It is so rewarding when policy makers read the IlliniPundit. Good things start to happen and you apply common sense.
http://www.wicd15.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wicd_vid_1525.shtml
The mayor said in the report that, "This is the one thing that I will not tolerate."
I must ask, what the heck is that one thing? Where was that one thing communicated? How was that message expected to reach the bar owners?
The mayor knew about the bar crawl but did not send out an email or any indication of his desires, but today he (courtesty of staff) sent out the email you see below. Isn't it so nice when you're nice enough to take time to outline your expections in advance and work together. Congratulations! This is how it should have have been for the bar crawl as well! It is clear that this communication capability was possible and it's a shame he couldn't simply indicate his concerns in advance. Then again, the "force the bar to 21" scheme wouldn't have worked.
The TV reported the mayor is "taking heat". Oh yeah, wait until the marketing campaign starts!
Ben Handleman (bhandleman@wicd15.com), if you are going to reference this blog as a source/reference on story where you get paid to report on, please give the Illini Pundit his due respect. Unlike you, nobody here gets paid. The least you can do is give credit where credit is due. For the record, you did a great job on the story. : )
Update: Illinipundit.com was cited as source at bottom of screen.
From an email from the Mayor today:
Licensees:
Please find attached 2 documents:
1. Holiday Party & New Years Eve Event Reminder note on Happy Hour
2. 2010 TIPS and BEST training schedule
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Mayor Jerry Schweighart
December 15, 2009
To: Owners / Managers
On Premise Liquor License Holders
From: Gerald Schweighart
Liquor Commissioner
Re: Holiday Party’s and New Year’s Eve events
Dear Licensee,
With the holidays upon us, may of you are involved in private parties and related holiday activities. Some of you are in the final stages of planning for New Year’s Eve functions. During this period, it is not uncommon for city staff to field a large number of questions related to these events and the legality of certain types of activities. Our goal is to help you be successful with your event and remain within the legal guidelines of the city and state.
To that end we wanted to share with you the specific section of the Illinois Liquor Control Act that focuses on “Happy Hour” as well as an article from Richard Haymaker, ILCC Chief Legal Counsel that addresses their interpretation of “Private Functions”.
In discussions with representatives from the Illinois Liquor Control Commission it is apparent that any publicly advertised event with tickets that are sold in advance or offered for sale at the door and offer unlimited drinks are a violation of the state code. There can be no unlimited or open bars offered under this circumstance or any non private function as they have defined.
Event packages which include a meal and drinks may be developed and offered but must limit the number of drinks available to the customer. Please keep in mind that if the number of drinks offered in this package would likely produce intoxication in the guest, the licensee is opening themselves up to civil and or criminal liability. The customer will likely want to consume all drinks offered which will make it more difficult for the server to cut them off if needed.
Event packages that are alcohol only are not allowed according to the statute. Please keep in mind that the sale of alcohol to an intoxicated subject is a violation at both state and local levels.
The City of Champaign will be investigating any complaints related to these types of promotions and take enforcement action as necessary.
It is our hope that you will have safe and profitable holiday events. Again we are very interested in seeing you be successful while being compliant with the law. As city staff we are more than willing to help you with these issues and to promote a safe holiday season. Feel free to contact the Legal Department at 217-403-8765 or the Alcohol Enforcement Office at 217-403-6914.
Happy Holidays
Cheers!
The mayor's informing bar owners of what they should already know is not an instance of covering one's butt. Rather it is a thoughtful action to prevent bar owners subsequently found in violation from attempting to invoke pleas of ignorance to delay imposed penalties
illinipunditposter
B for Business, don't you think you should change your moniker to B for Bars? Alfred Sloan famously said that what is good for GM is good for the country. You seem to think that what is good for bars is good for the city. I would like a little more objectivity.
What do you expect from a half-wit reporter who has no idea how to do news? Typical journalism on television in this town. I'll get my news from WILL or WDWS.
"The mayor's informing bar owners of what they should already know is not an instance of covering one's butt."
What the mayor is doing is communicating IN ADVANCE. He went on the news and said "I told the bars this is the one thing I will not tolerate." Since he has this mechanism for communicating with the bars, when did he say such a thing and how was it communicated?
The mayor is under fire and he's finally starting act to act in a manner that appears to be "working together". Good for him.
What the mayor is doing is communicating IN ADVANCE.
Advance communication is not butt covering. The bar owners will find some other ruse to evade the rules, and when the mayor punishes them, they will again cry foul, and the mayor will have to issue another "advance communication"
As long as the mayor's policies are consistent with the law, there 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
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.
"B for Business, don't you think you should change your moniker to B for Bars? Alfred Sloan famously said that what is good for GM is good for the country. You seem to think that what is good for bars is good for the city. I would like a little more objectivity."
What I think is good for the city is working together. Objectivity? You mean objectivity like those who are going to hear the argument, who are hell bent on forcing a 21 yo bar entry, who aren't actually going to listen to their case directly, who were looking to entrap the bars with creative interpretations of the law?
Go ask a bar owner if the message contained in the Mayor's email is typical or if this is a culture shift suddenly taking place after he took heat on a local political blog. These guys (bar owners) aren't the scum of the earth as they are made out to be by some posters on the blog. Most of them work very hard to promote a safe and profitable environment in one of the most challenging and competitive businesses arenas. Think that's easy? Think again.
Just because they are involved in perpetual political controversy because the state of illinois and champaign city council allows 19 yo bar entry, should not preclude them from basic common courtesy every business owner should enjoy in this town. Instead of harassment from the liquor commissioner, hopefully the Mayor can put his bitterness asside and start working together with campus bars and start working towards a safe and profitable environment.
Is it the safety of the students that the mayor concerned about? It doesn't seem like it. He knew about bar scramble and easily could have communicated his concerns in advance. "He chose not to".
What we are seeing in this email sent out yesterday is the kind of thing any business would appreciate in a highly regulated environment. The idea of working together, clear communications, and mutual respect between the city and businesses is a common sense idea. We need more of it, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about the saftey and well being of the community. This is certainly the type of culture you'd hope the Mayor of Champaign would instill and foster.
It seems the mayor and the police will choose arrogance over collaboration and safety. This heavy handed and irrational move by the mayor is certain to promote short-term chaos on campus. Of course, the reaction by students will be defiance. Of course, the abrupt and brutal nature of this move will only inspire and fuel those who will feel victimized by this unilateral political agenda.
Look, I can appreciate the headache that unofficial caused him. That was one bar owner who should get an award for most effective promotion ever, however, it obviously turned into its own monster and out of control. It seemed like the Unofficial was gradually getting under control and the mayor just brought a gasoline truck to that fire. After watching the aftermath, I hope the city council appreciates that they should be involved in setting the direction for the community and not one guy who can't look beyond the police point of view.
Last but not least, it is reasonable to hope for the consistent enforcement of policies. In the irrational world of the liquor commissioner, he his capitalizing on his own inability to consistently enforce policies. His goal is obviously to penalize a bar and not prevent violations from happening when you pursue this heinous approach to solving problems. If he were truly concerned about the safety of students and not his unilateral political agenda, he would work with the bars proactively to address areas of concern and not humor idiots who judge progress based on the number of citations.
"The bar owners will find some other ruse to evade the rules, and when the mayor punishes them, they will again cry foul, and the mayor will have to issue another "advance communication" "
You are completely wrong. Most business I talk to appreciate a clear set of expectations and that everyone has to play by the same rules. If a bar evades the rules, as in any highly competitive environment, you're likely going to see them get called out by their competitors.
In the past the mayor has approved all you can drink parties as long as they were private parties. I seem to recall there were many in the town last year during new years. In fact, I've been invited to a few this New Year's Eve. So in the past, the mayor didn't interpret all you can drink parties for a single price a violation of happy hour rules but will rule a bar scramble to be a violation of happy hour rules? It doesn't seem there was any change in city or state code. Hmmmmm.
I suspect you will be able to attend these types of parties outside of Champaign, but not in Champaign this year. Still it's a nice heads up in advance and provides clear expectations. While a few posters would prefer that all the bars who hosted all you can drink parties be shut down without warning, I'm happy the mayor is doing now what he should have done previously with the campus. No illinipunditposter, he's not required by law to be a good guy all the time.
I wonder if people from Champaign will be visiting cities that allow all you can drink parties for a flat fee this New Years. Ideally, all the bars and cities play by the same rules.
As a business owner, I find the City of Champaign has a past history of supporting business. They continue to support businesses as evidenced by the business growth within the city. Yes, there is a very small specialized business sector which deal in a controlled substance, alcohol. It requires and receives more attention than any other business. This attention is the result of a majority of the voters in the city and the state which allow the age disparity between those who are allowed to enter into these businesses and those who are allowed to buy alcohol. Our elected have done a fairly good job attending to these special businesses given the mandate they are under. These businesses are some of the most profitable in the city, exploiting this age disparity leveraged by the hugh number of inexperience patrons attending the U of I. Your posts B is for Business has nothing to do with business and everything to do with this very specialized unique local business sector known as 'campus bars'. Your posts suggest you work for one of these businesses or are one of their inexperienced patron. If you are the latter, do your self a favor, concnetrate more on finishing your degree and decline the invitations to these 'all you can drink' 'New Years parties'. If you are the former, I can only work to change the law eliminating the disparity which will change your employers business plan.
"These businesses are some of the most profitable in the city, exploiting this age disparity leveraged by the hugh number of inexperience patrons attending the U of I."
Really? What makes you so sure?
"Your posts B is for Business has nothing to do with business and everything to do with this very specialized unique local business sector known as 'campus bars'."
It absolutely has to do with business. Businesses want clear expectations. Businesses do not want to be held accountable for things they can't control. Businesses want fair and consistent enforcement of policies. If there is going to be major change to the economic drivers of a district, the city council and community should be involved in the discussion BEFORE proactive efforts is initiated. The little unique business sector is a SIGNIFICANT economic consideration whether we like it or not and we should all be working to address issues and implement change collectively, IF change is what we decide on.
"If you are the former, I can only work to change the law eliminating the disparity which will change your employers business plan."
Now that is a fair and reasonable argument. I look forward to hearing your argument and I'm wondering how that argument has changed since the last time changing the bar entry age was considered, if at all. If anything, I'd think the bar argument was stengthened by Unofficial with kids packing (and falling off) balconies all over campustown. But that's just me.
The balcony argument continues to make no sense at all. If they were 21, they could go drink that alcohol in the bars as it is. If they're 19, and were allowed into the bars, they would have either been breaking the law drinking their alcohol in there, or they would have been (as the bar owners want us to believe) primly drinking pop, in bars, on Unofficial.
...right.
FWIW all the bars have lines out the door on Unofficial. They seem to be packed to capacity even with the 21+ entry for the day, and I suspect that's the reason so many bars did voluntarily go with it - they weren't really going to lose BUSINESS, which is what this is actually all about.
If anything, I'd think the bar argument was stengthened by Unofficial with kids packing (and falling off) balconies all over campustown.
Except Unofficial wouldn't have existed without the bars being such a huge presence.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
Businesses want fair and consistent enforcement of policies.
Businesses selling controlled substances need to review the law and be sure they are on the correct side, rather than invent a stream of schemes to circumvent the law
"These businesses are some of the most profitable in the city, exploiting this age disparity leveraged by the hugh number of inexperience patrons attending the U of I."
Really? What makes you so sure?
In another thread you noted that you thought businesses only close in Urbana. Well, campus bars in Champaign never seem to close
illinipunditposter
"If they're 19, and were allowed into the bars, they would have either been breaking the law drinking their alcohol in there, or they would have been (as the bar owners want us to believe) primly drinking pop, in bars, on Unofficial."
Who is making this argument? The 19 year old is certainly going to try and get beer. Mostly they are going to pregame beforehand.
"They seem to be packed to capacity even with the 21+ entry for the day, and I suspect that's the reason so many bars did voluntarily go with it - they weren't really going to lose BUSINESS, which is what this is actually all about."
Wrong. Actually bars are already losing business because students start their nights later (I should say they go to the bars later) because they pregame at home where they can drink. Business is already down at the bars and some bars are losing money. If the bars go 21, I'm going to feel sorry for Antonios Pizza.
During Unofficial next year, walk around the bar at 3pm and tell me they are at capacity with lines to the door and then while you're walking around look at the balconies. Think about how much extra capacity there is town and wonder why they are not in the bars. Then think about where they are if they are not in the bars.
"In another thread you noted that you thought businesses only close in Urbana. Well, campus bars in Champaign never seem to close"
Bar Louie.
Red Rock.
Cafe Hookah.
R&Rs.
Gullys.
White Horse.
"Except Unofficial wouldn't have existed without the bars being such a huge presence."
That is certainly true. Unofficial was initially a bar promotion that exploded into the monster it is today.
That is certainly true. Unofficial was initially a bar promotion that exploded into the monster it is today.
The mayor needs to act forcefully against entities which create such monsters
So what is your business B is for Business?
I've seen so much television news bashing on this site. I don't love the news coverage around here, so I don't watch it. Why bash someone you don't know? Instead, don't watch.
Before you cite this as evidence of a conspiracy, consider that the minutes cannot become available until they are approved, which doesn't happen until a motion is made at the next meeting.
So what is your business B is for Business?
Making a Bozo of himself on this forum. He could not possibly have time to participate in a business.
"The mayor needs to act forcefully against entities which create such monsters"
We better act proactively against bars who have specials and have promotions like Thirsty Thursdays then.
We have to admit, Scott Cochran gets full credit the marketing genious behind Unofficial. All bars run promotions trying get people into their establishments. Talk about an effective marketing campaign.
If you think that it should be illegal to promote a promotion that involves alcohol, you are free to make that law and hopefully, you enforce the laws consistently.
"So what is your business B is for Business?"
For Profit
"Before you cite this as evidence of a conspiracy, consider that the minutes cannot become available until they are approved, which doesn't happen until a motion is made at the next meeting."
I assumed so. 2 meetings following that meeting have been cancelled and 3/4 last commission meetings were cancelled. Fact remains, us concerned citizens have not been able to read minutes of a liquor commission for more than 5 months. Evidence of consipiracy? How about instead a serious concern that the communication mechanism between the licensees and liquor commissioner has essentially been non existent while the Mayor is promoting "working together".
Why are we practicing censorship here and unpublishing comments that are unflattering to you?
Of the six bars you cited as "closed", you fail to note that they were all re-opened. White Horse is still open, R&R's became Firehaus, and Gully's became FuBar. Maybe the other bars aren't successful because the market is saturated, and the invisible hand is at work? Did you consider that, or does that not play into your conspiracy theories?
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
"Why are we practicing censorship here and unpublishing comments that are unflattering to you?"
There have been no comments unpublished in this thread. And lots of comments unflattering to B is for Business remain published.
B is for Business asks: "Who is making this argument? The 19 year old is certainly going to try and get beer. Mostly they are going to pregame beforehand. "
Indeed. So how on earth are they safer being allowed into a bar where they can't drink? They're STILL DRINKING AT HOME. Oh, but you do agree they're going to try and get beer in the bar. Meaning, they will try to break the law (and in many cases, succeed, caught or not.) At which point, they're a known liability for the bar, whether it's legal to let them in there or not. A business risk, if you will.
My entire issue with the situation as it stands is that the disparity in the entry and drinking ages serves NO purpose other than to allow various parties (both bar owners and law enforcement) to make money off of 19 year old kids breaking the law by drinking underage in bars. The only way this "benefit" works for anyone is by pretending that there are these groups of 19 year-olds out there who are going to bars (providing business!) and yet not breaking the law. Meaning, they're drinking pop (or nothing at all).
...which everyone knows is laughable.
But that's the ONLY way that you have this supposed "oh, they're safer! They're in the bar under supervision!" situation without them breaking the law in there. On the other hand, as even you've come to admit too, in those cases where they ARE sticking to pop (if not the floor, ha) odds are very high that they've pregamed first. Pregaming (of the pounding sort practiced by people who know they can't get another beer for 2 hours, not the "let's save money" crowd) is what's dangerous, because of the high initial BAC spike involved.
Then further on you admit that regular pregaming by of-age people, of the normal drinking level "hey, beer is cheaper at the supermarket, so let's have one at home before heading out" crowd is also a problem, because hey, it's taking away revenue. They're going out later, drinking less at the high-profit places.
The 19 year olds who "oh noes, pregame at home where they can drink before going to the bars" - you'd rather them drinking in the bars, illegally? That's the part that continues to make no sense - raising the entry age to 21 doesn't prevent anyone who is legally able to drink ("safely!") in the bars now from continuing to do so. I suppose I'll grant you that perhaps the 21 year old with the 19 year old girlfriend might want to take her out to a bar where he drinks one last beer (which is revenue you might miss out on otherwise!), but that's just all the more motive to have her pregame harder beforehand ("hurry up already!") which is hardly safe.
REVENUE is what this is all about. It's a capitalist system, so that's a normal thing, and yes, letting people into bars at 19 IS in fact currently legal in Champaign, even if it's a business risk when they end up getting busted for drinking underage on the premises, as they always do every semester.
But let's not pretend this is really about anything else.
Personally, I'd be fine with an 18 drinking age, as I've stated before - I'm not against the evil demon rum. In fact, I think a lot of the problems with drinking to excess are ironically caused by perceived SCARCITY - it's all the pregaming and the pounding done by people who think they better drink up now because they can't get any more (the older brother or upperclassman who bought the beer for them has gone, etc) or they better drink up now and get really "drunk to last" because they can't have another for at least 2 hours while they're out, that is a problem. Plus there's 4 people in the apartment and one six-pack left by older brother and hey, you wanna be one of the guys who has 2...
But none of those problems are solved by letting people into bars but not letting them drink in there.
"So what is your business B is for Business?" (answer given by B is for Business) For Profit
I asked the question for insight into your background given the Blog name you have chosen and the topics of your posts. Since you did not answer my initial question, I'll ask a few more. Your one word answers should protect your anonymity if you are actually in business. Do you own or operate a legal business? If so, what industry? Do you have any of the following, FTIN, DUNS, NAISC, SIC?
I have a suggestion but it would take some organizing. I suggest every patron of every campus bar on a certain Friday night or Saturday night drink pop. That's it, no alcohol at all whether over 21 or under 21. Drink beforehand, drink after, whatever, but the time you are in a bar, do not spend a penny on alcohol. Food, either, for that matter. Just buy a soda. Or get a water. "Bar Crawl for H2O!"
The bar owners would lose money (pop has a very low profit margin, alcohol has a high profit margin). Then the bar owners would wake up.
There would be a definite, measurable loss of revenue to the city, in sales taxes and in fines. Then the city might wake up.
This sadly will never happen but it would be an excellent protest.
If you think that it should be illegal to promote a promotion that involves alcohol, you are free to make that law and hopefully, you enforce the laws consistently.
As allowed by law, the mayor needs to and has been acting forcefully against monster-creating bar owners. The mayor will seek ordinance revisions if needed.
B is for
BusinessBonehead comes across as especially boneheaded when he first refers to promotions of excessive drinking as "monsters" and then, realizing he put his foot in his mouth, declares such promotions as "marketing genius""So how on earth are they safer being allowed into a bar where they can't drink? They're STILL DRINKING AT HOME."
This issue is not whether or not they are drinking. It was they are inclined to do when they are drunk. It is much less likely to take advantage of a passed out girl at bar than it is in a bedroom. There is no doubt that I'd prefer my college daughter to party at a bar vs. a private party.
"Personally, I'd be fine with an 18 drinking age, as I've stated before - I'm not against the evil demon rum. In fact, I think a lot of the problems with drinking to excess are ironically caused by perceived SCARCITY - it's all the pregaming and the pounding done by people who think they better drink up now because they can't get any more (the older brother or upperclassman who bought the beer for them has gone, etc) or they better drink up now and get really "drunk to last" because they can't have another for at least 2 hours while they're out, that is a problem."
I'm pretty sure lowering the drinking age is not viable, so we should probably focus our discussion the actual problem and possible solutions. I have mixed emotions on the 18 drinking age, but generally agree with you on your position (as it related to 18yo drinking age). You can always identify the girls who were learning to drink in college and didn't get much practice in high school. I've never met someone who didn't drink until they were 21.
I think you make a good point with the perceived scarcity argument.
"B is for
BusinessBonehead comes across as especially boneheaded when he first refers to promotions of excessive drinking as "monsters" and then, realizing he put his foot in his mouth, refers to them as "marketing genius""The Unofficial promotion was a successful marketing campaign that grew out of control and become its own monster. Nice try. : )
"Since you did not answer my initial question, I'll ask a few more."
I've provided as much as I'm going to provide. Feel free to ask me my opinion about the issue discussed in this thread and I'll consider responding.
The Unofficial promotion was a successful marketing campaign that grew out of control and become its own monster.
The irresponsible bar-owning perpetrators of the monster continued to feed it for as many years possible until the authorities had to embark on a multi-year odyssey to wrestle and kill the monster. The bar owners deserve whatever they get from the mayor.
I've provided as much as I'm going to provide. Feel free to ask me my opinion about the issue discussed in this thread and I'll consider responding.
We pray that B is for Bozo's business, if he he has one, is a more positive contribution to out community than the views he expresses in this forum
"Of the six bars you cited as "closed", you fail to note that they were all re-opened. White Horse is still open, R&R's became Firehaus, and Gully's became FuBar. Maybe the other bars aren't successful because the market is saturated, and the invisible hand is at work? Did you consider that, or does that not play into your conspiracy theories?"
People are claiming the campus bars are the most profitable businesses in the city and never seem to close. White Horse closed because they failed and couldn't make payroll. Sure they reopened with a new owner, but the claim made earlier is false on multiple levels. How this relates to some "conspiracy theory" is beyond me.
People are claiming the campus bars are the most profitable businesses in the city and never seem to close.
This suggestion has been made by one person.
White Horse closed because they failed....
B is for B is becoming profound.
Keep trying. : )
Can we please return to the subject of the discussion, rather than discussing B is for Business?
Thanks.
Actually, they've already succeeded.
The bright side of all this is that campustown is not likely to influence an election in this town. Therefore the mayor can pretty much go nuts in campustown and it is not going to hurt the more conservative makeup of the city council.
From what I hear the Mayor has made up his mind and there is no going back. That's too bad. This is a great opportunity to work together and not declare war on campustown. I'm curious how the non bar owners feel about all this down there.
I just hope the Mayor and the police department know what the hell they are doing. Apparently, talking to the council can't help anything.
Check that, I also hope the students do not get riled up.
It would be unfortunate for the Mayor to declare war on Campustown. According to the 2007 University District Existing Conditions Report (part of the Campustown Action Plan), 19.72% of the sales tax generated in the City of Champaign came from the University District (Campustown). In addition, the report states that 8.87% of the total property tax generated by the City of Champaign was derived from the University District. I wouldn't be declaring war on an area that is generating those kinds of numbers. Wonder what downtown Champaign generates in sales tax and property tax revenue for the city? Do you think it is more than Campustown? Is the amount of staff time/resources spent on Downtown equal to the amount of staff time/resources spent on Campustown? Just wondering :)
But at illinipundit, ignorance is everywhere.
Wrong. Acutally, in posts by "B is for Business" deceit is everywhere
The front page of today's N-G had an article on this topic. The record of bar checks in eight campus bars is in the print, but not the online version. Between Aug an Nov 13 bar checks average 7+ citations per bar check--and there were only 5 or 6 bar checks per bar in a three and a half month period. Based on the information in the article, Schweighart has been much too lenient with the offending bar owners. These types of problems do not occur in off campus bars. The article goes on to describe a scam organization, the Irish Illini, which is not registered as a student organization, and its sponsorship (including a web site) and judging of a bar crawling event.
Based upon B's earlier blathering in this thread, he undoubtedly considers the drinking event described in today's N-G to be another example of "marketing genius" Most likely our esteemed bozo B also considers Bernie Madoff's fund raising over the years another classic example of "marketing genius."
Obviously these bar owners suffer from an deficient upbringing in which they were never taught respect for authority!
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
B is for B said: From what I hear the Mayor has made up his mind and there is no going back.
B is for B is always hearing things. Some deity or prophet probably jabbers to B is for B before he writes his posts
B is fo B also said: I just hope the Mayor and the police department know what the hell they are doing. Apparently, talking to the council can't help anything.
Considering today's newspaper story and the history of the campus bar owners, Champaign should be trusting the mayor, and at least in this circumstance, the police department
Bulldog said: It would be unfortunate for the Mayor to declare war on Campustown. According to the 2007 University District Existing Conditions Report (part of the Campustown Action Plan), 19.72% of the sales tax generated in the City of Champaign came from the University District (Campustown). In addition, the report states that 8.87% of the total property tax generated by the City of Champaign was derived from the University District.
Having several campus bars obey the liquor laws is not a war on Campustown. Any sales tax revenue decrease beacause of less sales in the several subject bars will be an insignificant portion of overall sales tax collection. The mayor's actions will not affect property tax revenues
Michael Fuerst
AnonymousMe - Thanks for the link to the News-Gazette article.
What strikes me as particularly amazing about it is the quote:
"The argument from the bars has been that they have no obligation to do any checking after checking IDs at the door, Schweighart said.
"We are telling them, 'You do have a responsibility,'" he said."
If what the Mayor says there is accurate (yeah, I realize, N-G, salt, etc) it boggles the mind - OBVIOUSLY there is an obligation to check IDs (or at least handstamps, if that's the system) inside the bar when serving alcohol, IFF the policy is to let underage people legally into the bar. Ditto for doing the once-over every so often to see if people without bracelets/handstamps are drinking off their neighbors' beers, pouring shots into their pop, and all the usual obvious things one does to consume the boozahol where one isn't supposed to be having it.
Bottom line is (and again, that's really what this is all about) everyone knows damn well that those 7+ underage drinkers aren't only drinking in the bars on the particular nights that the police do a raid. All the times they don't get caught (by either the police or bar staff) they're spending good money on beer, and it will be harder for them to do this if the entry age is raised to match the actual drinking age.
As long as it's only the underage drinkers getting fined, there is no incentive to remove the honeypot situation, either - the underage certainly aren't going to complain (they know their odds are pretty decent, you can overhear conversations about this, read "Happy 19th!" birthday posts about it, etc), the ones who do get caught will whine about their fine but that's about it, the police aren't going to complain (hey, more revenue for the city!), and bars aren't going to complain, because hey, all the people who get away with it are paying good money.
Only when the punishment for the establishments is up there comparable with the extra money coming in under the status quo will there be any actual incentive to change. Little slap on the wrist fines or closing down on a Tuesday during the dead week between summer semesters is just too easily eaten as a minor tax on doing business.
...which is what the Mayor has apparently realized.
Should he communicate the rules really well in advance? Sure. Heck, give some grace in the rules, even - you can't catch everyone, bouncers are human - but some threshold of citations either in one evening or over some period ought to be expensive.
The drinking age will never be lowered unless the state decides it doesn't want Federal Road money, or unless the US Supreme Court decides that the Fed is constitutionally prohibited from influencing the states alcohol laws. So in effect, lowering the drinking age is impossible.
College is a time where people learn to act on their own, without constant parental intervention... Kids learn a lot of things in that time, but nothing more important that taking resposibility for themselves. 19 and 20 year olds know exactly how old they are. The primary responsibility for their possession of alcohol is their own. Attempting to purchase alcohol while underage is fraud. Placing blame on the bar owners does nothing to change that.
Attempting to purchase alcohol while underage is fraud. Placing blame on the bar owners does nothing to change that.
Of course it is fraud and a criminal offense in which the seller is complicit. Illegally selling alcohol to minors has long been an essential element of the campus bar business plan. It was so 50 years ago when I was a 21 year old student at the U of I and it is so today. The City of Champaign periodically meted out one week suspensions to be served during Christmas or Easter Breaks or in August when the students were not here. The only time that there was much of an effort at enforcing the rules was during the March Madness of the Sweet Sixteen State Basketball Tourney with an effort to keep most visiting high schoolers out of the bars. It is not a matter of "blaming" the bar owners. It is a matter of holding them responsible under the law.
If the City of Champaign were serious about getting control of illegal sales to minors the next bar check that turns up underage drinkers should result in a few bartenders and servers being charged with the criminal offense, hauled off to county to be held until they post bond and the bar owner given 15 minutes to get there to close down and secure his establishment before CPD leaves the scene.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
One thing I thought was conspicuously absent from the NG story was how many times those same bars had passed or failed covert inspections.
I have gone to campus bars to have a look for myself. While they may not walk through the crowd and take drinks away from 19 and 20 year olds, they do mark them, or bracelet them, and they DO NOT serve them... as far as I could tell, and I was watching pretty closely. So in that respect, the bars are NOT complicit. It's NOT the staff who are breaking the law, it's the patrons.
So I am at least confident that for the most part, bartenders are not serving alcoholic beverages directly to minors, which seems to be confirmed by the fact that those bars have NOT been cited for failing covert inspections. And that, at least in my mind, is the main objective of the law, and the bars ARE compliant there. It's not fair to discount that.
You can bet that if they HAD failed covert inspections, they would have been fined and suspended already.
I don't think a lot of this blog's readers understand just how often and rigorously the city sends in covert agents to look for violations and THIS is the best they could find in several years. And NOW because the city is collecting statistics they want to use them to make new rules and apply them retroactively.
If you are going to make the bar accountable for a 19 yo drinking a beer in a bar where the entry age is 21, the bars are never going to win that game. The underage invividual will ALWAYS prevail.
I was very pleased to hear from the N-G article where the city is considering:
"Mayor Jerry Schweighart, who is also the city's liquor commissioner, said the city is working to establish a format in which liquor-license holders, after a certain number of minors have been ticketed, will also face city penalties."
We know the pure lefties will argue that if there is one underage drinker caught in the bar, the bar owner should be drawn and quartered for complicity in perpetrating a fraud. That said, is 5-7 citations at a bar when they are at full capacity considered excessive? That said is 5-7 citations at a bar excessive then there are 50 patrons? One is more reasonable than the other.
Everyone knows the game and how the game is played. The kids aren't stupid. The police aren't stupid. The Mayor is not stupid. There are council members who remember what it was like in college. The left wing radicals appreciate that it is much easier to hold a business accountable for the action of the inviduals than holding the individual accountable. The good news in Champaign is that we have reasonable council members.
There is a radical shift into making a business accountable for the 19 year olds in their bar. The bars will never win and be able to sustain their business fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. Previously, the city worked with the bar and provided them with guidance and direction. Now we have crazy government types (from ILCC) writing the bar a ticket where they find one (1) underager in a bar. The city council has to get control of this situation.
Keep in mind that the campustown bar rep on the Liquor Advisory Council is the manger from Legends. We are talking about one of the most reasonable and responsible individuals who works his butt off day in and day out to run a good operation. I know the nazis want all bar owners who make a profit from 19 year olds to be shot, but this is a guy who does it right. When Legends is threatened to be shut down, you know something is wrong. The system is completely broken.
I definately would prefer my daughter to be hanging out in Legends. When the bars that go above and beyond are getting shut down, you know the system is broken. It's time to bring everyone to the table.
We know the pure lefties will argue that if there is one underage drinker caught in the bar, the bar owner should be drawn and quartered for complicity in perpetrating a fraud. That said, is 5-7 citations at a bar when they are at full capacity considered excessive? That said is 5-7 citations at a bar excessive then there are 50 patrons? One is more reasonable than the other.
How the world according to B has changed! It is now quite Liberal to advocate vigorous enforcement of the law as written and most Conservative to urge that the authorities turn a blind eye to violations of the law because, as he repeatedly reminds us, underage drinking is the norm and a rite, one might say "right" in his eyes, of passage that prevails in the social elite culture of the College Student.
His daughter is safer, he argues, getting blind drunk in a campus bar than drinking at a private party in an apartment. Of course that presupposes that having left her senses and inhibitions in the bar someone will deliver her safely to her solitary bed to sleep it off and she will not be diverted to some gallant swain's stable for an unconscious toss in the hay . Is that, too, a rite of passage?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"It is now quite Liberal to advocate vigorous enforcement of the law as written and most Conservative to urge that the authorities turn a blind eye to violations of the law because, as he repeatedly reminds us, underage drinking is the norm and a rite, one might say "right" in his eyes, of passage that prevails in the social elite culture of the College Student."
It is quite liberal to make a business accountable for the actions of an individual and promote vague guidelines.
The bars face an awesome challenge day in and day out dealing all the regulations + the conventional challenges of running any business + the fact that competition is fierce on campus.
They are easy prey for the liberal business haters. Work together to ensure a better system of checks and monitoring and write the individual breaking the law a ticket.
By far the easiest way to make sure that no underaged individuals are perpetrating fraud in your bar by purchasing alcohol illegally or getting other patrons to buy it for them to drink, is to not let those underaged individuals in to begin with. Check them at the door and then truly be done with it. Law or not, you're free to voluntarily make that change.
Either make the ages the same, or just deal with the risk of penalties. It's only a problem because yeah, you're making money off those people as it stands now. This has NEVER been about safety.
But be careful, if you say "the city council has got to get control of this situation," I suspect the city is going to change the law to make the entry age 21, if it's at all possible for them to pull it off. Why? Because that's the easiest way to solve this "problem." It's hardly only "liberals" pushing for this, by the way - if anything, I hear more from the social conservatives who don't really like much drinking at all by anybody.
I'll agree that the guidelines need to be stated explicitly and evenly enforced. I have no problem with the bars being ticketed.
It is quite liberal to make a business accountable for the actions of an individual and promote vague guidelines.
What is vague about the Illinois statute? It provides, among other things:
(235 ILCS 5/6‑16) (from Ch. 43, par. 131)
Sec. 6‑16. Prohibited sales and possession.
(a) (i) No licensee nor any officer, associate, member, representative, agent, or employee of such licensee shall sell, give, or deliver alcoholic liquor to any person under the age of 21 years or to any intoxicated person, except as provided in Section 6‑16.1.
...
(iii) No person, after purchasing or otherwise obtaining alcoholic liquor, shall sell, give, or deliver such alcoholic liquor to another person under the age of 21 years, except in the performance of a religious ceremony or service.
...
Any person who violates the provisions of item (iii) of this paragraph of this subsection (a) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and the sentence shall include, but shall not be limited to a fine of not less than $500 for a first offense and not less than $2,000 for a second or subsequent offense. Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of item (iii) of this paragraph of this subsection (a) is guilty of a Class 4 felony if a death occurs as the result of the violation.
That statute should be vigorously enforced against both the bartenders and servers and the over 21 patrons who pass the alcohol on to their underage tablemates. They should all be arrested and held to bond as any other offender would be. A Class A misdemeanor carries with it a potential jail sentence of up to 364 days in the county jail.
The Statute in Full
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"That statute should be vigorously enforced against both the bartenders and servers and the over 21 patrons who pass the alcohol on to their underage tablemates."
The bars are not breaking the law when a patron over 21 passes the alcohol to their underage tablemates. They are breaking the law only if they sell, give, or deliver per section a-1. It says very clear in the content you referenced. I would agree that the person over 21 who passes a drink should be accountable as so indicated in section a-3. If the bar sold, gives, or delivers beer directly to a 19 year old, then they are breaking the law.
It doesn't say in the state law that bars are responsible for the 21 year old breaking the law. Please point me to that section.
Concerning recent confusing prose from B is for Business (December 17th, 2009 at 06:33 AM):
We know the pure lefties will argue that if there is one underage drinker caught in the bar, the bar owner should be drawn and quartered for complicity in perpetrating a fraud.
You seem to be the only one who know this
That said, is 5-7 citations at a bar when they are at full capacity considered excessive? That said is 5-7 citations at a bar excessive then there are 50 patrons? One is more reasonable than the other.
Some standard has to be set.
Everyone knows the game and how the game is played.
You claim some game exists, but do nto describe what yoiu are referring to .
There is a radical shift into making a business accountable for the 19 year olds in their bar. The bars will never win and be able to sustain their business fighting a battle they cannot possibly win.
As suggested in yesterday's NG, the bar owners are savvy and inventive enough to set up a web site crating a drinking event. They should be smart enough to be accountable for 19 year olds in their estblishments
Previously, the city worked with the bar and provided them with guidance and direction.
Please tell us how you beilieve the cit perviously worked with bars.
Now we have crazy government types (from ILCC) writing the bar a ticket where they find one (1) underager in a bar.
Bravo.
The city council has to get control of this situation.
The concil has more important work
Keep in mind that the campustown bar rep on the Liquor Advisory Council is the manger from Legends. We are talking about one of the most reasonable and responsible individuals who works his butt off day in and day out to run a good operation.
Yiou have not named this person. We have no reason to believe this assertion that the owner of Legends is at all reasonable and responsible. Please illustrate this.
I know the nazis want all bar owners who make a profit from 19 year olds to be shot, but this is a guy who does it right.
Your post is reading like a senile rant. First there are lefties, and now there are nazis. Yoiu have been complaining about the mayor, who does not fall into either category
When Legends is threatened to be shut down, you know something is wrong.
You are the only one that knows this. If you wnt us to believe such speculation, please describe the circumstances that are concerning you
I definately would prefer my daughter to be hanging out in Legends.
Again you are confusing us. Legends, as opposed to where?
Now we have crazy government types (from ILCC) writing the bar a ticket where they find one (1) underager in a bar.
Bravo.
I am confident we have people in Champaign who think this logic is unreasonable. One of the greatest assets is that we have is a City Council that would never support this radical logic. They get their fair share of crazies on the microphone, but I'm confident they will make logical decisions once they hear all sides.
"As suggested in yesterday's NG, the bar owners are savvy and inventive enough to set up a web site crating a drinking event."
The NG suggested the bars set up a web site creating a drinking event? Is this where you got that idea? Was there another article you are referencing? It would be pretty crazy to assume that the bars created a website just because the group is not registered with UofI.
Isn't this the only part of the article in yesterday's paper that discusses the website?:
Schweighart said the event was sponsored by the Irish Illini, which is not registered as a student organization with the University of Illinois.
The Web site for the organization says, "Irish Illini is one of the premier social organizations on campus. We host Chambana's largest barcrawls (our semesterly barscrambles) as well as weekly Friday Happy Hours with great specials and themed events."
Irish Illini Website. Also, here is an article which discusses that group's presence on campus and some of their non-drinking activities. Please tell me where the N-G suggests that the bars setup a website to create a drinking event. Unless I missed another article, that would be a very creative assumption that you claim they are making.
Look at their titles. Since we're in creative mode, The Irish Illini officer titles are certainly creative.
Old Balls VP. : ) I wonder if they have business cards.
I am confident we have people in Champaign who think this logic is unreasonable.
Your sole confidence is not reassuring or believable for the rest of us
Since we're in creative mode,
As indicted by your newly startred thread, Campustown Safety Summit, you certainly are in creative mode, trying to snooker the community to hold meetings with bar owners, so public safety can be compromised in the hope of increase sales during the 2010 "Unofficial"
Having worked at a few of the various Campus bars over the years, I do have a pretty good idea how the system used to work, at least back then... I am curious, why would the bartender be arrested, fined and/or charged with a crime for selling a drink to a (legal) patron who later passed it along to an underage patron? Yes, it was a polite fiction, and as long as we (bartenders/bouncers) didn't actually sell them the alcohol, nor did we actually observe them consuming it, etc... I'm a bit confused by all the "ages of majority" we have, and it should just be one age for all (contracts, draft, drinking, etc...), but surprisingly, no one asked me :-), certainly not when I was in the 18-21 age bracket.
It does seem completely unreasonable to hold a business accountable for illegal activities that are occurring on their premises without their consent. Would it be reasonable to seize a business, arrest the staff and fine everyone if someone were say, smoking marijuana in the bathroom of the building or somewhere on the property? Or perhaps placed an illegal (non taxed :-)) sports bet via cell phone from the beer garden?
Unless I missed another article, that would be a very creative assumption that you claim they are making.
I think it a very plasuible claim. It certainly is much less creative than your constant claims about what you "heard"
pchappel says: "Yes, it was a polite fiction..."
Indeed, as everyone around these parts knows. That's the elephant in the room for all of these discussions, both at the city council and elsewhere.
Can someone point me to the article in the N-G where they suggest the bars "set up a web site crating a drinking event."?
Can I assume there was no such article so we can move on?
News stories should not suggest. It is difficult to imagine that the bar owners did not either help or encourage the settin up of the web site and other covert publicity for the "Unofficial"
Can someone please point me to where someone suggested that the bars created a website for drinking event, not including the anon bloggers on this site?
Can someone please point me to the state or city law(s) that says the bar is in violation of the law when a 21 year old passes a 19 year old a drink without their knowledge?
... not including the anon bloggers on this site?
Hey B: you are also an anonymous blogger, so anything you write is of equally little value.
Can someone please point me to the state or city law(s) that says the bar is in violation of the law when a 21 year old passes a 19 year old a drink without their knowledge?
Come on B: Do you really need a citaion indicating the illegality of serving a 19 year old alcohol without the 19 year old's kowledge?
Also, please read previous post on this thread, in particular December 17th, 2009 at 09:28 AM by KeithHays which quotes the relevent law. There is no exception for lack of knowledge. This is no different from charging with homicde the driver of a getaway car of an armed robbery during which a homicide occurred.
There is NO evidence that ANY bar served a 19 or 20 year old. Keith's post is therefore irrelevent. No one is offering evidence of service directly to minors by any bartender or waitress.
But everyone here "KNOWS" wink wink that it has happened??? PROVE IT !!!! or else look at the city barchecks that show NO SERVICE to minors. Covert checks PASSED...
What?? NO PROOF??? Well then build a BS and arbitrary standard and blame the bar owners of breaking some non-existent law.
"Come on B: Do you really need a citaion indicating the illegality of serving a 19 year old alcohol without the 19 year old's kowledge?"
In this scenario, the bars do not serve the 19 year old, they get it from the >21 yo who is breaking the law. The 19 yo who is drinking the beer is in possession and is breaking the law The bar is not breaking the law.
The bar is not serving the 19 year old.
When a bartender or server delivers a pitcher of beer and 4 glasses to a 21 year old sitting at a table with two 19 year old and one 17 year old friends, who is breaking the law?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
AnonymousMe said "The record of bar checks in eight campus bars is in the print, but not the online version. Between Aug an Nov 13 bar checks average 7+ citations per bar check--and there were only 5 or 6 bar checks per bar in a three and a half month period. Based on the information in the article, Schweighart has been much too lenient with the offending bar owners. These types of problems do not occur in off campus bars. " " ONLY 5 or 6... in 3.5 months " ?? Just how many times a month do YOU think the city should do bar checks? Twice a month seems pretty diligent to me!! Nowhere in that article did it say that those cited were served by the bar staff. Sounds to me as if the bar did NOTHING illegal, or, I suppose more correctly, that the police found no EVIDENCE of the bar committing an illegal act. How many times should the police be allowed to visit a bar that hasn't broken any laws before it just becomes harassment? If you were 21, how many times would the police have to walk through your favorite establishment in a month and ask for your ID, before you just said "Screw it" and decide to do your drinking at home. The city does NOT have the right to run off customers from a business that is operating within the law!! I have a feeling that whatever the number of citations within a month would have been, that would have been at least 1 "too many", for AnonymousMe AND the mayor. If those same bars were to have half as many citation written on their patrons in the same time period, THAT, would be seen by the mayor as too many. 7 citations in a place that holds as few as 100 people, is still a % 93 pass rate, and better in places that hold more. Where I went to school, that was still an 'A'.
When a server delivers a pitcher and 4 glasses to a table of 4 (on campus or off), the server is required to ask for all 4 people's IDs. Go see for yourself. I did. Now who is talking through their hat?
"Come on B: Do you really need a citaion indicating the illegality of serving a 19 year old alcohol without the 19 year old's kowledge?"
In this scenario, the bars do not serve the 19 year old, they get it from the >21 yo who is breaking the law. The 19 yo who is drinking the beer is in possession and is breaking the law The bar is not breaking the law.
The bar is not serving the 19 year old.
Well you answered the question the facetious question we posed that even a B is for Bozo might answer. But not having read the quote from the law that Keith quoted, you missed that even in the situation you suggest, the bar is in violation
But you neglected the issue which exposes all your posts in this thread as folly. But we will give you another chance, before dismissing you as the fool you appear to be:
Concerning questions asked by December 18th, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Anonymous
Nowhere in that article did it say that those cited were served by the bar staff.
Irrelevant under the law.
Sounds to me as if the bar did NOTHING illegal, ....
Please remove your earplugs before posting
or, I suppose more correctly, that the police found no EVIDENCE of the bar committing an illegal act.
Your supposition is incorrect.
How many times should the police be allowed to visit a bar that hasn't broken any laws before it just becomes harassment?
A policeman could come into a bar every hour.
If you were 21, how many times would the police have to walk through your favorite establishment in a month and ask for your ID, before you just said "Screw it" and decide to do your drinking at home.
Having to show an ID every 2nd or 3rd time would not be excessive. The process takes 30 seconds
The city does NOT have the right to run off customers from a business that is operating within the law!!
Please provide a citation for this. Also, what is your definition of a "right" ?
I have a feeling that whatever the number of citations within a month would have been, that would have been at least 1 "too many", for AnonymousMe AND the mayor.
I cannot speak for the mayor. I feel that if a citation had to be written in more than 10% of police or other investigatory visits, there is a problem
If those same bars were to have half as many citation written on their patrons in the same time period, THAT, would be seen by the mayor as too many. 7 citations in a place that holds as few as 100 people, is still a % 93 pass rate, and better in places that hold more. Where I went to school, that was still an 'A'.
Even B is for Business would not say something as silly as your last suggestion. If police officers only pulled their guns on 7% of the persons they confront would that be an 'A'? If someone owns 100 rental apartments and has smoke alarms in 93% of them, would that be an 'A" ? If a new drug shows positive results in treating some ailment, but gives only 7% of its users a certain cancer within several years, would that be an 'A'? If the airline check-in procedures prevented 93% of terrorist attacks, would that be an 'A' ? If someone's cable service service worked 93% of the time, would that be an'A" ? I f 93% of the call you make on your cellphone were not dropped, would that be an 'A' ?
Keith cited : Sec. 6‑16. Prohibited sales and possession.
(a) (i) No licensee nor any officer, associate, member, representative, agent, or employee of such licensee shall sell, give, or deliver alcoholic liquor to any person under the age of 21 years or to any intoxicated person, except as provided in Section 6‑16.1.
No bar staff is accused of this, so NO VIOLATION
...
(iii) No person, after purchasing or otherwise obtaining alcoholic liquor, shall sell, give, or deliver such alcoholic liquor to another person under the age of 21 years, except in the performance of a religious ceremony or service.
Again... no bar staff is accused of this either... so again... NO VIOLATION
...
Any person who violates the provisions of item (iii) of this paragraph of this subsection (a) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and the sentence shall include, but shall not be limited to a fine of not less than $500 for a first offense and not less than $2,000 for a second or subsequent offense. Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of item (iii) of this paragraph of this subsection (a) is guilty of a Class 4 felony if a death occurs as the result of the violation.
"Nowhere in that article did it say that those cited were served by the bar staff.
Irrelevant under the law."
I believe the "not knowing, and still guilty" situation you speak of is "ignorance of the law is no defense" which is VERY different from the bar staff not knowing that a 21 year old customer passed of a drink to a 19 year old. Ignorance of the law is no defense.. being unaware, and not responsible for, the action of a customer IS a valid defense.
"A policeman could come into a bar every hour." Would THIS be an appropriate use of your tax dollars? "Equal enforcement under the law" would demand this to be in EVERY bar. And more than that, unless done in every bar, if the police did that when no violations by the bar, have been found.. WOULD tend to constitute "Selective Enforcement" and THAT IS harassment.
" I feel that if a citation had to be written in more than 10% of police or other investigatory visits, there is a problem"
Gee, that's not at ALL arbitrary... (dripping in sarcasm)..Well then I suppose the bar owners can all breath easier that YOU are not the mayor. I suppose even The Mayor can breath easier that he doesn't answer to you personally.
And I suppose the legal drinking age should be 1 year younger that whatever age you are, and should go up every year on your birthday. And girls' skirts should reach the ground when they kneel, and women shouldn't be allowed to enter a "house of sin" (otherwise known as a bar) without a proper escort.
"When a bartender or server delivers a pitcher of beer and 4 glasses to a 21 year old sitting at a table with two 19 year old and one 17 year old friends, who is breaking the law?"
Show me a law that says it is illegal to serve someone who is over 21, who then breaks the law and passes it to a 19 year old. Bars actually have received citations for underagers in possession. This is a very straightforward question. Please copy and paste the law that says that. I can call my attorney to ask him to find the law if I really wanted to, but I suspect no such law exists and I'd be wasting good money.
Since I can't see where is says that the bar is doing anything illegal when they serve a 21 year old a drink who then breaks the law, you are asking the bars to be more conservative in enforcing the law. Not only that, their competitor down the street will benefit if you voluntarily harass customers more than your competition because the customers will likely move where they are less likely to get harassed. Therefore it is challenging situation that requires everyone working together.
Is there a campus bar association? No, they really don't talk.
Is there Liquor Advisory Commission? Yes, but they are not even meeting during a very important time and only have one campus bar rep and two campus bar reps total.
Considering there is no effective mechanism for the bars to get together to work on safety, maybe those who want to make underage drinking a priority should create that mechanism and work together so that enforcement expectations are clear and consistent.
If this is a safety issue, maybe there should be a meeting on saftey as I discussed.
If this is an enforcement issue inside the bar, then the bars have to all live by the same expections.
If the issue is that the bar is guilty if there is small number of possession violations, even while they are passing suprise inspections on their enforcement requirements, then there is no point on even trying to work together.
Y'know, we covered this issue before. A bar that has someone under 21 in the bar consuming alcohol is liable under City of Champaign Code 5-44(b). If the bar checks IDs sufficiently, they're exempt under 5-44(c). And in case "Political Intuition" drops by again, I'll remind everyone that 'negligent' and 'reckless' are specific legal terms that exist in tort and criminal law.
"If the bar checks IDs sufficiently, they're exempt under 5-44(c)"
Interesting. So it's not found anywhere in state law as others are arguing. It is found in local ordinance? So bars check ID sufficiently and the bar gets a ticket for being negligent, even if only a
handful of patrons aresingle patron is found illegally in possession and even if they carded everyone and only served everyone who was 21.As I said before, it's time the council took some control of this and all sides came together. No matter what is done or how hard a bar tries, they will always be negligent by this standard. Why bother trying if you are in an impossible situation?
Slightly more complex than that, if you read 5-44(c) -- paraphrased, it says that you get off if and only if you have a written policy that you've filed with the commission AND your bouncer saw a really good fake ID that said the person was 21+. It's not a defense to say your bouncer saw an ID that said the person was 19/20 and you let him/her in with the assumption that person would not drink alcohol.
"A policeman could come into a bar every hour." Would THIS be an appropriate use of your tax dollars? "Equal enforcement under the law" would demand this to be in EVERY bar. And more than that, unless done in every bar, if the police did that when no violations by the bar, have been found.. WOULD tend to constitute "Selective Enforcement" and THAT IS harassment.
Before the mayor or police felt the need of an officer to make hourly checks on a bar, the bar would have enough violations so that other fines or temproary closures would have occurred. No one would want hourly checks at bars where such violations are considered unlikely. But there is no legal restriction from hourly checks if the mayor or police thought such was needed. There would be no need to do this at every bar. Today campus bars are likely checked more often than downtown Champaign bars. Please tell us about your legal doctirne you invented called "Equal enforcement under the law". Please cite appropriat elaw to support youir fiction "THAT IS harrassment"
Since I can't see where is says that the bar is doing anything illegal when they serve a 21 year old a drink who then breaks the law, you are asking the bars to be more conservative in enforcing the law.
Hey B, you are sounding more silly with every post. That you cannot see something does not mean that any of us are asking anything
Not only that, their competitor down the street will benefit if you voluntarily harass customers more than your competition because the customers will likely move where they are less likely to get harassed. Therefore it is challenging situation that requires everyone working together.
You have provided no examples of customer harassment. There is no challenging situation that anyone needs to waste time working on.
Is there Liquor Advisory Commission? Yes, but they are not even meeting during a very important time and only have one campus bar rep and two campus bar reps total.
There has been on need for the commission to meet, except for everyone to waste their time listening to a few bar owners complain about the proper enforcement of the law. You are the only one who thinks this is "a very important time."
Considering there is no effective mechanism for the bars to get together to work on safety, maybe those who want to make underage drinking a priority should create that mechanism and work together so that enforcement expectations are clear and consistent.
If safety was a critical issue about which bar owners cared, the owners would/could meet to make suggestions to the city
If this is a safety issue, maybe there should be a meeting on safety as I discussed.
If this is an enforcement issue inside the bar, then the bars have to all live by the same expections.
If the issue is that the bar is guilty if there is small number of possession violations, even while they are passing surprise inspections on their enforcement requirements, then there is no point on even trying to work together.
Hey B You started your last three sentences with "If" If you don't know what is and isn't maybe you should not be starting threads in which your absurd assertions and suggestions get ripped to shreds. As far as this and your othere recent threads on similar topics, you will not be able to CYA concerning your foolishness
The apparent purpose of the exercise:
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
DaveM - Thanks for the link to the earlier thread from May, it was informative.
What I took away from it, including reading the sections from the bar owner and employee in there, was that even THEY think that the sensible thing to do would be to align the entry and drinking ages. They have a problem with doing that VOLUNTARILY because they know that their competitors would then steal their business. That I agree is a valid concern.
So it seems that for the ease of everyone, the solution is to band together and have the ages aligned by local ordinance, making Champaign-Urbana the same as most other towns with a 21 bar entry age. That would set the floor LEVEL for all the bars, meaning that while the money stream from non-caught underage drinkers would stop, there would not be any incentive for people to switch bars to the one left still letting 19 year olds in, or whatever.
This gets portrayed as "oh it will never happen" but if all the bars actually banded together and went for it, to reduce their liability as a whole without creating the "race to the place that still lets 19 year olds in," I wonder if it's really all that impossible. THAT might be where productive talk needs to happen.