An interview with the Mayor of Wingville

According to the paper, the alderfolks voted 7 to 6 to put Hooters on Bluemound Road. It’s true, there really is no legal reason to deny the restaurant, but it’s also true I don’t want it there. If restaurants could be approved simply because they meet the code, why would the Common Council have to vote? Yes, the council had a right to deny Hooters. Alderwimps stating otherwise are denying the obvious.

I’ll confess there was more push back from the council than I had imagined.

Last week I gave a written interview to the Mayor of Wingville, a Hooters aficionado who tracks the restaurant additions. Don’t read this interview if you are easily offended. I can be rather blunt. (I know, oh, really?)

I think it’s a hoot the reporter put this sentence in her story:

Signs still have to be approved, but the city has limited veto power over the owl logo.

Keep in mind it’s been a couple of weeks since she created the fake controversy over the logo with another story. I guess a girl’s gotta do what she can to sell papers.

Did anyone notice she didn’t source her statement?


(9:15 am – Sorry about the bad link! It’s fixed now. Thanks to the reader who gave me the heads up.)

Comments

  1. Umnnnnhhh….I’ve been food-poisoned twice in my life. One of them was a Hooters.

    And BEFORE you raise eyebrows, I ate there b/c it was within walking distance of my hotel (only restaurant in range) AND I did not have a rental car (didn’t need one because the hotel had an airport limo.)

  2. Umnnnnhhh….right Dad29.

    I’m just kidding. Thanks for sounding off.