Mayor Dick Davis Continues Fight to Save Parkies From Beer and Wine
University Park Mayor Dick Davis was able to take time out of his robo-calling and junk mail sending this morning to judge the pumpkin contest at U.P. Elementary. It’s only right that his $12,000 contribution should get him a look at the children he’s trying to save from the pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers that are sure to be hanging out in school yards across the Park Cities if the Snider Plaza Tom Thumb starts selling wine.
As part of his save the children campaign, today voters received a letter signed by Dick encouraging us to take notice of SMU President Gerald Turner’s advice. Dick must not read the blog ’cause if he did, he’d know we’ve been there, done that.
UPDATE: University Park residents also got a colorful doorhanger today.
140 comments to "Mayor Dick Davis Continues Fight to Save Parkies From Beer and Wine"
What is it with you and alcohol? There was a time in this country when most of the people – albeit, flyover red state rubes for sure – looked down on people who used alcohol. How much better are we now that we have obliterated any social stigma toward the use of alcohol?
This has nothing to do with parenting. And, you must not read my column, I’ve written quite a bit about my feelings on alcohol and the moms under the current laws drinking it up at lunch and heading to carpool. These props passing won’t impact the real problems.
I don’t drink, maybe a glass of wine at an event here and there. I have 4 young children. I’m just not naive enough to think that having alchohol available 3 minutes north of my house OUTSIDE of UP, versus 3 minutes south of my house INSIDE of UP will really make a difference. I’ll raise my children properly to make smart decisions, and pray to god that they don’t make the wrong ones.
You know what I will also raise my children to do? Actually understand things before judging them, and not to mislead and lie in order to convince people to side with them.
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” — Benjamin Franklin
If this is so aweful a place to live, move somewhere else. I thought for a while your columns were somehwat humorous, i don’t bother to read them anymore because they are repugnant to the people who built this community.
You and your paper are so totally in the tank for alcohol and the advertising money you’ll get that you’ve become irrational on top of unethically selling out your front page with false stories about the opposition, IMHO.
Your disdain for successful people in general, and hyper-liberal approach to the community’s successful leadership of decades, is beyond reproach.
If you hate the Park Cities and Parkies so much, why do you take money for working at the community paper they support?
Honestly, her claim that “A store selling alcohol and people drinking it have nothing to do with each other.” is about as dumb as it gets.
As far as ethics, all one has to do is read today’s edition of Park Cities Peep Hole and see the story on the front page that is totally false, and appears to have been intentionally designed to harm one side in an election.
That’s a lack of integrity and fairness; not charm. Merritt Patterson is a full partner in that dishonest editorial process.
If the paper wants to editorialize, the place to do it is on the editorial page, not the front page. Merrit can say what she wishes on the blog, but that doesn’t make it acceptable or appropriate.
I hate to tell you, but I have been and still am today to the right of Ronald Reagan–my hero by the way, I have 3 DVD’s of his speaches and occassionally play them when I want to feel good. Sorry about that, but I had to say that cause I wish there was another one. I have no idea what Merritt’s ideology is, but if old Ronnie was alive today, I’m pretty sure he would say you are the liberal. You want government to control every aspect of life–that more than anything is what he was against. And let me tell you something, old Ronnie was all about change from the rules of the past, in favor of freedom. And people that thought they knew the way it should be looked down on him, even, maybe especially, the old time Republicans. He was the most inclusive politician I’ve ever seen. Don’t be exclusionary. Because you are successful doesn’t give you the right to basically tell people to shut up. By the way, I’m no Hunt, but I do ok. Can I tell people that make less than me or are “transplants” to shut up?
Merritt has a point of view and you guys want her to fall into line. Both sides on this little issue should thank her for providing the forum. But in closing I have to say, old Ronnie used to have a bit of wine and sometimes a beer with Tip O’Neal, even though Tip liked to control things way too much.
Does your job pay you extra to get all “Judge-y McJudgeypants” when people disagree with you? God, I’m glad I’m not your kid, your husband or your student.
Merritt, Please keep writing for us!
Unlike Merritt (assuming she is a “transplant” as you say – I have no idea and don’t care), I have lived in UP all my life. My disrespect for Mayor Davis comes from my judgment of his actions. He has been dishonest and continues to be so. Respect is earned, and it can be squandered. Mayor Davis, Roy Coffee, Gerald Turner and their cohorts have squandered it.
You seem to believe that politicians are entitled to respect simply because of the office they hold. I think you’ll see on Tuesday that people aren’t in the mood for that kind of blind worship of self-styled elites and their institutions.
As BusyGuy put it, your rage and snobbery are fueled by fear. And I for one look forward to making you and your ilk fearful for many years to come. We have self-entitled jerks everywhere in our society, from President Obama on down to provincial Park Cities grandees like yourself who tell us to shut up and do as we’re told. I’ve discovered recently that you people hate to be questioned or criticized, and you REALLY hate to be mocked. It’s your kryptonite. Dang, this is going to be fun.
Whether Merritt Patterson is part of the Park Cities People effort to unfairly influence an election and damage the opponents of the two propositions remains to be determined. She is a columnist, and has editorial license to express about anything she wishes, although she’s accountable for every word she writes.
But, there’s no question the paper published on its front page a story that was not just inaccurate, but that was false and misleading and damaging to one side in an election.
Throughout this election, the paper should have been running a disclaimer, as it clearly took sides on its news pages, and threw fairness and any semblance of balance to the winds.
Regrettable. Very.
Lifelong Parkie – if you’re not already part of the political leadership of this city they will welcome you with open arms. People like you are the ONLY thing that sucks about the Park Cities. The fact that you will only say “transplants go home” anonymously should register wrongness even with your feeble mind.
N.F. – you must like to hear yourself blog because you are transparent enough for even Lifelong Parkie to understand where you are coming from. I am sure your disapproval has the PCP planning for it inevitable demise. Only one person has made outlandish and unsupportable statements in this “debate” and it is you, N.F. I am just surprised you did not here repeat your absurd claim that the “pro bar” (as you call it) side has waged an illegal campaign from the start. If you actually thought that was the case you wouldn’t be blogging it here you would have brought a complaint to the TEC. Let me guess what will happen next – the untruthful N.F. will claim to have done so since no one will be able to disprove his claim.
Also, why is it disrespectful for Merritt to disagree with the mayor? Is UP a totalitarian regime?
I have, as a reporter, watched at least five communities wrestle with the idea of letting alcohol in. Decreases your property values? Only if the city’s zoning laws aren’t up to snuff. There are a lot of things that can make your property values go down, and unless Kool’s Liquor and Ho Emporium opens up right next door, you’re probably gonna be OK.
Encourages drinking? Proximity does not equal encouragement. If it did, there’d be libraries on every block and churches right next to them.
And having alcohol doesn’t increase DWI either. If anything, it decreases it. People who wouldn’t wait the 20-30 minute drive to crack open a beer before will wait if they only have to drive say, five minutes.
And if we’re going to use all of these old saws on alcohol, why aren’t you all equally torn up about tobacco? It pollutes the air, endangers innocent non-smokers, and is sold in grocery stores, too. It’s right there in your neighborhood. Why, I’m shocked that everyone in UP isn’t smoking, you can buy cigarettes so easily.
People who have not lived here their whole lives have actually been somewhere else, seen other things, met other types of people, experienced life outside of the lovely but limited Park Cities. They have perspective and might be able think outside of the box beyond the UP/HP boundries. They might have met and befriended people who aren’t wealthy, white, conservative, heterosexual or Christian. Their minds might have been expanded by any and all of the above and they might not be so fearful of change and others’ opinions.
For the record, I am a mother, hardly ever drink and couldn’t care less if booze is sold in Snider Plaza. Because it’s sold pretty much everywhere else. Patterson’s rather obvious point was that you can drive a couple minutes in any direction and buy it. People who are going to drink are already drinking. People who are going to abuse it are already abusing it.
University Park DOES have several areas where new bars-posing-as restaurants could open and operate. Under the proposed laws, the licenses would be cheaper, age verification would not be near as strict, and a bar need only have 50% of the sales of something (including bar snacks) to meet the 50-50 requirement for no more than one-half in sale coming from alcohol.
UP already has sales of drinks in restaurants, so that’s not broken. UP residents can also conveniently buy wine and beer in neighborhood grocery stores, and bottled alcohol at nearby neighborhood package stores.
In fact, many more people drive much further to pick up cleaning, do banking, go to service stations, and shop for groceries at larger grocery stores. (Most of the larger stores in our area carry beer and wine.)
So, there’s nothing about these propositions that improve life in our community, but there’s a great deal of harm that could come from them.
I’m still trying to find a community like University Park where additional liquor sales and establishments selling alcohol have improved property values instead of reducing them. So far, I’ve found none, and haven’t talked to anyone who knows of any.
Why oh why is it OK to have sales of alcohol in the HP Village Tom Thumb but not in the Snider Plaza Tom Thumb?
Why is it OK to let Mi Cocina, Cafe Pacific and Patrizios sell you a drink without government interference, but it’s not OK to do that at Cisco Grill or Banditos?
And those restaurants in HPV are ACROSS THE STREET (little two-lane Douglas Ave.) from Bradfield where lots of UP children attend school! Has it corrupted them? Hurt them? Caused them to drink?
I also find it ironic that the Preston Center East/Pickwick store sells beer and wine NEXT DOOR to PC Baptist. Has that affected the morals of the congregants there? Harmed them? Caused them to stagger down an immoral path?
My theory is that the fire is fanned by the possible sale of alcohol at the Hillcrest/Asbury 7-11. Although I would prefer that store not sell alcohol, I don’t think it will cause disruptions that the no-alcohol side predicts.
The wording of the law says they must serve “entrées”. But, according to TABC, “entrées” may includes queso and chips, microwaved buffalo wings, microwaved mini-pizzas, and other kinds of bar snacks. They can also sell hats, bumper stickers, balloons, T-shirts, pool chalk, and all kinds of merchandise to boost food sales to 50% of income.
These propositions are to University Park, as the Trojan Horse was to Troy. We all know how that worked out.
That’s why Dr. Turner, President of SMU, and a number of substance abuse people at SMU and Highland Park, are dead set against these proposals. We already have plenty of alcohol, and any need for more can conveniently be satisfied a few blocks away.
The minuscule amount of money any additional alcohol sales would represent would not offset the costs of UPPD enforcement and problems for neighborhoods as well as the human costs on which a price cannot be calculated.
As a resident of the devil’s playground that is HP, I don’t have a vote in this election and frankly hope it fails so the Tom Thumb and Centennial in HPV (the shopping center not the STD) continue to generate the tax revenue from UP residents. However, I have a question about your comment above:
“These propositions are to University Park, as the Trojan Horse was to Troy. We all know how that worked out.”
HP allows beer and wine sales and does not have the unicard. In fact, HP goes a step further (at least I think this is true) than the UP props do because we allow liquor stores. To my knowledge, HP has not had bars, strip clubs or the ilk rise up due to the more ‘lax’ standards than UP currently has in place. Is your concern due to the lack of faith of the UP city government that they won’t be able to manage their city like the HP town council has? I can understand many reasons to be against the props, but the line of thinking that this is just the first step to becoming a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah seems very far fetched.
1. The last place teenagers will go to buy beer and wine is at the Tom Thumb in Snider Plaza. Way too risky. They will find a store in East Dallas or who knows where so that they will have no chance of running into a parent. You don’t see teens in the Tom Thumb at HPV buying beer.
2. The last place teenagers will go to have a drink is at a bar or restaurant in UP or HP. Again, way too risky. They will opt for Deep Ellum or someplace where they are unlikely to see parents. Just as you don’t see teens drinking at Mi Cocina you won’t find them in UP.
3. A HUGE problem is the parents who knowingly and willingly serve underage kids alcohol in their homes, and there are plenty. They just don’t think it is a big deal. They did it as kids and so they believe it is fine. It is not, and the consequences today are far worse than anything we faced as teens. This complicity begins the problem for those who are prone to addiction. And often it is the parents who run to the store to supply the beverages.
4. Another HUGE problem is fake IDs. Kids seem to be able to find high quality fakes that they can use to make purchases. Again, they won’t want to use them in UP, because people there will know who they are. They will go elsewhere to drink and then drive. How do they get these IDs? I have no clue. But another HUGE problem that allows the kids to get the IDs is money. Way too much money is given to young kids such that they have the ability to buy expensive IDs and then go buy whatever products they might want. Limit the money you give kids and monitor where it goes.
5. Another HUGE problem is legal drugs in parent’s medicine cabinets. Think Hydrocodone and Xanax. Access to these drugs can be the beginning of a major problem. And the misuse of legal drugs is the second largest abuse problem in the US today, just after marijuana. Once someone is hooked on these it is really hard to get clean.
6. Related to the misuse of legal drugs is another HUGE problem in our area. Doctor’s prescribing for kids unnecessarily. I am not talking about the responsible doctors at Baylor or Preston Center or Presby. All you need do is cross Central Expressway and there are a multitude of doctors who will willingly take your cash in exchange for a prescription. No insurance required. It is unbelievable. These drugs can then be sold or used recreationally by the teen.
If you want to get fired up about addiction and substance abuse in our area, try tackling these problems. The proposed UP propositions are nothing to fear. The kids won’t care. The parents will be happy not to drive as far. We have real problems in the Park Cities. Address those issues and then maybe you can really make a difference.
These folks on the Pro-Bar side are giving new meaning to Trick or Treat! (Tricks on you; treat$ for them.)
But, it’s interesting that the Pro-Bar folks, who have continuously violated Texas Election Laws, are so desperate that they are sending out weekend emails on to people, and still trying to explain their issues in ways that they won’t reject or see through. (Many of the recipients have already voted against them.)
This one includes Marc Hall’s name as a sender, who is a proponent, and restaurant owner who would benefit financially, who was quoted by a local newspaper that these propositions are all about increasing the profit on the sales of alcohol by allowing businesses to buy alcohol cheaper than they can now.
Clearly, the propositions also promote the addition of new bars, lounges, and establishments where alcohol would be sold. (I think the claim about having to serve food has been debunked by the fact that bars already operating under these requirements only have to sell 8 kinds of bar snacks, such as queso and chips, microwave buffalo wings, microwave mini-pizzas, etc. ) You can actually call those “entrées” with a straight face.
Spooky!
Yes indeed. Our menfolk will be slaughtered, the women raped and enslaved, and our children’s brains will be dashed out on the walls of the city, all while Cassandra (a/k/a N.F.) shrieks “I told you so!!!!” and Dr. Gerald Turner regards the burning town from his hilltop perch with a wizened expression of smirking satisfaction, squinting to see past the ever-present mountains of cocaine being inhaled by his students. Or something like that.
I can understand if people have legitimate concerns about the resolution to allow beer and wine to be sold in stores. I’m in favor of it, but I can understand reasonable opposition to it.
But the teetotaling, head-in-sand NO people lose me with these absurd arguments that UP is going to turn into Sodom and Gomorrah with bars and happy hours on every corner. If you actually investigated the issue instead of repeating what you hear from the hypocritical old guard, you would want this change immediately. Instead, the old guard screams liberal, dive bars, and ignores the truth.
The only people that should be in opposition to the restaurant permit are alcohol retailers, because they get to earn inflated profits from our local restaurants that have to purchase alcohol at retail (under the private club permit) instead of wholesale (under the restaurant permit). PLEASE support our local businesses. Let them to compete on equal footing with restaurants that don’t have to operate under the absurd private club law. Support the free market … that is how most of us make enough money to live in the town. Vote YES.
The ruse about food sales is just that. (Queso and chips is NOT an entrée!)
I don’t have a problem with these places. In fact, in the right locations, they’re fine. I just don’t want them anywhere in University Park.
I’m fine with the beer, and wine arrangement as it is. But, I don’t want bars like the one on the other side of Central that specifically targets kids and students with a daily happy hour from 2 – 7.
As you know better than most, we’ve got some great restaurants in UP, and certainly have easy access to beer and wine and alcohol a few minutes drive away.
I know more than one person working at TABC, and have had several very candid conversations with them since groups in our neighborhood were trying to decide to how to vote. TABC said they were underfunded, overwhelmed with work, had too few inspectors, and could only answer complaints. So, they do NOT tightly patrol or control much of anything. They do try to handle complaints.
The 50% food requirement is an old dodge. Maybe you consider nachos to be an entrée, but most intelligent people do not. Yet, it qualifies under TABC rules.
A “full kitchen” can be a small corner with a sink, freezer, microwave, and health department required necessities. Yet, the Pro-Bars side tries to paint mental images of some gourmet restaurant kitchen. That’s just not the case.
You must also know that the licenses under the proposed rules will be much less expensive, and there are advantages in status to buying liquor at lower prices for resale. (The other side forgot to detail this out, although Marc Hall was honest enough to tell it to a newspaper reporter. So, it’s never about the money until it’s all about the money.)
Let’s face it. University Park is a great deal about money. But, it’s also much more about quality of life. The results of these propositions will diminish the quality of life in our community, and for reasons associated with that fact, many of us have voted against them.
If you are afraid of Trojan Horses, try slippery slopes. There is not shortage of metaphoric phrases to describe the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.
They are liars themselves, and/or very dishonest
They have psychological and anger problems from childhood
They have no logical arguments in a discussion or debate, and so they retreat to accusations against others
They have comprehension issues, often from ignorance or low IQs, that drive information into narrow brain channels and do not accept truth unless it comports with their own simplistic and often inaccurate world view
Two of the four can often be cured.
So, perhaps there’s hope for you!
I’ve also noticed one of the proponents on the other side has that same problem, and also gets hysterical at times when most men would not.
You said: “The wording of the law says they must serve “entrées”. But, according to TABC, “entrées” may includes queso and chips, microwaved buffalo wings, microwaved mini-pizzas, and other kinds of bar snacks. They can also sell hats, bumper stickers, balloons, T-shirts, pool chalk, and all kinds of merchandise to boost food sales to 50% of income.”
So I asked: “The FB license is a statewide thing. Name me one hat shop, bumper sticker shop, t-shirt shop, or pool chalk shop that has a TABC FB license (that’s a restaurant license), that you would consider primarily a bar, club or dive, and not a restaurant.”
Since we are apparently going to have up to 80 of these according to you, it should be an easy question. It is certainly a fair question. There must be numerous examples. I am just asking for one. Can you name one N.F.?
Please. You have gone so far beyond in your last comment. It is you that needs to visit this shrink.
I don’t think I suggested any specialty shops (like hats) would covert to bars. If that’s what you thought I said or meant, then you misunderstood me, or I wasn’t clear.
However, if I had a retail shop that was making $5 per foot, and I was just barely making the lease, and I knew I could make a great deal more and remain competitive in the marketplace by selling alcohol, I’d certainly seriously consider the option.
Rents in Snider Plaza and other places in U.P. aren’t what they are in HP Village, but they’re still incredibly high. (I’m preaching to the choir.) Who says a business not doing all that well wouldn’t look with dollar signs in its eyes at greater income with alcohol?
@N.F. — Thanks for the psychological analysis. I’ll try to get on your level and respond with third grade logic: I know you are, but what am I?
That said, tell me a single one of your evil nacho-serving sports bars that couldn’t, currently, more EASILY, get a private club license and eat away at UP society from within. The proposed resolution makes it MORE DIFFICULT to do what your are so fearful of. In fact, it already happened. Remember “Ten” in Snider Plaza a few years ago? Where were your sacred laws that you are protecting then?
In fact, I had dinner with my spouse at a UP restaurant serving alcohol just a few nights ago. I gave them my license, they swiped it in the machine (which made a permanent record of my ID and my being there AS WELL AS VERIFYING THAT IT WAS AN AUTHENTIC ID). Under the proposed law, those procedures would disappear, and it would be up to waitresses, often in poor light, to guess whether an ID was authentic.
What we have now works fine. Why change it?
(Wine and beer in grocery stores have their own set of problems, and there are good reasons for opposing that proposal as well. We can discuss those another time.)
I have kids, many of my neighbors have kids, and we’re against these proposals because we don’t want or need them, and because present a danger to young people in our community.
But, let me share with you what’s really over the top.
His multiple and serial election code violations aside, and his concealing important information from voters set aside for the moment, I read on this blog the other day where Max Fuqua was bragging about being a member of Park Cities Baptist Church, the same Church in which Mayor Davis has been a leader for years. In fact, Mayor Davis is a former Chairman of the Board of Deacons of Park Cities Baptist Church, according to bio information distributed during the UP municipal elections. (But, Max Fuqua already knew that.)
Mayor Davis also has a reputation in the community, and especially among attorneys, as being scrupulously honest and truthful. Yet, he has been excoriated, insulted, called every name in the book, and unfairly mocked by this blog for things he has not done, and simply for disagreeing with Mr. Fuqua and some of his fellow travelers.
Yet, Max Fuqua, a fellow PCBC member like Mayor Davis, never ONCE said a single word in defense of Mayor Davis, or suggested that the hyper-critical rhetoric chill out. Max Fuqua said nothing. Like a coward with no integrity, in my opinion, and in a most un-Christian manner.
One would think the least Fuqua could do would be to call for more respectful comments about the side that disagrees with him. But, showing the leadership of a mentally defective lemming, he said nothing and followed the back of the crowd.
Mr. Fuqua has violated multiple Texas Election Laws, has misrepresented what the propositions he’s pushing would do, and insults those who disagree with him.
THAT set of abhorrent behaviors is what shrinks are for, and he has disgraced himself on several levels. But, the one I most fault him for is failing to lead his own side to show respect for those who disagree, show respect for our elected officials, and certainly show respect for a highly respected member of his Church who did nothing wrong.
University Park may have over 26,000 residents. But, we’re a small community with long memories.
It appears that the pro side tried but failed in their in their due diligence in reporting. I think that was acknowledged. It was regrettable. Mistakes were made. We all got that.
You said that you and your neighbors have kids and that the new laws will present a danger for them. Trust me, no bars, restaurants, strip clubs or grocery stores selling alcohol in UP will be of concern to you when your kids are of drinking age. Read my previous post and you will know exactly what you need to be afraid of. It is certainly not the community establishments that will be your enemy. Trust me on that. You have not been there obviously. I have.
Point 1. Reducing the cost of licenses considerably. WRONG. The initial cost of the proposed “Mixed Beverage Permit with FB” license is $6,512. The initial cost of the current “Private Club Registration Permit-Option 2″ is $7,766. Moreover, the FB (restaurant) permit has much stricter operational criteria. (See http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publications/licensing/GuideRetailers.pdf)
Point 2. Weaken age-verification processes. Uh, WRONG. Ever get an actual unicard? It’s a piece of paper with your signature on it. Show that at Houston’s (er, Hillstone) and you can drink all night. Besides, despite your consistent ignoring of the fact that Highland Park has the exact proposed regulations, let’s stipulate that Patrizio’s has not become a bastion of underage drinking. Kids are dumb, not stupid, and are going to stay away from Park Cities cops.
Point 3. Actually make it easier to open a bar. STRIKE THREE. As we pointed out earlier, if one thought that it was a viable business enterprise to open a bar in University Park, it is easier to open a “club” under a club permit today. (Case in point, the former Ten on Milton.) Under the proposed resolution, a proprietor must put up a $5-$10 thousand bond and swear that the primary business of their “bar” is food service.
Final Point. From the perspective of someone who has not made the (seemingly) blood loyalty oath demanded by all who deign to walk in the shadow the Park Cities Baptist Board of Deacons, it has been Mayor Davis who has been unscrupulous and dishonest around this issue. I am disgusted by his conduct and will vote against him in every election heretofore. I respect your faith, respect your church, but our community is not obligated to submit to Baptist doctrine around alcohol. Indeed, walk across the street to Taco Diner on a Friday night, and you will full well see that our community — with all of its great attributes, sense of family, and, yes, flaws — is not on the same abstinence page as you. We will confirm that on Tuesday.
Um, wow. You just flatly accused someone of being a lawbreaker. I hope for your sake you are very sure of this and have rock solid evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you are looking at a potential libel suit. Your anonymity is only one subpoena away from being blown, and I doubt the D empire will bend over backwards to protect your privacy after the insults and ugly taunts you’ve leveled at Merritt Patterson, Bradford Pearson, and Park Cities People in general. Then the discovery process will begin. Depositions, interrogatories, all the rest of it. If, as most of us suspect, you are closely allied with (if not actually related/married to) Mayor Davis or others involved in the “against” campaign, you will have held up those people to further public ridicule and embarrassment. All because you can’t stop digging every time you hit a new low. Good luck.
Yes; the Pro side has violated Texas Law several times. It’s not speculation; it’s fact. It’s even demonstrated in their reports, and their missed reports.
If you doubt what I say, pull ALL of the reports for both sides, and it immediately becomes evident that the Pro side violated the Texas Election Code several times.
Why wasn’t it reported in PCP? Good question.
By the way, I’ve actually defended Merritt Patterson, at least as far as her opinion as a columnist goes. That’s a different case than the news side of the paper editorializing all over its news pages, including the front page.
Max Fuqua is the filed treasurer for the other side. He’s the only one who can go to jail. But, he’s also responsible for filing accurate, and timely, reports on his group raising and spending money. He has not done so, and those reports (and lack of reports) are in the hands of the Against side.
It’s up to them what they want to do; if anything. But, my issue, beyond huge disappointment in Park Cities People and its staff, is the fact that Max Fuqua allowed Mayor Davis to be smeared on this blog, and said nothing.
To me, that’s reprehensible.
Headway with me is a slow process. But, you hit several of the right buttons.
Now go to PurdueResident’s question. Won’t you admit that you could have the sports bar, club, bar, dive under the current private club law much easier?
Now I don’t know the answer to this one. Why? It’s obvious things are more restrictive under Prop 2. I’m guessing that you guys painted yourself into a corner because you thought the private club law did something which it does not, and now you have to save face. Even your argument is down to: (1) some restaurants, but not all, ask for a driver’s license from one person at the table, even though most restaurants just make you fill out a card, and (2) you celebrate the fact that local places, little business, people that are part of our community, have to pay $5k extra per year for a license. What the heck?
Two of the issues that most concern me are making it cheaper and easier to open an establishment to sell liquor, and easing the protections on IDs that help prevent under aged drinking. Without besmirching University Park and SMU, we have one heck of a problem with alcohol and substance abuse in our community.
So, why do you believe, in detail, why the news laws provide better protection. Kindly don’t spit on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Just explain why the NEW laws would be more stringent than the OLD laws.
People can vote however they wish. But, I can’t imagine it would be a shock to many in the community that a senior Baptist Church Deacon would oppose the expansion of alcohol sales in the community.
I’m starting to understand that there is a serious cultural divide in University Park that, while unfortunate and regrettable, is very real.
A book about Texas politics and demographics a few years ago predicted the increase in liberals those with “fuzzy” ethics and principle. I guess we’re seeing that today.
But, ever faithful to our system, I believe the majority wins, and the voters are always right, even when they’re wrong.
Now N.F. Answer my question.
“Give me the name of one microwaving queso, bufalo wing, t shirt sellin’, pool chalk sellin” sports bars that has a TABC FB license (that’s a restaurant license), that doesn’t have a full kitchen mind you, that is able to use all those suppliments to defeat that less than 50% of food requirement–a place that we would all think of as a bar instead of a restaurant. Just one in the State of Texas. Heck we are going to have 80 of them in U.P. Don’t you think that we should know? Come on man, tell us. It’s ok. We all know it’s hard but will appreciate if you truthfully answer.”
this web troll service assigns an individual to monitor web site comment boards and blog sites
whenever a web site reports or comments on the campaign issue or controversy being worked by the consultant on behalf of their client, the web troll appears and (anonymously) posts a message in favor of his clients position
@ NF — Maybe you have a “web troll” contract with Davis and Coffee (thanks jb) that stipulates that you must to have the last word (however incoherent) on each of these comment threads. I’ll suggest a few things and hopefully refrain from spending time on this blog.
My view is that your cause is far more liberal than my cause. You advance policies that inhibit free trade and enterprise in effort to advance a putative social purpose. That was ObamaCare — the free market was subjugated to the goal of getting insurance to over 30 million Americans. That is a reasonable trade if you — like the liberal Democrats who passed ObamaCare — believe your social purpose is more important. You clearly do, I clearly don’t. Fundamentally, you and Mayor Davis are willing to restrict free trade because you think alcohol is evil. I want to support our local restaurants and put them on equal footing with their adjacent competition. It may surprise you to learn that I’m not liberal, except maybe under your Park Cities Baptist definition that labels me a liberal (if not worse) for drinking wine with dinner.
I’m not offended or surprised by Mayor Davis’ position, I’m offended by his methods. Your campaign is utilizing, at best, highly negative and misleading, or, at worst, outright untruthful, communications to win this battle. The mailer with the strip club and Beale street photo was disgusting. You aren’t able to convince anyone on this blog that the propositions will actually create “bars, lounges, and dives” because we demand facts other than your supposed private conversations with TABC. Many recipients of that mailer may not have the facts and will cast a highly manipulated vote, and that was your strategy. You and Mayor Davis aren’t burdened by the truth as long as it accomplishes the goal.
Finally, the most bizarre thing you have uttered on these blogs is that Max Fuqua, perhaps stemming from some blind oath of fealty that all Park Cities Baptist members owe the current and former Board of Deacons, is somehow obligated to rush to the defense of Mayor Davis, the very man who has authorized inflaming, inaccurate, and wrong opposing campaign literature. That is simply crazy. Max (who unlike you and me, is willing to put his name next to his public comments) has been energetic, funny, passionate, and RIGHT about all these issues. Max has tirelessly advanced these very valid propositions to a public vote, and when Mayor Davis picks a fight and throws an unfair punch, Max is supposed to say thank you and tell everyone in favor of his proposal to drop to their knees and genuflect to the Mayor. Really? I met Max only once when I signed the petition this summer, but I have great respect for him after following this issue.
The pro-change (pro-change of the law) is also quite obviously the liberal side.
So, the positional stance of the two sides is not even in question.
On the business of Max Fuqua’s character failure to defend Dick Davis, I should point something out to you.
You say you met Max Fuquay only once. Yet, you came to his defense in a rather blind way, whether he was actually right or wrong. I’m not criticizing what you did, and in fact admire your doing it, no matter how factually incorrect you are.
That showed a strength of character (not to mention the trait of a Texan).
That’s the entire point. Max Fuqua brags about being a member of the Church family for which Dick Davis has been a long-time leader, and one with an excellent reputation.
Max Fuqua is also an appointed official of U.P. city government. Dick Davis was elected Mayor by the citizens of University Park. Yet, Max Fuqua remains silent, virtually cowering in the corner, when his political allies cross the line and accuse Mayor Davis of some really nasty things, viscously attack him personally, say mean-spirited things about him that are not true, in many cases simply resort to echo-falsehoods, and in other cases behave like lemmings in their childish-but-rude discourse.
I’ve been abundantly clear about my feelings concerning Mr. Fuquay’s turning his back and muffling his voice in defense of Dick Davis. So, no need to cover that ground again. But, I’d say his designation as “Citizen Of The Year” was about as misguided and inappropriate as can be, if his recent behavior and lack of leadership are typical.
I don’t mean to nit-pick your conservative credentials but 2 points if I may:
1. Any social purpose attributed to Obamacare is just a facade of the Left. It is a powergrab to place 1/7 of the economy under government control and to further erode our liberty.
2. As social purposes go, the regulation of alcohol (as well as recreational drugs) has been, and continues to be, a conservative issue. And putative? The current regulations in UP are hardly putative. A putative social policy on alcohol was tried in the 1920′s and history tells us how that worked out. And before you get started by suggesting that somehow your liberty is eroded by the regulation of alcohol I will tell you there is a difference between liberty and license. Liberty being a decidedly conservative position and license a libertarian one. I recommend Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny” if you have some confusion between the two.
You also use a buzz word that is bandied about by the left and the right when they are not getting their way about an issue. When you suggest that the rules that have been in place for years are inhibiting “free trade” I ask you how? Also, when you suggest that free trade is being inhibited then why are you not championing package stores in UP? That is a more “free trade” friendly position.
Changing any long-standing rules in a small community like this one tends to be an uphill battle. But when the rules that we are asked to change will financially benefit a small group of someones we are allowed to weigh that benefit with the welfare of our whole community. You don’t see a downside to the welfare of the community and N.F. does.
Each of the establishments in UP that serve alcohol do so based upon rules that they agreed to when they signed their leases. No one forced them to sign those leases. No one from a government agency pointed at Snider Plaza and said “You must open your business here”. Now they want to change those rules and darn that old city charter….to change those rules the majority of the voters of our city must agree to that change. As I said in April “Good luck with that”.
Just a comment. You and N.F. can continue to pound each other to no good purpose.
N.F., will you take off the beard?
However, the election is Tuesday.
If the propositions don’t pass, perhaps you could ask PCP to sponsor a debate at another time if there is another run at trying to change the laws.
By MARIA CHENG
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 31, 2010; 8:08 PM
LONDON — Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.
British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.
Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services, and prison.
Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals. When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest. But overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower.
The study was paid for by Britain’s Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and was published online Monday in the medical journal, Lancet.
Experts said alcohol scored so high because it is so widely used and has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103103887.html
we’ll all be able to say:
“that the way liquor sales go.”
I have lived by Snider Plaza for 22 years. Since I have lived there I have seen so many businesses come and go. It’s a graveyard of people with the dream trying to make it. How many times have we all made the joke that those businesses are for rich guys keeping their wife busy? The parking is terrible and if you need to do some other business (e.g. get a book, dry cleaners, prescription, etc.) and also pick up a bottle of vino, why the heck would you go to Snider Plaza and deal with that and then get back in your car, head over across Central to get a bottle of vino?
Dallas is going wet. Yes all of it, its a fact, it’s going to happen. The character of our town, UP, is going to change because of that. There will be no place within 10 miles of any direction that is dry. Snider Plaza is so handicapped already, this could really damage it badly. A few of those quant little businesses, that are working on a thread to begin with, might be gone. I have no idea what will go in there in the cheaper space, but none of us may like it.
I hate to tell you guys, but it’s damn tough to make in Snider Plaza. I don’t know for sure, but I am pretty sure that the 10 year success rate is less than 50%. The truth is, Bandito’s will make it, so will CVS, Tom Thumb, Peggy Sues, Amore and Shell will make it, but a whole bunch of other businesses won’t.
Just consider it.
My apologies for not being clearer about my comment concerning entitlement. The entitlement comment was only about the petition. It is obvious to this arm chair pundit that the petition drive was the main thrust of the UP merchants campaign. After that drive was successful it seems that everyone wanted to lay low…get this prop passed by flying it under the radar. There was a blip in the May elections when someone asked the mayoral and council candidates what their views were about the alcohol prop. I don’t even remember what was said. Max got Citizen of the Year, even before the vote! I like ya Max, but I’ve got to point that out and make the comparisons. That’s like giving the Cowboys a victory parade in the third week of the football season. Or for that matter giving Obama the Nobel Peace prize. @Davis’ Beard wants a debate (I think he asked tongue-in-cheek) on the eve of the election when a good portion of the electorate has already voted. The time to debate was a month ago. The time to educate was 2 months ago. Now all the pro-prop side can do is react to a fairly well-timed anti-prop campaign. So the entitlement comment was just about the petition and my sense that the merchants thought that once the petition was approved for the ballot that was it.
I, and most of my friends, enjoy an alcoholic beverage every now and then. The secret to preventing problems seems to be watchful moderation and intelligent drinking practices.
So, I’m not a “teetotaler” and wouldn’t legislate that position on others who are adults.
My issue is the prevention of under-aged drinking and the proliferation of places kids can/would drink if they could sneak in with a fake ID in University Park. I also don’t want beer barns, bars and lounges in U.P.
University Park is very unique in its character. We have among the highest property values in the country, and we have SMU as a partner as well as a huge asset. Our very small and village-like commercial areas are surrounded by million dollar homes.
I’ve never seen the expansion of alcohol sales raise property values anywhere (but Vegas), and I’ve seen bars and clubs drastically reduce them in Dallas and all over the rest of the country.
The article is straightforward enough about the human toll of alcohol, and I can’t imagine that’s debatable with intelligent people in this community.
So, no; I’m not a prohibitionist at all. I just want government and businesses that sell alcohol to keep it out of the hands of kids, and keep the tough DWI laws in place.
The other side of that coin is that
@ N.F. — Not that he needs me to stand up for him, but I did not come to Fuqua’s defense blindly. I reacted to your absurd argument that, after Mayor Davis drops a nuclear bomb on this issue with his strippers and happy hours mailers, Mark is somehow obligated to tell everyone in support of the propositions to surrender because … after all, Dick was a Deacon, you know? Those mailers were unscrupulous, and the pro-business supporters do not have to take a knife to a gunfight just because Davis is a leader at PCBC.
As Buddy said, I respect your abolitionist view. I don’t agree with it, and I don’t think that the majority of our community agrees with it, but I understand and respect that argument. I think that is a much, much more honest argument than the neon, strippers, and dive bars drivel.
Vote for the props. We want freedom.
I’m not for the prohibition of alcohol. I frequently have wine with dinner, and have the best bloody Mary recipe on the planet which I occasional break out for special occasions.
My big concern, and my reason for opposing the propositions, is stopping to spread of places where kids could get alcohol, where IDs are not checked as carefully as they are now, and circumstances unforeseen but enabled by these propositions could damage the character of University Park.
Fugue’s failure to say at word over the vicious personal attacks on Mayor Davis will be remembered long after this issue has faded. I won’t repeat some of the attacks, because they are beyond outrageous. But, many sounded like they were made by very disturbed people unable to even allow the notion that someone might disagree with them.
That’s a problem in itself.
I disagree with a number of my Democratic friends. But, we’re still friends; we just disagree on issues from time-to-time.
I also don’t at all share your view of elections as gunfights. They are debates and discussions about issues.
In any case, Max failed to provide even the very minimum of leadership or associational friendship or respect by remaining silent while his friends and supporters were unfairly excoriating and personally attacking the Dick Davis for merely having a different point of view than theirs.
You can, and should, challenge someone’s ideas instead of attacking the person on a personal basis – especially someone with an excellent eruption and a civic leader of many years known for his honesty.
Having another middleman in the wholesaling of liquor is not an interruption of free trade. It may be a free flow of goods issue but I see no free trade issue here. Again it is about who gets the money. If you want to increase the profits of a group of someones by changing established city regs then you need to explain to the city how it is going to benefit us. You and the pro-prop crowd have done a yeoman’s job of doing just that on the blog. This info hasn’t gone public. It hasn’t been part of a voter education campaign. The prop might pass as a convenience issue, but if it doesn’t I point the finger at the silence that preceded early voting.
I generally agree that removing government regulations to improve the climate of small businesses is a conservative position. Adding regs is a lib position. Got that. Communities have the right to address social issues that are a concern to their citizens. Do we remove all the regulations on bars and bartenders that govern the sale of alcohol to intoxicated people? Should we have let the woman who had a massage therapy business in her home make a little extra money by not making sexual contact illegal? You, like PurdueResident, are confusing conservatism with libertarianism, liberty vs. license. Freedom is not license to do what ever we want.
I would also like to point out that this is about removing a restriction on retailers and restaurants not adding one.
No, we don’t want to remove all restrictions, just those that deliver more harm then benefit. If a regulation hinders business prosperity and lowers our tax base without providing any real differential social benefit, then I support the elimination or modification of that regulation, even if it is the status quo. You are a more learned political scientist than me and are welcome to decide on the label for that belief — conservative, libertarian, or both.
You are attempting a slippery slope argument: if the Pro-business side supports elimination of the private club system at Penne Pomodoro, then the next logical step must be brothels in Snider Plaza. No, we just want the local restaurants to earn their fair share and prosper.
Vote Yes!
You’re mistaking me for another poster because I haven’t posited the slippery slope argument. As a matter of fact I haven’t posited any argument (on the most recent set of threads anyway) for or against this measure. I just commented on a few words that people were using to define their positions. My discussion on intoxicated drinking or prostitution were general statements about situations where we regulate. Personally, I don’t ascribe to the slippery slope argument for this situation primarily because we can’t even agree on parking spots for Snider Plaza let alone a modified ordinance to allow bars.
You have framed the real argument “I.. a regulation hinders business prosperity and lowers our tax base without providing any real differential social benefit..”
Some people will disagree with you on whether this regulation has a social benefit. Some people would disagree with you that this regulation hinders business prosperity or as I have said before no one forced them to open a restaurant in UP.
By MARIA CHENG
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 31, 2010; 8:08 PM
LONDON — Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.
British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.
Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services, and prison.
Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals. When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest. But overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower.
The study was paid for by Britain’s Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and was published online Monday in the medical journal, Lancet.
Experts said alcohol scored so high because it is so widely used and has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them.
“Just think about what happens (with alcohol) at every football game,” said Wim van den Brink, a professor of psychiatry and addiction at the University of Amsterdam. He was not linked to the study and co-authored a commentary in the Lancet.
When drunk in excess, alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin.
But experts said it would be impractical and incorrect to outlaw alcohol.
“We cannot return to the days of prohibition,” said Leslie King, an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and one of the study’s authors. “Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won’t go away.”
King said countries should target problem drinkers, not the vast majority of people who indulge in a drink or two. He said governments should consider more education programs and raising the price of alcohol so it isn’t as widely available.
Experts said the study should prompt countries to reconsider how they classify drugs. For example, last year in Britain, the government increased its penalties for the possession of marijuana. One of its senior advisers, David Nutt – the lead author on the Lancet study – was fired after he criticized the British decision.
“What governments decide is illegal is not always based on science,” said van den Brink. He said considerations about revenue and taxation, like those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, may influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw.
“Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit,” he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103103887.html
We’ve already established the paper is in the tank for the Pro-side. But, after printing and distributing the paper with known untrue and factually incorrect stories, one would think they might throw a bone to the other side, just to give the appearance of being fair and balance.
Guess not.
However, there are dozens, possibly hundreds of posts from the Pro-side who point out lies and falsehoods passed by the mayor and the above posters, complete with details about WHAT was false, and more importantly, what the truth is in the law. (The Against side likes to avoid the details of the law and just make wild claims.)
There are many many people who will be voting No and I totally respect that. It’s sad that if they knew the facts, they would likely change their minds, but the money machine of Davis, Turner, Coffee and the rest always sees to it that their message, truth be forgotten, gets out the loudest, and probably always will.
But people like NF and Lifelong parkie are total jokes.
Your increasingly bizarre rants about all the supposed dastardly comments concerning Mayor Davis on this blog are getting a bit beyond the pale.
From all I’ve read, several people have pointed out that Mayor Davis has quite clearly espoused some extremely misleading statements concerning the propositions. His statements (and those of Chancellor Tucker) are demonstrably false. There’s really no question/gray area there.
Many people have stated that they don’t have a bit of a problem with the Mayor disagreeing with them, or having firm beliefs one way or the other. But to lie about what we are voting on just isn’t right. And just because someone is the mayor/fancy school chancellor/dog catcher/pastor/etc. doesn’t automatically give them a free pass to just make up anything they want to and spread those falsehoods.
You guys wouldn’t want anyone going to the polls thinking about truth & facts would you?
It has also been reported here that the Pro side has taken over 60% of their money from outside of Texas special interests, and have accepted corporate contributions. They also brought in paid outsiders, many of whom could not speak good English, to the push the petitions on UP voters.
The petitions were often misrepresented by the petition pushers, and I got one mailing from the Anti side that indicated several petition signer switch sides and said they were mislead by the petition pushers.
I also learned the Pro side raised and spent out of state money without having a treasurer filed, as required by law, and that they missed statutory filings of finance reports – also a violation of law.
On the Anti side, 100% of the contributions are from University Park citizens, most of the checks are for $100 or less, ALL required finance filings have been made on time, and no money was raised or spent until a treasurer was filed.
I understand there are others, but that’s enough.
So, put nicely, you’re mistaken.
Are these the same non-English speakers we’ve heard so much about earlier, that will be congregating at the 7-11 and downing kegs of beer before careening through our streets?
On May 6 of this year when you chimed in on the post linked below, you seemed to feel quite differently than you do now about the propositions. What happened?
http://www.parkcitiespeople.com/2010/05/06/should-university-park-get-boozy/
“N.F. Submitted on 2010/05/07 at 6:00am
The Texas precinct system for liquor sales stands almost alone as a monument to the impact of lobbyists over common sense. Can anyone with much history in Texas legislative sessions forget the liquor by-the-drink bill that, after going through committee, closed liquor stores an hour earlier and still prohibited LBTD sales?
I couldn’t agree more with Suzanne Robertson. We might as well make UP wet, and have those sales taxes and business transactions staying in our city rather than going to other cities.
There is nothing about this change that will negatively impact drinking habits or whether customers order drinks in restaurants or not.”
I’ve been attempting to understand N.F. for awhile now, so I will help translate for you. The Pro-Business side includes scary special interests of the like of Hillstone, which of course has operated Houston’s/Hillstone in our community since the 90′s and also owns R&D Kitchen. How dare they participate in this issue, huh? The Pro-Business side also, evidentially, hired workers for the petition drive who spoke English poorly, although I’m at a loss to understand why that is such a damaging problem. Perhaps — and I hope not — N.F. is attempting to sway people with latent bigotry since her/his attempts to make persuasive arguments have been otherwise debunked here.
You should also know that N.F.’s sentence, “On the Anti side, 100% of the contributions are from University Park citizens” should instead be written, “On the Anti-Business side, 90% of the contributions are from two University Park citizens.”
And N.F. raises valid questions about the election procedures of the Pro-Business PAC. A technicality like not properly registering the treasurer of an organization, like N.F. alleges, is obviously different than obscuring the source of your campaign funds. I do not accept N.F.’s accounting of the issue at face value because her/his facts have been so fantastically wrong in other elements of this debate, but I would like to know if the Pro-Business side has made mistakes in its election procedures. We all should, and you can make your own judgment about how it may or may not change your vote.
I’m always ready to amend my posts or apologize if I have said something in error. Feel free to detail my “demonstratively false” statements.
NF’s response ought to be interesting.
What changed my mind was learning that getting rid of the club system would get rid of the more stringent processes of age verification. As the election got closer, and friends and neighbors and I started discussing the propositions, I learned the changes could be very damaging for University Park in a number of ways.
As I’ve said a number of times, my issue is keeping under-21 kids from accessing and drinking alcohol, especially in University Park. The stories I could tell you about SMU students and parents at HP whose children suffered consequences of drinking would break your heart.
I just happen to know a couple of people with TABC, so I asked them about the propositions. The changes in the laws DO make them more liberal, and the threat of bars and lounges is a real one.
But, I also believe what Dick Davis has said in terms of these laws not doing anything for University Park, or making our community better. Having thought it over, I agree with that.
In my view, the pros and cons of this should have been thoroughly debated, and SMU – which has a huge vested interest – should have been brought into the discussion much earlier.
The short answer to your question is that I changed my mind once I learned more about the issues. Most of the people I know in Dallas are voting for the propositions. Most of the people I know in UP (in my immediate neighborhood) are voting against the propositions.
There was every attempt to conceal for some time the source of fund of the Pro side. They also hid from the public where they spent their money, most of which they received from special interests.
Since it was outside corporate interests that paid for much of the Pro campaign, it’s clear the charge that ‘it’s all about the money’ is true.
Only liberals would call these violations “technical”. Either you follow the law in something like this, or you don’t. Either you disclose your sources of funds as required by Texas Law, or you don’t.
So, the ‘Citizen of the Year’ didn’t think it was necessary to follow Texas Law in his own community.
Interesting.
However, if the Pro side wins, and is incorrect, the consequences could be devastating to University Park, families, and our kids.
I’d rather err on the side of keeping our kids safer, keeping our community the fantastic place that it is, and holding on to our property values and community values.
Alright, I guess we have to start from the beginning again. Let’s re-debunk all of N.F.’s incorrect conclusions, however earnestly they are held.
“What changed my mind was learning that getting rid of
the club system would get rid of the more stringent processes of age verification.”
Just wrong. So wrong. As my friend Buddy, who has vastly more experience adhering to N.F.’s sacred private club rules, detailed in his email to Mayor Davis (www.parkcitiespeople.com/2010/10/20/university-park-former-mayors-could-benefit-from-a-cold-beer-im-just-sayin/), 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.”
Indeed, the restaurants I frequent in Snider Plaza will check one, and only one, ID at a table in order to comply with the tedious private club rule, not verify the patron’s age. I would prefer that the restaurant operators be freed of the onerous private club rules to focus on age verification ONLY, and that is one of many positive byproducts of the proposed resolution.
“As I’ve said a number of times, my issue is keeping under-21 kids from accessing and drinking alcohol, especially in University Park. The stories I could tell you about SMU students and parents at HP whose children suffered consequences of drinking would break your heart.”
N.F., agreed. Wholeheartedly. Everyone does.
“I just happen to know a couple of people with TABC, so I asked them about the propositions. The changes in the laws DO make them more liberal, and the threat of bars and lounges is a real one.”
It is nice that you have friends at TABC, it would be even nicer if your supposed conversations reconciled in any way with the facts and laws that have been discussed on this board. So that everyone is clear, the proposition to eliminate the private club rule ABSOLUTELY makes it harder for a business to obtain an alcohol license. Again, as Buddy outlined earlier on this page: “(1) Prop 2: Can’t sell more than 50% booze — Current Private Club: no such restriction, (2) Prop 2: Must sell at least 8 entrees — Current Private Club: must have some food. Anything works. Even crackers., and (3) Prop 2: must have food prep facilities and health code permit — Current Private Club: no such requirement.”
I will add, to obtain a private club permit – as did the operators of the bar Ten in Snider Plaza several years ago despite the supposedly airtight laws that N.F. is so comfortable with – one only needs to demonstrate that it has a food service capability “adequate for its members and their guests.” To obtain a food/beverage permit, and applicant has to swear that the “primary business being operated on the premises is food service.” Tell me again why the private club rule is more strict?
“But, I also believe what Dick Davis has said in terms of these laws not doing anything for University Park, or making our community better.”
Interesting, because all I have seen out of Mayor Davis is shameful, intentionally misleading mailers with pictures of strip clubs and Beale Street (or Lubbock?) that cannot be reconciled to fact.
“SMU – which has a huge vested interest – should have been brought into the discussion much earlier.”
Maybe SMU was too busy planning how to get all of its boosters (and students?) drunk at the next tailgate (www.parkcitiespeople.com/2010/10/25/gerald-whats-that-you-said-about-alcohol-consumption) before it could repeat false facts about “happy hours” spoon-fed, or shoved down their throat, by Mayor Davis.
“Most of the people I know in UP (in my immediate neighborhood) are voting against the propositions.”
N.F., it has been abundantly clear throughout that we attend different churches, I guess we now also know that we live in different neighborhoods.
By the way, how about that Bloody Mary recipe?
Buddy – points for the PT&A reference.
Sorry, I was referring to Chancellor Tucker of SMU, not you.
At least I don’t think you are Chancellor Tucker.
They were also hidden for months, and not reported as the law requires; it’s obvious why.
The idea that changing my mind on how I will vote in a liquor election after learning more about it is somehow a cataclysmic seismic event in democracy is absurd. Even more absurd is my being a deacon!!!
The disingenuous argument about HP property taxes is just that. What causes property values to decline with alcohol is bars, clubs, violence, crimes, etc. (Just ask the folks next to Greenville.) HP has no bars or clubs, and virtually no (public) crimes.
Read PR’s comments. He really is right. It won’t be easier to consume alcohol in UP. If I had any small doubt in my mind I would be with you, but I know it won’t be easier. I know I won’t convince you. I really wish you were right, but you are not.
There are many, many things that could be done to help our young people, but this prop is not one of them. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
By the way tomorrow nite you are going to think the world is coming to an end and that the Beast is among us. In 1 year you will be shocked and I mean shocked that everything looks the same
I think you’re safe from Park Cities People though. They only make up stories about illegal campaign activities on the Anti side.
Anyway, you ran a relentless campaign. Now, sincerely, be a man and involve yourself openly with SMU to shut down the boulevard and fraternity issues that apparently aren’t really important to President Turner. Address the issues of underage drinking and drugs head on.
And, remember, it starts at home. This little bubble really protects no one. It’s a false sense of security that you and the “anti” side have.
Go figure.
Since all of your other baseless hearsay arguments (“Bars are coming, TABC told me so!”) have been so contrary to the law, why don’t you actually back up your statement with facts and evidence. Post a picture of the offending signs. Quote the laws. Provide links, citations, anything. You might actually have a chance of persuading someone.
Also, seriously, when are we going to get to see your famous Bloody Mary recipe?
Vote YES everyone!
Hint: Look at the yard signs, and you’ll see two things missing that are on all of the other yard signs. Both are required by Texas Law.
Avid, As far as I know, the Anti side broke not a single campaign law. If they did, I’m not aware of it. From what I know or have been told, all of the multiple violations of Texas Law have been on the Pro side.
P.S. In all seriousness, if you’re campaigning at the polling places, do NOT stand too close to the yard signs. They can attract lightning. Nobody needs to fry over an election.
Baseless hearsay = suggesting that TABC “told you” that this proposition was going to open the gates to bars and lounges in our town. TABC might have told you that the agency is overworked. TABC might have told you that no law is foolproof. But it is FACT that the proposed food/beverage permit is a tighter defense against bars than the private club permit. (See the email from Carolyn Beck of TABC here: http://www.parkcitiespeople.com/2010/10/27/mayor-dick-davis-and-his-people-fight-to-keep-university-park-from-looking-like-lubbock/)
But the Anti-Business side ignored a real evaluation of the facts. You took what you wanted to hear, what Mayor Dick wanted to hear, what the Park Cities Baptist Board of Deacons wanted to hear, and transformed that into a relentless (and wrong) dive bars and strip clubs campaign, peppered generously with the word liberal. It would have to be a joke if it weren’t so shameful. I initially thought that you were intentionally misrepresenting the issues, but I now believe you just don’t understand the propositions.
Now, what do the fine readers of this blog have to do to get your famous Bloody Mary recipe? We will all need a drink after grinding through 120 comments.
Yard signs are the same colors as Kansas State.
I concoct wickedly good Bloody Mary’s.
I hang out with clients at Hooter’s.
I store alcohol in my own home.
But, not in MY neighborhood can these props pass.
Keep it in everyone else’s neighborhood, not mine!
Too funny. Get real.
Give ‘em hell, Dick Davis!!
There are already prostitutes (and worse) on Turtle Creek. That has nothing to do with this election.
Are you okay?
AR, Dick Davis, Don Houseman, and Roy Coffee are “shadowy individuals”? Are you friends with Purdue Resident?
All of the legal violations have been on the Pro side.
There’s something in the water in U.P.
@Buddy — I didn’t send out false information! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic … I get it.
ALL of the Texas Law violations were committed by the Pro side, including two more violations today with their yard signs.
If I were a business person, and I opened a restaurant, I would be expected to follow the health and business laws, or expect to be fined. The same is true for a merchant who operates a Political Action Committee, especially with someone else’s money, and who spends some of the money in ways that lend themselves to additional questions.
@ N.F. — I’ve asked you before and know that you will not answer, but why is it that the highest grossing restaurant in our city for over a decade is an out-of-state special interest? Why shouldn’t Hillside/Houston’s care about getting continually fleeced by your stupid private club laws that are, ironically, less stringent than the proposed food and beverage permit? Why don’t you think that our local restaurants should have a voice in this issue?
I believe the Anti side presented what they thought were worst-case concerns in University Park if the propositions were not defeated. Only time will tell if they were correct in one degree or another.
You haven’t said a word about the Pro side and their multiple legal violations and breaking Texas laws that have to do with elections and campaigns. I doubt you will.
But, you’re wrong about why the Pro side prevailed. It had nothing to do with Anti side mailings. The two proposition passed all over Dallas, not just in University Park. I don’t know many people, myself included, who didn’t despise the confusing and frustrating wet/dry areas in Dallas, and the hassle, especially in Dallas, of driving all over town to buy alcohol. As near as I can tell, the Unicard system was even more disliked equally by customers and restaurant operators.
I’m glad for our U.P. restaurants that their profits will increase as a result of this vote. As a Capitalist, I couldn’t be happier. My concern during the election, and now, has to do with making sure protections against under aged drinking are as tough as you said they were, and will remain in place.
If there is no proliferation of the easy availability of alcohol to kids, and if restaurants will make sure under aged kids are not served, then that works for me.
Leave a Reply