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.