For the good commissioner ...
Athens-Clarke County District 10 Commissioner Elton Dodson wanted some clarification from my statement that some elements of of the alcohol ordinance were 'kinda bad' from this particular posting, so I'm glad to oblige.
Namely, I don't like the fact that a ban on brown-bagging is still on the proposal. I think that punishes folks for no good reason at all and will do little to address the actual problem folks are hoping to address, which is underage drinking. If anything, it would merely make folks drink in their apartment rather than at Cali-Ni-Tito's (though, again, I don't believe overindulgence and/or underage drinking is a problem at those establishments).
Also, I'm not a fan of mandating to the local businesses what they can and can't charge for their drinks. To me at least, it's an unnecessary regulation on businesses downtown that I don't feel will have a significant impact on reducing underage drinking (and will result in bars charging just above whatever the minimum price is in order to have a 'special'). And, though I haven't been to, say, Flanagan's in a long time, is this really that big of a problem for the college bars?
Also, Hillary asked about the difference between bars and restaurants, and the ordinance appears to make such a distinction when it comes to restaurants as 18-year-olds could serve there.
I'm just not crazy about regulating for the sake of regulating. We have good laws on the books now, and a combinaton of diligent enforcement and tweaking them somewhat - such as alcohol training courses and some of the doorman policies - could pay dividends. Restricting some practices and banning others doesn't seem to be the most fair way to address this matter.
Namely, I don't like the fact that a ban on brown-bagging is still on the proposal. I think that punishes folks for no good reason at all and will do little to address the actual problem folks are hoping to address, which is underage drinking. If anything, it would merely make folks drink in their apartment rather than at Cali-Ni-Tito's (though, again, I don't believe overindulgence and/or underage drinking is a problem at those establishments).
Also, I'm not a fan of mandating to the local businesses what they can and can't charge for their drinks. To me at least, it's an unnecessary regulation on businesses downtown that I don't feel will have a significant impact on reducing underage drinking (and will result in bars charging just above whatever the minimum price is in order to have a 'special'). And, though I haven't been to, say, Flanagan's in a long time, is this really that big of a problem for the college bars?
Also, Hillary asked about the difference between bars and restaurants, and the ordinance appears to make such a distinction when it comes to restaurants as 18-year-olds could serve there.
I'm just not crazy about regulating for the sake of regulating. We have good laws on the books now, and a combinaton of diligent enforcement and tweaking them somewhat - such as alcohol training courses and some of the doorman policies - could pay dividends. Restricting some practices and banning others doesn't seem to be the most fair way to address this matter.
posted by Jmac at 5:44 PM
22 Comments:
The title of your post is "For the good commissioner." What do Commissioners Hoard and Sims have to do with this?
There is no ban on brown bagging. We (the commission) pretty much eliminated that within 5 minutes of it being proposed to us by staff several months ago.
The proposal does not directly regulate drink prices. The provision eliminates "all you can drink" for a set price type offers. It also eliminates nickel and quarter type drinks by not allowing under $1 prices. Y'all already know how unhappy I was when this was presented to us. This is in substantially better shape.
Keep in mind that you are focusing on some of the minor aspects of the proposal. I have been in constant dialogue with vocal bar owners on this issue, and they are generally happy with the edited proposal. This is mostly because of some of the other things you have not mentioned. These are playing field levelers. "Good" businesses owners are tired of being penalized by the bad guys because of loop-holes in our laws. We are fixing those. No more getting your revoked license back because you change an owner's name on a piece of paper.
Also, Bar owners have been asking us to do something for quite a while about the “doorperson” problem. That being that the owners are stuck being penalized when their barmen do something stupid. It is next to impossible to hold barmen liable for anything because of the difficult proof and legal standards involved. Most owners want the 21 age limit and enhancing accountability for door people. That is a tall order. The proposal tried to accommodate this request by requiring standardized education and a permitting system. I asked that the permitting be taken out of the proposal so that we could review it separately. There just is no easy solution to this issue. At the end of the day, it is up to the owners to make sure their door folks are up to the job of standing up to cute underage girls and 20s stuffed under a fake id.
Seems there is a fair amount of bad info out there on what is being proposed.
And I know you don’t really believe we are regulating just because it is fun to regulate – because it most certainly is not. I’d rather hit myself with a hammer. (Thought I'd throw those last statements in there to spice up your blog with some flame-fodder.) ;-)
Dang, I just had to eliminate 4 paragraphs of an eloquent defense of brown bagging when elton's post came up.
Likewise, I share your concern about any level of local government involvement in price fixing, which is what this pure and simple. Why don't they mandate a minimum charge for motel rooms to eliminate prostitution.
Beyond the philosophical concerns, there are the obvious practical objections that make this just another "feel good" exercise in futility. So we are going to have a minimum charge of $1.00 on drinks. Well what's a drink -- I know we will just have drinks with "double shots". Ooo, ooo, I know, how about at 11:00 we just double the size of the drinks? Or we pull a Kroger, and have a "buy one, get one free". Of course, pitchers of beer are still legal (I'm not sure about pitchers of cocktails as that is not my style.) Or wait, you haven't heard of our "two cocktails and a bag of chips after 11:00 special for $1.25"?
Again I have to query what is the connection between manipulating the price of drinking and any of the perceived problems. Do our concerned commissioners really thing that the difference of a quarter or so a drink is going to make difference in who chooses to become intoxicated? Scientifically, two cocktails an hour will put most women over the legal limit for driving.
I'm almost afraid to mention the couple of restaurants that have half price wine specials. I'll bet the kids are really getting hammered on those Sunday nights when the bars are closed. I offer this as a rebuttal that cheap alcohol inevitable leads to abuse.
I have to keep coming back to what to me seems to self evident -- if you are concerned about underage drinking, get the underage drinkers out of the bars. Yet there is absolutely no discussion of this easily enforced, objective standard. I know all about the arguments about the music venues needing the revenues, but why not a 12:00 curfew for minors in bars. I would like to hear one of our "good" commissioners make an argument about why a minor needs to be in a bar after midnight. Let the bars enforce it, which takes care of the enforcement issue.
The wine tasting tax seems to me to be terribly petty, and again another penalty on some merchants who are already heavily taxed through permits and additional sales tax. It's just another tax that will fall on the shoulders of mostly independent merchants, and make them less competitive with Sam, Wal-Mart, Kroger, et al. Truthfully, what is either the merchant or the county getting out of this except an extra $200.00? At least events like the bike races get extra police. Is the county going to send out hall monitors for each wine tasting to make sure that "only a sip" is poured.
I keep making the same carp, but what is the observed problem that this additional fee will address. Not the theoretical woulda coulda shoulda, but the actual complaints from police about mostly white middle aged and older wine tasters running wild through the streets and engaging in unspeakable debauchery in public places because they tasted the reds before the whites.
While denying, this looks like just another tax on independent businesses to support the complaint that ACC is "anti-business".
As far as training the doormen and licensing them, that definitely falls into the category of "good idea, impossible to enforce". Elton is correct; if the bars are having problems with their employees they need to address it themselves. If ACC passes the ownership-license changes and starts to pull a few licenses because of the transgressions of the doormen/servers/bartenders, the owners will get sure 'nought serious about hiring competent people and training them. If you want to address the matter in a serious direct way, make it illegal for a bartender or doorman drink while on duty. I suspect that many of the problems are caused by lubricated employees. Enforcement is just an Alco-sensor away.
Otherwise, with personnel changes, and technical problems (what is a "doorman" vs. "bouncer" vs. "friend of the owner working for drinks"?), definitions and enforcement will make this provision meaningless.
The ownership loophole is a good one, and one that should have been addressed years ago. Actually to cut down on the inevitable litigation (think Toppers), it should be made stronger.
That makes sense. "The proposal does not directly regulate drink prices, it merely does not allow under $1 prices."
And what in the hell is a "doorperson?" If there is one thing I can't stand, it's... well, it's Elton Dodson. But if there are TWO things I can't stand, it's Elton Dodson (or should that be Elton Dodperson or Elton Dodchild, or Elton Dodoffspring?) AND people who say "person" instead of "man" - fireperson, policeperson, chairperson, doorperson, etc.
Sweet Lord those are some long blog comments ...
It's good to hear the brown-bagging was dismissed from the final proposal and that, in addition to the overhyped 'getting-rid-of-Happy-Hour' concept which was cast aside very early, were my two primary objections to any sort of new ordinance.
It's also good to hear you've engaged the downtown bar owners on this issue, as it will directly impact them. It's not my intent to quibble over minor details, but, in fairness, I also think any sort of regulation - large or small - deserves a good element of scrutiny. So while I am discussing some more specific, somewhat 'minor' elements of the revised ordinance, that doesn't mean I don't generally appreciate the new ordinance.
I suppose my concern with the $1 limit is that I think that you very well may see a rise in specials built around that particular price, as stopthebs noted, which would, in fact, defeat the purpose behind the ordinance (or at least one aim of it). Along with the fact that on some philosophical level, I have a hard time telling Business Owner X that he can only sell certain goods for this particular price and nothing lower.
Of course, from a profit point of view, ultimately a minimum price isn't a bad thing since most folks hold quarter drink nights as a way to generate buzz for their establishment and not as a legitimate way to make money. It's a marketing tool, that's all.
And I also echo the points made by stopthebs regarding the fees for wine tasting. It seems to be this is something that is being done more as a way to generate fees by bringing us in line with other existing communities (if they charge fees) rather than a way to curb excessive drinking or underage consumption.
I think there's much promise to the ordinance, but I still think it overreaches in some areas.
And you mean you don't regulate for the fun of it? It's not a hobby of yours? You could wear your superdistrict cape and tights! :)
Um, isn't the wine tasting fee coming _down_, not going _up_?
Um, isn't the wine tasting fee coming _down_, not going _up_?
As far as I know, and that may not be very far, there is currently no fee for a wine tasting. Not having read the proposed ordinance (don't want facts getting in the way of my opinions), I'm assuming that the "wine tasting fee" will apply to retail wine stores that want to have a tasting.
The "reduction" in the fee in this new fee is from $500.00 in the first draft to $200.00 in the current draft.
Honestly, contrary to what the good commissioner says, this looks like a tax just for the purpose of showing that you can impose a tax. I'd like for him to ask for a cost analysis of how much it will cost ACC to administer this fee in terms of bookkeeping, administration, and policing (monitoring). What is the gross income projections on the fee, because I can assure you that some of the smaller independents will bail out (Gosford's, Aromas, Shiraz) or start having "private tastings" in people's homes.
I would like to hear one of our "good" commissioners make an argument about why a minor needs to be in a bar after midnight.
Are you including music venues here? Because a lot of shows are just getting started around midnight.
--Jared
I have a hard time telling Business Owner X that he can only sell certain goods for this particular price and nothing lower.
Yet you support telling Worker X that he can not sell certain labor services for this particular price and nothing lower. Sorry, couldn't resist.
I agree with your skepticims of the drinking regulations.
Good dialogue. This is helpful. First, JMAC, please do not take my use of “minor” as an insult. The smallest minutia of an ordinance is worth discussing and evaluating. I only meant that the central reasons for a revision to the ordinance were other than what we were discussing. I read this blog to get some evaluation and ideas on issues in the community that I may not have thought of. I appreciate everyone’s time on this issue. So some more clarification.
Drink specials. This goes to the level playing field issue. The reason why responsible bar owners have not been complaining about this is because it is GREAT for them. None of them wants to offer all you can drink for a set price or two for one drink specials, or double shots in a drink for the same price (all of which are disallowed AFTER 11pm in the proposal), because bar owners know what every other study proves: that leads to dangerous overconsumption and a radically elevated incidence of sexual assault. However, when you have some folks out there that are willing to do this because they could care less about these issues, it creates a price war and rush to the bottom. The responsible bar owners have to hold their nose and offer ridiculous pricing specials, just to keep people coming in the door. Think about local hardware stores versus Home Depot or your friendly local pharmacist versus Wal-Mart. Either cut prices or go out of business. None of the loopholes mentioned are allowed under the proposal. Level the playing field, and everyone can play fair.
Also, I agree. No “minor” needs to be in a bar after midnight. This goes to the doorperson problem that bar owners have been complaining about. As I said, doormen are highly susceptible to the vices of, well, being a man. Because there really is NO consequence for the doorman for letting someone slip in, they do it ALL THE TIME. The responsible bar owners are frustrated to no end by this. Again, they get the citation and nothing happens to the doorman. That is why two elements need to be implemented: an education campaign and an accountability campaign. This is where those two items stand:
The education portion has already been recommended to the M&C.
The doorman accountability, AKA registration, has been temporarily stripped from the proposal for further review at my urging. I did not do this because I don’t think this issue is important. I did it because I think we a have a real opportunity for a healthy and construction grassroots effort at constructing this proposal. I am getting the campus/community coalition that has been working on these issues together with bar and restaurant owners and the commission over the next 60 days to discuss this very issue. Folks – this is important. I can’t tell you how radically better the dialogue has gotten between these groups. That is good, because we are building trust and consensus. This doorman issue is a great way to continue building this. We are on a good road right now. Whatever the outcome, this recommendation will ultimately come from the grassroots – not the government. I’d like to give some props out to Dr. Pat Dougherty for her hard work bringing bar owners into the dialogue with the coalition. She has been fantastic – we owe her.
Okay – wine tasting. We are ALLOWING something that has never been allowed here, and the fee is being lowered, not raised. This is not a limitation; this is granting a new ability to businesses.
A final comment – SHOCK – I wish we didn’t have brown bagging. It really is silly, as restaurants need the alcohol sales revenue to be competitive. There are only Three! places that brown bag in this county. All because they cannot get a license because of distance issues. There is a proposal out there to exempt restaurants from the distance requirements. This, I think, is a vital thing for us to do. Alcohol is being consumed at these establishments anyway, but with no oversight or responsibility on the part of the establishment itself. If the restaurant had custody and control over the alcohol, everyone would be happier and safer, and the restaurants would have a needed revenue stream.
Whew! Okay, if you got this far I am impressed. Thanks for all the input – please keep it coming.
Elton
So is the fee going down or being imposed? Which answer is correct? It clearly is allowing wine stores to have tastings _and_ sell at the same time, which is good. The current method (close for business but hold the tasting) is stupid and unproductive of revenue.
Re brown bagging: If you ban this, does that mean you also ban the practice of bringing your own lovely bottle of wine and paying a corkage fee, even at a restaurant that has a license?
Re restaurants v bars and age-limits: Is the proposal to make all bartenders 21 still on the table? And does it apply to restaurants?
Also, Jared is right about clubs. I sure as hell think 18-year-olds should be allowed when there's a music show and the club deems it fit to allow them. There are some great _bands_ with members who are under 21.
Hillary (our own, not the candidate),
We were banned by state law from allowing tasting and sales at the same time. We all thought that provision of state law was (ahem) moronic. Luckily, the state changed its law just a couple weeks ago, allowing us to allow tastings and sales. Since it would be patently unfair to allow alcohol service in some places without a permit, there is one. But for $200 a year, it is very cheap.
We are not banning brown bagging. My point was that I would prefer a licensed establishment to brown bagging.
Elton
But for $200 a year, it is very cheap. (show lightbulb icon)
That's the first time I've seen any mention of "per year". The way the press reports read, it seem to be "per tasting". That's not too bad, although it still seems to an answer seeking a question.
If you ban this, does that mean you also ban the practice of bringing your own lovely bottle of wine and paying a corkage fee, even at a restaurant that has a license?
It is illegal to brown bag in a restaurant that has a pouring license. Have to keep those tax revenues up don't you know.
Are you including music venues here? Because a lot of shows are just getting started around midnight.
So what (shrug of shoulders icon).
Other than catering to a lot of underage drinking, there is no intrinsic reason that the music has to start so late, such as a Georgia game on ESPN. Regardless of the practices of a particular subculture, there are strong societal reasons not to have minors in bars after mid-night, and listening to the music isn't one of them. I suspect that if a curfew were imposed, Smith's invisible hand would pull back the starting times.
Alcohol is being consumed at these establishments anyway, but with no oversight or responsibility on the part of the establishment itself. If the restaurant had custody and control over the alcohol, everyone would be happier and safer, and the restaurants would have a needed revenue stream.
Part of that statement is painting with a pretty broad brush. I suspect that empirical evidence would show that patrons of the brown bag establishments "are happier and safer" than patrons of many of the "licensed" establishments. The establishment always has oversight of it's patrons, and can refuse service or ask to leave about anyone it chooses.
"The way the press reports read"
Enough said! :-)
Glad I could turn on the bulb for you. Broad brush acknowledged. Still, the option for a license would be better, no?
It is illegal to brown bag in a restaurant that has a pouring license. Have to keep those tax revenues up don't you know.
Just in Athens? Because that's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure it's not the case statewide.
Elton, I know there's no longer a proposed ban on brown-bagging. I was asking about your preference. We clearly agree that it's stupid that those three restaurants (I'm having trouble coming up with the third one, but I presume the other two are Mama's Boy and Cali N Tito's) are prevented from getting the beer/wine/liquor licenses they would otherwise have due to their locations.
Also, I'm all for shows starting earlier, but I don't think they start late so that people can sell more alcohol. Otherwise they'd open the doors earlier, no? Unless the clubs have some kind of secret deal with the bars that cater to underage drinkers.
Still, the option for a license would be better, no?
More logical, maybe.
More consistent, maybe
But better? Not for those of us who like to have a good bottle of wine or beer on the cheap.
Besides what ever happened to the idea of "cultural diversity"? Those of us in the cultural of "having to work for our money" as opposed to the culture of "daddy paying the bills" like the cheap booze alternative.
Hillary,
Sorry - I did sound a bit snarky there. I don't mind brown bagging in and of itself. I would just rather leave it to the restaurant to decide.
Stopthe bs,
Agreed. I do like to pick my own wine and bring it in without paying three times the price. My comments were from the perspective of the business owner rather than the consumer. Also, does the new space after “the” mean we are getting farther or closer to the bs?
So that's a lack of answer on the question of whether 18-year-olds will be able to work the bar in restaurants? It's not that it makes a huge difference in whether or not I'm in favor of new regulations. It's just that I'd like to know.
Yes, 18-yr olds will be able to serve alcohol in restaurants.
And why is there a difference between bars and restaurants in this case? I mean, clearly there's a difference between sitting at a table and ordering a nice meal versus bellying up to a bar, but there are plenty of bars within restaurants that can attract underage drinking. Not to mention that Peppino's, back in the day (mid-to-late-1990s), was a restaurant and not responsible with whom they handed out pitchers of beer to. So...
State law. State law, for example, allows people as young as 16 (to serve alcohol in stores (eg Kroger) but you have to be 18 to do so in restuarants. It don't make no sense to me, but that's the way it is :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home