Beer

Donate To GopherHole


If beers bad, its bad for everyone. I think beers good. I like beer.
 

Schnoodler said:
If beers bad, its bad for everyone. I think beers good. I like beer.
Click to expand...

don't get me wrong i like beer too. but no so much that i want to see it made easily available to a bunch of underage college students who often can't hold their liquor and typically like to "binge" drink. making alcohol available to a general admission crowd - a good portion of which will be made up of underage students - is NOT a good idea. why the legislature refuses to understand that i am not sure. guess it is that time of year in politics to pander shamelessly to the masses (many whom are not even considering purchasing tickets in the new stadium).
 

I am not arguing for beer being sold in the concourse, but I would like to see a study on how many students actually bought $7 beers in the dome. Students show up smashed and/or sneak it in, selling beer won't really matter for the level of drunkeness.
 


FreakyDeke said:
I am not arguing for beer being sold in the concourse, but I would like to see a study on how many students actually bought $7 beers in the dome. Students show up smashed and/or sneak it in, selling beer won't really matter for the level of drunkeness.
Click to expand...
Bingo, this is exactly what I think. Myself, having a full-time job and out of school, can't really justify drinking a $7 beer. I think back to my own college days, I wouldn't be able to afford drinking $7 a beer.
 

Banning beer at college stadiums does absolutely NOTHING to prevent underage drinking by college students. This policy is a public relations gimmick by the NCAA and their member institutions. Furthermore, I think the problem has been overstated. I had Gopher season tickets at the Dome for 17 years and never once had a problem with anyone drinking too much in my section, or anywhere else in the stadium. The Iowa game last season was the first time I actually witnessed anyone being removed from the game for being drunk. Because of the high cost of a beer, selling it at the stadium is not really the problem. It is all of the drinking that happens before the games, and the booze that is smuggled into the games, that is responsible for 99% of behavior problems by fans.

If the U is really serious about doing something about underage drinking by students there are any number of things they can do besides depriving long time Gopher fans (who helped pay for Gopher Stadium with their taxes, tuition, season tickets, and other contributions) of the opportunity to buy a beer at football games.

The Legislature is doing the right thing and I applaud them for it. The U is a very much a PUBLIC INSTITUTION that receives millions of dollars in PUBLIC FUNDS every year. The Legislature not only has the authority, but the responsibility to monitor how the Regents and Administration are managing the U and to take appropriate action when necessary. Along with the issue of simple fairness to all fans, the U is passing up a significant amount of revenue by refusing to sell beer at Gopher Stadium. It should go without saying that this is not a very responsible financial decision in this day and age.
 

I've been in the students section at the Dome. they were stupid drunk, an almost nobody had a beer in their hands. figure that out.
 

Let's be honest, we all know exactly how this is going to end. Everything going on is just posturing & window dressing. Beer will not be sold in the stadium to anyone under any circumstances. The people in the suites will get comp beer, won't have to pay for it. Accept it, move on. Those who want/need to sneak alcohol into the stadium will do so. End of story.
 



Miller Lite vs. Hard Stuff

Students may actually consume less alcohol if they are offered watered down Miller Lite versus 90 proof vodka that they then feel they need to sneak in
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Banning beer at college stadiums does absolutely NOTHING to prevent underage drinking by college students. This policy is a public relations gimmick by the NCAA and their member institutions. Furthermore, I think the problem has been overstated. I had Gopher season tickets at the Dome for 17 years and never once had a problem with anyone drinking too much in my section, or anywhere else in the stadium. The Iowa game last season was the first time I actually witnessed anyone being removed from the game for being drunk. Because of the high cost of a beer, selling it at the stadium is not really the problem. It is all of the drinking that happens before the games, and the booze that is smuggled into the games, that is responsible for 99% of behavior problems by fans.

If the U is really serious about doing something about underage drinking by students there are any number of things they can do besides depriving long time Gopher fans (who helped pay for Gopher Stadium with their taxes, tuition, season tickets, and other contributions) of the opportunity to buy a beer at football games.

The Legislature is doing the right thing and I applaud them for it. The U is a very much a PUBLIC INSTITUTION that receives millions of dollars in PUBLIC FUNDS every year. The Legislature not only has the authority, but the responsibility to monitor how the Regents and Administration are managing the U and to take appropriate action when necessary. Along with the issue of simple fairness to all fans, the U is passing up a significant amount of revenue by refusing to sell beer at Gopher Stadium. It should go without saying that this is not very wise in this day and age.
Click to expand...

No, Upnorth, the legislature does not have that authority. As has been posted numerous times (and ignored, by you, numerous times) the U has something call Constitutional Autonomy. As the MN House's OWN WEBSITE SAYS, this falls outside the powers that the MN Legislature can wield with regards to the U.

Also, here is the key quote of the STrib article:
Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, heralded the provision.

"It's good to know the Grey Poupon group in the corporate suites has the same access to adult beverages as the general admission crowd," he said.​
Pure pandering and straw man bashing and the supporters in the Legislature don't even try to hide it.
 

Everyone is ignoring the key point as to why beer simply cannot be sold on gamedays at TCF. It is not an issue of "equal protection" or "enforcement of underage consumption laws" or "keeping down the level of drunkenness." It is about 1. liability and 1a. public relations. How does it look if the University-owned building is providing alcohol to students who are clearly underage, when their primary mission is the education and betterment of those same students? The Metrodome could choose to do it, because it is not a public institution, and furthermore, it is not encumbered with the same responsibilities as the U.
This is why every other sports venue at the U (and every other publicly-owned college sports venue in the country, with the apparent exception of the Carrier Dome) does not serve alcohol in the common areas. And why it will never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen at TCF. Period. End of discussion.
 

thank you dpo

Liability is the biggest factor here. The U takes on very little liability selling to the premium seat crowd AND the U can make money that way.

If the U were to sell to everyone they would be increasing their risk beyond the financial benefit.

I think the legislature has better things to do with their time than grandstand on this issue.
 



the accomplice said:
thank you dpo

Liability is the biggest factor here. The U takes on very little liability selling to the premium seat crowd AND the U can make money that way.

If the U were to sell to everyone they would be increasing their risk beyond the financial benefit.

I think the legislature has better things to do with their time than grandstand on this issue.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Perception is everything. After all the UMPD and UofM has done in the recent past to discourage binge drinking on campus, regardless of the effectiveness of their attempts, they are not going to provide access to alcohol in an area that students can get at.
 

GoAUpher said:
No, Upnorth, the legislature does not have that authority. As has been posted numerous times (and ignored, by you, numerous times) the U has something call Constitutional Autonomy. As the MN House's OWN WEBSITE SAYS, this falls outside the powers that the MN Legislature can wield with regards to the U.

Also, here is the key quote of the STrib article:
Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, heralded the provision.

"It's good to know the Grey Poupon group in the corporate suites has the same access to adult beverages as the general admission crowd," he said.​
Pure pandering and straw man bashing and the supporters in the Legislature don't even try to hide it.
Click to expand...

So is this all bogus? I am confused. Are you saying this law cannot happen legally?
 

The legislature's authority over the U is primarily based on the "power of the purse". If the U is going to beg for state taxpayer dollars every year to help fund their operations, inevitably there are going to be strings attached to any decision to provide funds to the U. That is how the world works. You won't necessarily find the authority in state statutes or law books. Maybe the U could decide to go ahead and ignore the legislature in this matter, but what kind of reception will they get next year when they request money for a new athletic facility or academic building? Nobody should ever doubt the power and influence of the legislature over what happens at the U.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The legislature's authority over the U is primarily based on the "power of the purse". If the U is going to beg for state taxpayer dollars every year to help fund their operations, inevitably there are going to be strings attached to any decision to provide funds to the U. That is how the world works. You won't necessarily find the authority in state statutes or law books. Maybe the U could decide to go ahead and ignore the legislature in this matter, but what kind of reception will they get next year when they request money for a new athletic facility or academic building? Nobody should ever doubt the power and influence of the legislature over what happens at the U.
Click to expand...

The U won't ignore the legislature, they will follow the law should it pass. However they won't follow the law by selling beer in general seating, they will follow it by not selling it in premium seats, instead giving it away. Bruininks has been very clear about this, general seating will not be sold alcohol.
 

anticallihan said:
So is this all bogus? I am confused. Are you saying this law cannot happen legally?
Click to expand...

If you read the website it would appear that this piece of legislation falls outside the powers of the legislature. Here are a few excerpts from the House webpage that I think would support that view (all bolded parts below are my emphasis):

Definition: Constitutional autonomy is a legal principle that makes a state university a separate department of government, not merely an agency of the executive or legislative branch. A university with this status is subject to judicial review and to the legislature’s police and appropriations power. However, its governing board has a significant degree of independent control over many university functions.


• The Board of Regents alone is empowered to manage the university, except as qualified below. Case law prohibits either the legislative or executive branch from participating in internal management of the university. Cases especially reject broad legislative or executive branch control over university finances. State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259, 220 N.W. 951 (1928).


• The legislature may place conditions on university appropriations, if the conditions do not violate university autonomy. A condition is more likely to be found valid if it applies equally to all public agencies and the court finds that it (1) promotes the general welfare, and (2) makes very limited intrusions on the regents’ management duties. The Minnesota Supreme Court has said it is willing to review any conditional appropriation to determine whether these tests are met. Regents of University of Minnesota v. Lord, 257 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. 1977).​

On the face of things it would seem that this law isn't legit because it is part of the internal management of the University (which the legislature is forbidden to participate in). However, this legislation is tacked on to the larger higher-ed budget bill which probably makes it part of an appropriations bill. It’s also clear that the legislature has appropriations power over the U. So perhaps the fact that this legislation is part of an budget bill makes it legit. But that would seem to contradict some of the points listed as part of established case law.

The case law says the legislature can place conditions upon appropriations but that these conditions should probably meet certain standards in order to be upheld during a review the MN Supreme Court. Since the move to require the sale of alcohol everywhere seems to be attached to an appropriations bill I would say it qualifies as a condition. Per the bolded section above, a condition should apply to all public agencies, promote the general welfare, and make limited intrusion on the regents’ management duties. Does the alcohol legislation meet all standards spelled out by the court? I'd argue no.

The alcohol mandate does not seem to apply to all public agencies (it doesn’t even apply to all University facilities, just TCF) and whether it promotes the general welfare is in the eye of the beholder. It does however seem to meet the limited intrusion on the regents’ management duties standard. Thus, it would seem to meet (at best) 2 of the 3 conditions (more likely 1 of the 3) and as such, I would argue that the legislature doesn’t have the power to mandate the sale of alcohol at TCF.

However, the U has to ask for a review of the bill by the MN Supreme Court for this legislation to be ruled as outside the legislature’s powers. It looks like the U has decided to simply serve alcohol to the premium seat holders for free or go completely dry rather than ask for an appeal.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The legislature's authority over the U is primarily based on the "power of the purse". If the U is going to beg for state taxpayer dollars every year to help fund their operations, inevitably there are going to be strings attached to any decision to provide funds to the U. That is how the world works. You won't necessarily find the authority in state statutes or law books. Maybe the U could decide to go ahead and ignore the legislature in this matter, but what kind of reception will they get next year when they request money for a new athletic facility or academic building? Nobody should ever doubt the power and influence of the legislature over what happens at the U.
Click to expand...

Actually, yea you do find the authority in statues and case law (have you still not read the webpage I linked to?). There are rules about how they use the power of the purse which I discuss in my previous post. This doesn't mean the U can ignore the law. It means they can A) follow it by serving, but not selling alcohol in premium areas, B) follow it by making TCF dry, or C) appeal the legislation to the MN Supreme Court where I think they'd stand a decent shot of getting it knocked down for the reasons I state above.

I think you are probably right on when you point out that how the U responds to this could dictate the reception they get for future appropriations requests. And this is a pretty good reason why the U would choose options A or B instead of asking for a ruling on the legislation.

And yes we should doubt the power and influence of the legislature. That's why we have a system of checks and balances...only fools refuse to question whether legislation is legal just because it got passed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom