To drink or not to drink
One of the items up for a vote at tonight's Athens-Clarke County Commission Meeting is that of creating a special-use permit that would enable businesses to waive the distance requirements that currently exist under our alcohol ordinance. In short, restaurants would be able to serve beer or wine next to schools or churches.
As of now, there are currently three or four commissioners who appear to be poised to oppose this (Kathy Hoard, George Maxwell, Harry Sims and Doug Lowry). Both Sims and Hoard are rather definite in their opposition, while Lowry offered some valid questions during the agenda-setting meeting on Oct. 18 that indicated he had some concerns over the proposal.
I don't bemoan any opposition of any of these folks, and I believe Hoard summed it up nicely by saying that good folks just disagree over this particular piece of legislation. Currently, one cannot serve alcohol within 100 yards of a private dwelling in a single-family residential area or within 200 yards of a church or school building. This proposed waiver would set up a refundable waiver fee that could be paid for businesses to then appear before the commission to seek the right to be exempt to those restrictions, and their ability to continue to be exempt would be reviewed by staff on a yearly basis.
Again, I can sympathize with the concerns over this, but I just disagree with the opposition. For starters, most of the establishments would operate at different times than most churches and schools. Furthermore, the way the ordinance is currently set up, a business is free to serve alcohol if it's 201 yards away, but not 200 yards away ... which is fairly ridiculous.
And finally, this also leads to this false notion that alcohol is evil, and that if we are allowed to even sell it at a restaurant that is within 200 yards of a church or a school our society will crumble.
There are legitimate questions to be raised over the process, as well as some concerns I have regarding granting special-use permits to businesses that will sell that close to a single-family residence (ones that pertain more to traffic and noise than alcohol sales), but on the whole, this appears to be a rational compromise with the appropriate mechanisms in place to restrict where needed.
As of now, there are currently three or four commissioners who appear to be poised to oppose this (Kathy Hoard, George Maxwell, Harry Sims and Doug Lowry). Both Sims and Hoard are rather definite in their opposition, while Lowry offered some valid questions during the agenda-setting meeting on Oct. 18 that indicated he had some concerns over the proposal.
I don't bemoan any opposition of any of these folks, and I believe Hoard summed it up nicely by saying that good folks just disagree over this particular piece of legislation. Currently, one cannot serve alcohol within 100 yards of a private dwelling in a single-family residential area or within 200 yards of a church or school building. This proposed waiver would set up a refundable waiver fee that could be paid for businesses to then appear before the commission to seek the right to be exempt to those restrictions, and their ability to continue to be exempt would be reviewed by staff on a yearly basis.
Again, I can sympathize with the concerns over this, but I just disagree with the opposition. For starters, most of the establishments would operate at different times than most churches and schools. Furthermore, the way the ordinance is currently set up, a business is free to serve alcohol if it's 201 yards away, but not 200 yards away ... which is fairly ridiculous.
And finally, this also leads to this false notion that alcohol is evil, and that if we are allowed to even sell it at a restaurant that is within 200 yards of a church or a school our society will crumble.
There are legitimate questions to be raised over the process, as well as some concerns I have regarding granting special-use permits to businesses that will sell that close to a single-family residence (ones that pertain more to traffic and noise than alcohol sales), but on the whole, this appears to be a rational compromise with the appropriate mechanisms in place to restrict where needed.
posted by Jmac at 6:48 AM
10 Comments:
After sitting through most church services, I need a drink - so break down these 200 foot walls!
(Seriously, though, a church is a business just like any other, or should be under the watchful eye of our government.)
I think that the waiver program is a good idea. I would prefer that the Unified Government exercise less paternalism in local ordinances, by treating adults as adults and dropping all distance restrictions - but this is probably as good a compromise as we are likely to get.
On the other hand, I have doubts about the tethering ordinance; it strikes me as another example of overreacting to a few bad instances by penalizing everyone.
My only concern with the tethering ordinance is that it could unfairly punish some folks. For instance, we have neighbors who tether their considerably old Huskie in the front yard. Now the dog never moves, is only out there for short periods of time (typically with the owners outside) and is perfectly content, and I don't think that's what the commission had in mind when the ordinance was drawn up.
Still, it's arguably wrong to chain your dog to a tree for hours on end, so there needs to be a balance. I don't know where I come down yet, so it will be interested to hear the discussion tonight.
Animal shelters are already overwhelmed in Athens, and while the animal lovers among us (myself included) hate the sight of a dog left neglected out on a chain, telling people by law that they CANNOT do this is going to motivate some of them to either: a. give the dog away, further overwhelming the local shelters, or b. abandon their dogs, which in the end will also further overwhelm the local shelters.
As sad as it is, the truth is that dogs on chains are living life a step up from dogs who are strays (which is a horrible existence) or dogs who are abandoned to a shelter to be put down after so many days.
Plus, as you also pointed out already, not every dog on a chain is being mistreated. It can be a useful way for a loved dog to get some 'outside time' without having to build a fence, etc. Keep your stinking regulations out of (mostly poor) people's lives!
"is only out there for short periods of time (typically with the owners outside)"
then this would be ok, according to the proposed ordinance. The ordinance is aimed at long-term tethering, which is both abusive and hazardous to public health because it makes the dogs aggressive.
If they want to loosen restrictions on alcohol so be it - but instead of just passing a law that affects Davey Lynn's little favorite hang out, why not also let bars stay open later (why in the world is there a closing time for bars anyway?), and get rid of this nonsense about not being able to buy beer at a convenience store after 11:30?
... and get rid of this nonsense about not being able to buy beer at a convenience store after 11:30 ...
Agreed, but isn't this a state ordinance? I could be wrong.
It appears to be local looking through the state code ...
Yep, it's a local nonsense-ordinance. (Is there any other kind?)
Further, why do bars have to close at 2? Let them be open all the time - and let people sell beer anytime they damn well please. What business is it of Heidi Davison's WHEN someone buys beer or get a Jack&Coke at Flanagan's?
Oh, she makes it her business.
Post a Comment
<< Home