Overly broad. Heavy handed. Unchecked.
Surprisingly, I'm not talking about another one of Prussings commie proposals.
Instead, Mayor Schweighart appears to have gone completely around the bend.
After being so impressed with the community rallying around the notion that you don't criminalize a property owner for the acts of criminals on the owners property, Mayor Schweighart is moving to shut down bars for 30 days because of patrons involved in drinking games. Even more sad, the Mayor is giving bar owners the option to avoid being shut down for 30 days if they voluntarily go to 21 yo entry.
He is obviously getting radical trying to push a 21 year old bar age even though he can't get it passed in council. No shame.
You have bars being penalized for pouring drinks to participants of a bar crawl.
You have bars being penalized because patrons were playing trivia in a bar and that trivia may have been associated with drinking games.
You have bars being penalized because the group participating in the bar crawl were promoting the bar as a stop.
I'm not kidding.
You'd think I was kidding, but this is actually happening.
While a bar or two may have crossed the line and actually engaged in promoting drinking games, the Mayor has taken full advantage of his Czar powers and is acting like a dictator gone crazy.
This isn't the first time. The Liquor Czar shut down a bar earlier this semester because a patron brought in a ping pong ball and a few were playing a drinking game on a table. The bar didn't provide the ping pong ball, but were essentially penalized $10s of thousands of dollars in lost revenue by being shut down.
I'm not kidding.
You'd think I was kidding, but it actually happened.
What is the protocol for shutting down a business? Is the penalty a function of a formula, or is the penalty a function of how grumpy the Czar is on a particular day? Rather than fining a bar $10s of thousands of dollars, I would think a $500 fine would be appropriate. Even more appropriate would be to fine the individual for doing something you believe to be wrong. Is it too much to ask that a "conservative" mayor promote individual accountability?
I am 100% in favor of the bars and the city working together and implement common sense mechanisms to curb underage drinking and challenges that come along with it. Being unreasonable does not encourage reasaonable behavior. In fact, I'm so shocked by this I'm actually going to block off a day on my calendar this spring and unofficially take a drinking day.
The Liquor Czar's approach to "making bars accountable" is about as silly as making the bars 21 on Unofficial and trying to manage all the individual apartment parties. It's a beautiful strategy you really have to see to appreciate. In fact, I encourage you to check it out this spring if there are any bars that have not been shut down.
Right now I'm really appreciating that Mayor Schweighart doesn't operate in the strong mayor system that Urbana does. He seems to get drunk on power.
The sensible thing to do would be to work together with business, not encourage them to work against you. It's not too late to start acting sensible.
Champaign's mayor has been too lenient with bar owners.
illinipunditposter
I think the state is pressuring CU to raise the entry age to 21. In the Champaign police reports, one can easily see the problem. Public urination, underage citations and vandalism. A number of years ago, a bar called Mabel’s had severe financial problems, mainly due to their strict policy of not serving the underaged. They became so desperate that they tried strippers to increase patronage. At that time, the city came down hard on them. I was there when uniformed officers did a bar check. I naively thought it was for underaged drinking. At that time, underaged drinking was given a wink by the local authorities. The check was for strippers, and the city quickly passed an ordinance prohibiting this activity. The U chimed in woth how a strip club would make a bad impression on prospective students and parents. I felt that vomit and urine in the new planters was worse. Mabel’s was about to turn over their class A liquor license, but Brothers came along and bought it, and the lease. Since then the ’Unofficial’ became a magnet for drinking, complete with drunken students disrupting classes. So, I feel that the only answer is to raise the entry age to 21, something June Mank wanted. Again, the motivation for the city to do this is the State wanting to stop CU from being a magnet for students from other colleges to drink.
Will this cause some campus bars to close? If their business plan includes serving the underaged, probably so. Personally, I don’t like my tax dollars being spent chasing underaged drunks and dealing with the problems they cause. The city council cannot move on this issue, because the underaged would try to vote them out of office. My own opinion on the issue of underage drinking in general is that if one can be drafted, one should be able to drink, but this has no chance of being changed.
"Champaign's mayor has been too lenient with bar owners."
Shutting down a bar for a patron bringing a ping pong ball into the bar is definately not lenient.
"Will this cause some campus bars to close? If their business plan includes serving the underaged, probably so. Personally, I don’t like my tax dollars being spent chasing underaged drunks and dealing with the problems they cause. The city council cannot move on this issue, because the underaged would try to vote them out of office. My own opinion on the issue of underage drinking in general is that if one can be drafted, one should be able to drink, but this has no chance of being changed."
Keep in mind the 21 year old friends of the 20 and 19 year old will spend much more time at apartment and house parties. If you want to see reality, tour campus during unofficial and do a tour of the bars and while between bars, check out the balconies. You'll see.
"I think the state is pressuring CU to raise the entry age to 21. In the Champaign police reports, one can easily see the problem. Public urination, underage citations and vandalism."
We should not confuse the opinion of a few government employees with state law. If the state wants the bar age to go to 21, then change the friggin' law. If the city wants the bar age to go 21, then the city council should change the code. The mayor should not be making up his own code as he goes along. The challenges that campus faces with underage drinking are going to remain whether or not they are geographically centralized or spread out.
A bigger problem than public urination is cigarette butts that are everywhere. Maybe the Mayor would consider banning smoking outside of campus bars. : )
Hopefully the mayor is spending time on keeping costs down and attracting jobs to this community and not dedicating too much time to harrassing businesses because their patrons are having fun.
"The city council cannot move on this issue, because the underaged would try to vote them out of office."
Students don't vote. The city council can do whatever they want to in campustown. Maybe LaDue needs to pay close attention to campus issues, but even then I don't really think so. What are the chances that the bars would work together, engage in lobbying students to vote in an election, and actually get them to to the election booth. The notion was not very likely to begin with. In the city election, you don't even benefit from the Obama factor which wasn't even that impressive turning out students on campus.
If the council is holding at 19 bar age, it is not because they are worried about the campus vote. That said, if I were LaDue I'd be talking the Mayor down just in case that impossible happens. Plus LaDue's locked in a few years so what are the odds this will be on anyone's mind by the time he's up for reelection.
The at large members might want to pay attention, but again, what are the chances that the bar owners get 1000 votes for "change"? Not going to happen. The only thing that might make me think campus can make a difference is the advertising that can be done for an election (think smoking ban). Even then, what are the chances there would be 1000 votes from campus?
In the magical make-believe world of the bars running an effective political campaign and getting 500-1000 votes, would that even impact a county wide race? Even Fabri won by 2000 votes so 1000 votes is not going to make a difference.
So no, politicians do not need to worry about the students or campustown from that standpoint.
Tell you what... go down to campus when the bars are closing. See what the 19/20 yr olds are doing and then tell me if you think its a good idea. Or do a ride along with UFD or CFD for the Engines that handle campus and see how many ASI calls you go to.
"Tell you what... go down to campus when the bars are closing. See what the 19/20 yr olds are doing and then tell me if you think its a good idea. Or do a ride along with UFD or CFD for the Engines that handle campus and see how many ASI calls you go to."
I did recently. They are buying burritos. They are buying pizza slices. They are buying Fat Milfs. Not all of them are using the garbage can. A couple of them are barfing. About 90% of them have big smiles and are having fun. A small percentage of them are acting like jerks and causing problems. Same as most every other campus.
I do not agree with Mayor Schweighart on very many issues however he is finally waking up to the fact business's who promote underage drinking should be punished not rewarded because they are 'revenue' generators. Congratulations on this one Mayor.
What are "fat milfs"?
Bravo, Mayor Schweighart!!! It's about time. The bar owners have controlled these towns long enough. Anyone who thinks the bar owners are victims needs a reality check. The bar may not have specifically promoted the drinking game involving a ping pong ball, but they kept the beer coming and kept racking in the dollars even though they knew that drinking games have been banned for good reason. The old tired argument that it's better to have kids violate the law in bars than their apartments needs to be retired for good. You could say that about any illegal activity. There are a certain number of students who will go ahead and abuse alcohol in their rooms, but there are also a certain number who will be deterred by not being in an environment where everyone is doing it while the authorities are standing by winking.
"I do not agree with Mayor Schweighart on very many issues however he is finally waking up to the fact business's who promote underage drinking should be punished not rewarded because they are 'revenue' generators. Congratulations on this one Mayor."
Yet the bars are not in trouble for promoting underage drinking. They are in trouble because patrons were involved in a bar crawl and doing horrible things like playing trivia in the bar. One was even cited for promoting an event even though they did not promote it.
State law allows a 19 year old to be in a bar.
City code allows a 19 year old to be in a bar.
If you don't like that, then change the law/code.
"What are "fat milfs"?"
http://www.fatsandwichcompany.com/Champaign/index.html
The Mayor's obvious back door attempt to harrass the bars into complying with his version of law (not the city's) is sad.
"The bar owners have controlled these towns long enough."
Again that is a joke. The bar owners do not even work together. They have no PAC. They have absolutely no pull. Keeping the bar entry age at 19 has nothing to do with bar owner control.
I'm all for 21 year old entry age. Schweighart is a useless mayor, and I think his approach is wrong, but I support the intended end result.
"I'm all for 21 year old entry age."
You can lobby the city council to adopt a 21 year old bar age policy. You could probably make a good case. City employees and Czars should be enforcing policy as determined by the City Council. They should not be creating their own versions of the rules if it counters that policy. We should be looking to remove authority from those who conduct themselves in this manner. Hopefully the city council will step up and and preserve their position as policy makers for the city, even if they don't agree the collective position of the city.
I guess I'm sort of in agreement with Anonymous 10:22 - I suspect the mayor is just seeing an opportunity to pursue his goal of increasing the entry age to 21, and going for it. But he's NOT unilaterally changing the law (or changing the law at all) - he's putting pressure on the bars to voluntarily set an entry age of 21 while leaving the law at 19. The bars in question were found to be encouraging drinking games, and THAT is actually against current ordinance. So he's letting them "plea" for a lesser punishment, basically. Is it in service of his other goal? Sure. And yeah, it's fair to call him on it, I won't argue there.
That said, it's obvious that having a difference in entry age and drinking age is just a pure honeypot temptation, which various parties absolutely take advantage of. For everyone who sees the bar owners in cahoots to raise tons of money off underage drinkers, there are other people who see the city (and the police) in cahoots to raise tons of money off fining those same underage drinkers.
Personally, I think they should set the drinking age at 18 and be done with it, but if that's not going to happen, then I say make the entry age 21. Saying "but they'll drink at home" is just a cop-out. If that were truly the issue, they'd lower the drinking age to 18 (or make it 19 at least). As it is, what's the argument - if you throw the 19 year old drinkers out of the bar currently as you're legally obligated to do, they STILL drink at home anyway, so it just becomes an argument for "bar owners should look the other way and sell alcohol to those folks as the lesser of evils." People are not going to bars and drinking pop while their of-age friends are drinking beer, at least not without pre-gaming first (i.e, drinking way too much at home before leaving the house so it "lasts"). Duh.
But heck, I could buy beer from vending machines in high school, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
Throughout my term as Mayor I have tried to be as fair as possible and have been willing to meet with anyone of any issue.
B is for Business I would like to meet with you so that you would be armed with all the facts, not just the ones you ar getting from the bar owner. All you hvve to do is call my office at 403-8720 and set a time for coffee or at my office. When you have all of the facts is you still want to call me drunk with power, so be it at least you have the facts.
Same goes to anyone else if you have an issue that you wish to discuss all you have to do is call me, it takes all of us working together to make the city work. Merry Christmas to all of you.
Jerry Schweighart.
Bravo.
I have a relative that is attending Milikin University, and I recently attended family night there. I saw none of the obsession with drinking that I see at the U. I looked for the signs, strips of taverns near the campus, beer cans in the trash, signs of drinking specials. I saw none. In fact, some at Milikin would travel to CU because they could get served here. When the drinking age went up to 21, the taverns at ISU did not let the under 21’s in, and there was a lot of closures. This happened in the early 80’s, and the taverns at the U were insulated from this with the 19 and 20’s let in. If the campus bars cannot or will not prevent the under 21’s from drinking, and the State wants to stop this activity, the answer is to raise the entry age to 21.
As usually occurs, B is for Business is coming off looking as a B is for Bozo, and we don't need a $25 bet to confirm this.
While I normally basically agree with B4B, I have to disagree this time. ALL bar owners know that permitting or promoting drinking games in bars is illegal, just as the owners of any business knows or should know the laws that regulate their industry. IF, in fact, that is what was happening, and the city can prove it, those bars are wrong.
And just as B4B takes issue with the city picking winners and losers, and not equally enforcing laws, so it is very important that the city not allow this activity to be allowed at some bars and not all. It is not fair to the bars that follow the law to have to compete with those that don't.
As far as the question about whether the Mayor made up the penalties. He did not. The penalties for violating liquor laws are codified, although I am not aware if they include 30 day suspension for a single offense, that seems a bit draconian. Anyway, he didn't make up the penalties out of his own whims. Section 5 of the city code outlines local liquor laws. Although I can't find a schedule of penalties, I am pretty sure the city has one. I believe I have seen it on a televised Liquor Commission meeting, as well as a list of mitigating factors that licensees can use to reduce penalties, i.e. a number of years without violations, the entire staff is TIPS trained, confisacated fake IDs.. etc..
After watching a recent Liquor Advisory Commision meeting on Channel 5, I am pretty sure that it was stated there by Teri Legner, Asst. Liquor Commissioner, that neither the Mayor, nor the State are actively or passively trying to raise the entry age in Champaign.
Other cities don't have as many age related violations because those cities do NOTHING to check. Champaign does a much better job than most cities to check the age of the persons in bars. Bloomington-Normal does NOTHING. Charleston does NOTHING, and then say "Look, we have a %0 age violation rate, because we have a 21 entry age." Don't get down on Champaign for doing their job.
As far as the entrance age, I totally agree with B4B, change the law if you want, but don't blame the bars for letting in people they are LEGALLY allowed to admit. It's not their job to be more conservative than the law.
And private parties ARE dangerous. No guy can get my daughter drunk and corner her in a locked bedroom in a bar. In a bar, if people puke or fall asleep they are woken up and checked on, and have cabs called, but someone is evaluating their condition and/or cutting them off or callling police or ambulances. I know because I have been stuck behind ambulances in the bar districts that I found out later were called by the bars. That NEVER happens at apartment parties, N-E-V-E-R!
Police can walk through bars at any time they choose with no warning and check on things, not so in apartment parties.
Merry Christmas to all of you.
--- Umm, i'm Jewish.
"B is for Business I would like to meet with you so that you would be armed with all the facts, not just the ones you ar getting from the bar owner."
Bar owners have been trying to get in touch with you since the incident and you will not meet with them, yet you'd meet with me? You made your decision based on all the facts, yet you will not talk to the business owners.
"Same goes to anyone else if you have an issue that you wish to discuss all you have to do is call me, it takes all of us working together to make the city work."
You had advance notice of the event and could have made 2 calls to stop it or change it to make it acceptable. All the City did was pack the bars with undercover cops looking to bust them. Is that "working together to make the city work"?
This is an obvious and proactive effort to force the bars to go 21. It is playing dirty. I am in complete disbelief that you're going to get campus all riled up. Let's watch and see if the response by the students is going to be constructive.
"And just as B4B takes issue with the city picking winners and losers, and not equally enforcing laws, so it is very important that the city not allow this activity to be allowed at some bars and not all. It is not fair to the bars that follow the law to have to compete with those that don't."
So if you wanted to ensure that all the bars complied at the same time, you'd have to make sure they ALL went 21. I have to admit, this proactive effort was very calculated.
"As usually occurs, B is for Business is coming off looking as a B is for Bozo, and we don't need a $25 bet to confirm this."
Does anyone want to bet this year's unofficial is not going the biggest and loudest ever? I've got $25 that says it will.
I am looking forward to watching this play out. It looks like a lose-lose.
You had advance notice of the event and could have made 2 calls to stop it or change it to make it acceptable. All the City did was pack the bars with undercover cops looking to bust them. Is that "working together to make the city work"?
The undecover operations, in catching liquor law violations, is making the city work.
This is an obvious and proactive effort to force the bars to go 21. It is playing dirty. I am in complete disbelief that you're going to get campus all riled up. Let's watch and see if the response by the students is going to be constructive.
Forcing the bars to go 21 is good policy--whether by ordinance or administrative action.
For evey three convictions of underage drinking or other liquor law violations within a one year period, the offending bar/establishment should be fined $5000
"For evey three convictions of underage drinking or other liquor law violations within a one year period, the offending bar/establishment should be fined $5000"
Even if the bar entry is 21, or only if the bar entry age is 19?
Even if the bar did everything reasonable to card (and other preventive mechanisms to) prevent the underager from drinking? Hell, why not make it $10,000? Or $20,000?
Does the underager who is breaking the law get in any trouble in this situation? What would you suggest the fine be for the individual breaking the law?
"--- Umm, i'm Jewish."
So am I, but that doesn't mean I can't have a merry Christmas.
I hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion about religion or C-sections. Please stay on topic.
The most "reasonable" thing you can do to prevent underage drinking is not let underaged people into the bars.
Whatever you choose to set the drinking age at, the entry age should be identical to it. Makes the enforcement a whole lot easier.
...unless, of course, the true goal is not actually preventing the underaged drinking but rather looking the other way and selling that extra alcohol (or fining the offenders, if you're on the other team) with a handy CYA excuse for why the lax enforcement is the best that can be done under the circumstances.
"The most "reasonable" thing you can do to prevent underage drinking is not let underaged people into the bars."
This is why the topic is interesting and controversial. The debate has been going on for years. Instead of winning the debate on merit, the Mayor has decided to give bars the MAXIMUM punishment possible short of a bar losing their liquor license. Instead of working with the bars, the Mayor is proactively working to force the 21 yo bar age, even though the council is not supportive of that. Rather than the police and bars working together to manage underage drinking, they just want to give the bars notices to appear. Rather than talk to the bar owners, the Mayor is not even taking calls from them. Some people will do anything to get their way.
In the end, the problems the mayor is trying to correct will be worse. This type of behavior does not promote a culture of "working together" as he puts it, just the opposite. Just the opposite.
Hopefully the business owners and employees who will be adversely impacted by the bars shutting down for 30 days are able to have a Merry Christmas like those with pensions get to enjoy. Guess what employees, that job you expected to have to pay off your christmas present debt is not going to be there for four weeks. Merry f-ing xmas!
Even if the bar did everything reasonable to card (and other preventive mechanisms to) prevent the underager from drinking?
Am exception could possibly be made if drinks were served to an underage person with a "convincing" false ID.
Happy hour, drink pricing and drinking contest violations would not receive exceptions
Hell, why not make it $10,000? Or $20,000?
$5K seemed like an ample deterrent. But if that does not work $10K or $20K would be ok.
Does the underager who is breaking the law get in any trouble in this situation?
When an underage drinker is involved, yes
What would you suggest the fine be for the individual breaking the law?
In the case of underage drinking, $1500 plus loss or denial of driving privileges untill fine is paid.
Instead of winning the debate on merit, the Mayor has decided to give bars the MAXIMUM punishment possible short of a bar losing their liquor license.
What is the debate? The mayor has the power to select the punishment up to the maximum allowed by law.
There is a common misconception that underage students only drink in the bars, and that if the bars had a 21 entry age, that underage drinking would no longer occur.
I came to this area over 20 years ago, when things were a little different. I remember reading an article in the DI shortly after I came to town about a college student who died trying to climb up a fire escape upside down. Many of the campus bars at that time were irresponsible, and yes I would see local high school students drinking at them, particularly during the summertime. On campus there were a few stores that sold alcohol as a side business, but most alcohol sales in the campus area at the time - say maybe 80%, occurred in bars and restaurants.
At the time, when asked about the 19 entry age, some City and University officials would admit that if people were going to drink, they would rather have them doing that in a controlled environment, rather than at an uncontrolled private party. A quote I personally remember was that "there are no bedrooms in a bar". At that time, there were some bars on campus that certainly were not any better than your average apartment party, where the managers and bartenders would be as drunk if not more drunk than the patrons.
Things have changed since then. With increased police enforcement, most of the bars have cleaned up their act, and for the most part try to act responsibly. In fact, to be honest most campus bars are held to a higher standard than downtown or off campus bars. And certainly to a higher standard than your average neighborhood bar. No campus bar is going to let you stay til 4am and drink, no campus bar is going to let you take your beer to go after close. Since most bar employees are still students, some of whom are underage themselves, there are still some problems which occur, which frankly are employees not following the rules, which can occur with any business.
At the same time that bar enforcement has increased, the amount of alcohol sold on campus has also increased in general, but decreased in the bars/restaurants on campus. The rough figures are now that 20% of alcohol sold on campus is sold by bars/restaurants. The reality now is that were you had a handful of stores that sold alcohol as a side business, you now have 2 liquor stores right in the heart of campus. Alcohol sales are a major part of sales for many non-bars including Colonial Pantry, County Market and others. The amount of alcohol sold the week leading up to Unofficial St Patricks Day by off premise stores on campus is staggering. Last year for Unofficial St. Patricks Day, Colonial Pantry literally filled their coolers and back room with cases of beer, and had to get another delivery the next day. This doesn't even include Piccadilly or your other traditional liquor stores.
Most people drink before coming to bars, if for no other reason than to save money. The days of cheap specials in any of the campus bars are long gone. There are still calls for police and ambulance service to bars, and this is partly a reflection of that. The sober manager or bar employee will see someone who might be in trouble and call for help. The same is NOT as likely to occur in a campus apartment party. The host of the party would rather take the chance that everything will be okay or try to handle the situation themselves, than risk trouble with the police or the cost of an ambulance. Private parties typically occur in areas not designed for large numbers of people. There are not fire exits, there are not fire extinguishers and bright signs illuminating the exits, and frankly there are still dark corner bedrooms where other activities, consensual or not can occur. Fewer calls for service DOES NOT mean increased public safety.
I don't see having a entry age of 21 or 41 for that matter, stopping drinking on campus. As fines and enforcement have increased, drinking has shifted to places where enforcement becomes more difficult - private parties. Last unofficial St. Patricks Day, most of the bars were mostly empty. Balconies were not, except for the ones that were closed after someone started throwing full beer cans off the newest high rise on campus.
As far as Unofficial St. Patricks Day, yes it was mistake made by an irresponsible bar owner that started this binge drinking sensation - i am not condoning it in any way shape or form, and to be honest it doesn't have anything to do with the bars at the point.
Based on another college town that went to a 21 entry age, about half of the campus bars would close if the entry age went to 21. Realistically, the number of places to buy packaged liquor would increase. And since police cannot patrol inside private parties, the number of underage people picked up for drinking would drastically diminish. No longer would it be like shooting fish in a barrel for the state and city police. Does this mean that people under the age of 21 would stop drinking? No. It just would be cheaper and not as well monitored.
The other thing to consider is that realistically many of the college students that attend here have been exposed to alcohol and worse long before they came to campus. While alcohol can be a dangerous drug, the reality is most high school students have access to much more dangerous drugs these days. Personally my parents introduced me to alcohol with dinner for special occasions growing up, so alcohol was never this forbidden fruit to me, it was never something I had a strong desire to over indulge in.
It seems like at some point, the people who drink the alcohol need to be responsible for THEIR OWN actions. There seems to be a lot of blame passed back to the people who sold them or someone else the alcohol. What happened to personal responsibility? Why does someone getting drunk mean that someone else is now responsible for their actions? Were they coerced to drink or did they do it themselves? Frankly, if someone can be considered responsible enough to be able to vote, or serve in the armed forces at 18, or enter into legal contracts, they should be able to be expected to be able to drink responsibly also. If they behave badly they should be held responsible for their actions. If someone buys a car and ultimately hits someone with it, is the car dealers fault?
Frankly I think that some of the problems that occur with drunk people is because they don't think they have to be responsible for their actions when they are drunk.
The drinking age was changed to 21 as a way to combat drunk driving. Frankly, I personally know a few 40 year olds that drive when they have too much to drink on a regular basis. The reality is, most students walk to the campus bars, that's not necessarily true for campus parties and certainly NOT true for off campus bars. If they are having a good time, not causing problems for themselves or others, maybe time would be better spent keeping a drunk 40 year old from driving home, curbing the illicit drugs sold in some campus parking lots, or handling the problems that occur in the IHOP and Colonial Pantry parking lots on weekends when the weather is nice.
Obviously, any bar that wants to stay in business will have to obey the laws that exist, and since the current drinking age is 21 - Any bar that wants to stay in business should only be serving to those who are of age.
I think the now unspoken reasons for a 19 entry age in Champaign (and I believe still 18 in Urbana) are Public Safety and more frankly more income to the City in Taxes and Fines. These make sense to me, but why punish (legally or in the media for that matter) the responsible bar owners who are genuinely trying to play by the rules as they exist?
Just my $0.02...
Just my $0.02... No inflation with that $0.02
If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Dancing.
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Hanging out with friends and listening to music.
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Macking on a hottie. Is "macking" still used today? : )
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Bar food.
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
People watching. Don't laugh. Actually, if you want a laugh, go people watching on campus late night. It is very entertaining.
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Have you ever heard of a cover charge?
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Your group gets to enjoy a party without your apartment or fraternity house getting trashed.
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar. There would not be much of a revenue hit from restricting bar entry to those at least 21"
Women are much less likely to be sexually assualted in a bar if you don't count the occasional ass grab.
There are plenty of reasons for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar.
"If the drinking age is 21, there is no reason for someone less than that age to be in a campus bar."
Do you have any idea how many organizations schedule events at bars? Meetings? Concerts? Christmas parties?
"Do you have any idea how many organizations schedule events at bars? Meetings? Concerts? Christmas parties?"
Don't forget recruiting events.
t 12:50 PM, B is for Business said:
I hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion about religion or C-sections. Please stay on topic.
Now this made me laugh out loud! Good one.
Thank you Mayor for trying to maintain the health and welfare of our community. The credibility of some of the local bar owners is less than zero. I am appalled at their willingness to violate the law and endanger the lives of our young people by encouraging binge drinking to make money. It is an exhibition of moral bankruptcy.
"It is an exhibition of moral bankruptcy."
Making someone else accountable for the actions of an individual is morally bankrupt.
The reasons why 19 and 20 year olds might want to be in a bar seem plausible. Then
a) one wonders what volume of campus bar patrons are non drinkers less than 21.
b) higher fines to both bars and patrons for underage drinking, as suggested in my earlier post, is a good idea.
Hopefully the business owners and employees who will be adversely impacted by the bars shutting down for 30 days are able to have a Merry Christmas like those with pensions get to enjoy. Guess what employees, that job you expected to have to pay off your christmas present debt is not going to be there for four weeks. Merry f-ing xmas!
Business owners need to care for their employees by operating their busineses within the law
..
I wonder if the way critics are treated in council meetings does any good.
I wonder if there are more important things to do than harass small businesses because they allow 19 year olds in their establishment because the mayor does not agree with that policy.
I wonder why those who preach "working together" aren't willing to work together to solve problems.
I wonder why the Champaign police department cannot look beyond harrassment as a means to address a problem in both campustown and lower income neighborhoods.
I wonder why the government types cannot grasp that they can accomplish so much more by working together and not acting irrationally.
I wonder if the Mayor just made the problem worse and if people who could have worked with him are going to start working against him.
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"- William Pitt 1770
The mayor has tipped the scales. A check is needed to restore balance.
Anonymous 3:47 - If that's what you want to do, let the kids drink in the bars because it's safer, then you need to LOWER the drinking age to 19 (or 18). Right now, every time those 19 year olds break the law by drinking in the bar rather than at home, they're doing just that - breaking the law, and opening the establishment up to fines. (Of course the individuals also pay fines.)
FWIW, I'd be happy lowering the drinking age to 18. Let all (well, vast majority) of the college students LEGALLY drink outside. Seems you'd be okay with that too, if possible, so we probably agree there.
What's madness is having a different age for entry than you have for consumption, unless you enjoy having chronic violations.
It's merely a polite fiction that 19 year olds are going to be in the bars drinking pop while their older friends have beer. But it lets people make money off them selling extra beer, and lets the city make money off of fines. If they don't drink at the bar, they binge before leaving home to be sure they're nicely buzzed - which is also very much not safe. Yes, they want to dance and listen to music, but not sober while their companions are having alcohol.
Saying "but drinking in the bar is safer" without changing the drinking age is simply admitting that you want them breaking the law. Nineteen year olds are GOING to drink, particularly if they're hanging out with 21+ age friends. Entire groups of people who don't drink at all don't tend to go to the bars, even for music and/or dancing. The types of bars that you can hold a meeting in (and more importantly, the time of DAY when that is even remotely possible) don't tend to be the times/places that are getting busted for all the underage serving.
I'll grant you "going to a show that's not specifically all-ages." But at such shows, you better believe the pressure to drink is high, if everyone around is drinking and it's loud.
Still, if the powers that be insist on having the uneven entry and drinking ages, then absolutely they're responsible to police their own establishments. If they can't do that, they get stuck with penalties. It's the wink-wink-nod-nod that people are complaining about.
As for "Unofficial," I suspect it will eventually go away on its own in favor of some other misrule holiday, just like the old crazy Halloween went, and the Greek reunion weekend craziness went.
Do you have any idea how many organizations schedule events at bars? Meetings? Concerts? Christmas parties?
Don't forget recruiting events.
So? All of those organizations have the ability to request access to just about any room on campus. Not a valid argument or defense of the 19-year-old entry age.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
"So? All of those organizations have the ability to request access to just about any room on campus. Not a valid argument or defense of the 19-year-old entry age."
Is it so unreasonable that a 20 year old cannot go to a bar to watch a band? You're old enough for the draft. You are old enough to be financially responsible for your tuition. Yet you cannot go into a bar and watch a band in this scenario. Bars provide a fun and enjoyable atmosphere. Campus rooms are less fun and enjoyable. If you had a choice for a social event, would you generally choose a bar or a room? For God sakes, they are adults. Let's start treating them like it.
Is it so unreasonable that a 20 year old cannot go to a bar to watch a band? Is it so unreasonable that a 20 year old cannot go to a bar to watch a band? You're old enough for the draft. You are old enough to be financially responsible for your tuition. Yet you cannot go into a bar and watch a band in this scenario. Bars provide a fun and enjoyable atmosphere. Campus rooms are less fun and enjoyable. If you had a choice for a social event, would you generally choose a bar or a room?
It's also just as unreasonable that a 20-year old can't get into a casino in Illinois. Why is that? It's obviously more than just the fact that there is a bar, since that is controlled by local ordinance and not state law. But I digress...
You're telling me that the line I see in front of Kam's, Brothers, Station 211, Murphy's, and Legends every weekend night is for people who are just dying to see a band? People don't go to campus bars to see bands because it is rare for bands to play at a campus bar. How many bands play in campus bars vs. how many bands and shows come to Foellinger, Illini Union ballroom, Illini Unnion A, B, & C Rooms, Assembly Hall, Channing-Murray, etc.?
Heck, how many campus area bars even have actual facilities for a band, not just pushing some tables out of the way? Canopy Club and what else? Station 211 maybe on occasion. Did you not get the memo that Mabel's has been closed for quite some time now? Let's make one of your stupid wagers. I posit that there are more shows that once you take the Canopy Club out of the data set (because it's an actual music venue that happens to have a bar attached), there are significantly more bands/shows in campus area non-bars than there are in all of the other bars on campus combined (where campus is defined as south of University, west of Lincoln, north of St. Mary's Road, East of First).
Legends, Murphy's, Brothers, Clybourne, Firehaus, Kams, and FuBar don't have live shows. White Horse occasionally has something, along with Station 211. Please, tell me where all of these places that you can go on campus that happen to be bars that have reasons to go other than to drink. You're really reaching on this one. Do you actually know many college students, or are you just basing this off of what you wanted to do as a college student and that one student you know?
For God sakes, they are adults. Let's start treating them like it.
See, that's the thing: they want to be treated like adults, but many don't want to accept consequences for their actions. They may be legal adults, but plenty of them (nothing resembling a majority, but certainly enough to be noticeable) routinely make bad decisions but expect to get the "oh, it's just college students being college students" write-off or play the "my dad is a big lawyer in Chicago" card. It happens all the time. If I ever tried to pull half of the stuff I see UIUC student doing on a nightly basis, I would be in jail. Yet they get away with it all the time. Why?
Bar owners are adults as well, and should know better to encourage the type of behavior that they do, but they don't because the city really doesn't do much about it. We, as citizens of C-U, complain constantly about events like Unofficial St. Patrick's Day and Campus Bar Scramble, and we see bars get slapped with minor fees and/or they have to shut down on a day of their choosing (which ends up being a Tuesday night during the summer). Since that clearly isn't working, it's time to use the penalties he is authorized to issue. You make it sound as if this is the first time that any campus bar has been hit with a fine, and they've been perfect angels and in no way were accessories to any of the stupidity that happens on their premises. It's not like any of the bars created a drinking fest that has grown out of control. Oh, wait...
You seem so concerned that the mayor is levying the most he can as if it is an abomination that bar onwers be held responsible for the activities that happen in their bars and for the actions of their employees. I do wonder what dog you happen to have in this fight that you're not disclosing. Perhaps B's Business is Booze, and that business got slapped with a fine yet again?
For the record, I don't care what the entry age is. College kids are crafty and we have some of the smartest students in the country here at UIUC, so they'll find ways to drink regardless. I'd probably support a 18 or 19 drinking age, and make it uniform across the board. But don't try to say that any concern you have is because bar owners are poor helpless victims being crushed under the jackboot of city authority. He can do up to what the law allows, and if you don't want him exercising his full authority, perhaps maybe the bars should be a bit more responsible.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
"See, that's the thing: they want to be treated like adults, but many don't want to accept consequences for their actions. They may be legal adults, but plenty of them (nothing resembling a majority, but certainly enough to be noticeable) routinely make bad decisions but expect to get the "oh, it's just college students being college students" write-off or play the "my dad is a big lawyer in Chicago" card. It happens all the time. If I ever tried to pull half of the stuff I see UIUC student doing on a nightly basis, I would be in jail. Yet they get away with it all the time. Why?"
The city, states attorney, and university should spend more time and energy making indivuals accountable for their actions if they want things to change. Instead, the bars are being shut down for things like patrons bringing in a ping pong ball and playing a drinking game. Those individuals playing with the ping pong ball in a bar simply go someplace else and play with their little ping pong ball. At the UofI, someone gets to keep their scholarship and represent the school if they get caught stealing property. What do you expect?
To show how silly and f-d up the anti-individual logic is, someone was assaulted on campus and the Champaign Police Department was encouraging the victim to sue the bars. I'm not kidding.
Being fined $100 is serious. Being fined $500 is a big deal. Being shut down for any day is a huge deal. Being shut down because a patron brought a ping pong ball into your place is draconian. Being shut down for 30 days is draconian.
Ideally, the city will start working with the bars and not abandon that principle because the bars will not go to 21 voluntarily just because the mayor wants them to.
"You seem so concerned that the mayor is levying the most he can as if it is an abomination that bar onwers be held responsible for the activities that happen in their bars and for the actions of their employees."
Being fined $10's of thousands of dollars for patrons bringing in a ping pong ball is lunacy. The goal is to harass the bar owners, not address the issues of alchohol abuse. The goal is to harass the bar owners until they concede to a 21 bar entry age. As long as this continues unchecked, expect to be hearing from me about it.
What would you suggest the fine be for the individual breaking the law?
In the case of underage drinking, $1500 plus loss or denial of driving privileges untill fine is paid.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion. One great thing about your idea is that the fine schedule has to go through the city council. Is it true that individual fines were actually reduced from $500 to $295 some time ago? It's interesting what happens when the council goes to study sessions and works collectively to address issues and setting the direction for the community vs. one guy taking matters into his own hands.
Wouldn't it be reasonable for the council to approve a clear penalty or fine schedule that outlines warnings and fines rather than having one irrational and draconian individual shutting down all the bars for 30 days? We do it for individuals, why don't we do it for businesses? Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we should not give it to any one individual.
Check this out:
September Liquor Advisor Committee - Cancelled
October Liquor Advisory Committee - Not Cancelled. But meeting minutes missing.
November Liquor Advisory Commission Meeting: Cancelled
December Liquor Advisory Commission Meeting: Cancelled
The council should probably start looking at this and consider taking control of the situation. The mayor isn't even taking calls from bar owners.
The mayor isn't even taking calls from bar owners.
Smartest thing the mayor can do
illinipunditposter
"Smartest thing the mayor can do"
"Working together" is the smartest thing the mayor can do. Judging from his actions and the impressive Liquor Advisory Committee record, this doesn't seem to be the case.
Make the drinking age 18 but the bar entry age 21. Then they can drink, but the bar owners won't get in trouble. Or make the bar entry age 18, the drinking age 18, and set a curfew of 11:00 pm for anyone under 19.
Or make the bars install breath machines and if you are 18, you can only get to .04, if you are 19 you can get to .05, 20 gets you .06, and 21 gets you .07.
If you are a military vet, add .02 to each of the above. If you have ever been arrested for anything, deduct .01 from the above. If you are registered to vote, add .02, unless it is merely at your home town other than Champaign, then it's just .01. Carry IDs to prove your age and status.
There may be other silly social engineering possible, you all have covered most of them in your attempts to tell college students what to do, like that's working, but I don't know what they could be.
Government cannot stop people from drinking, not even by Constitutional Amendment. Government cannot stop "under 21's" from drinking in bars.
Deal with it, nanny, deal with it. You don't have to approve of it to make it safe. Better safe than sorry. Sorry for the rapes, the accidents, the overdoses that occur by sending the activity that will happen anyway underground.
Organize. Get Out The Vote. Toss Jerry Schweighart out of office. Yes, there ARE enough students to do it, if only they would organize.
I'm kind of the opinion that the underlying problem is the attitude that binge drinking is a normal and healthy thing for these college students to be doing. That's a huge problem outside the scope of this bar argument, though.
Raising the lega age of adulthood is a non-starter. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that every 18-year-old is a fully mature adult, but imagine if we suddenly said no one could join the military until they were 21.
I'm not sure lowering the drinking age to 18 is a good idea either. You'd wind up with high school seniors able to legally buy hard alcohol, which is just a recipe for disaster.
Didn't some areas used to have a 3% beer (or whatever) available to 18 year olds?
"Organize. Get Out The Vote. Toss Jerry Schweighart out of office. Yes, there ARE enough students to do it, if only they would organize."
There are not enough students willing to do it. Hopefully the council will take control, or least inject some common sense into the discussions. If the mayor isn't taking calls, so council is surely only getting one side of the argument.
"it's interesting to note from these comments that Champaign government is as much out of control as the Urbana government is rumoured to be."
The Champaign City Council needs to get control of the situation.
"Didn't some areas used to have a 3% beer (or whatever) available to 18 year olds?"
Maybe they should bring back Liquor Advisory Committees so people can "work together" and suggest common sense ideas to address issues associated with being a university town. If you're not a business, the Mayor might take your call.
I am of the opinion that there is something fundamentally rotten about a society that has a legal drinking age. By the time that I got old enough to drink legally I had pretty much given up drinking. I would contend that the American obsession with alcohol is the problem. Do away with the drinking laws (gradually) and your drinking problems will go away. piuf.
Passing this event off as "patrons bringing in a ping pong ball" is being downright untruthful. Don't take my word for it though, google "Fall Bar Scramble 2009" for facebook pages that list Joe's Brewery (your bar B?) as a place to go days before the actual event to sign up and videos showing hundreds of drunks in matching shirts holding up stamped cards. It is the responsibility of the bar to make sure that no happy hour laws are being broken in their establishment and in this case it seems clear that many, if not all of these bars were willing to turn a blind eye to something that was going on in their places of business.
As usual, B is twisting facts to suit his argument.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200208620
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200208620#/event.php?eid=149888986732&index=1
Joe's Brewery was shut down for a week for the ping pong ball incident. Nowhere did I lie.
What did Joe's do illegally? A seperate student group advertised their bar as a stop on the barscramble, where THAT GROUP is not even advertising any happy hour violations? There is no way this is what Joe's Brewery is getting accused of. Getting shut down for 30 days for this is bats**t crazy.
This is Doug Larson from Joes Brewery. I think B for Business is accurate with the basic facts.
The Mayor will not return my calls or meet with me. I hear the same thing from other bar owners.
We are being accused of "promoting" drinking games by the Mayor. There were no drinking games going on at Joes on the day of Barscramble. In fact, we had bouncers walking around making sure no one was playing games. We didn't do any advertising at all. I would think if he would return a call this would be simple to explain. As was pointed out before, he could have called Joes or any bar and they would have shut the event down. He chose not to.
I would like to have a working relationship with the Mayor to make things better and safer for everyone. He does not appear interested in that idea
This isn't rocket science.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. Can a retail licensee offer a 2-drink-for-the-price-of-1 promotion?
A. NO. However, retail establishment may offer products at half price, as
long as the price for that product (or products) is charged the whole day.
Further, a retailer may highlight a product by discounting the regular price,
as long as the discounted price is offered all day to all persons.
Q. Can a retail licensee offer promotions such as: $5 all you can drink from 5:00
to 7:00 p.m.?
A. NO. Offering unlimited drinks for a fixed price is prohibited. The only
exception is for a private function not open to the public; i.e., Weddings,
Christmas Parties, etc. (see page 1 for definition).
Q. Can a retail licensee change the price of a alcoholic drinks during a given
day?
A. NO. However, the retail licensee can change the price of the product(s)
from one day to the next. A "day" is defined as from the time the licensee
is allowed to open, until the time the licensee must close.
Q. Can a retail licensee give away drinks as prizes to a game or contest held on
the premises?
A. NO. Drinks may not be awarded as prizes and games cannot involve
alcohol consumption.
Q. Can a retail licensee increase the volume of alcohol contained in a drink or
the size of a drink?
A. YES. However, the price of the drink must also be increased to reflect
the added alcohol.
Q. Can a retailer offer "bucket" promotions, such as 6 long neck bottles for $6?
A. YES. As long as the promotion (price of the "bucket") is offered all day
to everyone.
Q. Can a retail licensee sell a "shot and a beer"?
A. YES. "Boilermakers" are considered to be one drink.
Q. Can I charge one price for a drink in the restaurant and a different price in the
adjoining lounge?
A. YES. Multi-use establishments may charge different prices in different
rooms, provided the prices remain the same all day, and a separate price
schedule is kept for each room.
Q. What is the penalty for violating this law?
A. Violation of this law is a "Class B" misdemeanor. The licensee may be
FINED or have its license SUSPENDED or REVOKED.
Illinois Liquor Control Commission
Interesting.
Mr. Larson,
I must advise you to not make any more posts on this blog. I am sorry that the City of Champaign is treating you with such disrespect. You deserve better and I wish you the best of luck dealing with this.
B
"Throughout my term as Mayor I have tried to be as fair as possible and have been willing to meet with anyone of any issue.
B is for Business I would like to meet with you so that you would be armed with all the facts, not just the ones you ar getting from the bar owner. All you hvve to do is call my office at 403-8720 and set a time for coffee or at my office. When you have all of the facts is you still want to call me drunk with power, so be it at least you have the facts.
Same goes to anyone else if you have an issue that you wish to discuss all you have to do is call me, it takes all of us working together to make the city work. Merry Christmas to all of you.
Jerry Schweighart."
Thank you, Mayor Schweighart, for both reading and responding.
@ B for Business:
I beleive the origional point was that there wouldn't be much of a revenue loss by bars if the entry age was 21. This list of mostly free activities doesn't do much to refute that.
"Mr. Larson,
I must advise you to not make any more posts on this blog. I am sorry that the City of Champaign is treating you with such disrespect. You deserve better and I wish you the best of luck dealing with this. "
What? Why would you post such a message. Doug's a decent guy, as was his dad. Who the f are you to tell him not to post to IP?
Incidentally, Doug Larson Sr. had similar problems with Mayor Scheweighart being two-faced and disingenuous with him.
"What? Why would you post such a message. Doug's a decent guy, as was his dad. Who the f are you to tell him not to post to IP?"
: ) It's not like that. The Mayor can shut his bar down for 30 days and appears to be looking for an excuse. I certainly stand by my statement. I don't want to see any more businesses getting shut down. From what I hear about Mr. Larson, he is an honest and respected member of the business community. He can decide what he wants to do with my advice, including, but not limited to telling me to go fly a kite.
"I beleive the origional point was that there wouldn't be much of a revenue loss by bars if the entry age was 21. This list of mostly free activities doesn't do much to refute that."
People pay cover charges. Plus, a 21 yo is more likely to attend a bar vs. an apartment party if his 20 year old sweetie can hang out him at the bar. That 21, who would have been drinking at the apartment party, will buy alcohol at the bar.
Uh................. what did Mr. Larson say that got him off this blog?
"Uh................. what did Mr. Larson say that got him off this blog?"
Nothing. He commented at 11:32am and he is free to comment further. As far as I know, no comments have been removed.
If he's willing to answer, I have some questions:
1) Where did your bar advertise the event?
2) If you did not advertise the event, what other places did the irish group promote their event and mention Joes? If you know, did you know before the event?
3) When the Irish Illini were promoting the drinking event, were they promoting drinking games in those ads, even though you claim that no drinking games or violations were taking place in your bar.
4) Are you accused of any other violations other than advertising drinking games?
What kind of world do we live in where a business goes above and beyond to ensure all rules are being followed and then gets rewarded with a huge fine for SOMEONE ELSE advertising an event? How is that even possible?
There is no way a bar gets shut down for what we read on facebook. That would be insane. There has to be something else and I'm looking forward to seeing a reasonable argument.
Steer clear, Doug, steer clear. No good can come from opening your mouth here, unless you like having a swarm of termites in your underwear.
"Steer clear, Doug, steer clear. No good can come from opening your mouth here, unless you like having a swarm of termites in your underwear."
That's one way of putting it. : )
The reality is the mayor has no authority or control over the Student Organization which Organized, Advertised, Sold T-Shirts, and Created the Event (whose proceeds may indeed be going to a children's charity). The State Laws do give him control over any of the bars that the had the misfortune of being included in the event.
"The State Laws do give him control over any of the bars that the had the misfortune of being included in the event."
Hopefully the mayor is not going to hold a bar owner accountable for something where he had absolutely no control over. That would be insane.
That would be insane.
Maybe " inapproriate" Certainly not "insane"
Michael Fuerst
These are violations of State Law:
1) a waitress at a bowling alley sells a pitcher to someone who lost the fifth frame (whether the waitress knows or not)
2) a representative from Bacardi gives away things in a bar to anyone who they see drinking their product
3) one person at a table where people are playing cards buys a round of drinks or a pitcher... (did they lose the last hand or is it genuinely their turn to buy?)
These are not :
1) 20 college students cram into a 2 bedroom apartment, duct tape a 40oz bottle of malt liquor to each hand, and race to see who can finish them first
2) at a private party, people take turns using a beer bong or do keg stands
3) at a private party, people watching a movie have to drink everytime a catch phrase is said...
Fall Barscramble 2009
Host:
Irish Illini
Type:
Party - Holiday Party
Network:
Global
Start Time:
Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 12:00pm
End Time:
Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 2:00am
Location:
Joes
Description
T-shirt pick up: Thursday Nov 5th 6-8pm JOES
Get ready for the best day of the year: FALL BAR SCRAMBLE! Here is how you can participate:
1. Gather a team of 8 people (At least 4 girls)
2. Go to Tshirt/team sign ups WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 14 from 6-8pm at JOES BREWERY. Each member of the team pays $10 which includes the price of the shirt.
**only one member of the team is required to sign the team up
3. Go to the Tshirt pick ups to get your teams shirts and find out the theme (again, watch for emails about date/time)
4. Go to Joe's Brewery on November 7 before noon to prepare for the best day ever.
This is from the event listing here:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=149888986732&ref=mf
I will agree that this event was organized by a RSO that was not affiliated with Joes, but how can you say that Joes was not supporting this when you needed to stop there on three seperate occasions before the event began to even participate?
Did nobody at Joes think to question why there were people manning a sign up table for two hours on October 14th?
Did they not notice the boxes upon boxes of tshirts being handed out in their bar for two hours on November 5th?
How could they not see the large gathering of people all ready to play a bar scramble assembling at their bar at noon on November 7th?
If the bars will not step up and curb this illegal and dangerous behavior or continue to turn a blind eye towards it, maybe it is time for the mayor to step up enforcement and compel different behavior in the future "to have a working relationship with the Mayor to make things better and safer for everyone."
Here is a quote from another blog, "I personally didn't participate in it this year but after I got off work and met up with some bro's at Joe's. The starting and ending point of the bar scramble. It was filled with students representing U of I's largest club with their "Super Drunk 64" shirts." http://vicariouslyrudy.blogspot.com/2009/11/irish-illini-bar-scramble.html
Joes was the start and end point of this scramble that they had no part in?
Here is a youtube video that gives you an idea of just how large a turn out was there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOzs5PV2vk&feature=player_embedded
To December 14th, 2009 at 04:01 PM, Anonymous (not verified)
What you noted as not illegal should not be. Government needs to be limited in its intrusions into private residences.
Michael Fuerst
If I were the mayor, I would not feel the need to talk to the owner of place like Joe's which tacitly encourages such activity.
Michael Fuerst
and another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvIyJ-ceWps
Can we dismiss the notion of apartment parties being more dangerous than bars already please? How many apartment parties result in hundreds of drunk kids running down the middle of Green st in the middle of the day?
Please do not form an opinion on this matter without at least watching both of these linked videos, they alone cast doubt on B's argument here that there were just a couple of kids who snuck a ping pong ball into a bar.
Sorry, I'm calling shenanigans on the idea that a 21 year old guy is going to drink in a bar while his 20 year old girlfriend sticks to pop.
I will agree that this event was organized by a RSO that was not affiliated with Joes, but how can you say that Joes was not supporting this when you needed to stop there on three seperate occasions before the event began to even participate?
Stopping at a bar during a bar scramble is perfectly legal.
"Did nobody at Joes think to question why there were people manning a sign up table for two hours on October 14th? "
It is perfectly legal for an organization to register participants for a charitable fundraiser.
Anonymous 4:18 - Wow. Thanks for the interesting videos. I've seen some of the people running around like crazy in matching shirts (and almost being hit by a bus) but didn't know just what that was all about.
But it gets crazier, apparently. The link below your video for me when I went to youtube was "Station 211 Happy Hour Relay Race" (link pops to youtube) also clearly marked as from UIUC in 2008. A relay race of drinking beer! And being bathed in beer!
Wow. Entire new vistas of entertainment. Who knew these people filmed themselves?
...and it's perfectly legal for the Mayor to shut down the bars with the penalties and incentives he has so chosen, if you're going to walk the fine line of exactly what is legal.
"The link below your video for me when I went to youtube was "Station 211 Happy Hour Relay Race" (link pops to youtube) also clearly marked as from UIUC in 2008. A relay race of drinking beer! And being bathed in beer!"
Illegal.
" ...and it's perfectly legal for the Mayor to shut down the bars with the penalties and incentives he has so chosen, if you're going to walk the fine line of exactly what is legal."
Nothing fine about that line.
"How could they not see the large gathering of people all ready to play a bar scramble assembling at their bar at noon on November 7th? "
A large gathering of people getting ready to go on a bar scramble is perfectly legal. Are there some sort of size limits? 20 is ok, but 1500 is illegal?
"Joes was the start and end point of this scramble that they had no part in?
Here is a youtube video that gives you an idea of just how large a turn out was there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOzs5PV2vk&feature=player_embedded"
Not even anything close to being illegal.
and another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvIyJ-ceWps
Can we dismiss the notion of apartment parties being more dangerous than bars already please? How many apartment parties result in hundreds of drunk kids running down the middle of Green st in the middle of the day?
OMG! A bunch of kids running down the sidewalk!!! I'm going to lose sleep at night when my daughter goes to college imagining her running down the sidewalk. The horror. I can't imagine anything worse.
"If I were the mayor, I would not feel the need to talk to the owner of place like Joe's which tacitly encourages such activity."
You are wrong to imply the Joes is tacitly encouraging any activity. It offensive and downright irresponsible to make this implication. A large student organization is putting together a bar scramble for a fundraiser. Your job as a business owner is to make sure all the laws are being followed in your establishment.
I knew going into the this that Station f-d up, but shutting down a bar or two is different than shutting down 11 without merit so you can force a 21 bar age.
Considering the circumstances, where the mayor and police where not interested in student safety but were only concerned with forcing the bar entry age to 21, where authorities knew about this bar crawl in advance and could have stopped it if there was anything illegal about it, where authorities knew about it in advance and could have stopped it if they thought a large bar scramble was inappropriate.
Obviously, if the authorities didn't feel it was worth stepping in proactively, why would the owner of Joes? That is silly back asswards logic and I'm confident that the city council will inject common sense into the conversation.
If a student group calls your bar and says I'm going to patronize your bar with 1500 customers, you say yes.
If a student group calls your bar and says I'm going to sell tshirts to raise money for a charity, you say yes.
If a group of customers walks into your bar and buys a shot, you serve them the shot, with a few exceptions.
If a group of customers walks into your bar with tshirts, you don't talk to them about what they plan on doing outside your bar.
If a customer is drunk and belligerent, you throw them out as Joes did.
If a huge bar crawl is taking place on campus, it is a good idea to staff your bar and work with your staff proactively and make sure that all happy hour laws are being followed, as Joes did. If the mayor and police followed this logic and worked with the bar owners, wouldn't that be better and accomplish the goals they claim to desire?
There is nothing remotely wrong or even manipulative what Joes Brewery did.
Since the Liquor Advisory Council seems to be inactive, how can bar owners even have these discussions?
If the mayor wants to address issues on campus and promote safety, he can ask the liquor advisory council to consider ways to discourage large bar scrambles if someone thinks there is something illegal or genuinely unsafe about them.
If bar scramble are inherently evil, you can make it a law that they are illegal. But they are not.
If it should be illegal to sell tshirts at a bar for a fundraiser, you make laws that make that activity illegal. That would be idiotic, but feel free.
If you are the Liquor Commissioner concerned about a large bar crawl that you know is happening on campus, you can call the bar owners and work with them to keep things under control. It's a crazy concept, I know, but reasonable. If people want the bars to be more conservative than the law, maybe you should try working with them and not ingoring them, but don't blame the bars for letting in people they are LEGALLY allowed to admit. It's not their job to be more conservative than the law.
Threatening to shut down a business because you don't like what patrons did outside a business should have serious consequences and full investigation should be conducted once the charges against Joes Brewery are dropped. It's bad enough when businesses are held accountable for the actions of patrons inside their business.
Likewise, threatening to shut down a business because a third party advertised a fundraiser on their facebook page should have serious consequences and full investigation should be conducted once the charges against Joes Brewery are dropped.
Yes, Joes Brewery was shut down early in the year because patrons snuck in a ping pong ball. No, the mayor didn't work with the bar about how to prevent ping pong balls from the destruction they cause. Purely and simply draconian.
A beer pong documentary where they interview an 18 year old. No bar footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM8EbO-_I9o.
Would you prefer your child to be hanging out in a bar, or would you prefer this kind of campus crib: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SytljElWcsM complete with a beer pong room and sex room (pg rated).
If you think you can stomach the results, google college xxx parties to appreciate what goes on at private parties outside of the bar. This is not pg rated and you should not google the results if you can accept in advance that this is not where you want your child to be hanging out. I have never seen this kind of thing at a bar.
During Unofficial St. Patricks Day at the University of Illinois, thousands of students are pushed to private parties with absolutely no oversight.
You are missing the big picture here Dou..., I mean B. The bar scramble was in and of itself, and by it's very nature, a drinking game. Therefore any support given to it, including looking the other way while making a killing on sales, is a violation of the happy hour laws.
All I can say is, if you cultivate a certain atmosphere at the establishment at certain times of the year/night, and if you cater to a certain crowd, then your odds of having someone sneak ping pong balls in there probably go up, and maybe calculating in the cost of a few fines/shutdown nights should be part of the business plan.
I never see anyone with ping pong balls in the bars that cater to a, how should we put it, more mature crowd.
Meanwhile, just as you show the various healthy normal activities going on at bars, do realize that there are healthy normal house parties out there too.
But the point remains, if you want the 19 year olds safely drinking in the bars so that they don't go to house parties, you need to lower the DRINKING AGE. Until you do that, or seriously campaign for it, those claims are hollow. As it stands currently, the mantra is "well, we think the 19 year olds should break the law and drink at our bars (paying, of course!) rather than breaking the law and drinking at a skeevy frat party."
And how about those 19 year olds on Unofficial? If you seriously think that they're going into the participating bars to drink pop, all I can say is what color is the sky on your planet - green? Color of money, no doubt... At the very least, they're drinking extra at home to get nice and drunk before going into a place that won't let them buy.
If you're not talking about the 19 year olds on Unofficial, then who is being "pushed" to private parties? The beer-pongers? If that's the argument, then what are you saying - we should let people play drinking games in bars after all, because it's safer than doing it at home? Of-age people are fully allowed to drink in bars on Unofficial, crappy green beer and beads and goofy hats and all of it.
Or is it this supposed delicate flower of a 19 year old who would go into the bars on Unofficial and legally stick to drinking pop (at least while in the bar!) while accompanying her 21 year old boyfriend, who is having beer? On UNOFFICIAL, no less? Again, what color is the sky on your world? Oh wait - he's so considerate of her that he will stay out of the bars if she can't go in, so they'll go to a house party, amirite? But he doesn't care enough not to go to a skeevy place. And NOW she'll be drinking way more than otherwise? But of course, this girl never would pregame heavily before heading to the bar to make it "last" for the two hours they'll be in there, or get someone to buy her beer once she's inside the bar, or take sips off her boyfriend's beer hidden there in the crowds, or anything.
...at which point the bar gets busted. So maybe it IS just better business to not risk the split entry/drinking ages on Unofficial.
The mayor isn't even taking calls from bar owners
Its his policy when he is litigating the bar.
http://www.wicd15.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wicd_vid_1525.shtml
"The bar scramble was in and of itself, and by it's very nature, a drinking game. Therefore any support given to it, including looking the other way while making a killing on sales, is a violation of the happy hour laws."
www.state.il.us/LCC/docs/HappyHourLaw.pdf
This is why we need the City Council to inject some common sense into this situation. Joe's Brewery followed the law. They did not advertise the event in any way. On top of that, they did not get a citation for drinking games when the cops were out to bust them. You cannot create your own laws and you should not be able to twist the laws so creatively for the sake of harassing bars into following your own version of what the law should be. These controversial areas would best served with clear guidelines and clear expectations. If Joes did anything wrong, chances are you could just talk to the bar owner and the problem would be solved. I know, what a crazy notion, right? Alternatively, you can establish a law that addresses things you would like changed.
Even better, the Mayor and police department could start "working together". The mayor's approach to this problem is no better than any other stong-handed government official who take matters into their own hands. This scheme is Blagoesque.
I heard a reference to big picture. OBVIOUSLY, this was a proactive attempt to force the bars to 21 even though the council has not supported that policy in the past.
"But the point remains, if you want the 19 year olds safely drinking in the bars so that they don't go to house parties, you need to lower the DRINKING AGE."
Until then, let's follow the laws at they are currently written and intended, whether we agree with all of them or not.
http://www.wicd15.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wicd_vid_1525.shtml
Not an even a mention about the Illini Pundit. What a crock! : )
Heh. Thanks, B.
I think that the WICD news report is essentially accurate except we are not being accused of "promoting binge drinking". We are being accused of (at Joes anyway) promoting on premise drinking games. 10 other bars are being accused of actually having drinking games on premise. Binge drinking is not illegal in a bar or at an apartment. It is of course, inadvisable to binge or overserve someone for moral and liability reasons. Joes and other bars have policies that require overly intoxicated patrons be removed from the bar. Several people were removed from the bar later in the day on Barscramble.
I have only spoken to the Mayor maybe 2 or 3 times in the 5 years I've been at Joes. I know that it now his policy (I have no idea when it started) to not speak to bar owners or managers when they are under litigation. The Mayor has control over liquor enforcement operations. The Mayor decides guilt or innoncence (unless you appeal to a City appointed 3rd party). After that, if you are found guilty, he decides the penalty. Yet he will not hear our side of the story. He will not even call us if he has advance notice of something he finds troubling.
When Joes was shut down for a week, it was because of someone bringing a pingpong ball to the bar and playing beer pong on an old pool table. Joes or any other bar was never alerted that this should be actively policed by the bar. We knew that we could not organize or promote it but actively police was new. After Joes was shut down, everybody else got the hint.
Most of the 11 bars think they did nothing illegal and are fully aware of the Happy Hour laws. Most are are going to hearing and not accepting the City's proposal. Joes is certainly not going to accept any penalty whatsoever. This whole process could be avoided if the Mayor would work with us as he claims to want to. He could say that he is clear on his policies. He certainly isn't clear IN ADVANCE. It's pretty clear there's been a change when someone gets suspended.
As for 21 vs 19, every bar will follow the rules as they exist. It's up to the City Council to decide what the rules should be.
Bravo!
beware of the termites.
He could say that he is clear on his policies.
As long as the mayor's policies are consistent with the law, ther is no need for him to announce them. The bars need to review the law and make efforts not to violate them. If a bar owner invents some scheme which might evade the law, the bar owner should communicate this in advance to the mayor for review.
illinipunditposter
"If a bar owner invents some scheme which might evade the law, the bar owner should communicate this in advance to the mayor for review. "
There was no scheme. It was by the book. You can't write the book after the fact to accomodate your own political agenda.
This post just hit the century club (100 posts). *Takes Drink*
"It is of course, inadvisable to binge or overserve someone for moral and liability reasons."
Mr. Larson, I thought it was illegal to serve someone who is intoxicated. When it is not obvious, how can you tell. I know I've been served at bars when I've been intoxicated. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Again, be careful in your response. I wouldn't want you getting shut down for 30 day for commenting on a blog where they discussed a bar scramble. People are getting a bit silly. : )
Also, what do you think of the 3% beer idea where students are drinking beer where the alcohol content is lower? Is this feasible and has this idea ever been discussed to your knowledge?
When it is not obvious, how can you tell.
The usual useless rule is that as long as the patron is not acting inappropriately towards others and not falling asleep, the person can be served.
B4B fantasized: It was by the book.
As usual, you are obfuscating again. What book are you referring to ?