Run, Dick, Run. Run From the Beer.

32 comments to "Run, Dick, Run. Run From the Beer. "

1. kmom @ October 21, 2010 at 11:27 am
   “liberalize, liberalization, liberalization”……….what a load of hooey. He makes it sound like if it passes everyone will stop checking ID’s – your 6th grader will be able to buy BOOZE!

2. coty @ October 21, 2010 at 11:29 am
   How does approval of these propositions “do away with the strict age verification process already in place” as commented by Mayor Davis on this message? It’s almost as if he’s saying that no one will ever have to prove their age which I’m pretty certain is not the case. Let’s focus on truth-in-reporting and not on Pollyannaisms and fear.

3. matt @ October 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm
   Also, be sure to re-vulcanize your tires in preparation for winter. And feel free to alert the police if you see a colored at a lunch counter or drinking from a water fountain.

4. UPDad @ October 21, 2010 at 12:49 pm
   The Former Mayors have other people’s interests much higher than the collective citizens of UP. And they’ll twist words and paint impossible pictures that compete with the facts to try to persuade.

5. coty @ October 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm
   As a husband and father of young children in this neighborhood, and as someone who knows and understands the facts, is it just me or do the rest of the 30 and 40 somethings feel like Mom and Dad are still ruling our lives and running the show around here? And, if you’re opposed but have alcohol in your home or at least embibe, is voting no really protecting the sanctity and environment for your child? Don’t let the bubble fool you into a false sense of security, it really doesn’t protect you; and, right/wrong/morals/values, etc always start at home and are nurtured by parents.

6. grump @ October 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm
   I just hope UP doesn’t become over-run with gay, Jewish ex-Boy Scout Leaders that buy alcohol for underage kids.
   It is a slippery slope.

7. jb @ October 21, 2010 at 3:06 pm
   Does anyone know where the funding for these annoying former mayor robocalls is coming from?

8. coty @ October 21, 2010 at 7:39 pm
   Does voting “FOR” these propositions lessen the quality of life or character of our community?

   Does voting “AGAINST” the propositions enhance our quality of life or character of our community?

   I think the answer to both is “NO.”

   But, I do believe this is a wonderful place to live because of our sense of community and how we act toward others. This vote changes nothing about our community, positively or negatively.

   If we wish to draw attention to ourselves by outlawing basketball goals in the front yard (2006), tearing down treehouses in the front yard (2009), stripping respectable citizens of volunteering because of sexual orientation (2010) or voting against this proposition, we’re certainly portraying something to everyone outside of our city limits – a better place to live? Only you can answer that.

   I have the utmost respect for Mayor Holmes, who is absent from the Former Mayors Against the proposition, and for Mayor Coffee, who opposes the proposition.

   I’ll use the information at hand, along with my moral compass, to guide my decision:

   1) Max’s Facts
   2) Jim Swayze’s simplification in a prior blog
   3) My interpretation of the RoboCall and Letter

   I think I’ll go have a drink now….

9. BM @ October 21, 2010 at 9:35 pm
   JB,

   There are all rich.

10. Sandy @ October 22, 2010 at 8:21 am
    Bars and lounges in our city limits?

11. N.F. @ October 22, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    Some nice person needs to tell Merritt than one can already buy beer and wine in University Park and Highland Park (if of age). It is available in most restaurants, and both cities have neighborhood package stores and neighborhood grocery stores that sell it. In fact, the 7-11 on Mockingbird used to sell it before SMU bought the property and stopped alcohol sales out of concern for SMU and Highland Park students under age drinking. (This is a real and very serious problem here.)

    Besides money, why is someone trying to break a system that works perfectly well, and helps to provide an additional layer of protection to prevent under age drinking by our kids? It’s like somebody trying to break what isn’t broken.

12. CC @ October 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm
    We want freedom, not restrictions on our personal lives and small businesses.

    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.

13. N.F. @ October 22, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    We voted no, yesterday, and so did most of our neighbors, especially those with children.

    Since the two micro-grocery stores in U.P. already can’t carry enough products people want, I can’t wait to find out what products those pushing this bad idea want them to stop carrying to make room for a few cheap wines and some beer.

    Maybe paper towels, or going to smaller vegetable sections like peddlers’ carts in Italy, or even less freezer room, or even smaller hot sections. Both stores are already constantly out of things, and it’s been that way for years.

    Of course, from either store, patrons could just as easily drive a few blocks and have a huge selection of good beer, fine wines, and specialty mixers, certainly cheaper than the grocery stores could sell it for. At the same time, they could also buy good quality liquor and other specialty beverages only available in package stores.

    I also doubt that tiny grocery stores with long lines are going to do a very good job of checking IDs. They certainly don’t in the Highland Park Tom Thumb.

14. N.F. @ October 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm
    I’ve never heard an intelligent person equate alcohol and alcohol sales with “freedom”. That experience remains consistent through today.

    I have, however, heard alcoholism and alcohol abuse compared to slavery and imprisonment that tortures the life of not just the drinker, but the entire family and close friends.

15. Max Fuqua @ October 22, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    NF- It is incorrect to state that the private club permit adds an extra layer of protection against underage drinking. Private club rules actually make it easier to break the law.

    Fact- A waiter in a private club is only required to verify that one member of a group of patrons is a member of the club. The other people with the member are considered his guests and are not required to show ID or club membership.

16. N.F. @ October 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    TABC and one of the guys at Gordos who has worked with both systems say that is not correct. The lawful drinking age in Texas is 18, and it is against the law to serve someone who is underaged. (I know about the parent/guardian thing.)

    Under the private club regime, high school and college kids generally don’t try and drink in UP because the ID gets swiped by the waitstaff, there is a permanent record of the attempt to unlawfully get alcohol, and there can also be a risk of being charged with Identity Theft. I also have the impression they are generally not there for the fine cuisine and more expensive drinks.

    It is also not correct that TABC enforces the law vigorously. They have under 250 employees who have to cover Texas at any one time, and they only answer complaints; certainly after the offenders have already gone. They are underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed. So, the first and best line of defense is the server and the establishment selling the alcohol.

    The private club system provides a permanent record of the member and/or person ordering alcohol. Watch ID checks in a Hooters or one of the bars on Greenville, and you can’t but conclude it’s virtually perfunctory. (Been watching it happen for years.)

    I don’t see anything wrong with the system we have now in U.P., and don’t seen any reason to change it and open us up to bars and worse. Why break what isn’t broken?

17. laurie @ October 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    I was saddened to receive the mailer today from the group against the propositions. So much misinformation and fear mongering. They should be ashamed of themselves. To be against if fine with me, but to use scare tactics and blatant lies is reprehensible.

18. N.F. @ October 23, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    I should also add that in talking with my neighbors about this, our experience and my own has been the UP restaurants do a much better job of verifying age and looking for fake identification than crowded bars and long grocery lines in Dallas. (If TABC actually enforced the law, one of our neighborhood grocery stores selling beer and wine would have been closed by now.)

19. N.F. @ October 23, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    Please excuse the typo about the drinking age which is 21, and not 18. (Too much green tea!)

20. coty @ October 23, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    Hypocrites on the Hilltop – Mayor Dick Davis, SMU President Gerald Turner and neighbor N.F. – walked right down the middle of SMU today to see what equated to a massive keg party with many Parkies throwing back cold ones with their small children in tow (some are the same ones claiming that these Props could actually be hazardous to your health!). Why not start with banning alcohol on campus to address the substance abuse and party atmsophere issues? Be leaders and take a real stance instead of some false fear mongering idea that this community will be safer by voting no. As for my neighbors, we’re voting yes. And, we have children. We just teach them right from wrong at home and not rely on a wet society, or a hypocritical society of falsehoods portrayed in UP, to dictate their lives.

21. coty @ October 23, 2010 at 11:29 pm
    N.F. so selling booze in UP is “out” to protect your kids, but you go to Lower Greenville and hang out at Hooters? I guess that’s the two-mile rule in effect. Once you come back inside the Bubble, it’s like nothing ever happened. Again, LOVE the hypocricy that somehow you’re kids are protected while you’re looking at scantily clad women and throwing back long necks! I think your exact words are you’ve been “watching it happen for years” at some fine establishments! Thanks for the chuckle, and the reference to green tea.

22. Max Fuqua @ October 24, 2010 at 6:38 am
    NF- Do you even live in University Park? Because if your neighborhood grocery store currently sells beer and wine, I’m pretty sure you don’t. You might want to make sure that’s really green tea that you are drinking….

23. Cc @ October 24, 2010 at 10:08 am
    NF – you just used three reasons for voting no that hold no water.
    Cheap wine? Less aisle space? Those are business decision for private sector to make. Alcoholics? By having alcohol sales in UP, it increase alcholism? No. Nobody with a brain would think that. Alcoholics will drive to the moon to get it.

    Freedom? Yes it is freedom because if it lessens government involvement in our lives, it is by definition, freedom. Alcohol is already legal. This is just local beuracrats placing burdens on it’s citizens.

    Vote yes.

24. Urban Girl @ October 24, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    @ N.F. I would like to address your point about the Tom Thumb in Highland Park Village. I am in there almost daily it seems. Sometimes more than once. I have never witnessed anyone that looks even remotely under age attempting to buy alcohol. I think that is because you are pretty much guaranteed to see a minimum of 2 people that know you, your friends and your parents. When you are doing something wrong you don’t want to be seen doing it. In HPV you very well might be in line behind one of your teachers or neighbors. No need to even get to 6 degrees of separation there. If someone were trying to sneak alcohol there are much more discreet places to do it.

25. Buddy @ October 24, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    N.F. I own a restaurant in U.P. With all due respect for you and “one of the guys” at Gordos,” where in the heck are you getting your misinformation? It’s a bit nutty. Many of the restaurants in U.P. do not use any electronic scanners, but rather use cards for the customer to fill out. Where in the heck did you get the idea that a permanent record of attempting to unlawfully buy alcohol is created? That is just flat out false. I can understand that we have differences of opinion on Proposition 1 (Beer and Wine–ONLY–at Tom Thumb or 7-11), but how can you possibly be against Proposition 2 (get rid of Unicard)? You keep repeating, why break what isn’t broken. Well it is broke, stupid and silly. I can assure you that we and others take the law very seriously, we do not serve underage drinkers. We card anybody that we suspect. Nothing is going to change that. It is too hard and expensive to get a license. Filling out the card or the scan does nothing with respect to age verification, but require us to report to the State of Texas that you are a new member of the club. Doesn’t that make us all feel comfortable that the State of Texas knows when you have a drink? It does not require us to report that somebody unlawfully attempted to get a drink. What it also does require is that unlike other restaurants in wet areas who can buy from a distributor, restaurants in dry areas have to buy from a middleman–you got it, it’s an additional cost. For this additional cost, they will not deliver the liquor, beer or wine like they do in wet areas. In fact, they are prohibited by law from delivering to a dry area. So how do we get it–it’s another cost! We have to pay somebody to go pick it up. Whether you know it or not, you are paying for the antiquated craziness. There is no additional layer of protection associated with the private club system, period. The people saying this are quite simply, making this up. Prop 2 requires a restaurant to have at least half of their revenue from the sale of food–a restriction not required under the private club system. N.F., are you open to reason or do you just feel comfortable repeating if it ain’t broke don’t fix it? Why do we want to get rid of it? It’s simple, we comply with the above 50% food restriction, our customers hate it, we have to report the names of our customers to the State (which I think is incredibly invasive) and it costs needless dollars–all while providing less protection to the Park Cities that I have lived in for 40 years. Also, be sure to vote for Proposition 3 which allows dancing. Oh that’s right, that already passed.

26. N.F. @ October 24, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    Coty: I have a client who supplies Hooters with office systems. He sometimes asks me to meet him there. Otherwise, my meetings over meals generally take place elsewhere, and without the distractions of scantily-clad girls. Thanks.

    Max Fuqua: We live in University Park. Depending on how you define “neighborhood”, we have selling alcohol near U.P. neighborhoods, restaurants in Preston Center, a package store in Preston Center, restaurants in the strip on N.W. Highway and Hilcrest (including a package store), Tom Thumb and restaurants across from North Park, restaurants on Miracle Mile, package store at Lovers Lane near Tollroad, endless restaurants and Tom Thumb and package store on Greenville and in Old Town, Highland Park Tom Thumb, newly-built Tom Thumb at University and Inwood, and several places I haven’t mentioned. Yes; several grocery stores convenient to U.P. sell beer and wine. No sober or sane person could claim we’re deprived in U.P. of convenient alcohol in various kinds of establishments.

    Cc: I couldn’t agree more with you about business decisions. But, smaller grocery stores will be limited to selling lower-priced beer and wine. That’s both a business decision and the results of micro-economic price decisions. My comment about alcohol and “freeedom” still stands.

    Urban Girl: I can name the teenagers I’ve seen buying alcohol at the H.P. Tom Thumb. Because I shop there frequently, because I don’t want to add to the troubles of friends’ children, and because my lawyers costs a fortune, I won’t. But, please don’t spit on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Anyone who lives in the Park Cities and shops that Tom Thumb is well aware of how easy it is for kids to buy beer. (Most don’t buy wine.) It is far easier to buy beer there than it is to park there!

    Buddy: My experience, and that of several of my neighbors, is that kids who are not of legal age have a more difficult time buying alcohol in U.P. restaurants than the bars in Dallas. That is among the reasons we want to keep the bars out of U.P. Some restaurants DO use cards; many now scan identification. It is a FACT that restaurants do a better job of age verification than bars and restaurants. Too many people have had the same experience I have. I’m sure you are quite careful, and for that I’m grateful. If either of these laws pass, I hope you’ll share your concerns with other businesses.

27. Buddy @ October 25, 2010 at 8:20 am
    NF. So you are supporting a system that allows for the use of paper cards from 1 person at the table, allows for pure bars as it does not have the 50% food requirement that Prop 2 does (while saying you are against them–I really can’t figure this one out) and is costlier? NF don’t you think that you might have just a bit of a closed mind? You are acting like my brother when he was 10 years old when all he would say is “No” and when you asked him why, he would say “because.”

28. Urban Girl @ October 25, 2010 at 9:15 am
    NF, I have to completely disagree again about TT in HPV. I live within walking distance of it and it would not be at all unusual for me to be there twice a day. Almost every day. I have never seen it. And you are the only person I have ever heard say that you have. It’s not hard to figure out why. A 17 year old trying to inconspicuously buy a case of beer at register 3 with his next door neighbor at register 2, his across the street neighbor behind him, his mom’s best friend walking in the door and the principle from his school at register 4. It would be the worst place to try to pull this off. In your response to Buddy above you say that kids have a hard time trying to drink in UP restaurants. Yeah! Because they are afraid someone they know is going to SEE them.

29. D @ October 25, 2010 at 9:29 am
    Ummm, NF, your response to Max above works against your argument. If there is alcohol everywhere around us, no more than a 5 minute drive from anyone in UP (and the vast majority of the population would have to drive to the Snyder Tom Thumb and any restaurants), why would allowing sales in UP increase alcohol conumption?

    The funny thing is, I was initially going to vote NO to the propositions, but when I read the facts, it seems like the existing system if less stringent than the proposed one. And that everyone on the NO side continues to throw out misinformation and lies.

30. T-Bone @ October 25, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    That flyer was pretty insulting to my intelligence. It looks like something the Obama admin would have cooked up to convince the black community and uneducated that the collapse of the society is imminent. Give me the facts, keep the flash, and I can make up my own mind. I’m not an idiot. Also: Wasn’t Kelly Walker, Treasurer of UP Citizens for Responsible Alcohol Sales, a former city council member? If so, that tells me City Hall, UP Comm League & a few others are up to their necks in this muck.

    There must be a “GOOD” (and undisclosed) political reason the No-Voters don’t want this to pass. Control of the community? Protecting someone’s financial interests?

    1. The Uni-Card system is stupid and does nothing to lower consumption.
    2. Allowing beer/wine sales in grocery stores keeps revenue in Univ Park, NOT Dallas.

    Vote Yes. (I did, for both props, on the very first day of early voting)

31. UPDad @ October 26, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    Hmmm, you see your friends’ children illegally buying alcohol and you don’t want to tell their parents because you’re worried about your legal fees, and you don’t want to “add to the troubles of friends’ children”?

    I’m not sure how telling a “friend” that their underaged child is purchasing beer is going to get you sued, but I do think that NOT telling their parents IS adding to their problems.

    Please, if you see my son buying beer, please tell me. Please!

32. UPDad @ October 26, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    Coty, please add “removing part of a neighborhood via a zoning change despite that neighborhood’s being 96% opposed to the rezoning (2010)” to the list. This was another example of the former mayor’s being told to speak out against the neighborhood so that SMU could continue its land takeovers.

Leave a Reply