(Update log 12/2 11:30 a.m.) One Northfield resident is concerned the City Council could dismiss a good opportunity for a new liquor store location because it would lie beyond the area specified in September’s request for proposals.
Virginia Gleason of Oak Street proposed to sell the city a nearly 50,000-square-foot vacant lot across from Target on State Highway 3 for just $1. Her son, James Gleason, also of Oak Street, helped his mother with the proposal and he said he wants the general public to know about the offer.
“Our family has been in Northfield forever and we made the offer because we’d just really like to get ‘er done,” James Gleason said on Monday.
The site, which has been for sale for about six years, does not appear to fulfill at least one of the minimum requirements set by the City Council and members of the city’s staff in September.
That requirement is that the property lie “in an area which is currently or proposed to be zoned C-1 or C-2 in the City of Northfield zoning code or located in a area zoned C3 within one quarter mile of an area zoned C-1 or C-2.” The property is zoned as C-3, which is a “gateway commercial district” and is nearly a mile* from the nearest C-2 district, which is the “downtown fringe district.” C-1 is the “downtown district.” (*I checked the zoning maps online again and it appears the site would actually be a little more than a mile from a C-2 district).
James Gleason said he learned by reading a Representative Journalism story online that officials began to consider five proposals via a scoring process two weeks ago and his was not among them. Gleason said city officials had yet to tell him whether his proposal had been rejected or to return his $1,000 “good faith” deposit.
Brian O’Connell, Northfield’s Community Development Director, said the City Council would still review Gleason’s proposal and that the proposal was still one of seven listed on a scoresheet that the council and staff designed to collect input from four knowledgeable groups of people.
The members of one of the groups, however, said on Monday that they scored only five proposals two weeks ago. Steve Engler and Victor Summa said Gleason’s proposal and another submitted by A.K. Kayoum were not on the list because staff members took them off. Engler and Summa represented the Economic Development Authority’s Infill Committee. Joel Walinski, interim city administrator, said he could not comment about how many proposals were on the scoresheets that Engler and Summa completed.
Gleason said he would not want to ask the City Council to make any decision that would result in a detriment to the city’s downtown. He said he believed building a new liquor store on the site his family proposed could be the most lucrative for the city.
Councilor Scott Davis, who represents the City Council at Economic Development Authority meetings along with Councilor James Pokorney, did not return a phone call or email message about the matter by Tuesday morning.
Update 12/2 11:30 a.m.: Griff Wigley uploaded a clearer version of the property map in the first comment below this story.
The images below show the five sites the Economic Development Authority’s Infill Committee rated two weeks ago. The first shows a lot on Water Street with two buildings, the second shows a lot on the “Q-Block” and a lot on the property across the street from the “Q-Block” where The Crossing residential building lies, the third building is on Division Street, the final photo shows a residential lot on the southern end of Water Street (Note 12/2 12 p.m.: the final photo is of a residence built in a Downtown Fringe district).
But of course Bright, that should be:
1. Updating the city website.
2. Making copies of documents for the public.
3. Working on transparency and public input.
4. Figuring out how to be fiscally conservative, and do budget projections and analysis for the next 3 to 5 years, using a reduction in revenue model.
5. Working on the capital improvement plan, prioritizing what is “needed” rather than “wanted” or “nice to have” and implementing it in a prudent, fiscally responsible manner.
I sure hope we see some of that change that everyone ran on as a campaign promise.
As I have said on more than one occasion, if Lansing had not tried to bully the decision for the muni on his property, the decision would have been made long ago. Many, many $$$$$ would have been saved (staff, council, all of the attorney fees, police time, etc) and we could have stopped by new muni during Winter Walk and sampled a mug of mulled hard cider.
Martha-I personally have no need for a liquor store, either municipal or private, and I have no problem with those who desire one. But, I just couldn’t resist a comment in your last post #52 about “mulled hard cider.” Perhaps the reason the cider is hard now is because the issue has been mulled over for so long. In fact, it would seem, according to some comments, that the cider has turned to vinegar!
I just envision the whole ugly nonsense starting over again.
This is a fact, a series of facts : In mid October, 2005 a site for a new liquor store was discussed at the city council. The 600 block of Division was considered ideal, in fact the building at 618 Division, the hardware store.
From mid October , 2005 until a council meeting in February of 2007, that was the council’s identified preferred site … for 1 and 1/2 years.
At the meeting in February of 2007, Mr. Roder told the council that the 618 site was absolutely off bounds; the city attorney said it was a conflict of interest. However, the council then identified the 600 site, and was going to leave it at that. Mr. Roder said he would prefer that they have two sites, for the sake of the comparisons/negotiations, and the Econofoods lot south of their building was selected by the council as the second site.
Nash-Finch, the parent company of Econo foods was not interested, and the 600 Division site was left.
You don’t have to believe me; go and look up the meetings at the Library, where the council packets are kept. You won’t be able to tell much from the minutes; when you identify the relevant meetings go to city hall and ask for the tape of the meeting so you can witness the discussion.
What happened to change 1 and 1/2 years of council designation, and 1 and 1/2 years of the city attorney NOT alerting the council to the conflict of interest?
The answer is : nothing factual, to either the council’s designation or the conflict. The conflict was always there, and not just for the Mayor , but for any property belonging to a “blood relative” … that’s what the city code says … read it yourself.
Everyone knew the Mayor had owned the hardware store; everyone knew the Mayor’s son owned the 600 site. Certainly all the involved parties, council, etc.
But when the personalities, and the lawsuits, started flying around, and sides had been chosen, all of a sudden everyone REMEMBERED!
Except the council … they would like you to believe they were always horrified at the thought of either of the 600 block properties. Of course… THEY would never endorse a ‘conflict of interest’ ! What is the classic way to shift the focus? Become the prosecution … Attack.
There was no way out of the mess they created , someone must be at fault… who? couldn’t be them, the council, regardless of their actions for the last year and a half.
It is so sad.
There is such monumental BS swirling around this whole series of events.
The council was either willfully ignoring the conflict of interest, or woefully ignorant of it.
But for one and a half years it was NOT an issue.
And if the city attorney warned them during that time, they did not listen.
Now two generations of a longtime NF family, who have worked continuously for the community, have their lives … and business, ‘trashed’, and I can’t help but think its also impacting the third generation.
You need to think long and hard about this sequence of events, and ALL of those who have had roles in this ungodly mess.
Tell me who, of the elected officials, and the senior staff involved, has had NO role in the decision making … who has had NO responsibility to the outcome.
Does anyone even care about the liquor store any more?
Will it ever be anything but an icon to poor judgement by ALL?
I have always previously supported the idea of the municipal liquor store , especially because of its financial contribution to the general fund … but no more. The whole thing is sickening.
It should be anathema to everyone in town , no matter which ‘side’ they’re on.
Doesn’t Dan Sugarman’s new thread suggest that it was the arrival of Jon Denison, Noah Cashman and Al Roder (at around the same time) that caused the whole plan/plot to go off the rails and into the valley of darkness from whence it has yet to emerge (hopefully in the form of a privately owned liquor store).
John George,
It has indeed turned to vinegar! I guess we can mix that with a little water and use it clean the windows in Northfield, welcome in Mayor Mary, and the new city council. Clean windows, new players, new year — sounds like a good fresh start!
Is this cause for celebration?
There’s an updated story in the Nfld News that ends with this:
So it appears that a liquor store site decision will be made by the new council.
If the council determined in 2005 that the hardware store was perfect for a liquor store, how was the RFP done? What were the financial justifications? Where was the public process?
It seems that the protests should have come then, when the mayor and his staff offered the council only one choice, saying due diligence had been done. It seems the city attorney should have spoken then, the legal experts and public watchdogs should have spoken then. What were the costs of repairs to the existing store then?
It’s possible the problem wasn’t that the newcomers derailed a legal process, but that they uncovered an improper process and stopped it.
Sounds like the plan is in good hands, and that the transition from one council to the next might proceed smoothly.
Kiffi, I agree with almost everything you said, with one exception and with one addition.
The addition would be that if anyone deserves special consideration, or even regular consideration, it should be the family of a man who has given years of service, both as a commercial vendor and a competent volunteer, elected by the people. I wonder how many good people considering volunteering for office are lost because they need to keep safe all ‘conflicts of interest’ clauses.
The exception to post #54, where I disagree, is that I would most likely be against the government dabbling in private enterprises.
Furthermore, in a town like this where many people have had family like ties with each other over the years, and in a world where we are all brothers and sisters, ‘conflict of interest’ is really a pseudonym for something else, and I emphasize-in this particular situation.
Hi Bright, Thank you for your interesting thoughts. I am intrigued by your comment, “people have had family like ties with each other” and “‘conflict of interest’ is really a pseudonym for something else”.
Please expand further, I would really like to understand your thoughts beyond these interesting perceptions. Excuse me for second guessing here, are you suggesting the conflict of interest issue does not really exist because we already now everyone business and therefore the pseudonym analogy describes something else going on between these very people? Forgive me if I am wrong, I am just trying to explore your thoughts based on this very interesting notion.
Hi, Peter. Let me first say that I understand a goodly amount of your ideas because my bff is a woman from England.
I am saying that while the notion of conflict of interest should be held true in some instances, I don’t think it is required in all situations.
When we write laws, we write them to cover a myriad of situations, blanket laws, which oftentimes do not fit individual situations.
In the case where trying to keep the conflict of interest from doing damage actually causes more damage, then it should be dropped. And if full disclosure laws are met, then, it should be dropped as well.
Furthermore, I tire of people playing we are all brothers and sisters under the skin card on Sundays, and then pretending like we are all strangers with hateful agendas on the other six days of the week.
I am coming from the place where I believe if you start with a shaky notion, like food for fuel, or saving taxpayers money by govt. selling drugs, you are gonna end up with a shaky deal, but let’s make the best of it and not waste everyone’s time and talent on this when there are so many other fish to fry. No disrespect meant to the fish. hth, hope that helps.
Bright : Thanks for your common sense re: conflict of interest, specifically about causing more damage than the original ‘conflict’ ; also your comment about full disclosure.
One does expect that both of these will be taken into consideration when these difficult cases come up; and then of course there’s always the ‘vendetta’ factor.
You would think full disclosure would take care of many situations, we have seen that that’s not the case.
The ‘Law’ can be arbitrary, as well as finite.
Griff, your post #34 hits the crux of the issue when you ask “why is Firehouse cheaper?” The city operates a liquor store in a facility that does not pay any real estate taxes. That alone should allow it to offer products at least equal to or less expensive than Firehouse. However, that generally is not the case.
My personal take on this issue is that if the city is not willing to consider a property offered for $1 in a location that has high traffic and will generate excellent revenue, then we should just keep the liquor store where it is. Remodel it to make it work and stay there.
However, with that said I continue to believe that a municipal liquor store is not something the city should be involved with at all. Governments should do those things that citizens and private enterprise cannot do for themselves…police, fire, water systems, you get the idea. Liquor stores do not in my mind fall into that category at all.
Ray, I agree. I don’t support city liquor sales, but I was willing to consider choosing a downtown site over a highway site if there were a real cost/benefit analysis and a rationale for giving up some revenue for a defined benefit to downtown.
By limiting the pool of proposals to the downtown, however, the city has prevented any public discussion of the value of having the liquor store downtown.
Say, for example, that a highway store could generate $500,000 in revenue, while a downtown store could generate $200,000. I could live with the $300,000 lost if it could be proven the store delivered xxx number of shoppers to other stores.
Alas, there has been no real documentation of the benefit of the liquor store to downtown. If the store doesn’t create a real, defined benefit, perhaps the $300,000 generated by the liquor store could be better used for more promotions, building upgrades or other services to businesses.
Defining the benefit doesn’t require a costly study. Simply taking two weeks and having storekeepers at the liquor store and elsewhere ask each customer whether they are doing other business downtown during their trips would give a pretty good snapshot.
Ray: Shouldn’t the City build a new downtown liquor store if it can make more money than the current site, even if it might make a lot less than the Gleason site?
It seem like there are 4 options:
1. Leave it where it is;
2. Build a new downtown site;
3. Build the liquor store where it will make the most money;
4. Get out of the business.
You suggest #4, but advocate for #1. Why?
Running a liquor store is a business and City Hall has demonstrated time and again that it has little or no business acumen. So, if City Hall is to stay in the business than let it do so at its current location (and use local tradesmen to fix the OSHA problems). Otherwise get out of the business.
A distinction should be made between generating more sales and ‘making more money’. After debt servicing a brand new multi-million dollar liquor store, not much if any money will be left over to maintain the skate-board park.
It would be a worthy gesture in these harsh economic times if City Hall would bite the bullet and set the example of restraint or prudence and put a moritoruim on this project (other tham the OSHA stuff) and others like it for say 5 years.
I like Norman’s comments…..either fix the existing building or get out of the business. I don’t know if anyone really knows what the liquor store ‘makes’. I’ve seen the yearly reports that the State Auditor hands out. We generally don’t look all that good compared to a lot of other cities.
But I stand behind my thoughts that government shouldn’t really be involved with things that private enterprise can do just fine. Liquor stores are one of those things. I’d like to see cities focus more on running their core government functions well.
As far as a location for a new liquor store…if we are to have one….I don’t think it makes any difference. Doesn’t matter what it costs because city dollars are only vaguely monitored. Don’t forget the $2.9 million that has vanished and remains a very silent topic. If a city like Northfield can lose $2.9M and not reallly miss it at all, then we are funding them very, very well and what happens at the liquor store really doesn’t impact us much as taxpayers.
I’ll vote for David L’s #4—get out of the business.
As I have said before (next I’ll hold my breath until someone listens) the City can get the same, or more, revenue by issuing one or two licenses to sell liquor in Northfield to private enterprise(s).
This is especially true if the private enterprise(s) can run the businesses more profitably/effectively than the City does and if the City structures the license to be revenue-driven.
The license should be x% of gross sales, where x times expected gross sales is equal to the expected “profit” from the City’s current operation. Issue the license to two stores to keep them competitive with each other.
It’s not that hard and it removes all of the liability and capital issues associated with City ownership of a business.
The risk-adjusted return would be substantially higher and that is what the bottom-line should be.
Can someone tell me why we shouldn’t/couldn’t adopt this approach?
Can anyone list the five sites with the valauations of the land/buildings. I hear rumours of $1.3M and $1.4M and cannot think of any building that is a contender being worth even half that much..?
The idea that more revenue is guaranteed is a fiscal fantasy, fix the one we have and move on to more pressing issues (eg. every other issue).
David H,
Let me rephrase my suggestion a bit so that we could flush-out whether private enterprise could do better than the City.
If the City nets $130K per year from the Muni (I think that figure is roughly correct), then a private enterprise would be willing to pay at least $130K for the right to have the license if it thinks it could make more money than the City does.
So, by offering a license for a flat fee of $130K, the City would find out if any business thinks it can beat the City’s performance.
The City might consider offering two licenses for a sum total of greater than $130K and see if two businesses think they can split/beat the City’s liquor sales and profits.
If no one steps forward to buy the licenses, then the answer about whether the City can run the liquor business better than the private sector would be answered.
I tend to think that there are a couple of enterprises that would snap up the licenses….perhaps even to build one store by the Gleason site and one on the Q-block.
The bottom line to the City would be:
1. Same or greater revenue
2. Less risk
3. No capital expenditures
4. Control of access to liquor done by enforcement checks
David K -- your solution is reasonable excepting if you factor in about 10,000 hours of citizen and government time in debate, about a billion in consultant and legal fees in getting to a point of agreement. I think on this one Northfield should let sleeping dogs lie.
David K, I agree with you (and Ray) that this is a function that the private sector can and should provide. I also agree with you that it would be a relatively straightforward exercise to identify the revenue level desired ($130K, $200K, $250K annually, whatever), offer one or two licenses totaling that amount, and see how the market responds. Why does the city keep spending such a huge amount of time on this relatively trivial issue???
David H, I share your concern about the huge amount of time and money spent thus far. However, we’re STILL not at a point of agreement. Why not take David K’s suggestion and see if we can get to a more or less immediate private sector end-game and get the city out of the booze biz, except to the extent that it remain a source of revenue via the license fee(s)?
Thanks, Bruce….I can exhale now!
David K: You didn’t figure in the property taxes associated with a private enterprise. What would be the taxes on a $2 -- $3 million dollar building? I would suspect close to $100,000.00. Remember, those property taxes go to entities other than the City.
Also, from my time on the City Council, I remember that some of the City’s expenses were allocated to the liquor store, when the expenses were more appropriately more City-wide expenses than an actual enterprise expense.
I don’t know why we can’t run all of the scenarios at the same time, so that we can make an informed decision. But, that doesn’t look likely.
I’m starting to believe that Ray and Norman are right about giving up on Northfield’s ability to do it right. There are just too many political pressures to make a decision that doesn’t adequately consider the profit motive.
I really do agree that the city should not be in the booze biz … my point was that as a practical matter fixing up the one we got and moving on seems most prudent. That said I have to add that the concept that Northfield will benefit as a community from the sale of more booze is patently absurd.
David L and Ray,
I’m open to a meeting in my office where the three of us could draft a proposal to the City that offers an alternative to the City running a store.
While it would not fit with their current RFP, I am sure we could put something together that makes sense from a risk and economic standpoint.
David L, your legal advice on what the City can and cannot do as far as license fees would be additionally very helpful.
I’m game if you guys have an interest. Maybe we’d be wasting our time, but maybe not.
Why not dust off the Just Foods business plan and expand it to Just Liquor as well?
Maybe buy (not lease!) the Rees-Shmidt building kitty corner from the current liquor store for Just Liquor and share the carpark (staff and other shareable resources). Then put The Chamber, NDDC, NEC, Tourist info, etc in the current liquor store location.
Just Foods, Just Liquor, Just Brainstorming.
BTW. For the private business person in a brand new liquor store, all or most of the profit on the Profit & Loss account will go to debt service on the Balance Sheet for about 20 years (only to be demolished to comply with OSHA requirements 2o years from now). So, $130,000 for a license sounds just silly (what does Firehouse and other privately owned stores pay and how is it calculated?).
Also the P&L for the Cty-owned liquor hides more than it reveals and little can be learned from it (has it ever been made public?). And no one can compete with an entity (City Hall) that assumes no risk, no penalties, no business-reality.
Lastly, why not sell the City-owned liquor store complete with staff and big blue sky to the highest qualified bidder?
David (and David and Ray),
Go for it, please. Sounds like a great idea.
$130,000 fee? I don’t think so.
David K., are you suggesting that private enterprise can successfully buy land, build a new Liquor Store on it, provide all the necessary bells and whistles required of a successful retail business, AND PAY AN ANNUAL FEE TO THE CITY OF $130,000 for the right to do that … simply by tapping into the entire local liquor store SALES?
What business plan would you use to make that case?
Excepting for sales that go out of town today (Dundas, Twin Cities, etc) the mini, has, the entire market right now, right? It is likely making the maximum profit any liquor retailer could make here. Why do you think profit will jump merely because we have a new liquor store in Northfield, anywhere?
Incidentally, does the city have the right to charge a $130,000 licensing fee? Why would that fee be greater than the fee the local watering holes pay?
Years ago, before the current fiasco at city Hall called Cashman, Denison, Roder, et al… the city might have considered the Lansing Hardware store as a likely site for a new store. Times were okay then I suppose … that is, except for DT retail including Lansing’s Hardware who had suffered irretrievable loses as a result of Target’s and Menard’s deep pockets and invasive capability to capture a market.
That was before the crisis brought on by 9/11 and further exacerbated by Bush’s war … and now, adding insult to injury, the top has blown off with the current financial crisis. Different game! The ball’s not round, doesn’t bounce and the playing field is littered with pot holes and land mines.
Assuming you were merely a cold hearted profit oriented business man who didn’t care if the profits came from sale of liquor or sale of books, would you invest in a business that was limited to the potential profit that you can generate in Northfield, and required a $130,00 operating fee every year?
Seems to me that takes the first 130K right of the top making meeting the debt service on the 2 or 3 million of development costs for 20 or more years even more dicy.
Conversely, Northfield can maintain a significant DT presence with the Muni which supports the rest of the fragile DT, helps control the wise consumer’s purchase of alcohol, and generate revenue for the city (and contrary to Ray Cox’s remark #69, I believe I can find statistics that show Northfield’s muni has put up excellent revenue numbers per capita.)
I’ll look for these, meanwhile, Ray said:
Perhaps one reason “no one knows (really) what the liquor store makes, is that the city, for years has massaged the books, paying out a variety of chargebacks to the Lq.Store that are not necessarily all that legitimate … or at last, that’s what I’ve been led to believe.
Speculating on the established cost to Firehoue Liquors? Well, if an on sale license is what is required for a liquor store, then Dundas’ fee for such an animal is $2,335 annualy. If OFF SALE is the category, that’s a $100.00 …. annually!
Either way, your gonn’a have to sell a lot of Bud Lite to make up the fee difference in Northfield.
I’d think this plan would ensure Firehouse dominating the market.
Maybe there are state fees for a Liquor Store too.
We’ll wait for the conference report.
At this juncture, the only changes I can see that are worthwhile are those that would make what we’re doing now more cost effective.
Norman both suggestions are excellent, tie to Just Foods to support their sales and even sell “Organic Vodka” http://www.christianiavodka.com/ (disclaimer, this web site is a bit racey)
or sell the existing business so staff keep jobs, get value of existing bsuienss and future moves etc no longer burden city politics.
I spent a few minutes doing a little research earlier this afternoon and can report the following:
Bummer. While I’m no attorney, it seems that it might be difficult or impossible legally to replace the putative $130K net revenue the Muni generates via anything resembling a license fee. Whether that $130,000 is a real number or not, I have no idea.
I also took a brief look at Rice County tax records online for one Northfield commercial property in the same ballpark, market-value-wise, as the proposed new Muni, Walgreens (2008 estimated market value, $2.189 million), pays $66,756 in 2008 property taxes (combined city, county, school district and “State General Tax” — which goes to education). The city share appears to be about $38,764. Assuming a $3 million price tag for the new Muni (I think that’s the number I remember), an extrapolated city share for a private liquor store with a $3 million estimated market value might be about $53,000. FWIW.
Excellent comments and thoughts folks. Maybe we will actually get somewhere with all this!
One issue that David L could probably look at very quickly: are cities limited in the amount they can sell off sale liquor licenses for? From my 2 years on the Regulated Industries committee in the Mn House I seem to remember that liquor laws are more arcane and out right strange than any other section of law. I know cities are regulated about how many off sale licenses they can grant. Some cities are before the legislature on a regular basis asking to increase the number due to growth between censuses. I don’t remember how many licenses a city the size of Northfield is allowed…or what they could sell one for.
If the city is not restricted in types of terms used when selling the business entity then they could probably work in a fancy way of capturing the $150,000 a year (higher price paid out yearly over time, profit share, etc )
Just a correction for the record. Just Food is a singular, not a plural.
Just Food
http://justfood.coop/
No worries, I made the same mistake for a bit myself.
So, if Bruce’s citation is correct, it does seem an arcane rule to limit the fee that a city can charge.
Do we need to focus on changing state law?
Or, is there another way? Can cities charge there own off-sale liquor tax?
It seems to me that cities ought to be allowed to “compete” for liquor store business through setting their own local fees for the license to sell.
Ray: Cities may issue as many on-sale liquor licenses as their city council sees fit to issue. The law limiting the number was changed a couple of years ago.
One issue someone must sort out about this proposed site is that it places a new municipal store in a closer proximity to an existing private store -- in Dundas. There is state law that prohibits this sort of thing from happening in order to protect small Mom & Pop liquor stores from competition with new muni stores, especially in the metro area.
David K: We also have to factor in the income taxes that would be paid on the income by a private enterprise.
Can the muni add on-sale?
How about allowing pubs & bars to do off-sale?
David L, yes, there are several items left out of the simple analysis, including taxes and the cost of the risk that the city has with its facility, business and other.
I am still very willing to sit down with you, Ray and anyone else who’d like to map out some of the issues and try to put it into a realistic option for the city to consider.
We may be too late and the idea of changing state law, if that is what is needed, may be too big of a task. But, it may still be worth trying and could provide the city with a different way to think about the Muni and its contributions to the budget.
David K.: It doesn’t make much sense to look at the issues unless someone connected with the Council or City Hall is going to be involved.
William…Northfield used to operate on on/off sale liquor store. It was the only place you could purchase liquor, except I believe for the two veterans clubs. I seem to remember after the 1970 census that Northfield went over the 10,000 population figure. That triggered a vote where we had to select between a) maintaining the muni on/off sale, b) keeping only the off sale or c) keeping only the on sale.
The voters decided to keep the muni off sale and jettison the on sale.
The old on sale was in the same building where the off sale is now, but I seem to remember it was only on the lower area.
David L, I disagree.
I assume you look at issues with the Chamber and come up with recommendations even if no one from City Hall is involved.
Come on…try to work with me…it’s not that scary, actually, once you’ve tried it.
I’ve also had another knowledgeable person contact me on the outside interested in this discussion. And, I think you, Ray, this person and I might be able to conduct a thoughtful review of issue and present an interesting idea to one or more of our City representatives.
The worst thing to come out of it would be that no one listens…but we’d still have learned some things ourselves.
David K: Northfield doesn’t need any more divisions. If someone with the power to change the course agrees to listen I am in.
Thanks Scott….the only thing that may be goofier than liquor laws in Minnnesota is election laws. I’d forgotten that the cities off sale state limits were lifted Scott. I’m sure that frees up many countless hours on Regulated Industries committees! I do remember one growing suburb city coming to the committee in 2004 and asking for I believe 4 more stores. The committee decided to give them 10 more stores and not make them come back so soon.
I’ll have to say I’m more with David L on this issue—is the city really serious about doing something with the liquor store, or is is just a continuation of old discussions? My one desire is that they not spend any more scarce resources on outside consultants to talk to them about the liquor store. Talk to the community as David K says.
David, I would recommend that you continue to work through the issues. I believe your previous thoughts above on running “all of the scenarios at the same time, so that we can make an informed decision” were valid. You probably where referring to the City undertaking these scenarios rather a small citizen group, but if the point is get to an “informed decision”, than lets continue this train of thought. Reading above, I also see a few missing parts that tip the balance between scenarios. A real BCA would easily determine the difference. The process so far has not produced one result except wasted time and frustrated residents. Perhaps informed citizens would provide the motivation for elected officials to resolve this issue once and for all. This is probably a good exercise in managing a moderated response to an emotional issue that has and will continue to rip Northfield apart until we resolve it for good.