Post in Keeping bars open longer for the RNC

Apr 06 18:29 UTC

Except for an unfortunate comment about puking on city streets, I think this
discussion is one of the best this issues forum has had.  Most posts offer
opinions,some facts, others counter points for arguments.

Personally, I seldom partake of the toxic elixir from our purveyors of spirits.
When I do its usually with a meal and I am usually home by 10:30.  However, I
would argue that a four O'clock closing is much better than 2:00.  I would even
opt for a no closing time.

Why you ask.  Well first of all, it will eliminate the bar closing issues
associated with "drunks of the road".  Second it would help promote the
city/state hospitality industry.  Remember, the best way to raise money through
sales taxes is from people who come here to visit.

Now to eliminate all of the issues with St. Paul's neighborhood bars, I think
bar owners or license applicants who want to change to later or no closing
hours should have to get neighboring resident signatures on a city/state
drafted standard petition and a public hearing, if requested by neighbors.  I
would propose that public hearings be limited to those neighbors directly
impacted by the restaurant/bar customers.  This would include two or three
blocks of residential neighboring streets and maybe four blocks of any roads
that are usually used for access and egress from the area.

The public hearing would include issues related to the specific venue.  This
might include sound from entertainment and issues related to specific clientele
like expected bikers or maybe Winter Carnival rowdies.

I would also propose that the downtown bars and restaurants would be treated
different than residential establishments.  For instance, there need not be a
public hearing for hotels or any restaurant or bar located in an entertainment
area regardless of the number of residents within two blocks of the
establishment.

In my younger years, I traveled far and wide.  I have been to bars that were
open all night long.  Some were in college towns. Some were in residential
neighborhoods.  I have never seen any of the issues people seem to be concerned
about with this proposal.  Of course, in all cases, the attitude toward alcohol
was much less puritan than ours.

As I posted earlier on this subject, I don't think any of the delegates or
those elected politicians will be among those spending their time in our bars
that late at night.  First of all most will be taking part in corporate
sponsored hospitality rooms or establishments like McGoverns.  Second, others
will be back in their hotel rooms preparing for the next day.

So who will be taking advantage of these late hours?  The press?  Protesters?
Or will the majority of patrons be from the local area?  If the later is
accurate, many would be young, men and women who may currently close the local
bars.

I think this issue is way over blown.  Part of it from our the puritanical
nature of our history.  Part of it is due to our history of being incapable of
dealing responsibly with alcohol and the result of abusing it.   Part of it is
due to our lack of adequate regular frequent public transportation and the
resulting use of personal transportation.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether the Legislature passes this bill and
the Governor signs it.  It doesn't matter if the City Council approves or
disapproves of allowing late bar closing.  The effort if very short term and
will not be an adequate test of late bar closing for any venue except maybe
entertainment venues like the Myth in Maplewood.

Of course, now that Joe Soucheray has joined this discussion with today's
column, he took this discussion away from one that was somewhat rational to one
that depends on what position a specific politician holds.

John <johnwilson@gmx.com> wrote: Citizen Repke:

     You have a good point about bars being close to homes and residents
deserve relief after a certain hour. That said, I wonder if, in at least some
cases, it would be better to have people leave in dribs and drabs throughout
the night than all at once at 1 or 2 or even 4 AM. That was what I was thinking
about when I said maybe there shouldn't be a legally mandated closing time.
Now, I could see a curfew on loud entertainment in residential areas, that's a
different story.
     I'm not claiming you're wrong, just trying to get the issue discussed.

Comrade John Wilson
Whittier, Minneapolis

John Wilson
Whittier, Minneapolis
Info about John Wilson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/johnwilson

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4mt5UBltrr4k2DnGb40LYz