 
While I understand the argument of singling out individual businesses, (FFL 1:20:30) I believe these councilors had a right to take a personal look at a business that is making oodles of money while using tax dollars on a high number of police calls. And for disclosure, besides the three councilors, there were 4 citizens present watching what was going on. Since the license renewal did pass 7-1, this was more of a warning to Wiley’s that we are watching. I also found it strange that Erickson didn’t have an issue with the police calls, but just a few short months ago she took them to task over smoking violations. Ironically, I checked out that situation Friday night. What Wiley’s essentially has is a smoking room with it’s own bar and very large doors that open up to an outside heated patio. Basically a 4-season room for smokers.
I am very proud them taking a stand, especially Pat and Greg for standing up to the mayor and councilor Erpenbach. If anyone should be embarrassed, it should be her.
I am not at all surprised Erpenbach would take an opportunity to ingratiate herself to Wiley’s attorney Drew Duncan. A list of the Duncans’ lobbying, government affairs clients, and “grassroots organizing” clients is available at: http://www.sdlobbying.com/page16811738.aspx
Duncan is also a member of the South Dakota Board of Elections. In some states, a guy who makes a very good living influencing elections wouldn’t be allowed to serve on the state Board of Elections.
Someone just pointed out to me that it seemed odd that Erp is gung-ho about the public smoking ban, but doesn’t give two shits about about people binge drinking.
Who is the Wiley’s owners group?
Good call lj. Follow the money. Too many inconsistencies to be anything but.
It is obvious Michelle considers herself the self appointed judge, jury, and shaming machine for the city council.
Well, from the public’s viewpoint she is no longer connected with the average Joe Citizen. She is a rubber stamp for the mayor. And lastly, she is NOT the judge and jury. That is the public’s role. She needs to shut her critical mouth and leave her mama pants at home if she wants to serve publicly.
Mama Pants? LOL.
For the record folks, the above commenter is a female.
I miss the “Caribou Show” (Who says that pay day lending doesn’t have some good qualities?…;-)…..).
I could imagine a skit on that show where three Councilors walk into a bar (That sounds like a joke), or go to Scarlett’s, or maybe camp for the night at Walmart…
But seriously, I don’t think the Councilors over stepped their reach. It is obvious that there is a problem with that establishment given the number of police calls that the City takes about that establishment; and given the increase in binge drinking in our society I think that the Councilors’ critique was founded.
First these Councilors were criticized for representing their constituents over the “City” a few months ago, and now they are criticized when they work as the equivalency of code enforcers for the “City”…. Sure, there were no laws for the Councilors to investigate or enforce with their bar visit, but if there is a obvious problem don’t you want your elected officials to be on top of it and involved to discover the facts in hand for themselves, if possible?
I think our police need to fight crime rather than work as bouncers for an establishment which profits from binge drinking…. Especially, when you live in a town with rising crime…