SMU President Against Alcohol Propositions
We just received a letter from SMU President R. Gerald Turner to University Park Mayor Dick Davis, but, due to printing deadlines, we won’t be able to run it in this week’s edition of Park Cities People.
After previously stating that the university will not take sides regarding the two propositions, Turner wrote:
“I think it would be best for the proposed changes to be rejected to preserve the character of the community near the campus.”
In the letter, Turner claims over-the-counter alcohol sales “would encourage greater underage consumption through easier individual alcohol purchases or bulk purchases facilitated by those 2l and older.”
For the entire letter, click here.
Pick up this week’s Park Cities People for an in-depth look at the liquor propositions, and where former UP mayors stand on the proposed changes.
24 comments to "SMU President Against Alcohol Propositions"
Approved Locations for Alcohol Service
Collins Executive Education Center (Common Area and Dining Room)
Cox School of Business (Dean’s Parlor, Ernst and Young Gallery)
Crescent Club
DeGolyer Library (Stanley Marcus Reading Room, Texana Room)
Embrey Engineering Building (Huitt Zollars Pavilion)
Founder’s Room and South Lobby
Gates Restaurant
Fincher Building (JP Morgan Parlor)
Karcher Auditorium
Legacy Campus (Office Suites, Auditorium)
Letterman’s Hall
Meadows School of the Arts (Dean’s Suite Lobby)
Meadows Museum (Red Room, Jones Great Hall)
Permanent Collection Galleries
Smith Auditorium
SMU Faculty Club
Umphrey Lee Ballroom
Oh yeah and lets not forget the MASSIVE BACCHANAL known affectionately as the Boulevard. Students pounding beers in the street. Thank you Dr. Turner for bringing that fine example of student behavior to our city.
Dr. Turner is certainly entitled to his opinion (despite, as he puts it, “SMU’s practice to refrain from taking official positions on issues before University Park’s voters”), but the last paragraph of the letter is outrageous in its mendacity and bad faith. Here is that paragraph, in its entirety:
“A series of package or convenience stores or restaurants with “happy hours” promoting daily access to alcohol would forever change the nature of the businesses along Hillcrest across from campus, with an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, I think it would be best for the proposed changes to be rejected to preserve the character of the community near the campus.” [Emphasis added]
If one of Dr. Turner’s students turned in work like this, he would be brought before the honor council.
First, as stated many times before and as the ballot measures make clear, the change in law would not allow package stores.
Second, I can think of a dozen restaurants in Snider Plaza and on Hillcrest that serve alcohol every day they are open (Hotel Lumen, Half Shells, Banditos, Olivellas, Penne Pomodoro, Cisco Grill, Amore and Club Peggy Sue or whatever it’s called all come to mind). Sushi Kyoto regularly has “Sake Night”. These restaurants periodically have drink specials, and may have happy hours. In what way would eliminating the private club requirement change this?
Dr. Turner, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. But I know you are a university president and clearly much smarter than I, so please explain how you reached the conclusions in your letter. Because as I see it, one of three things has happened: you have made an embarrassing error, you are lying, or someone has lied to you about the content of the ballot initiatives. Which is it? Regardless of how it happened, you have just embarrassed yourself and your school in spectacular fashion.
Dr. Turner’s concerns are legitimate and can be addressed with a local City of UP ordinance forbidding the sale of alcohol within a certain distance from schools. Highland Park has had exactly this type of local ordinance on their books for years.
Two weeks ago, I asked our city attorney Rob Dillard if UP had any local ordinances governing the sale of alcohol to supplement those of the TABC. He responded that we do not. I immediately asked our city council and Mayor Davis to make this a top priority for the Commercial and Retail Advisory committee, which I am currently chairman of, so that we can study the facts and put forth a plan. I have yet to hear back from them.
SMU is an asset to this community and Dr. Turner has done a great job as president. We need to work closely with the school on issues exactly like this. However, we do not have to deny thousands UP citizens the right to purchase a legal product in their city in order to address the needs of the university.
Yeah, Turner’s sure doing a great job of “preserving” the area around campus. It’s not like it’s hard to get booze at SMU… look at all the kids who get MIPs their first semester there.
University Park residents can already buy alcohol in restaurants, and in nearby neighborhood grocery stores and package stores. There’s not any “treading” going on.
We’re voting against the proposed changes, mostly because of our kids. So are most of our neighbors. The last thing University Park needs is more alcohol more accessible to kids.
I say:
1. Dump the onerous private club requirements.
2. Let Tom Thumb sell beer/wine in Snider Plaza.
3. Collect the additional sales taxes; and
4. Finish the pump station project at Germany Park (2 years?????).
However, the TABC is very clear that the private club rules we have today are so flexible that I could:
Sec. 32.03. QUALIFICATIONS FOR PERMIT. (a) A private club registration permit may only be issued to a club which meets the requirements of this section.(g) The club must provide regular food service adequate for its members and their guests.
This means that as long as the club members are happy with the food, be it peanuts, popcorn or frozen yogurt, the private club can sell as much whiskey as it wants and they have still satisfied the requirement. In other words, bars and night clubs with very little food service are allowed in UP today under the private club rules.
On the other hand, the permit voters are asking for this November has much stricter food requirements:
Sec. 28.18. FOOD AND BEVERAGE CERTIFICATE. (a) A holder of a mixed beverage permit may be issued a food and beverage certificate by the commission if the gross receipts of mixed beverages sold by the holder are 50 percent or less of the total gross receipts from the premises.
(b) An applicant or holder of a food and beverage certificate shall have food service facilities for the preparation and service of multiple entrees. The commission shall adopt rules as necessary to assure that the holder of a food and beverage certificate maintains food service on the premises for which a food and beverage certificate has been issued.
This means you have to be a full scale restaurant. Most voters understand that this a far safer alternative to the private club permit. The new laws will make our city safer.
I seriously doubt that having a wine aisle at Tom Thumb is going to somehow negatively affect your precious children. If so, then there are MUCH bigger issues at work than these propositions.
And it’s terribly disappointing that Dr. Turner included obviously incorrect statements in his letter (package stores, etc.). Dishonest or misunderstood, I’m not sure. I would assume that he will quickly correct himself with a follow-up statement?
Dr. Turner? Dr. Turner? We’re waiting…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
Max, thank you for being factual about the propositions and what they mean for the neighborhood. Your transparency is a breath of fresh air.
I spoke with Mayor Holmes for a story about the propositions in this week’s paper. You were right to notice his name is missing.
Also, how does “having food service facilities for the preparation and service of multiple entrees” make it a full service restaurant? My home kitchen is fully equipped but that doesn’t mean the equipment is used very often.
Thanks again – I’m still just trying to understand the reality of the proposals.
I grew up in UP, and if I wanted alcohol while underage, I would drive to preston center, love field or Greenville. WOW. That was just too far, so I didn’t drink. I was too lazy. So the 2 mile drive kept me sober and clean.
Come on. The notion that voting “no” maintains a low accessibility for alcohol for minors is just ignorant. That is the same logic of: Well, I won’t allow my child to drive because they can drive across town to buy alcohol which increases their accessibly to beer. UP residents are smarter than this.
Alcohol is legal in the US, period. It is illegal to sell to someone under 21 and TABC enforces that law vigorously. Groups like MADD are also on the hunt, and they won’t allow the government ease up anytime soon, let me assure you.
I am voting yes, because I don’t buy this notion of protecting our kids and I believe in personal freedom and responsibility.
Yes, they refer to the same permit. I’ll have a full write-up of what each Prop means in this week’s edition.
Oh, and “multiple entrees” = eight entrees, per a TABC rep.
Leave a Reply