Foodie
1931
Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:09 pm
The rolling acres of Henry County
Mark R. wrote:I really don't understand how this issue can just be coming to light now. You would think all of his legal wrangling would've taken place 4 years ago when LB applied for their liquor license. Through the entire public posting process and license application process, you would have thought that adequate investigation would've been done to either approve or deny the permit at that time. I do remember a discussion about the St. Matthews ordinance with the 700 foot issue and the fact that St. Matthew said it had to be counted by the closest walking route, which is down to the intersection, across and back which is over 700 feet. You would think at that time somebody should've brought up the 200 foot state requirement instead of waiting until now.
Steve P wrote:A couple of years ago a L.B. employee told me that the L.B. in St. Matts was actually a franchise deal of some sort and wasn't actually owned by L.B....
Alison Hanover wrote:... is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.
Robin Garr wrote:Alison Hanover wrote:... is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.
I'd say that's it, pretty much. I think two "public policy" issues are in play in this and in many alcoholic-beverage regs:
1. Those who would rather prohibit all alcohol but know they can't do that again remain keen, nevertheless, to make it as difficult as they can for people to buy booze. Limiting access is one easy way to do that.
2. It's also clearly anti-competitive, as we see in this case: It keeps competitors at a distance so each has, presumably, a protected market.
There's also a possible (3) ... the more complex the regs, the easier it is for regulators and inspectors to find opportunities to receive a "tip" when asked the fateful question, "How can we make this problem go away?"
Robin Garr wrote:Alison Hanover wrote:... is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.
I'd say that's it, pretty much. I think two "public policy" issues are in play in this and in many alcoholic-beverage regs:
1. Those who would rather prohibit all alcohol but know they can't do that again remain keen, nevertheless, to make it as difficult as they can for people to buy booze. Limiting access is one easy way to do that.
2. It's also clearly anti-competitive, as we see in this case: It keeps competitors at a distance so each has, presumably, a protected market.
There's also a possible (3) ... the more complex the regs, the easier it is for regulators and inspectors to find opportunities to receive a "tip" when asked the fateful question, "How can we make this problem go away?"
Eric Hall wrote: An Amendment to the constitution gives the states the right to enact and enforce alcohol regulations as they see fit.
The 21st Amendment wrote:Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests