with the bars is laughable. Whether a bar closes at 2 a.m or midnight has nothing to do with how much the bar contributes or detracts from the community. This is what everyone forgets! The majority of businesses, bars included, are net benefits to communities. They increase property values, provide employment, and provide services to the residents. Where would Ward 1 be without businesses to make investments in the community, the same as the residents do?
Imagine the frustration of the midnight bars. They follow the rules, yet have to literally take the drinks out of their customers’s hands and throw them away, only to see their customers spend money 300 feet away for the next 2 hours. How is this fair? Better yet, what is the justification for keeping things so UNfair?
Even if you don’t agree with the 2 a.m. closing time (which makes no sense because the time is not the issue), you certainly must acknowledge that all bars should be evaluated the same. If you want to keep the same number of 2 a.m licenses, let all bars make a case for themselves. No more protection for the bars that were grandfathered in—make all of the bars go before the Liquor Board and prove how they are following the rules, and how the help the community. Protecting problem-causing 2 a.m. bars at the expense of the responsible bars needs to stop.
There Are 8 Wards In The City—The Rest Of Us Want This To Happen
Ward 1 will tell you that their opinion is the only one that matters, since their ward contains the overwhelming majority of liquor licenses. This couldn't be more wrong. Let me address Ward 1 directly:
As taxpayers and city residents, you have the right to protest things if you
want to. But so do the rest of us! We pay taxes just like you; our
taxes pay for the police in your ward, for your roads, etc. Furthermore,
we like going downtown to eat and drink. And if we, the other 7 wards,
outnumber your opposition to the bill, then we win. Like I said before, it
was your choice to live downtown.
The bar issue, like all of politics, is victimized by rent-seeking. Special interests, both for and against, have the biggest incentive to voice their opinions to the city council. Forgotten in the discussion are the people in the middle.
To over-simplify, bar owners are for the bill and Ward 1 residents are against. But what about everyone else? You know, the people that live in the other 7 wards in the city? I bet that every Ward except Ward 1 is in favor of this bill overall. But we don’t hear from these people because they aren’t affected enough to take the time to testify. Shouldn’t the city council take into account the view of the majority of its citizens?
To over-simplify, bar owners are for the bill and Ward 1 residents are against. But what about everyone else? You know, the people that live in the other 7 wards in the city? I bet that every Ward except Ward 1 is in favor of this bill overall. But we don’t hear from these people because they aren’t affected enough to take the time to testify. Shouldn’t the city council take into account the view of the majority of its citizens?
An unscientific poll showed an even split on the issue.....much different from the sweeping opposition that will be displayed at the city council meeting. Some aldermen started out talking a good game. So said Alderman Shropshire:
I requested a City Council study session with the Annapolis Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board. I will be requesting stricter enforcement of laws and
stiffer penalties for serving underage drinkers and for over-serving other
restaurant/bar patrons.
Even the mayor proclaimed Annapolis to be a 2 a.m. drinking town. But the latest word is that most aldermen have backed off, and will vote in the negative. All the council knows is that Ward 1 will be up in arms if this bill passes, and that’s enough for them.
Now Is As Good A Time As Any
In response to the proocedural objection, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Yes, another Ward 1 sector study could include a new study of the issue. So could the Comprehensive Plan. But if 5 members of the city council think this is a good idea--and based on the points I have just made, they should--then an ordinance to do so is appropriate at any time, such as now.
What Will Happen
Unfortunately, as I have alluded to before, my opinion will be the dissenting opinion. The smart money is on the council voting down the bill on Monday.
What Should Happen
Someone, perhaps soon-to-be-elected Fred Paone in Ward 2, needs to draft a new bill.
Here are some suggestions: some for fun, others for real.
1. Hire 23 more police officers and put some of them on late night shifts to catch the people who are grievously offending property and quality of life. Heck, have them enforce parking laws on residential streets as well. And while we're at it, give them a raise, and a fine fruit basket at Christmas time.
2. Fix the police department building, so that when the above hooligans are arrested, there is someplace to put them.
3. Require a yearly review of all liquor licenses, whereby a bar that doesn't run a good/safe operation can be, perhaps, rolled back to a midnight closing, forced to close during Naval Academy graduation week, etc.
4. Use the threat of revoking a liquor license to incentivize bars to clean up their acts. The county did that to the Green Turtle in Edgewater, and they now have to close at midnight for a year!
5. Require all new liquor license holders to operate with a midnight license for a year before being allowed to have a 2 am.
6. Allow ward 1 residents to conscript into servitude the drunken idiots who ruin it for the rest of us.
7. Provide tougher enforcement (or any enforcement, really) of nuisance laws, for example by putting putting 1 newly hired police officer on 23 different blocks in ward 1, with the authority to write $500 citations for violations.
8. And lastly, the drum beats on for collaboration. Residents and businesses should figure out ways to work together. Bars should run operations that don't cause problems, and residents should realize that some things come with the territory when you live within walking distance of a downtown area.
What Will Happen
Unfortunately, as I have alluded to before, my opinion will be the dissenting opinion. The smart money is on the council voting down the bill on Monday.
What Should Happen
Someone, perhaps soon-to-be-elected Fred Paone in Ward 2, needs to draft a new bill.
Here are some suggestions: some for fun, others for real.
1. Hire 23 more police officers and put some of them on late night shifts to catch the people who are grievously offending property and quality of life. Heck, have them enforce parking laws on residential streets as well. And while we're at it, give them a raise, and a fine fruit basket at Christmas time.
2. Fix the police department building, so that when the above hooligans are arrested, there is someplace to put them.
3. Require a yearly review of all liquor licenses, whereby a bar that doesn't run a good/safe operation can be, perhaps, rolled back to a midnight closing, forced to close during Naval Academy graduation week, etc.
4. Use the threat of revoking a liquor license to incentivize bars to clean up their acts. The county did that to the Green Turtle in Edgewater, and they now have to close at midnight for a year!
5. Require all new liquor license holders to operate with a midnight license for a year before being allowed to have a 2 am.
6. Allow ward 1 residents to conscript into servitude the drunken idiots who ruin it for the rest of us.
7. Provide tougher enforcement (or any enforcement, really) of nuisance laws, for example by putting putting 1 newly hired police officer on 23 different blocks in ward 1, with the authority to write $500 citations for violations.
8. And lastly, the drum beats on for collaboration. Residents and businesses should figure out ways to work together. Bars should run operations that don't cause problems, and residents should realize that some things come with the territory when you live within walking distance of a downtown area.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Amazing Clarity And Sense Regarding 2 AM Licenses
I have argued ad nauseam that this city's treatment of the '2 am vs midnight' bar issue is ridiculous, that bars should be able to stay open until 2 am if they behave properly, and that enforcement of existing laws (prohibition on urinating on flower pots, for example) is the issue that we should really be focusing on.
In anticipation of the upcoming vote on the issue, The Capital ran an article in Sunday's business section regarding this topic. The article didn't report anything that was new, at least as far as your's truly is concerned, save one apparent genius:
Brilliant.
I plan to make one more omnibus post--the 2 am magnum opus--that I predict will serve as the dissenting opinion on this issue for weeks, possibly even months to come.
In anticipation of the upcoming vote on the issue, The Capital ran an article in Sunday's business section regarding this topic. The article didn't report anything that was new, at least as far as your's truly is concerned, save one apparent genius:
Newport, a historic waterfront town, faced a similar situation, said
Richard Sardella, owner of Sardella's Italian Restaurant and Newport mayor from 2000 to 2005.
Up until 1983, bars in Newport were allowed to stay open until 2 a.m.,
he said. In response to rowdiness late at night, city officials passed an
ordinance that rolled back bar hours from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m., he said.He said the new rule resulted in a "mass exodus" of late-night customers who left Newport for surrounding towns, such as Middletown and Jamestown, where bars stayed open later.
"They would go half a mile down the road from me to bars that were open until 2 a.m.," he said.
To cut down on liquor violations for late-night drinkers, Mr. Sardella
said he ran for mayor on a platform of "zero tolerance." He instituted $500
fines for violations such as urinating in public and or having an open container
of alcohol on the street. Mr. Sardella said his efforts resulted in a dramatic
change in the number of violations issued.
Brilliant.
I plan to make one more omnibus post--the 2 am magnum opus--that I predict will serve as the dissenting opinion on this issue for weeks, possibly even months to come.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
2 am Suggestions
CP has a poll up asking whether or not you would support all bars being open until 2 am. Here is my guess as to how the results will turn up:
-54% absolutely not
-25% probably not
-18% absolutely yes
-3% probably yes
(I also predict that 16 votes will be disqualified, on account of the participant being too drunk to select only one answer.)
My answer is 'absolutely yes, with qualifications', and I have no idea where that falls on the poll's spectrum.
Anyway, I would submit that there are zero people that have a problem with 2 am licenses themselves. I would be prepared to wager my entire blogging salary on the belief that everybody who opposes 2 am licenses actually opposes things that are already illegal, thereby suggesting a police enforcement problem.
Off the top of my head, I would make the following suggestions to make the 2 am idea more palatable:
1. Hire 23 more police officers and put some of them on late night shifts to catch the people who are grievously offending property and quality of life.
2. Fix the police department building, so that when the above hooligans are arrested, there is someplace to put them.
3. Require a yearly review of all liquor licenses, whereby a bar that doesn't run a good/safe operation can be, perhaps, rolled back to a midnight closing, forced to close during Naval Academy graduation week, etc.
4. Use the threat of revoking a liquor license to incentivize bars to clean up their acts. The county did that to the Green Turtle in Edgewater, and they now have to close at midnight for a year!
5. Require all new liquor license holders to operate with a midnight license for a year before being allowed to have a 2 am.
6. Allow ward 1 residents to conscript into servitude the drunken idiots who ruin it for the rest of us.
7. Provide tougher enforcement (or any enforcement, really) of nuisance laws, for example by putting putting 1 newly hired police officer on 23 different blocks in ward 1, with the authority to write $500 citations for violations.
8. And lastly, the drum beats on for collaboration. Residents and businesses should figure out ways to work together. Bars should run operations that don't cause problems, and residents should realize that some things come with the territory when you live within walking distance of a downtown area.
-54% absolutely not
-25% probably not
-18% absolutely yes
-3% probably yes
(I also predict that 16 votes will be disqualified, on account of the participant being too drunk to select only one answer.)
My answer is 'absolutely yes, with qualifications', and I have no idea where that falls on the poll's spectrum.
Anyway, I would submit that there are zero people that have a problem with 2 am licenses themselves. I would be prepared to wager my entire blogging salary on the belief that everybody who opposes 2 am licenses actually opposes things that are already illegal, thereby suggesting a police enforcement problem.
Off the top of my head, I would make the following suggestions to make the 2 am idea more palatable:
1. Hire 23 more police officers and put some of them on late night shifts to catch the people who are grievously offending property and quality of life.
2. Fix the police department building, so that when the above hooligans are arrested, there is someplace to put them.
3. Require a yearly review of all liquor licenses, whereby a bar that doesn't run a good/safe operation can be, perhaps, rolled back to a midnight closing, forced to close during Naval Academy graduation week, etc.
4. Use the threat of revoking a liquor license to incentivize bars to clean up their acts. The county did that to the Green Turtle in Edgewater, and they now have to close at midnight for a year!
5. Require all new liquor license holders to operate with a midnight license for a year before being allowed to have a 2 am.
6. Allow ward 1 residents to conscript into servitude the drunken idiots who ruin it for the rest of us.
7. Provide tougher enforcement (or any enforcement, really) of nuisance laws, for example by putting putting 1 newly hired police officer on 23 different blocks in ward 1, with the authority to write $500 citations for violations.
8. And lastly, the drum beats on for collaboration. Residents and businesses should figure out ways to work together. Bars should run operations that don't cause problems, and residents should realize that some things come with the territory when you live within walking distance of a downtown area.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
October News From Alderman Sam
Alderman Shropshire's October newsletter made its way to my inbox this morning, and some of my comments regarding its contents will make their way to these pages right now.
Never has it been so difficult for the American family. It's like we're besieged from every direction.
Today our family loyalties are divided as never before.
Perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine and it's not as important as I might make it out to be, but enough with the superlatives. Let's take the American family of 200 years ago...they didn't have electricity. Or cars. Or bathrooms! That situation would have been more difficult--less complex--but more difficult.
Every time someone tries to sell you a bill of goods, they use superlatives, and I hate it:
"It has never been so difficult for the American family."
"Mortgage rates have never been higher."
"There has never been a better time to buy."
I would be much happier with the advertisement: "This is a reasonably good time to buy, provided you can afford it, and if the product is useful for you." Ahh, how nice. Nonetheless, Alderman Sam's letter advocates more family time, which is surely a good thing.
The letter continues to pursue support for Mr. Shropshire's bill to ban plastic bags, and this visual was used as persuasion:
Never has it been so difficult for the American family. It's like we're besieged from every direction.
Today our family loyalties are divided as never before.
Perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine and it's not as important as I might make it out to be, but enough with the superlatives. Let's take the American family of 200 years ago...they didn't have electricity. Or cars. Or bathrooms! That situation would have been more difficult--less complex--but more difficult.
Every time someone tries to sell you a bill of goods, they use superlatives, and I hate it:
"It has never been so difficult for the American family."
"Mortgage rates have never been higher."
"There has never been a better time to buy."
I would be much happier with the advertisement: "This is a reasonably good time to buy, provided you can afford it, and if the product is useful for you." Ahh, how nice. Nonetheless, Alderman Sam's letter advocates more family time, which is surely a good thing.
The letter continues to pursue support for Mr. Shropshire's bill to ban plastic bags, and this visual was used as persuasion:
A bit sensational if you ask me. Alarmingly, Alderman Sam claims broad support for his proposed ban:
The legislation has strong support from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Alice Ferguson Foundation, the Sierra Club of Anne Arundel County, the Alliance for Sustainable Communities, EarthEcho (the Cousteau family), the Audubon Society, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental organizations.
But here is evidence to the contrary. The last I heard, these organizations praise the motive, but advise other ways to focus our efforts that are more effective:
Sierra Club of A.A. County: "This is not a solution; the best solution is reusable bags."
Alice Ferguson Foundation: "Plastic bags are not the most important problem...we should focus on education."
Progressive Bag Alliance: "Paper bags are worse for the environment. Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. We need to increase focus on recycling."
Maryland Retailers Association: "This legislation goes too far and doesn't achieve what he (Alderman Shropshire) wants. Plastic bags don't litter--people litter! Citizen education is more important, and we need to enforce the litter laws that we already have."
Restaurant Association of Maryland: "Behavior is the culprit here."
Sveinn Storm: "In 3 decades of working downtown, I have never seen a citation issued for littering. But there are plenty of paid city employees who clean up the trash."
On a positive note, Alderman Sam favors strengthening nuisance laws:
Also, I requested a City Council study session with the Annapolis Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. I will be requesting stricter enforcement of laws and stiffer penalties for serving underage drinkers and for over-serving other restaurant/bar patrons.
If underage drinkers, late night hooligans, and law-ignoring bars were all dealt with appropriately, maybe the law-abiding bars could have some reasonable privileges.
The political debates will certainly be interesting.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Canton Gets It Right
Thanks to Capital Punishment for this heads up:
The Baltimore Sun ran an article today about the problem with bar-goers in Canton (a neighborhood in Baltimore).
Here's some of what they had to say:
Verbal sparring between the bars and neighborhood has been going on since at least 2001, according to city documents.
Residents' complaints are plenty: beer bottles through car windows, blocked streets, fights, screaming and drunken driving.
Sound familiar? Yes, these are the same things we are debating here, regarding the 2 am licences. And the solution they came up with.........
Residents and bar-goers on Boston Street will see new faces - and more police uniforms - in Canton this week. Two off-duty police officers will begin patrolling the nearby Northshore at Canton townhouse community Wednesday.
I think it is fair to say that the residents of Canton care just as much about quality of life as we do. Yet, they did not try to further legislate bars--THEY WORKED WITH THE BARS TO DEVELOP A SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. THEY WORKED TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.
The residents and businesses in Canton should be applauded, and imitated.
The Baltimore Sun ran an article today about the problem with bar-goers in Canton (a neighborhood in Baltimore).
Here's some of what they had to say:
Verbal sparring between the bars and neighborhood has been going on since at least 2001, according to city documents.
Residents' complaints are plenty: beer bottles through car windows, blocked streets, fights, screaming and drunken driving.
Sound familiar? Yes, these are the same things we are debating here, regarding the 2 am licences. And the solution they came up with.........
Residents and bar-goers on Boston Street will see new faces - and more police uniforms - in Canton this week. Two off-duty police officers will begin patrolling the nearby Northshore at Canton townhouse community Wednesday.
I think it is fair to say that the residents of Canton care just as much about quality of life as we do. Yet, they did not try to further legislate bars--THEY WORKED WITH THE BARS TO DEVELOP A SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. THEY WORKED TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.
The residents and businesses in Canton should be applauded, and imitated.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
2 AM Licenses: Solve the Problem, Not the Not-Problem
AP is slightly worried about a beat-the-dead-horse situation with another post on 2 am licenses, but this recent letter to the editor shows many of my arguments, all in one convenient location. There will be less frequent commentary than usual, so as to better display the flow of the letter, and the mistakes of logic.
Here we go:
Regarding a letter on liquor licenses:
The residents of Acton's Landing will soon witness the problems outlined in the letter. When I lived on South Street:
-My car was vandalized.
-Two of our vehicles were damaged by a hit-and-run driver.
-Seven cars on Charles Street had their windshields damaged late one night.
-Our neighbors had to clean condoms off their yards.
-Beer bottles were left on the sidewalk.
-Rowdy revelers returned to their cars late at night.
-Drunks relieved themselves against the wall of our abode (and on a driver from Reliable Cab Co.)
Everyone agrees that these things are problems. But here is where the reasoning in this letter starts to go array:
To solve these problems:
-Bartenders should not continue to serve drunken patrons.
Or, people could exercise SELF, REPEAT SELF-restraint and not drink themselves silly. Even so, many (if not most) bartenders are required to take alcohol training classes such as TIPS or TAM to help them identify recklessly intoxicated patrons. The main point remains: it is YOUR responsibility to monitor and maintain an acceptable level of sobriety for YOURSELF.
-Alcohol should not be served past midnight on weeknights. (If, however, one establishment gets a 2 a.m. license, they all should!)
I could not disagree and agree with you more! Let's start with the 'agree'. You are correct: if one gets it, all should get it. The planning commission, however, expressly stated that equity is not one of their goals! Go figure. Now for the 'disagree'. You say that a solution to the above problems is to move back bar closing times to midnight, and further distinguish weeknights from weekends. What problem does this solve? Seriously, how does changing hours of operation affect any of these things. I ponder:
-Does it matter what time your car gets vandalized?
-Are hit-and-run accidents time sensitive?
-Is it better to clean condoms off your yard on weekends than on weekdays?
-Do drunk revelers urinate less at midnight than at 2 am?
Answer: HELL NO! The point is: the time doesn't matter. All of these things are already against the law. Changing the closing times of bars is largely arbitrary and irrelevant. If PEOPLE behaved appropriately, perhaps because they knew they would be fined or go to jail if they were caught doing any of the things you mentioned, bars could theoretically be open 24/7.
Should we ban cars because people speed? Should we ban the internet because people use it to steal identities? Should we abolish our entire government because Congressmen are involved in scandals? NO!!! Get it? It's the PEOPLE that are the problem!
Also, the residential parking regulations are backward. Non-residents can park in residential districts for two hours during the day, but all night starting around 8 p.m. There should be parking only for residents, or guests for whom parking passes have been purchased, from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m.
Agreed. Residents work during the day and need their spots at night. But let's be honest--the city does not want to take the effort to coordinate parking enforcement outside of their business hours.
Here's an idea: fully staff the police department, then have the extra officers ENFORCE the public intoxication laws and the parking laws at night! Agreed? Ok. Great.
Also, people, you gotta remember that 3 types of people need to park downtown: residents, workers, and consumers. Downtown has the uniquely charming aspect of having residential areas next to business areas--that's why they call it DOWN-TOWN. You have to share the space with businesses and patrons. If you don't want to, move out of the middle of the town.
Just because Acton's Landing is about five blocks from Main Street, that doesn't mean it isn't affected by drunken patrons. As long as the law's aren't enforced, the revelers will continue to annoy.
CARYL P. WEISS, Annapolis
Exactly perfectly correct!!!!! Let me repeat that last sentence:
As long as the law's aren't enforced, the revelers will continue to annoy.
You have just wiped out your entire letter and supported my point in one single sentence. You said, if the current laws are not enforced, nothing will change. In other words, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TIME BARS CLOSE!!! Enforcement, enforcement! If this doesn't happen, nothing else matters. The fact that many citizens and elected officials do not understand this threatens to cause unnecessary harm and hardship to local business-owners.
So much for lightening up on the commentary.
Here we go:
Regarding a letter on liquor licenses:
The residents of Acton's Landing will soon witness the problems outlined in the letter. When I lived on South Street:
-My car was vandalized.
-Two of our vehicles were damaged by a hit-and-run driver.
-Seven cars on Charles Street had their windshields damaged late one night.
-Our neighbors had to clean condoms off their yards.
-Beer bottles were left on the sidewalk.
-Rowdy revelers returned to their cars late at night.
-Drunks relieved themselves against the wall of our abode (and on a driver from Reliable Cab Co.)
Everyone agrees that these things are problems. But here is where the reasoning in this letter starts to go array:
To solve these problems:
-Bartenders should not continue to serve drunken patrons.
Or, people could exercise SELF, REPEAT SELF-restraint and not drink themselves silly. Even so, many (if not most) bartenders are required to take alcohol training classes such as TIPS or TAM to help them identify recklessly intoxicated patrons. The main point remains: it is YOUR responsibility to monitor and maintain an acceptable level of sobriety for YOURSELF.
-Alcohol should not be served past midnight on weeknights. (If, however, one establishment gets a 2 a.m. license, they all should!)
I could not disagree and agree with you more! Let's start with the 'agree'. You are correct: if one gets it, all should get it. The planning commission, however, expressly stated that equity is not one of their goals! Go figure. Now for the 'disagree'. You say that a solution to the above problems is to move back bar closing times to midnight, and further distinguish weeknights from weekends. What problem does this solve? Seriously, how does changing hours of operation affect any of these things. I ponder:
-Does it matter what time your car gets vandalized?
-Are hit-and-run accidents time sensitive?
-Is it better to clean condoms off your yard on weekends than on weekdays?
-Do drunk revelers urinate less at midnight than at 2 am?
Answer: HELL NO! The point is: the time doesn't matter. All of these things are already against the law. Changing the closing times of bars is largely arbitrary and irrelevant. If PEOPLE behaved appropriately, perhaps because they knew they would be fined or go to jail if they were caught doing any of the things you mentioned, bars could theoretically be open 24/7.
Should we ban cars because people speed? Should we ban the internet because people use it to steal identities? Should we abolish our entire government because Congressmen are involved in scandals? NO!!! Get it? It's the PEOPLE that are the problem!
Also, the residential parking regulations are backward. Non-residents can park in residential districts for two hours during the day, but all night starting around 8 p.m. There should be parking only for residents, or guests for whom parking passes have been purchased, from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m.
Agreed. Residents work during the day and need their spots at night. But let's be honest--the city does not want to take the effort to coordinate parking enforcement outside of their business hours.
Here's an idea: fully staff the police department, then have the extra officers ENFORCE the public intoxication laws and the parking laws at night! Agreed? Ok. Great.
Also, people, you gotta remember that 3 types of people need to park downtown: residents, workers, and consumers. Downtown has the uniquely charming aspect of having residential areas next to business areas--that's why they call it DOWN-TOWN. You have to share the space with businesses and patrons. If you don't want to, move out of the middle of the town.
Just because Acton's Landing is about five blocks from Main Street, that doesn't mean it isn't affected by drunken patrons. As long as the law's aren't enforced, the revelers will continue to annoy.
CARYL P. WEISS, Annapolis
Exactly perfectly correct!!!!! Let me repeat that last sentence:
As long as the law's aren't enforced, the revelers will continue to annoy.
You have just wiped out your entire letter and supported my point in one single sentence. You said, if the current laws are not enforced, nothing will change. In other words, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TIME BARS CLOSE!!! Enforcement, enforcement! If this doesn't happen, nothing else matters. The fact that many citizens and elected officials do not understand this threatens to cause unnecessary harm and hardship to local business-owners.
So much for lightening up on the commentary.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Planning Commission Meeting, July 19
AP attended the planning commission meeting last night, and today AP has been searching the internet for legal psychotropic drugs to try and re-create the experience. It was a grueling 5 hours, and in typical city fashion the items that nobody was there to speak about were first on the agenda and the items that everyone was there for were last.
Here are the abridged minutes:
7:07: call to order
7:08-8:48: debate and hear testimony about 3 bills that affect, literally, only Eastport. One bill affected one single street, another was the result of one business sign. Some of these bills may have been given a favorable reading, perhaps some unfavorable, perhaps some were tabled until next meeting---I wasn't really paying attention because I hadn't had any coffee.
8:49-8:54: 5 minute break
8:54: commission begins to hear testimony on 2 am liquor license zoning rules
summary of above testimony:
Ward 1 residents:
-drunk people urinate on our flower pots
-there is no right to fair zoning
-more drinking = more problems
- blah blah blah ward 1 sector study blah blah
-ward 1 sector study was good
-we spent a lot of money on our houses
-we will be happy if downtown businesses close up and move to parole (no BS folks, this is totally true)
Bar Owners, concerned citizens, government watchdogs, other dilettantes:
-current zoning rules are arbitrarily unfair
-some licenses can't even APPLY, REPEAT: APPLY, for a 2 am
-have police enforce the laws about public intoxication
-hire more freegin' police
-ward 1 sector study is outdated
-get your facts straight on how many bars would be affected
11:41: public testimony on this bill ends
11:42: many people are dizzy, portraits on wall seem to come alive
11:43: commission recommends unfavorable position on 2 am zoning bill
11:44: many leave in a hurry, trying to make last call
11:51 (est) adjournment
Here are the abridged minutes:
7:07: call to order
7:08-8:48: debate and hear testimony about 3 bills that affect, literally, only Eastport. One bill affected one single street, another was the result of one business sign. Some of these bills may have been given a favorable reading, perhaps some unfavorable, perhaps some were tabled until next meeting---I wasn't really paying attention because I hadn't had any coffee.
8:49-8:54: 5 minute break
8:54: commission begins to hear testimony on 2 am liquor license zoning rules
summary of above testimony:
Ward 1 residents:
-drunk people urinate on our flower pots
-there is no right to fair zoning
-more drinking = more problems
- blah blah blah ward 1 sector study blah blah
-ward 1 sector study was good
-we spent a lot of money on our houses
-we will be happy if downtown businesses close up and move to parole (no BS folks, this is totally true)
Bar Owners, concerned citizens, government watchdogs, other dilettantes:
-current zoning rules are arbitrarily unfair
-some licenses can't even APPLY, REPEAT: APPLY, for a 2 am
-have police enforce the laws about public intoxication
-hire more freegin' police
-ward 1 sector study is outdated
-get your facts straight on how many bars would be affected
11:41: public testimony on this bill ends
11:42: many people are dizzy, portraits on wall seem to come alive
11:43: commission recommends unfavorable position on 2 am zoning bill
11:44: many leave in a hurry, trying to make last call
11:51 (est) adjournment
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Capital Punishment: Ugh, Ward 1
I really hope that this 2 a.m. bill comes up for a vote soon, because it is getting burdensome to refute these Ward 1 letters. An esteemed colleague of mine, who happens to live in Acton's Landing along with this letter writer, acutely cautioned against making this into an elitist issue, but this is an elitist letter if I have ever seen one. It appeared on July 4.
Regarding a letter supporting the 2 a.m. curfew:
I doubt these recent residents of Annapolis have any understanding of the negative effects of the bars downtown. Residing in Acton's Landing, they may never understand the bars' effect on downtown and its residents.
Look at this. Already. In the first two sentences. We have not lived where you live for as long as you live so we can't possibly understand what you are talking about or have valid opinions of our own. This is classic arrogance.
Living In Acton's Landing, they will probably never:
-Wake up to find their flower pots thrown in the streets.
-Have their flags stolen or vandalized.
-Have their parked cars vandalized.
-Have to clean up vomit or used condoms in their yards.
-Deal with the broken beer bottles in the street and on the sidewalk.
I have news for you, my friend.....YES WE WILL!!!!!. This type of stuff happens everywhere, including my house here in Ward 5. Also, living in Acton's Landing, you are at the mercy of about 5 bars, maybe. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I for one find it hard to believe that your house lies on a major walking route of drunk people. I mean, do the people who perpetrate the above behavior really leave O'Briens and walk past your house en route to their boat slip on the end of Franklin St.? BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, ENDING ALL LIQUOR SERVICE AT MIDNIGHT WILL NOT STOP THIS BEHAVIOR!!!! Now stopping drinking altogether might help a little bit.....for more info on prohibition click here. This is how to solve the problem you are referencing:
1. Raise the cost of a liquor license. For argument's sake, quadruple it.
2. Free up more money, perhaps by giving out fewer grants.
3. Use the extra money to offer police officers more than a 2% raise, thereby filling the 20 open vacancies on the police force.
4. USE THE EXTRA POLICE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST REGARDING PUBLIC INTOXICATION AND VANDALISM.
5. Increase fines for the above violations, thereby perpetuating the process.
6. Would anyone vote for me for mayor?
Let's continue....
Unless they walk downtown in the morning, they will probably never appreciate the volume and type of garbage that the city and residents have to clean up. They may never have to deal with the drunken driving and excessive street noise that excessive drinking brings.
Are you really saying that the only people who deal with drunk driving are downtown residents? Also, last time I checked all garbage was pretty much the same: gross. What is it about the particular type of garbage that you mention will we not appreciate? People have willingly paid taxes in exchange for services such as garbage removal for, like, ever.
Downtown is as nice as it is only because its residents are willing to fight to protect the quality of live that we have.
No, downtown is nice because it has attractive topography, historical context, charismatic residents and businesses, and the benefit of essential city services paid for by our tax dollars.
We protect it because we love downtown and understand what excessive drinking can do. More drinking equals more problems. Ask the police.
Ok, again, if you want to take to position that nobody should be drinking go right ahead. If not, the way to allow responsible drinking while reducing the problems is to punish the offenders via strictly enforced, meaningful punishments. That way, people will shift their behavior away from your definition of problem behavior in response to the incentive structure they are faced with.
The residents of downtown are asking how Alderwoman Classie Hoyle, D-Ward 3, benefits from suggesting extending the bar curfew.
Your sixth sense is correct here. It is AP's overwhelming suspicion that Alderwoman Hoyle is acting on behalf of one particular aggrieved bar owner and not on behalf of her constituents or the city citizens as a whole. Her motives may be improper, but the result of the bill would not be.
It is clear how many of the party establishments, many of which are owned and managed by out-of-towners, would benefit. I suppose most of those owners and managers don't really care what happens to downtown Annapolis. The downtown residents do.
MARY KOENIGSHOFF, Annapolis
I had really hoped that I could prove that most owners lived in the city limits, but that proved harder than I have time for. Readily available are the addresses of liquor license holders, but these names are often not the owners. Certainly some of these situations arise because the owners do not live in the city and the license holder must live within the limits, but I also noticed specific examples of listed owners who do live in the city but are not on the liquor license for whatever reason. Feeling defeated, I will not revert to a more obvious but equally valid argument. OF COURSE THEY CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO DOWNTOWN ANNAPOLIS. If downtown goes to hell nobody will come there and they will go out of business.
It's a good thing that I finished writing this post when I did, because I need a drink and at this time I can still get one wherever I want.
Regarding a letter supporting the 2 a.m. curfew:
I doubt these recent residents of Annapolis have any understanding of the negative effects of the bars downtown. Residing in Acton's Landing, they may never understand the bars' effect on downtown and its residents.
Look at this. Already. In the first two sentences. We have not lived where you live for as long as you live so we can't possibly understand what you are talking about or have valid opinions of our own. This is classic arrogance.
Living In Acton's Landing, they will probably never:
-Wake up to find their flower pots thrown in the streets.
-Have their flags stolen or vandalized.
-Have their parked cars vandalized.
-Have to clean up vomit or used condoms in their yards.
-Deal with the broken beer bottles in the street and on the sidewalk.
I have news for you, my friend.....YES WE WILL!!!!!. This type of stuff happens everywhere, including my house here in Ward 5. Also, living in Acton's Landing, you are at the mercy of about 5 bars, maybe. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I for one find it hard to believe that your house lies on a major walking route of drunk people. I mean, do the people who perpetrate the above behavior really leave O'Briens and walk past your house en route to their boat slip on the end of Franklin St.? BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, ENDING ALL LIQUOR SERVICE AT MIDNIGHT WILL NOT STOP THIS BEHAVIOR!!!! Now stopping drinking altogether might help a little bit.....for more info on prohibition click here. This is how to solve the problem you are referencing:
1. Raise the cost of a liquor license. For argument's sake, quadruple it.
2. Free up more money, perhaps by giving out fewer grants.
3. Use the extra money to offer police officers more than a 2% raise, thereby filling the 20 open vacancies on the police force.
4. USE THE EXTRA POLICE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST REGARDING PUBLIC INTOXICATION AND VANDALISM.
5. Increase fines for the above violations, thereby perpetuating the process.
6. Would anyone vote for me for mayor?
Let's continue....
Unless they walk downtown in the morning, they will probably never appreciate the volume and type of garbage that the city and residents have to clean up. They may never have to deal with the drunken driving and excessive street noise that excessive drinking brings.
Are you really saying that the only people who deal with drunk driving are downtown residents? Also, last time I checked all garbage was pretty much the same: gross. What is it about the particular type of garbage that you mention will we not appreciate? People have willingly paid taxes in exchange for services such as garbage removal for, like, ever.
Downtown is as nice as it is only because its residents are willing to fight to protect the quality of live that we have.
No, downtown is nice because it has attractive topography, historical context, charismatic residents and businesses, and the benefit of essential city services paid for by our tax dollars.
We protect it because we love downtown and understand what excessive drinking can do. More drinking equals more problems. Ask the police.
Ok, again, if you want to take to position that nobody should be drinking go right ahead. If not, the way to allow responsible drinking while reducing the problems is to punish the offenders via strictly enforced, meaningful punishments. That way, people will shift their behavior away from your definition of problem behavior in response to the incentive structure they are faced with.
The residents of downtown are asking how Alderwoman Classie Hoyle, D-Ward 3, benefits from suggesting extending the bar curfew.
Your sixth sense is correct here. It is AP's overwhelming suspicion that Alderwoman Hoyle is acting on behalf of one particular aggrieved bar owner and not on behalf of her constituents or the city citizens as a whole. Her motives may be improper, but the result of the bill would not be.
It is clear how many of the party establishments, many of which are owned and managed by out-of-towners, would benefit. I suppose most of those owners and managers don't really care what happens to downtown Annapolis. The downtown residents do.
MARY KOENIGSHOFF, Annapolis
I had really hoped that I could prove that most owners lived in the city limits, but that proved harder than I have time for. Readily available are the addresses of liquor license holders, but these names are often not the owners. Certainly some of these situations arise because the owners do not live in the city and the license holder must live within the limits, but I also noticed specific examples of listed owners who do live in the city but are not on the liquor license for whatever reason. Feeling defeated, I will not revert to a more obvious but equally valid argument. OF COURSE THEY CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO DOWNTOWN ANNAPOLIS. If downtown goes to hell nobody will come there and they will go out of business.
It's a good thing that I finished writing this post when I did, because I need a drink and at this time I can still get one wherever I want.
Friday, June 29, 2007
You mean....other people urinate outside too?
Let's examine some logic.
Problem: People are urinating on our property.
Solution: Make all bars close at midnight.
This, of course, does not make sense. But is precisely what Ward 1 residents are saying as part of their opposition to 2 am licenses. How, you are now asking yourself, does closing a bar at midnight reduce public urination? The answer is of course the "Cinderella Effect", whereby the bodies of local thrill-seekers and socialites turn into pumpkins if they are home by midnight. And pumpkins, of course, do not produce bodily fluids.
Unless--geez this is hard to even imagine--people urinate in public for reasons other than coming from a bar. For example: on a golf course, on the side of the road, or in your backyard on a particularly nice day if you have privacy landscaping. Or maybe, just maybe, when they leave after drinking at a private party. Does this really happen? Let's ask Eric Hartley from Thursday's Capital:
(In reference to some mansion in Gambrills):
Neighbors said there are parties perhaps once a month, with some going until 2 or 3 a.m. Pam Schneider, who lives next door, said partygoers sometimes park on neighbors' property, and a few even relieve themselves on surrounding lawns.
Thank you Pam, for enlightening us on this new issue. We now understand that Annapolis can take action to prevent this problem from happening to us. To protect us, the city council should:
1. Mandate that all private parties end by some arbitrary time, let's say 8 p.m.
2. Parties with service bars, along with wine parties, can continue until 8:20.
3. Parties wishing to have outside activities, including but not limited to music, must provide 500 day advance written notice and agree to sacrifice 3 goats if the decibel level surpasses that of the NBC nightly news.
4. There shall be no 'all-you-can-drink' parties, except in Ward 5 because we are awesome.
Then, perhaps, people will understand that you solve Problem A with Solution A, not Indirect, Unrelated Mandate Q. If you really want this (or any) behavior to stop, you give people on the individual level an incentive not to partake in that behavior. If you told me that I would be fined $10,000 every time I urinated in public, and I knew that fine would always be enforced, I would never do it again because the getting caught is too risky. See? Command and control is not the way to get things done. Provide incentives and let people figure it out for themselves.
Problem: People are urinating on our property.
Solution: Make all bars close at midnight.
This, of course, does not make sense. But is precisely what Ward 1 residents are saying as part of their opposition to 2 am licenses. How, you are now asking yourself, does closing a bar at midnight reduce public urination? The answer is of course the "Cinderella Effect", whereby the bodies of local thrill-seekers and socialites turn into pumpkins if they are home by midnight. And pumpkins, of course, do not produce bodily fluids.
Unless--geez this is hard to even imagine--people urinate in public for reasons other than coming from a bar. For example: on a golf course, on the side of the road, or in your backyard on a particularly nice day if you have privacy landscaping. Or maybe, just maybe, when they leave after drinking at a private party. Does this really happen? Let's ask Eric Hartley from Thursday's Capital:
(In reference to some mansion in Gambrills):
Neighbors said there are parties perhaps once a month, with some going until 2 or 3 a.m. Pam Schneider, who lives next door, said partygoers sometimes park on neighbors' property, and a few even relieve themselves on surrounding lawns.
Thank you Pam, for enlightening us on this new issue. We now understand that Annapolis can take action to prevent this problem from happening to us. To protect us, the city council should:
1. Mandate that all private parties end by some arbitrary time, let's say 8 p.m.
2. Parties with service bars, along with wine parties, can continue until 8:20.
3. Parties wishing to have outside activities, including but not limited to music, must provide 500 day advance written notice and agree to sacrifice 3 goats if the decibel level surpasses that of the NBC nightly news.
4. There shall be no 'all-you-can-drink' parties, except in Ward 5 because we are awesome.
Then, perhaps, people will understand that you solve Problem A with Solution A, not Indirect, Unrelated Mandate Q. If you really want this (or any) behavior to stop, you give people on the individual level an incentive not to partake in that behavior. If you told me that I would be fined $10,000 every time I urinated in public, and I knew that fine would always be enforced, I would never do it again because the getting caught is too risky. See? Command and control is not the way to get things done. Provide incentives and let people figure it out for themselves.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
A Case for 2 a.m. Licenses
First and foremost, any and all references to 'bar wars' shall be banned from this site. As we all know, wars are far more profound than gin joints and a few aggrieved flower pots in Ward 1.
What the 'twelve o'clockers' argue:
A. Loud noise ruins quality of life
B. Debauchery ruins property
C. Business owners knew what they were getting in to
Right off the bat we can address point C. Yes, they knew what they getting in to. But, so did the residents. They knew that they were moving into the downtown area of a capital city, where people come, and have fun, and spend money, and (gasp!) drink alcohol. The fun that these people have makes more people want to come and live here, and that raises property value. Heck, even Madam Mayor Moyer announced that this is a 2 am drinking town.
Deep breath................(deeper, because we are not breathing in cigarette smoke anymore)...........okay. Points A and B are valid and correct. BUT, stay with me here, they are not automatic reasons to oppose the 2 am licenses. The city, when making this determination, must balance the needs of all citizens. Let's see this for what it is, folks. A certain group of highly motivated, highly organized individuals with a lot of resources opposes this bill. If a person is so drunk as to do the behaviors in question, they are not going to stumble to Admiral Heights--they are going to disrupt some streets in Ward 1.
Let's talk about the benefits of 2am licenses. #1 more money for the city. how? well, license holders will gladly pay a higher license fee to stay open longer. Believe you/me, they will make that money back. Furthermore, for those of you mathematically inclined: higher earning potential for property = higher property value = more money for city from property taxes.
(Intermission--Note do city: Do not spend this money. Cut the property tax and give this money back to us. We earned it, not you.)
(Intermission II--As a general principle, if you make it easier for businesses to make money, they will be more willing to make ivestments in their property and therefore the city. Example: build a parking garage on Board of Education Property downtown, therefore making it easier for people to go downtown and spend money, then the businesses downtown will contribute to installing sprinklers. thanks to AP friend Tim Hogan for this insight. okay, back to the reasons)
#2 better tourist draw. #3 jobs. many people who live in annapolis work downtown and would make more money, then spend more in the local economy, etc. in fact, i would be willing to bet that all of the people who oppose the 2 am bill have benefited from the services provided by someone with a 2 am job.
Question: Do the needs of the Ward 1 residents affected by inebriated idiots outweigh the needs of the residents of the OTHER 7 WARDS?
Answer: Negative.
Recommended Course of Action:
1. pass bill allowing all liquor licenses to go to 2am
2. enjoy more money from license fees and taxes
3. give some money back to the citizens and use the rest to put more police outside bars
4. have the police actually arrest the drunkards BEFORE they partake in destructive behavior in Ward 1, thereby making both sides happy
5. pass some sort of feel good resolution, perhaps naming an official annapolis favorite color
6. go on vacation for all of August
What the 'twelve o'clockers' argue:
A. Loud noise ruins quality of life
B. Debauchery ruins property
C. Business owners knew what they were getting in to
Right off the bat we can address point C. Yes, they knew what they getting in to. But, so did the residents. They knew that they were moving into the downtown area of a capital city, where people come, and have fun, and spend money, and (gasp!) drink alcohol. The fun that these people have makes more people want to come and live here, and that raises property value. Heck, even Madam Mayor Moyer announced that this is a 2 am drinking town.
Deep breath................(deeper, because we are not breathing in cigarette smoke anymore)...........okay. Points A and B are valid and correct. BUT, stay with me here, they are not automatic reasons to oppose the 2 am licenses. The city, when making this determination, must balance the needs of all citizens. Let's see this for what it is, folks. A certain group of highly motivated, highly organized individuals with a lot of resources opposes this bill. If a person is so drunk as to do the behaviors in question, they are not going to stumble to Admiral Heights--they are going to disrupt some streets in Ward 1.
Let's talk about the benefits of 2am licenses. #1 more money for the city. how? well, license holders will gladly pay a higher license fee to stay open longer. Believe you/me, they will make that money back. Furthermore, for those of you mathematically inclined: higher earning potential for property = higher property value = more money for city from property taxes.
(Intermission--Note do city: Do not spend this money. Cut the property tax and give this money back to us. We earned it, not you.)
(Intermission II--As a general principle, if you make it easier for businesses to make money, they will be more willing to make ivestments in their property and therefore the city. Example: build a parking garage on Board of Education Property downtown, therefore making it easier for people to go downtown and spend money, then the businesses downtown will contribute to installing sprinklers. thanks to AP friend Tim Hogan for this insight. okay, back to the reasons)
#2 better tourist draw. #3 jobs. many people who live in annapolis work downtown and would make more money, then spend more in the local economy, etc. in fact, i would be willing to bet that all of the people who oppose the 2 am bill have benefited from the services provided by someone with a 2 am job.
Question: Do the needs of the Ward 1 residents affected by inebriated idiots outweigh the needs of the residents of the OTHER 7 WARDS?
Answer: Negative.
Recommended Course of Action:
1. pass bill allowing all liquor licenses to go to 2am
2. enjoy more money from license fees and taxes
3. give some money back to the citizens and use the rest to put more police outside bars
4. have the police actually arrest the drunkards BEFORE they partake in destructive behavior in Ward 1, thereby making both sides happy
5. pass some sort of feel good resolution, perhaps naming an official annapolis favorite color
6. go on vacation for all of August
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)