----- Forwarded message from <email obscured> -----
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:04:24 -0500
From: Flash <<email obscured>>
Reply-To: Flash <<email obscured>>
Subject: Re: [SPIF] barrs - long (sorry)
To: dave thune <<email obscured>>
Well played, Dave!
Flash
Centrisity.com
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:34 AM, dave thune <<email obscured>> wrote:
> I've been kind of quiet on this online cuz I have my hands full at work,
> but...
>
> Here's the problem. We don't limit bar activities because we like "blue
> laws". One unique aspect of St. Paul is that many of our residential
> neighborhoods are dotted with neighborhood bars - bars with peoples homes
> next door, beside or behind them.
> The nature of bars and alchohol consumption being what it is, patrons
> eventually go home and when they do they talk loud, they fight, they squeal
> tires, and generally are a pain in the ass on their block. And of course on
> the darker side, bars also have a tendancy to attract other patrons who
> deal drugs in their cars and ocassionaly shoot each other. Yes, sometimes
> they puke, too.
>
> We've had them for years. We generally feel that the recreational aspect of
> say, Skinners bar or Mancinis are local color and in addition, have great
> food. They are also run by owners who put up with no, or little misbehavior
> by their patrons. Unfortunately these two are not in the majority when it
> comes to good citizenry. If you have the notion that bars should have no
> limits and be open til 4 or never close, then you obviously do not live
> here, or perhaps in 3 or 4 smaller parts of the city that have no bars at
> all.
>
> But even Downtown - not considered by some as a neighborhood - now has abour
> 8000 residents. Most of them are fairly near or even above bars and
> nightclubs. They chose downtown living because it is fun, convenient and
> unique. They did not choose it because they thought they would enjoy bad
> behavior and fighting outside their windows all night. Actually, like most
> of you, they'd prefer that intoxicated people not awaken them. In most
> cases co-existence is wonderful. But as I said before, the nature of bars
> being bars, means that intoxicated patrons eventually leave. 1 or 2o'clock
> in the evening is generally felt to be a reasonable time to conclude an
> evening. We who live next to or near bars understand and don't mind a bit of
> commotion then... but stretch it out til 4 AM and I believe you are asking
> for unreasonable tolerance from neighbors.
>
> Most of you who know me know that I have moderated my bar behavior over the
> years, but I started playing music in bars when I was 18. I know bars
> inside and out. I've seen fights, stabbings, drug use, wrecked marriages and
> regurgitation, but I've also seen great musicians, fun times, good food and
> some cheerful silliness. Unfortunately this isn't a a TV sitcom like Cheers.
> You get both the good and the bad. Its a tough business to make a living in.
> Its hard work to be a good owner/neighbor, refereeing domestic disputes and
> picking up litter and hosing down sidewalks the next morning. I like bars
> (believe it or not) and I like bars to be on our commercial streets and in
> our neighborhoods, but I am no fool and I know that:
>
> 1. The adjacent homeowners and neighbors will hate the 4 AM close time.
> 2. There is no way to rule that only a few "select" bars can be open til 4.
> You either let them all, or none. The law protects them all equally.
> 3. Limiting 4AM closing to downtown still puts them beside residences who
> pay as much taxes as you do and did not purchase a condo on Bourbon Street -
> they chose Wabasha, Minnesota or Wall Streets.
> 4. Limiting to downtown is in reality unworkable because you would be
> leaving out the popular Mancinis, O'Gara's and Dixie's bars.
> 5. We've been told that the cost of law enforcement due to extended hours is
> upwards to half a million bucks - payable via your property taxes.
> 6. The test of a great city is not how long you can drink alchohol. To hear
> a legislator say that we just don't want to be a big city is insulting and
> obviously the words of a moron.
>
> I also know that ocassionally I speak frankly and with a bit of passion.
> But I am angry that this is being suggested, to cater to a "special" group
> of conventioneers who will be judging us predominately by our bar hours. I
> am more than a little irritated that cities are being played off against
> each other ("we can't be at a competitive disadvantage").
>
> Finally, I may have unfairly sullied the reputation of lobbyists. My friend
> Chuck pointed out that lobbyists don't puke, they're professionals who have
> experience holding their liquor. Its the amateurs who spew.
> He may be right, but the particular lobbyists we'll have in town that week
> are the ones who have initiated this whole discussion.
> And of course these are the lobbyists who brought us an illegal and tragic
> war, a recession, polluted water, expensive drugs, and even the moralists
> who preach family values but play "outside the box" themselves. They are
> enough to make me queasy without a snootful...
>
> Sorry Sandy, I don't apologize.
>
> dave thune
> ward 2
--