University Park Former Mayors’ Forum Could Benefit From a Cold Beer, I’m Just Sayin’
If you live in U.P. you probably received this letter yesterday from the University Park Former Mayor’s Forum that made it sound like the alcohol propositions, if passed, would cause the fountain in Snider Plaza to spew free beer at children.
I’m still looking for the part in the letter that says something about how beast it’ll be to buy a bottle of wine at the neighborhood Tom Thumb after a day of reading stuff like this.
By Merritt Patterson
Oct. 20, 2010 | 1:09 pm | 16 Comments | Comments RSS
16 comments to "University Park Former Mayors' Forum Could Benefit From a Cold Beer, I'm Just Sayin'"
Do we really need more alcohol? Really? Do we??
Just answer the question.
I hate to lose my neighbor hood for a few people to reap the benefit. The city doesn’t get any!
Prop. 1 – A “for” vote will allow beer and wine sales at grocery stores in University Park (I’m not sure if this also includes convenience stores such as the 7-11 on Hillcrest). It will not allow liquor sales. UP is surrounded by stores that sell beer, wine and liquor. If I want to buy beer, I go to one of these places and buy it. If after the election beer and wine is available at a store a few blocks closer to my house than before, I doubt I will be incentivized to buy more than I would have otherwise, and I think the same holds true for everyone else. If the Tom Thumbs in Snider Plaza and Preston Center start selling beer and wine, they won’t create new drinkers. They will simply be selling the product to customers who would have purchased it elsewhere (in large part at other Tom Thumbs). Bottom line is that there will not be “more alcohol” in UP, except in the most literal sense in that the grocery stores will obviously have in-store inventories they didn’t have before.
Prop. 2 – A “for” vote will eliminate the private club requirement for restaurants and bars in UP. UP restaurants and bars that hold their liquor licenses as a private club have served beer, wine and liquor in UP for decades, as others have pointed out. Customers do not have to pay to join one of these private clubs, and the Unicard system has made joining a club convenient and seamless. As a result, the private club system is meaningless because it presents absolutely no barrier to an adult who wants to buy a drink. Eliminating the private club requirement will simply get rid of the need for restaurant customers to go through the silly artifice of the Unicard system when they buy a drink, and get rid of a layer of expensive administrative hassles for the restaurants. I can’t see how this change would increase the amount of alcohol sloshing around UP’s commercial areas.
As to the misleading letter from the former mayors, let’s remember that these people are politicians. We like to believe all politicians lie and cheat except for the ones in our own community, but obviously we would be wrong.
FACT- UP has no local control because the members of the “Former Mayors Forum” neglected to pass any local ordinances controlling alcohol sales.
FACT- Under current private club rules, if you have a space in SP you can get a license. Under Proposition 2 you can get a license only if you are a full scale restaurant.
FACT- The drive through bank on Hillcrest will soon be occupied by the mortgage department of Bank of Texas.
FACT- Nail salons cannot sell food or beverages. Period.
FACT- The TABC is anticipating fewer applications because the new permits are more expensive and may only be issued to full scale restaurants.
FACT- Your neighborhood has been put at risk by the “Former Mayors Forum” for decades. Updating our laws and passing some new local ordinances will preserve your neighborhood.
FACT-
Do we really need to increase the *availability* of alcohol? Really? Do we?
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 (see here):
“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.
Use common sense. Is it a hassle, although small, to have to let a waiter swipe your driver’s license to get a beer at Peggy Sue’s? Is it an inconvenience to have to drive to Midway or Greenville to buy a bottle of wine? Of course.
But frankly, if Coffee & Turner & the rest want me to do something, I’m inclined to look very hard at the alternative.
TABC will never allow underage drinkers in University Park. This notion that our children will be harmed is ridiculous. Also, if you pay attention and parent your children, selling alcohol at Tom Thumb should not be a problem.
I SAY VOTE YES!!!!!!
“Mayor Davis
I own Bandito’s Tex Mex. I am 49 years old, live at xxxx Haynie in University Park, have lived in the Park Cities since the 4th Grade, I’m a commercial real estate attorney, graduated from SMU law school, and I’m friends with your son. I just received a mailer from your organization. I assume that you endorsed it because it quotes you. If you are for or against something, I respect your right to that position. But nobody has the right to mislead people and scare them. Unless you want to discuss it, I will not go point-by-point with your mailer. Frankly, many things in it are so outrageous and false, I doubt many will believe it. Rather, I want you to recognize two of the major tenets in the mailer as objectively untrue.
First, “Open the door of the community to bars, lounges and dives.” If the proposition passes, it will allow a restaurant with a license to sell beer, wine and mixed beverages. In the code, a restaurant must derive more than half of its sales from food. Do you realize that there is no such restriction under the current private club law in which we now operate? To be clear, you can open a bar, lounge or dive under current law, but you would not be allowed to under Proposition 2.
Second, “…weaken the process already in place for age-verification intended to prevent underage drinking.” The private club law has nothing to do with age verification. It is true, that in some of the U.P. restaurants like ours, the first time you come in we scan the driver’s license of one person at the table. Frankly, this is for our convenience to get information on our new club member that then gets reported to the State of Texas. You may have noticed that many of the restaurants don’t scan your driver’s license, but rather, make you fill out a card. This is because those restaurants don’t want to pay $250 to a service each month for reporting its members to the State. None of this has anything to do with the age verification process. The TABC will tell you that. Quite simply, if we have any question whatsoever that somebody is underage, we card them.
Let’s keep this debate above-board. Showing pictures of what I believe to be Beale Street in Memphis and men in a strip club does not further that objective.”
Leave a Reply