Bruininks v. Booze, Round 3

Donate To GopherHole
GopherRock

GopherRock

GopherHole Straw Boss
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,201
Reaction score
539
Points
113
We'll just find out to what lengths President Bruininks and the Regents are willing to go to keep the booze out of the bowl of the New Brickhouse

Session Daily: Provision for expanded liquor sales at new stadium stands

Very quietly, HR1476, the omnibus liquor bill, was re-passed yesterday. Under a provision in the bill, any liquor license would require availability for purchase throughout the stadium if liquor is either sold OR SERVED anywhere in the stadium. This is a change from before (previous wording was "sold anywhere"), and the bill is currently awaiting action by the governor.

The Legislature would be better off spending time on a veto override of the tax bill than to worry about booze in the New Brickhouse.
 

Here are the 10 that didn't pander

It was actually 12

Abeler R-Anoka
Anderson, B. R-Buffalo Twp
Brod R-New Prague
Doepke R-Orono
Eastlund R-Isanti
Holberg R-Lakeville
Huntley DFL-Duluth
Lenczewski DFL-Bloomington
Loon R-Eden Prairie
Peppin R-Rogers
Ruud DFL-Minnetonka
Scott R-Andover
 

What a complete waste of tax dollars and time. I am thoroughly disappointed in the state legislature, they can pass this but can't buckle down and do real work on a budget that desperately needs attention.
 

Here are the 9 Senators that voted no

Berglin DFL-Minneapolis
Dille R-Dassel
Doll DFL-Burnsville
Foley DFL-Anoka
Michel R-Edina
Pappas DFL-St. Paul
Pogemiller DFL-Minneapolis
Rest DFL-New Hope
Sheran DFL-Mankato
 

The University of Minnesota will win and win big if there is NO alcohol served any where in the new stadium. The bars in the area will win if there is no alcohol served any where in the new stadium. The University of Minnesota will join the University of Michigan as being the truely dry stadiums in the Big Ten. If it is good enough for Michigan, it is cerainly good enough for Minnesota!!!!!

The legislators wanted to get cute...and prexy b got cute right back at them. Hold your ground for once prexy b. They have tried to box you into a corner. Stand your ground. Cram it right back at them. You do NOT want the liability of dram shop laws affecting the new stadium at the University of Minnesota. It is NOT the job of the University of Minnesota to sell alcohol!!!!!

There is a LOT at stake here prexy b. Stand your ground. Keep the stadium DRY! You don't want alcohol control problems stemming from TCF BANK STADIUM booze sales on your campus. The University of Minnesota is NOT a honkey-tonk-gin-joint. Do as they do in Ann Arbor in the Big House: just say NO to booze.
 


DQ Club Room Rentals

The problem with not having a liquor license is the rental of the DQ Club for weddings.

The rental income, while not the main source of revenue, was counted on as a revenue source. The lack of a license will severely limit the rentals of the club.
 

If you rent the DQ club is it catered by the U? Because if they bring in an outside caterer they are allowed to set up a temporary bar and serve alcohol, I'm pretty sure.
 

One tap pouring 6 oz. cups of warm urine-flavored beer for $12. Problem solved.

And may our state legislators (except the good 10) suffer mass kidney failure.
 





He can veto, but he won't because of the other technical stuff in the bill.

If T-Paw does veto, it will give the U a one year reprieve, because the legislature will override in the beginning of the 2008 session.
 

TPaw could line-item it if he wanted to.

Bruininks should have kept his mouth shut about this matter until after the legislature adjourned.
 

The other option is that the U can appeal the provision to the MN Supreme Court if they think it violates Constitutional Autonomy. The U was obviously willing to obey the law by simply not selling alcohol in TCF. Now they may deem the legislation as overreach and appeal it as such.

Lame, lame, lame.
 



GopherRock said:
TPaw could line-item it if he wanted to.

Bruininks should have kept his mouth shut about this matter until after the legislature adjourned.
Click to expand...

I have to think somebody's legislative aide would have noticed the gaping loophole by the time the bill hit conference committee. It took GH'ers about 10 seconds to notice what the wording would allow.
 


I have nothing to add, correct, or clarify concerning the above posts. However, I reserve the right to put my two cents in at a later date.
 


what i don't understand is why the legislature is singling out the football stadium in all of this. if passed would this legislation also apply to alcohol that is currently "served" at williams arena, mariucci arena and the alumni centers? if not, then i certainly think the U of M should appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court to claim of violation of its constitutional autonomy.

the gov. and the legislature can't even come to agreement on a budget bill but they have plenty of time to pander to those in our state who just can't go a few hours without a drink or even the thought of having to go a few hours without a drink.
 

GophenGolder said:
If you rent the DQ club is it catered by the U? Because if they bring in an outside caterer they are allowed to set up a temporary bar and serve alcohol, I'm pretty sure.
Click to expand...


I would assume for outside events such as weddings that it would not be catered by the University. I know when I had a friend get married a couple of years ago at the McNamara Alumni Center they had 2-3 caterers to choose from such as D'Amico and Sons and none of them were University Caterers and alcohol was served there.
 

"The Good 10"

One thing to remember is that this provision is a small part of a much bigger bill. It would be very surprising if the 10 House/9 Senate members that didn't vote for it cast their votes because of the TCF alcohol provision. I wouldn't be surprised if none did.

Keep in mind that there were probably lots of representatives that opposed the provision that still voted for it because they favored 90% of what was in the bill - that is the essence of politics.

I couldn't find the amendment vote tally, but that is the only way to tell who actually supported/opposed the stadium provision.

I would expect my representative to oppose the ridiculous meddling by the legislature in something they really should just leave alone, but I would also expect my representatives to make a decision on the bill as a whole and not just the TCF provision when it came time to vote. Politics requires compromise.
 

Currently the U's affiliate is the only company you can use when renting out the DQ club room. They will not allow any other business to use their kitchen facilities (i.e. you can bring in your own food, but you can't cook it there unless you use the U's designated caterer for reasons of liability). And that pretty much kills the chances of using another caterer.

After hearing all this, I will be canceling the party my family had scheduled in the DQ club room. I don't blame the U. I blame this knee-jerk legislative body.
 

Booze and Football

Is the ruling that alcohol can be served in the suites but not in the rest of the stadium?
 

BrewsterBooster said:
Is the ruling that alcohol can be served in the suites but not in the rest of the stadium?
Click to expand...

You realize it would be limited to the suites/club seats right? so stay out of there and it will be a win win. You won't get puked on and we'll actually be able to drive revenue like every other damn Big 10 team.
 

So our legislators are wasting time on this when they should be getting rid of the blue laws on this so called educated state's books?

-Allow stores to sell beer/wine/liquor on Sundays that choose to.
-Allow grocery stores to sell Beer/Wine.
-Remove all traces of laws relating to 3.2% beer (this is a waste of time and does nothing but raise prices to consumers)
 

walleyedude said:
So our legislators are wasting time on this when they should be getting rid of the blue laws on this so called educated state's books?

-Allow stores to sell beer/wine/liquor on Sundays that choose to.
-Allow grocery stores to sell Beer/Wine.
-Remove all traces of laws relating to 3.2% beer (this is a waste of time and does nothing but raise prices to consumers)
Click to expand...

In many smaller towns in MN the only liquor store is owned by the city. It was my impression that one reason some of these laws stayed on the books was so municipalities could make more money. The Sunday thing is pure blue law though.
 

It is no coicidence that these turkeys managed to do absolutely nothing but pass a booze bill and a marijuana bill just before adjourning for the summer. :pig:They plan to have a very good summer indeed. :cool02:
 

GoAUpher said:
In many smaller towns in MN the only liquor store is owned by the city. It was my impression that one reason some of these laws stayed on the books was so municipalities could make more money. The Sunday thing is pure blue law though.
Click to expand...

so those of us in the minneapolis/st. paul area have to deal with an archaic law of not being able to purchase alcohol on a sunday, if we chose, because some small rural, outstate towns need a little extra income?! wow sounds like a wonderful law and makes sooo much sense - if it was 1938! :rolleyes:
 

I understand why municipalities want to keep buying booze only at their liquor stores because it increases income for them but at the same time they are driving away consumers. I grew up in a town that had a municipal liquor store and everyone I knew avoided buying there unless they had to because the prices were so much higher. Case in point, I just went to a liquor store in St. Paul and saw the price for a case of the beer I normally drink was$18 not on sale. The same price at my hometown store is $19 on sale. For those that don't go to Costco, that is the place to go for liquor. It's consistently 3 to 4 dollars cheaper than liquor stores depending on what you buy so your membership fee is covered pretty quick.

I've never understood the law banning liquor stores from being open on Sundays. Whats the difference between going to a bar and drinking vs. picking up a case at the store. It's not going to stop people from drinking on Sunday.

As for the original point of this thread, I could care less if they serve alcohol in the stadium and would prefer it to be dry but for hosting events such as wedding receptions they should be able to serve. I don't know of many people that want to have their wedding dance in a facility that can't serve alcohol. I'm sure there will be a loophole that the university can use to serve for events though.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom