 |
|
 |
| |
People Ban: WY Laramie Page 2
Posted on Sunday, October 22 @ 09:25:42 EDT by samantha |
|
 |
|
 |
| |
Laramie Update: Behind The Scenes
I am forwarding emails to you regarding the latest developments in Laramie, Wyoming. It boils down to a city employee, who is also a bar owner, using city time to complain about her competition. Laramie City Council member Joe Hageman forwarded them to me and when I inquired if I could disseminate the original and replies he agreed.
- A Newsletter Reader
----------------------------------
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 5:18:51 PM
Subject: Fw: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
This attatched message concerns me. Are we unable to prevent smoking inside Reeds Bar?
Joe Shumway
Attached:
Joe I work for the city but also own a bar. I did not apply for this Ad Hoc Committee because I thought it would be a conflict of interest but I would have loved to been on it. I have a question that puzzles me. When the new smoking ordinance went into affect in general most bars complied with the ordinance and do not allow smoking in their establishments. There is of course one exception that now has a reputation that if you want to smoke you can go to this bar and they allow you to smoke inside. (Reeds) Last night my husband decided to see how many people were in there smoking. Their capacity is 18 and they were over capacity and 90 % of the people were smoking. He brought the subject up to the bartender and was pretty much laughed at that he didn?t know the rules and there was really nothing that could be done to the bar. He came home and his clothes reeked of smoke. My question is why when license are up for renewal does this behavior not reflect on the ability of them to renew? In talking to other bar owners what is happening is that the smokers no longer go to the bars following the rules but head to Reeds. What this is doing is the bars that follow the rules are struggling to bring in customers and make ends meet. The message it sends is break the rules and be able to get the customers in so that the bills can be paid. I really would appreciate it if you could bring this question up at your next meeting.
Thanks!!
Rose Jensky
City of Laramie Payroll Coordinator
1-307-721-5212 (Phone)
1-307-721-5211 (Fax)
Po Box C Laramie WY 82073
rjensky@ci.laramie.wy.us
----------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
This concerns me, too. I mentioned to our attorney before that not enforcing the ban makes us look rather weak and ludicrous. I would like to know from Ms. Trent if a temporary suspension of liquor license is something to even be considered under the circumstances. The bar is, after all, violating a city ordinance.
Klaus
Klaus Hanson
Member of City Council, City of Laramie
Fax 307 766-2727;
E-mail: klaushanson@yahoo.com or hanson@uwyo.edu
WEB Site: http://www.uwyo.edu/modlang
Home address: 710 Gerald Place, Laramie, WY 82070
Telephone 307 745 4982
Picture Website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/klaushanson
----------------------------------
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:49:52 -0600
Klaus/Joe,
My future son-in-law is a part owner of Mingles and one of my closest friends is part owner of Mulligans. They both asked me the same questions citing Reeds and the Eagles. A manager at a local fraternal organization also posed the question to me. I'd like someone to provide a straight answer and then take the appropriate action. This has gone on way too long.
O'Malley
----------------------------------
From: ajoehageman@wyoming.com [mailto:ajoehageman@wyoming.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
Please recall that, when I introduced the Amendment to this ordinance, there were some on council who stated that it should not be amended because it had been voted upon. Prior to my election, I was quite vocal to the past council about the deficiencies of the ordinance itself as they are many.
The duty of the license holder do not include excluding customers for lighting up. This is specifically stated in the ordinance and the rules promulgated under it.
The licensee's duties ONLY include:
1) Posting the smoke free signs,
2) Warning patrons not to smoke,
3) Not have ashtrays upon the premises intended for smoking.
If these three items are complied with and the patron or patrons continue to smoke in the establishment, the license holder is in FULL COMPLIANCE with each and every provision of this ordinance. The person who is smoking is at risk of individually receiving a citation and if they receive such a citation because a bar owner has called in a complaint (as occurred in this instance) the patron who is cited is free to advertise to as many of their acquaintences as they choose about the fact thatthe the other bar owner is a "snitch" in order to make the market control whether or not that bar is patronized by those aquaintances. Frankly, it is unfortunate that the owners of JJs and the other councilors who have written below do not understand the way this ordinance is written. I have spent countless hours on the matter and this is what the product of the way in which the ordinance was enacted. If true consideration would have been given to amend the ordinance to have allowed seperate and ventilated areas for bars and clubs as I proposed in July 2005, the bar owners would not have to be sneaking about and stabbing each other in the back out of misunderstanding of a cumbersome and poorly constructed ordinance.
When someone walks into a bar where the patrons are being loud and boisterous,that someone is not free to require the other patrons to shut up or leave. The bar owner could do so but is not required to under threat of loss of his license. If the bar owner has complied with 1,2&3 above, the situation is exactly the same when Gary walks into Reeds and he doesn't like the way the patrons act or smell. If he calls in a complaint because he thinks they are too loud, he will have angered his potential customers and this is part of life in business if he chooses to act that way instead of checking what he was required by law to do on his own. The only real difference is that the rules for enforcement of this ordinance actually mandate a response to Gary's complaint when no other ordinance makes such a silly requirement upon the city. Even use of a firearm within city limits doesn't require investigation.
The straightest answer that can be given to anyone is that full compliance with the letter of the law is all that is required of anyone and acting out of misunderstanding of the law carries consequences too. Some will want to say that driving a big-rig 75 mph down a steep grade where the speed limit is 75 mph is wrong because it is not as safe for others on the road as driving 55 mph. However, it is within the law and no cause to effect the trucker's license.
It is the misunderstanding of what bars and clubs are required to do under this ordinance that has gone on way too long. It is this misunderstanding which leads to these questions from the mentioned owners. If needed, I can provide the written responses from the former city manager to the comments made during the rule making process to help clarify the enforcement issues.
----------------------------------
From: Peggy Trent
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:04 AM
To: Rose Jensky; Joe Shumway_JUNO; Joe Shumway
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
Joe & Rose: This is a matter for Code enforcement and should be reported to that department. I will forward your concern. I have been actively working with Code enforcement on this liquor establishment.
Meanwhile, Joe, I will bring this issue for discussion of the Ad Hoc Liquor Committee as to a standard to be utilized for renewal of liquor licenses. My thoughts – it would need to be a conviction. The City’s rules mandate 3 citations before prosecution.
Peg
----------------------------------
From: Eagle Rock Pottery [mailto:eaglerockpottery@wyoming.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:14 AM
To: ajoehageman@wyoming.com; 'klaus hanson'; shumj@juno.com; mcollins@ci.laramie.wy.us; ptrent@ci.laramie.wy.us
Cc: 'Bob Deutsch'; council@ci.laramie.wy.us
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
I would be willing to introduce an ordinance which prohibits a bar owner or employee thereof to allow smoking in a bar. It seems that it could be short and to the point enforceable by code enforcement or police officers.
O'Malley
----------------------------------
From: ajoehageman@wyoming.com [mailto:ajoehageman@wyoming.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:26 AM
To: Eagle Rock Pottery; ajoehageman@wyoming.com; 'klaus hanson'; shumj@juno.com; mcollins@ci.laramie.wy.us; ptrent@ci.laramie.wy.us
Cc: 'Bob Deutsch'; council@ci.laramie.wy.us
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Committee on liquor license
That might be great in that the timing might create some voter turnout again. The discussion about what is "allowing" and the requirement for ejecting patrons without police intervention should be interesting. Sort of like "allowing" nuisances next door and graffiti you didn't ask for.
Read More About Laramie: WY Laramie Page 1
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
| |
Article Rating
Average Score: 4
Votes: 2
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
