Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Call This Morning! Liquor Moratorium Vote At 11AM

click to enlarge
Update from the comments:

Just got a call from Schulter's office, the item has been deferred until more information can be gathered.

Yeah, UU! We did it! (At least temporarily)

Call to action! Please make a call this morning to tell the License Committee how you feel about allowing liquor sales at Wilson & Broadway.


On 11AM this morning, the Committee on License and Consumer Protection will vote on Ald. Shiller's request to create a "level playing field" (i.e., allow Aldi to compete with directly with Target) by lifting the package liquor moratorium that's been in place for many years in the area consisting of Wilson, from Sheridan to Broadway, and Broadway, from Wilson to Sunnyside.

We think the very last thing this area needs is more package liquor sales. Lifting the moratorium will allow liquor stores to open anywhere in the area: along Wilson Avenue; in the McJunkin Building; and in the strip mall at Wilson & Broadway. It's like going after a flea with a sledgehammer.

We feel that Ald. Shiller, who loves to talk about transparency, should have given residents notice of this change, and allowed us the opportunity to express our opinions about it.

We urge you to contact the members of this committee this morning to let them know your views on lifting the package liquor moratorium. This is the closest thing to a public hearing that this issue will be getting. The committee includes all three aldermen whose districts surround the 46th Ward, and whose residents are most affected by Ald. Shiller's actions. It'll be very intriguing to see how Alds. Tunney, Schulter and Smith vote on this proposal: whether they (who surely know the public drinking situation at Wilson & Broadway) vote on what's best for the community, or whether City Council cronyism will hold sway.

Please make a phone call or two to the members of this committee to let them know your feelings. Our "person in the know" tells us that phone calls carry a lot of weight with aldermen, and showing up in person to testify in front of the committee carries the most weight of all. If you do show up, be there on time, as the agenda is very short. Thank you to all!

Chairman: Eugene C. Schulter; Vice-Chairman: Ariel E. Reboyras; Members: Robert Fioretti, Freddrenna Lyle, George Cardenas, Frank Olivo, Willie Cochran, Michael Zalewski, Deborah Graham, John Rice, Brian Doherty, Tom Tunney, Helen Shiller, Mary Ann Smith

18 comments:

  1. DONE. I have called and expressed my opinion. Please call it will take about 2-5 minutes of your time. This is where our voice can be heard. Let's stop the poison once and for all..

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can go to alot of places around Uptown and its surrounding area anyway and buy package liquor so I cannot see what difference it will make for a few more stores as Target or Aldi to sell it at discount. Drunks will be drunks and even with the package liquor moratorium in place you still can see them passed out on the streets even if there where no stores selling package liquor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks UU for the heads up.

    FYI:

    MA Smith's office said she was not attending today's meeting, so your time is better spent calling another name on the list.

    The guy I talked to in Tunney's office said the Alderman was already downtown, so he would text him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just called too. Let's get a lot of "opposed to this" votes to counteract Shiller's sneaky ways!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Isn't this a free market? I called and supported the measure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tunney's office said the best thing to do was to appear in person.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I called this morning and was told the "packaged goods" to go ordance was put on the back burner. There is not a rescheduled date at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just got a call from Schulter's office, the item has been deferred until more information can be gathered.

    Yeah, UU! We did it!(At least temporarily)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I CALLED AS WELL BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH WISEGUY. ALCOHOL IS A DRUG FOR SOME PEOPLE. THEY NEED IT AND CAN'T DEAL WITH LIFE WITHOUT IT SO THEY WILL GET IT ANYWHERE THEY CAN. IT'S LIKE THE "WAR ON DRUGS". YOU CAN'T STOP IT. PHONE CALLS TO ALL THE ALDERMAN AND MAYOR ARE BETTER SERVED BY DEMANDING MORE COPS ON OUR STREETS.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Wiseguy. The idea of banning liquor sales is as absurd as Daley's ban on spray paint. That really solved the graffiti problem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, they will get their liquor either way. Do we really want to see another Jewel? Have you seen the volume of drunkies that are in and out of Jewel. I guess that's the point we want to make. There is no need for this on this strip of Broadway, that will eventually be the future of Uptown. This will either break or make Uptown. Let's stop complaining and let's do something about it...

    ReplyDelete
  12. All alderman offices pretty receptive. Ald. Fioretti's office said he will vote whatever way Shiller will vote.

    Ald. Cardenas' office said they would contact him via cell phone to notify him of the call and took my contact info.

    Ald. Smith would NOT be attending today's meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wilson -- Fioretti doesn't think for himself? Or is he scared of Shiller? What's the point of being on a Committee if you base your vote on what the "home" alderman is doing?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Ald. Fioretti's office said he will vote whatever way Shiller will vote."

    I wonder why people accuse aldermen of being rubber stamps? If this fool runs for mayor, I'm passing on this comment to his challenger.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The moratorium in this area was, largely, a response to several notorious bars, none of which exist any more. Anyone remember The Wooden Nickle? Sharon's Hillbilly Heaven? Seems odd to deny responsible retailers a license for what several bars owners did (and didn't do) 20-30 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gosh, Suzanne, I feel like I'm reading Helen Lite every time you post lately. Angling to finish out her term, or just feeling contrary?

    Sharon's Hillbilly Heaven was located across from the Aragon, where the liquor license went to the Kinetic Playground. The Wooden Nickel stood where Nick's on Wilson is now, and the liquor license went to Nick's.

    It is untrue that the moratorium was a reaction to either bar. First, the moratorium affects package liquor sales only. Second, neither bar is or was in the area affected by the moratorium, which runs along Broadway and Wilson. The PL moratorium is still in place. Yet Nick's/Wooden Nickel and Sharon's/Kinetic Playground's liquor licenses remain active.

    Opposing the moratorium isn't to "punish" any existing business. It's to protect the community against future unscrupulous businesses. You know the situation in the alley next to Sheridan Park Liquors? Exhibit A.

    Helen's idiotic idea of urban planning placed two competing grocers right next to each other. Now she wants to "fix" a situation that never should have existed in the first place.

    If you can hang out for an hour at Wilson and Broadway and say afterwards that what that area needs is more package liquor sales, then by all means call the aldermen on the License Committee and tell them you support lifting the moratorium.

    ReplyDelete
  17. GG: Let me see if I’ve got this right: Because I think lifting the moratorium is worth considering I’m angling for Helen's job? Oh please. You cannot possibly know what’s happening around here and believe that.

    And maybe you don’t know that many of us worked for the close of those bars and to stop their extra-legal package goods sales. So yeah, it was related, at least as far as the neighbors were concerned. That there are other licenses operating responsibly on those blocks years later? Ok, so?

    Seems to me the best reason not to lift the moratorium is if the community believes the applicant businesses cannot manage the license responsibly. Is there reason to believe that’s the case?

    There’s an aldermanic victory’s worth of voters out there who, like me, do not rabidly disagree about everything or froth at every opportunity and actually consider the merits of a proposal. I appreciate the need for a straw man now and then and if I’m yours, that’s fine, but do yourself a favor and stop filtering every idea or every comment through the pro-Helen/anti-Helen lens.

    ReplyDelete