Alderman Charles Romeo sends the following in response to this week's column:
To me, and I thought to other aldermen (but perhaps for different reasons), it was clear the proper place for the issue was charter and ordinance for the following reasons:
1. The issue is created solely because of the ordinance; while in the bar, the problem is not with the liquor license, a condition of it, or any violations (which has been the usually domain of Special Liquor).
2. As I understood, the Local had not heretofore opened its doors to under 21 folks and so the ordinance applied to that establishment.
3. To allow the event as requested, the ordinance would need to be amended to either alter the applicability or definitions, repeal it, or provide for a variance. As such, Special Liquor would have been unable to take action on the issue.
Given your observation, the description of Special Liquor ought to be tightened to specify matters pertaining to licensing and violations of licensed establishmetns and I may suggest that in committee. But in the end, because a review and possible revision of an ordinance (and not a liquor license) would be required in this case, Charter and Ordinance would have been the committee of appropriate jurisdiction, even with the current wording of the proposed codification. In general, I was hoping to avoid what happened with the Parking Issue, where one thing is hammered out in one committee, then referred to a second for action, resulting in duplication of work if not the potential for things to get lost in the transfer.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.