I emailed Community Development Director Brian O’Connell in mid-June:

Brian, I hope:

# the application is simple/quick/easy
# the license fee is cheap, ie, less than $25 for alcohol, less than $10 for non.

Assuming it gets approved at the July 7th Council meeting, it’ll be Aug. before applications can be filed, processed and issued…. and then who knows how long before proprietors interested in the alcohol license get tables, chairs, chains/boundaries, train staff, etc etc.

Why not charge no fees at all this first year since proprietors will have missed the months of May, June and July?

Acting quickly now and not charging fees will encourage proprietors to try it out and it’ll give you and the Council more time to ascertain a fair fee for licenses.

Looking at the packet, he’s giving the Council two options: 1) charge a fee yet this year ($65 for alcohol, $0 for non - his recommendation); or 2) no fees at all for now, since the ordinance is a temporary ordinance anyway and will have to be enacted next year.

Kudos to Brian for the two options, both reasonable. I hope to attend tonight. I’ll argue for no fees at all for now.

So there’s no need to get arrested or to stage a sit-out.

Of course, like Michael Jackson left the 5, to reach your destiny you will have to cut the other two triumviratata loose.

http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/3502/

In general, a very biz unfriendly, messed up process, and why? Councilors should have the sense to not go on and on about who OWNs the sidewalks, and just figure out instead how Northfield is benefitted by the USE of the sidewalks.

I’ll say it again, there is no “city” without the citizens; to constantly set “city” and citizens up in adversarial positions is just patently improper, if not stupid.

Instead of last-minute changes and postponing a vote for at least two weeks, eating into the short outdoor dining season, City Administrator Al Roder suggested the council tweak the ordinance and use varying fees to discern between eateries that sell alcoholic beverages and those that don’t. Roder said by approving the ordinance, the city can regulate food and beverage service on its sidewalks, but charge a lower fee for establishments that don’t serve alcohol. Councilors agreed 5-1 to allow outdoor dining from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., two hours earlier than previously approved. Councilor Arnie Nelson voted no.

from the NDC blog:
“Councilor Jim Pokorney came out strongly against such a move, however. He felt that the sidewalks belonged to the City and that they must be brought under control of the City. Councilor Pokorney went on to suggest that by adding more regulations, the City would in fact be facilitating business expansion. Councilors Davis, Denison and Vohs appeared to support Councilor Pokorney’s views and position. Mayor Lansing seemed to have concerns about it and Councilor Nelson clearly thought that it was a bad idea. I didn’t stay for the vote.”

if the sidewalks belong to the city, maybe they start shoveling and sweeping mine.

How could the city screw this up? I see no opposition to this ordinance. This is a win-win situation. A chance for the council to show us they are not disfunctional . A chance to actually accomplish something. The ordinance was handed to them with the support of business. Dot your i’s and cross your t’s. instead, they dotted the ts and crossed our eyes.

I believe it might be time for succession. Could Dundas annex downtown Northfield?

In addition to the obvious downside for business owners, perhaps City Counselors should also have considered the costs to the city of adding regulation where none was needed (any complaints or problems with existing eating and drinking outside?) and adding to the administrative tasks of city staff.

Two years, and the impact of the ordinance is potentially make things worse, not better.

The End of Sidewalk Dining?

Was there a vote? Outcome?

 

We just do not have sidewalks that are wide enough to accomodate much outdoor dining–mores the pity.

Generally speaking, most of us assume that those who come up with laws and rules to regulate and control our lives and activities are well meaning and filled full of good intentions. I think this assumption is erroneous and the faith which comes from it misplaced.

Working together, accelerator and brakes determine speed in the direction you wish to go, based on your mental or paper map. Thus we navigate the obstacles and make progress or at least try to.

The enabling and regulating functions of government are supposed to operate in a similar fashion. However, there comes a time when the outside observer (and the involved insider) sees the speed slow to almost a stop and notes that, over time, the regulating function has overwhelmed the enabling function. Result: outdoor dining ordinance, rental ordinance, building board of appeal (an attempt to ameliorate), no free wine on Girl’s Night Out, etc. etc. and the ongoing reputation of business-unfriendliness.

In short, the outdoor dining ordinance is DESIGNED to discourage outdoor dining. If you can see that, then you may well experience that EUREKA moment that I am trying to show you.