Mahomet Liquor Referendum

Posted March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 AM by IlliniPundit
in

For your discussion:

If voters approve a ballot question on April 17 ending prohibition in Mahomet, the village expects to have a liquor ordinance in place within a month.

The village board has asked its attorney, Jim Evans, to draw up a proposed liquor ordinance.

Village Administrator Mell Smigielski said the ordinance will be based upon others in effect in St. Joseph, Champaign, Urbana and Monticello.

"We wanted to get a feel for what the other communities do before we draw up our own ordinance," Smigielski said.

The proposed ordinance would determine what kind of liquor licenses would be offered, how many licenses would be created and what to charge for liquor license fees.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Teacher Man's picture
On March 21st, 2007 at 11:53 AM, Teacher Man said:

This is extremely interesting.  Can a person be:

  • for the legalization of alcohol in Mahomet, for the smoking ban, and against legalized marijuana all at the same time?

Or ... can a person be:

  • against the smoking ban, but for the continuation of prohibition in Mahomet?

Can cognitive dissonance kill?

The only logical, consistent stances seem to be:

  • Against smoking ban, for legalization of alcohol and ... hopefully ... for legalization of less addictive/destructive drugs like marijuana.
  • Support of smoking ban, against legalization of alcohol and thereby against legalization of all other addictive/destructive drugs like marijuana.

Seems to me anything in between would make it hard to sleep at night.  :)

 

On March 21st, 2007 at 01:04 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

I hope teacher man is not a real teacher.

redstatewannabe's picture
On March 21st, 2007 at 01:25 PM, redstatewannabe said:

I was interested to read about St. Joe's liquor ordinance in the paper a while back.  It is apparently set up to only allow alcohol in restaurants.  I am not sure how I feel about that.

The weird part of this, politically, is that the Mahomet village trustees will be voted in without opposition.  So, people will vote on the referendum (a 'No' vote being "No prohibition", which would change the current status - wording is confusing) and then the first liquor ordinance will be set up by an unchallenged village gov't.

Oil Man's picture
On March 21st, 2007 at 02:03 PM, Oil Man said:

Referendum wording to attempt an outcome----is that new?  Let's see I am against liquor being served in Mahomet so I vote 'YES' or I am for liqour being served so I vote 'NO'.

Or I am in favor of detaching from Champaign Township so I vote 'NO' or I am against detaching from Champaign Township so I for 'YES'.

Bread and Butter for the legal/political professionals.

 

redstatewannabe's picture
On March 21st, 2007 at 02:21 PM, redstatewannabe said:

actually, after talking with those behind the push, I don't think that is it at all (I could be wrong though).  In fact, they are working on an "education" campaign to make sure supporters know to "vote NO".

On March 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 PM, Tonic (not verified) said:

Teacher Man--I work in the Food & Beverage Industry. I am for the legalization of alcohol sales in Mahomet, for the smoking ban (it will soon be statewide anyway), and for the legalization of marijuana. (Over $35 billion in untaxed sales--about the same as corn and hay combined--should be corrected.) But I would still be against smoking pot indoors, infringing on others' right to clean air. And I sleep fine at night.