UPDATE: READ COMMENT #17 FOR CLARIFICATION
A downtown business owner told me an interesting story last night that is strangely not being covered in the local media. In fact this was the first I heard about it. I am a little short on the details, and I don’t have links to the state law code, but this is what I remember from the conversation;
According to state law you cannot sell alcohol on public property without a proper permit, some call it a ‘Tavern Permit’. But SOME downtown businesses have been breaking this law ever since the city started selling patio permits for places like Stogeez. As I understand it, it is okay for someone to drink alcohol on the patios if you are legal age, you just can’t purchase the alcohol on the patio. In other words, it is legal to go to someplace like Stogeez, go indoors, buy a drink and then sit on the patio and drink it, it becomes illegal when a server comes out on the patio and sells you the drink and brings it to you. Why? Because it is public property, not private, and according to state law the silly permits that the city sells, do not cover the tavern clause.
How did this all come about? The owner of Buffaloberries has a patio, and she follows the law, but she noticed that other bars and restaurants downtown do not. So she filed a complaint. But here’s the kicker; he city knows that it is illegal (or I suspect they do) because they are in the process of writing a tavern permit ordinance. But in the meantime, they are using the ‘Home Rule’ excuse that they do not need to follow state law. Okay, if that is the case, why are writing a new ordinance if you think you are exempt?
I want to be clear, I am not blaming the business owners, the city is the one who enabled DT business owners to break the law. Should the business owners know better? Sure. But the city shouldn’t be defending the practice when they know it is illegal.
The city needs to admit they made a mistake, fix it and move on. But as usual they make excuses for their mistakes.Â
I need a drink.
I guess this is one more argument, besides decibal levels, why people are trying to close down Stogeez.
I think you need to add one more tag for this type of post about The Ape… ‘vendetta’
I would love to, but you have to realize, there are other DT restaurants breaking this law too.
As a former officer of he SFPD; I cannot understand why 10-12 years ago we went after every homeless person who drank in public on the streets and now the City issues permits and promotes this to a “better class of Citizens?”
Maybe we should take a look at all of our alcohol laws in the state and decide which ones we truly need and which ones we do not. Let’s start with the public consumption/open container laws(not in a motor vehicle).
I just think it is funny that this has been going on for this long and no one has done anything about it. It’s not like it is a big deal to walk indoors to buy a drink.
If walking indoors to get a drink is “no big deal” then equally having a waiter bring one to you should be “no big deal” either. Just like the weed most of you enjoy it is a victimless crime, but a crime none the less. I bet you don’t preach to the city to start enforcing those laws, because that would be a waist of tax payers money. Sorry to say, but you can’t have it both ways.
I always figured open container laws were designed to give the PD a tool by which they could make “undesirables” leave certain parts of town and a tool by which they could fleece money from the rest.
Sort of like loitering ordinences.
RU4Real-
Take a chill pill, yah boner.
No need for a “chill pill” I honestly could care less if the city writes up tickets for laws that make no sense. I just think you have a very weak argument with this issue. I find it ironic that one day you are blogging about how certain laws are moronic, and the next you take offense to one that literally a handful of people in the state give a shit about. I would be willing to bet most residents would rather see the police force make one weed bust, than write up 20 tickets to bars that have waitresses who take a cold beer to a customer, when they are allowed to have them on the sidewalk anyway. Those of us that read your blog always hear how the city doesn’t know what they are doing, but I would say they are spot on by not wasting tax payers money by enforcing bogus laws.
Now I am going to take the time to go all “junior high” on your ass. I may be a boner but, but your mom wears combat boots. lol
your mom wears combat boots. lol
Weak sauce. See my response to the minuteman (and really, all those who think like him) in his post from yesterday.
I don’t have an issue with them enforcing it or not, I just find it ironic that the city is claiming they are exempt from state law, instead of just requiring establishments to have a tavern permit.
Scott, you should know by now that Mr. Kant is above any silly city, state, or national laws. He’s Mr. Downtown, after all, and nobody should question anything he ever does.
I will have to disagree, if it was just Timmy boy doing this, then I would agree. But several businesses DT are doing it, which I believe is out of ignorance. I really think the city dropped the ball on this, and did not know the state law or just ignored it. I think it is funny that it took another DT business owner to bring it up.
. . . and BTW, which tells what kind of dolts work in the city attorney’s office . . . don’t get me started.
I believe that it’s one of those small town-ish situations where the law was “forgotten” when it comes to friends of the city (Stogeez, Minerva’s, etc.). The practice then spread to others until this operator turned it into an issue.
Exactly. That, and nobody likes Tim Kant, so he is an easy target. I also find it funny that the city would turn a blind eye to a blatant violation of State Law, after it was brought to their attention, but would spend over $100,000 to fight a man over a cement pad and a $300 fine.
Oh the hypocrisy.
“Businesses first, citizens second.”
It has just been brought to my attention that I have been credited for stirring this particular pot. I’d like to clarify a couple of things. First, state law does allow municipalities to grant sidewalk permits (35-4-77.1) to businesses licensed to sell alcohol “provided that the license holder derives more than fifty percent of its gross receipts from the sale of prepared food for consumption on the licensed premises.” This statute allows for both the sale and the consumption and is actually just an extension of the business to a patio area that directly abuts the business. Sioux Falls does grant permits to downtown businesses and I do legally sell wine and beer on my patio area.
As part of the permit process, the city can grant a special event wine and beer license to a not-for-profit entity (like Downtown Sioux Falls). That permit takes precedence over our permits during those special events, and we agree to this when we request the permit.
Downtown Sioux Falls then solicits fees from vendors to sell the beer they have selected for the evening. They could also choose to sell wine but as a not-for-profit they are not licensed for the sale or consumption of hard alcohol.
I relinquished my permit to sell wine and beer on my patio during the first couple of special events this summer and became frustrated when other restaurants and bars were doing business as usual outside by selling all of their regular alcoholic beverages. I raised my concerns to staff members of Downtown Sioux Falls. I did not file a formal complaint with the city.
The following weekend I spent some time updating myself on the state statutes (many were updating during the 2008 session) and noted the 50% food requirement for outdoor alcoholic licensing permits. I asked a city employee why some downtown businesses that did not sell food were given permits. The answer I was given was that the city attorney had interpreted the practice to be legal under home charter rules.
I am not a legislator or an attorney and I am certainly not an expert on home charter rules. I also don’t have an issue with any of the businesses that operate downtown and I certainly don’t have a desire to cause trouble for anyone. I just want a level playing field (i.e. enforcement of stated rules) and compliance with state legislation. If current legislation doesn’t work for Sioux Falls, then efforts to facilitate change should be organized for the 2010 legislative session.
Karen-
Thanks for the clarification, I figured I had screwed it up somehow.
So Mr. “I Own Downtown Sioux Falls” is operating under his own set of rules?
PRETTY MUCH
and he wonders why people want to shut him down?
With ‘Home Rule Charter’, city government considers itself separate from state or federal law. Basically, they are not government but a syndicate. Home Rule must be repealed. Voters put this monster in place not knowing it would become full blown socialism. It will take a new mayor’s policy to repeal. There’s active litigation against the city. It could conclude and await a judges decision after this friday provided there is no more obstruction of justice on the part of the city attorney’s office. If the court issues a declaratory judgement, most all city civil procedures could be questioned. Unfortunately, there would be future multi-million dollar class action legal expenses. Home Rule is used for all city business. All fees, fines, contracts, bids, etc. could be questioned. Mr. Munson will have his place in history as the dictator who thwarted sound city government into receivership.
PG- You should talk to Karen. She usually is working lunches at her shop.