It’s another beautiful fall week coming up in Southeastern Wisconsin. Your local government has one or two things on the calendar that might have consequences for you.
Tonight from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. the Finance Committee, chaired by one of my favorite characters, will discuss a list of budget changes that could save you tax dollars. There is the potential for big impact from this meeting.
Let’s just say I’ll cross my fingers, but won’t hold my breath.
On Tuesday night there’s a Common Council meeting. The agenda is packed, and I’ll get to it in a separate post. There’s also a public hearing:
REQUEST: Ordinance* amending Section 17.108.090 of the Zoning Code regarding Intensive Uses for Cigar Stores and Wine and Craft Beer Stores as follows:
8. Taverns, excluding cigar shops and wine and craft beer stores serving strictly beer and wine under an approved Class B and C license limited to a maximum of 30 seats for the consumption of product on premises and not operating after 9:00 p.m.
Currently, any establishment that wishes to serve alcohol that is located directly adjacent to a residential zoning district is prohibited from serving alcohol due to proximity to residential zoning. This amendment would create an exception for cigar shops and wine and craft beer stores limited to the above restrictions. If adopted, this amendment would permit such establishments to serve beer and wine as listed above.
The change was brought forward by 1st District Alderman Dan Sutton. While he’s certainly on of my favorites on the council, this idea stinks. I’ll give you two ideas as to why: Legislation written for one person – in this case the owner of a smoke shop in his district – is the worst possible reason to make a law. Next, who the heck thinks we need more liquor licenses in Brookfield?
It’s a slippery slope toward moving taverns against residential zoning. Wouldn’t they protest if the local brewery or smoke shop can act as the neighborhood pub? I’m a little surprised there isn’t more pushback from the very active Tavern League on this one, as the change would give competition to those members. It doesn’t surprise me, though, that Mayor Jeff Speaker has remained so quiet. He says very little these days.
Keep in mind – the change does not require residential neighbors to those being granted new privileges be notified. It will be interesting to see if there’s any discussion on this one.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Joe // Oct 20, 2008 at 11:38 am
Perhaps this has anything to do with the rumoured Hooters opening up on bluemound?
2 Randy in Richmond // Oct 20, 2008 at 11:44 am
Is it true that in Wisconsin one can register and vote on election day? And all needed for identification is a friend?
3 BrkfldDad // Oct 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Joe – your naivety on local politics is showing.
Randy – you are correct. Heck, if you bring a utility bill they’ll register you. No ID required at all.
4 Anonymous // Oct 20, 2008 at 2:42 pm
If you bring ANYBODY’S utility bill they will register you.
5 waukesha mom // Oct 20, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I’m pretty sure you need proof of identity as well – like a driver’s license. The utility bill is to offer proof of residency, as I understand it.
http://elections.state.wi.us/faq_que_list.asp?fid=27&locid=47
If you wish to register to vote at your polling place, you must complete a voter registration application (EB-131), provide your driver’s license number (or if you have not been issued a driver’s license, provide a state-issued identification card number or provide the last four (4) digits of your social security number), AND have proof of residence indicating that you have lived at your current address for 10 days preceding the election.
6 Anonymous // Oct 20, 2008 at 4:07 pm
waukesha mom –
It seems all of the requirements you listed could be circumvented.
Driver’s license – I don’t have one.
State issued id – I don’t have one
SSN – Stolen or made it. I doubt if real time ssn number checking is available to poll workers.
Proof of residence – Steal out of a mailbox or garbage bin.
Continuing on the subject of voter fraud. Remember there was something like 4,600 more votes than registered voters in Milwaukee in 2004. Something is going on.
7 Cindy Kilkenny // Oct 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm
All of that goes out the window if you are the Mayor’s daughter.
Anonymous – thanks for arguing with Waukesha Mom for a while, but darn it, pick a name besides anonymous. I’ve been patient, but you’re are pushing it.
8 Joe // Oct 20, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Cindy- Your lack of using some sort of other response than “____ is showing” is showing…
It’s called creativity… You pick it up in like 1st grade art class…
9 Cindy Kilkenny // Oct 20, 2008 at 5:24 pm
It wasn’t my response you rocket scientist, albeit a creative one.
10 BrkfldDad // Oct 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Waukesha Mom – while the rules are in place, they are rarely enforced. In my case, registered to vote by simply telling them where I lived – not one single form of identification. They even crossed off the former residents of our home at the same time. I could have been anyone
11 Joe // Oct 20, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Wasn’t referring to this one, was referring to the other 400 thousand times you used it elsewhere on the site
12 Joe // Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm
And a little FYI to you BrkfldDad, I went ahead and e-mailed city hall, and asked them if this would affect the possible Hooters opening on Bluemound.
Guess what his reply was Wise Guy?
Yes, it would, as the possible location is adjacent to a residential zone, which makes it highly unlikely for Hooters to consider it at all, but they thought that this amendment would be flexible enough that it would allow them there, but it isn’t.
13 Randy in Richmond // Oct 21, 2008 at 3:37 am
I wonder if somebody could come up with a strong ink or dye that could be applied, say, on the tip of one’s finger. And it could be used on election day to assure that no one could vote but one time since it took several days to wash off. It might even be looked at as a symbol of freedom, pride, and patriotism to display a purple stained finger. Naah, there’s no one who desires freedom that much or would take the priviledge of voting that seriously. At least not in Wisconsin.
14 Cindy Kilkenny // Oct 21, 2008 at 7:04 am
Right, Joe. After all that’s the mature answer.
BTW, you lie badly. The restaurant location Hooters is buying already had a liquor license. There’s no way the new ordinance would matter unless Hooters turned into either a smoke shop or a home brew shop.
Listen kid, it’s somewhat amusing to have you around, but one of life’s best lessons is knowing how to identify when you are in over your head.
15 BrkfldDad // Oct 21, 2008 at 8:29 am
Nice try Joe. The ammendment pertains only to “…the Zoning Code regarding Intensive Uses for Cigar Stores and Wine and Craft Beer Stores…” of which Hooters is neither. That, and if Cindy’s experience is any indication, you might have gotten the quickest reply ever from city hall on a zoning/pending ammendment question, which of course you didn’t.
Leave a Comment