Name of politians responsible for the non-alcohol in suites debacle

Donate To GopherHole
S

sonnygarcia

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
1,715
Reaction score
0
Points
36
After reading again about how the U will lose a couple mil in revenues due to these stupid @ss politicians that ruin our country, I was hoping someone with more knowledge of the situation could provide names (and possibly contact info) so we (me for sure) could let them know how worthless and counter-productive they actually are.

Thanks,


to be clear, I was hoping someone had the name(s) of the individual(s) who really undertook the effort, not necessarily voted one way or the other like I've seen on here in the past.
 

sonnygarcia said:
After reading again about how the U will lose a couple mil in revenues due to these stupid @ss politicians that ruin our country, I was hoping someone with more knowledge of the situation could provide names (and possibly contact info) so we (me for sure) could let them know how worthless and counter-productive they actually are.

Thanks,


to be clear, I was hoping someone had the name(s) of the individual(s) who really undertook the effort, not necessarily voted one way or the other like I've seen on here in the past.
Click to expand...

The top dog to go after is Governor Pawlenty. Just because the unpredictable, part time state legislator passed the bill, didn't mean the governor had to sign it. Governor's should veto bills when the kids playing at government get out of hand.
 

This is why I didn't buy a suite.

I would've bought at least one--and probably one next door, so make that two--if they had allowed alcohol.
 

Why is this a big deal? There are only two on campus stadiums that offer alcohol at the games. This is the norm. But the person that you want to send an email to is from Duluth. I can't remember his name but he is a season ticket holder (non-premium seats) and was mad that he couldn't have a beer.
 

esahnow said:
Why is this a big deal? There are only two on campus stadiums that offer alcohol at the games. This is the norm. But the person that you want to send an email to is from Duluth. I can't remember his name but he is a season ticket holder (non-premium seats) and was mad that he couldn't have a beer.
Click to expand...

Not true, I'm pretty sure the majority of B10 schools offer alcohole in suites, just not throughout the stadium. The revenue lost from them not allowing it in the suites will cost the ath dept a couple million. Thats why its a big deal.
 


sonnygarcia said:
Not true, I'm pretty sure the majority of B10 schools offer alcohole in suites, just not throughout the stadium. The revenue lost from them not allowing it in the suites will cost the ath dept a couple million. Thats why its a big deal.
Click to expand...

Correct. The only B10 schools that are fully dry besides us are Michigan and Ohio State. All other B10 schools offer alcohol in the premium seats.
 

I have a feeling T-Paw was not the answer people were hoping for. re: witchhunt
 


GopherHomer said:
I have a feeling T-Paw was not the answer people were hoping for. re: witchhunt
Click to expand...

Funny that liberals always think they are at the center of a witch-hunt (and I don't mean to direct that at you in anyway, I'm just saying).

To be clear, Pawlenty gets my vote, and he also got a nasty email from me after he came out in support of the bill in June. I was floored Pawlenty backed it because it just seems like the typical woe is me, lifes not fair liberal move that he should be against. Also, to be clear, I was asking for the idiot who created the bill and got support for it, not so much who got behind it.
 



It might be more productive to find out who DIDN'T vote for this and try to get them to lead the way on getting it fixed rather than whine to someone that obviously doesn't care because they voted that way in the first place.
 

sonnygarcia said:
Funny that liberals always think they are at the center of a witch-hunt (and I don't mean to direct that at you in anyway, I'm just saying).

To be clear, Pawlenty gets my vote, and he also got a nasty email from me after he came out in support of the bill in June. I was floored Pawlenty backed it because it just seems like the typical woe is me, lifes not fair liberal move that he should be against. Also, to be clear, I was asking for the idiot who created the bill and got support for it, not so much who got behind it.
Click to expand...

I had the feeling Pawlenty didn't really care either way, but didn't want to have to veto yet ANOTHER bill from the idiots in the legislature. Rukavina gets the blame on this one.
 

skoalvikings said:
I had the feeling Pawlenty didn't really care either way, but didn't want to have to veto yet ANOTHER bill from the idiots in the legislature. Rukavina gets the blame on this one.
Click to expand...

Granted, I only saw one video clip with Pawlenty being interviewed about it so I'm not fully informed. However, in that clip he was definitely for the bill and said something to the affect that he agreed everyone has a right to drink in a publicly funded stadium, not just those paying more for seating.
 

Somewhat on topic here, just stepping in from a different angel. For those of you who might have some factual information regarding this situation please chim in.

1. It is my understanding that the U has agreed, with the state, to not schedule any games the
opening weekend of college football because that would conflict with the state fair. From
what I understand the state fair relies heavily on parking space on the U's lots. I believe this
agreement/contract which does not allow for home games the first weekend expires in a few
years.
2. When this agreement expires in a few years should/could the U schedule a game that weekend
and not allow the state fair the parking space they so dearly need and rely on. Thus,
probably costing them a fair amount of money and heartache.

Could this scenario above possibly be used as leverage to assist in changing the legislation the state government felt so compelled to push through the house. I hate to sound like a jerk but fair is fair, no pun intended. This ban on alcohol in the premium seating at TCF is a classic case of "from government to the people" and our country was not founded on those principals.
 



skoalvikings said:
I had the feeling Pawlenty didn't really care either way, but didn't want to have to veto yet ANOTHER bill from the idiots in the legislature. Rukavina gets the blame on this one.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think he saw an easy pander opportunity where he signs a bill for the "little guy" and he jumped all over it.
 

GopherSOB said:
Somewhat on topic here, just stepping in from a different angel. For those of you who might have some factual information regarding this situation please chim in.

1. It is my understanding that the U has agreed, with the state, to not schedule any games the
opening weekend of college football because that would conflict with the state fair. From
what I understand the state fair relies heavily on parking space on the U's lots. I believe this
agreement/contract which does not allow for home games the first weekend expires in a few
years.
2. When this agreement expires in a few years should/could the U schedule a game that weekend
and not allow the state fair the parking space they so dearly need and rely on. Thus,
probably costing them a fair amount of money and heartache.

Could this scenario above possibly be used as leverage to assist in changing the legislation the state government felt so compelled to push through the house. I hate to sound like a jerk but fair is fair, no pun intended. This ban on alcohol in the premium seating at TCF is a classic case of "from government to the people" and our country was not founded on those principals.
Click to expand...

As I understood it, S108 (the main STP lot for Gopher games) is the State Fair's lot. At least its always listed as being part of the fairgrounds. I'm not sure how ownership of the lot works out though.
 

WAGopher said:
Granted, I only saw one video clip with Pawlenty being interviewed about it so I'm not fully informed. However, in that clip he was definitely for the bill and said something to the affect that he agreed everyone has a right to drink in a publicly funded stadium, not just those paying more for seating.
Click to expand...

It's one of the few things I actually agree with Pawlenty on.
 



Okay, this was a bipartisan pandering type of populism. It's just ridiculous. There was a Republican from Rosemount IIRC who was a major player in this, not sure about Rukavina but that's a possibility as well.
 

In a couple years, it should be possible to quietly insert a passage in a bill allowing alcohol sales in the suites. The only reason this was an issue is that people were used to being able to have beer at the dome, which is a real abberation in college football.
 

Gopher Nation said:
It's one of the few things I actually agree with Pawlenty on.
Click to expand...

I fully agree 100%. Our stadium is different than other Big Ten stadiums. I would guess the percentage of college students vs. regular fans is incredibly lower than any other Big Ten stadium. Because we are an urban school drawing from the whole metro area as oposed to Bloomington, Ann Arbor, West Lafayette, Madison, State College, etc.
 

From my understanding it was the Chair of the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee in the State Senate. I believe this is the committee that oversees granting liquor licenses.

The chair is a DFler from Brooklyn Park.
 

GoAUpher said:
Its all good unless UpNorth starts declaring the ban an infringement of his Constitutional rights again.
Click to expand...

GoGold Gopher, thanks for the mention. As we all know, there are very few things that are worse than being ignored on an Internet Message Board. I still have hopes that you, Bronko, and I will be able to tailgate during one of the games this year.

The following is an excerpt from an interview that the Minnesota Daily had with President Bruininks last week:

Minnesota Daily Question: Do you think the alcohol policy will go back to the Capitol? Is there any potential for that?

President Bruininks Answer: I don’t know, I can tell you at this point I have no appetite to make beer and wine part of the academic priorities of the University of Minnesota. We proposed a plan four years ago that was in keeping with 95 percent with colleges and universities nationwide. I still think it was a reasonable idea and a good plan. The Legislature decided to go in another direction. I felt and the academic community felt that given the choice of serving alcohol everywhere on game day or serving it not at all, that we would take the no alcohol option. That is a far better option to me than serving it throughout the stadium. I don’t see the University making this a big issue in subsequent legislative sessions.

In my opinion, Bruininks is happy with the status quo at The Brickhouse. I think he likes the idea that the U is one of only three schools in the Big 10 that totally bans beer at their football games.
 

FWIW - Cal's upcoming stadium will have alcohol in the premium seating areas and suites and it is a way to get corporate and major donor funding for the renovations without using a dime of public funds. Maybe this is an approach that might resonate with the politicos up there, although it sounds like a mess right now.

Of course, things at Cal were done by a vote of the UC Board of Regents, who oversees the University without the direct intervention of the legislature. There has been a move for the legislature to take over from the BOR recently, but I hope it fails for obvious reasons.

Good luck in having sanity prevail at UM.
 

RaT said:
I fully agree 100%. Our stadium is different than other Big Ten stadiums. I would guess the percentage of college students vs. regular fans is incredibly lower than any other Big Ten stadium. Because we are an urban school drawing from the whole metro area as oposed to Bloomington, Ann Arbor, West Lafayette, Madison, State College, etc.
Click to expand...

We're actually about average in terms of % of fans being students at 20%.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
GoGold Gopher, thanks for the mention. As we all know, there are very few things that are worse than being ignored on an Internet Message Board. I still have hopes that you, Bronko, and I will be able to tailgate during one of the games this year.

The following is an excerpt from an interview that the Minnesota Daily had with President Bruininks last week:

Minnesota Daily Question: Do you think the alcohol policy will go back to the Capitol? Is there any potential for that?

President Bruininks Answer: I don’t know, I can tell you at this point I have no appetite to make beer and wine part of the academic priorities of the University of Minnesota. We proposed a plan four years ago that was in keeping with 95 percent with colleges and universities nationwide. I still think it was a reasonable idea and a good plan. The Legislature decided to go in another direction. I felt and the academic community felt that given the choice of serving alcohol everywhere on game day or serving it not at all, that we would take the no alcohol option. That is a far better option to me than serving it throughout the stadium. I don’t see the University making this a big issue in subsequent legislative sessions.

In my opinion, Bruininks is happy with the status quo at The Brickhouse. I think he likes the idea that the U is one of only three schools in the Big 10 that totally bans beer at their football games.
Click to expand...

Didn't want you to feel left out on your signature issue! ;)

I'm tempted to agree with you on the U's desire to upset the status quo though. I don't know if Bruininks "likes" it or if he just doesn't care. Either way, I agree that the U is likely to leave the issue be unless A) the revenue loss is worse then projected/they really need the money for something or B) the legislature finds some new way to meddle and pander when it comes to alcohol.
 

So who's going to pay for the lawsuits the first time some 19 year old student dies of alcohol poisoning and the family says he drank it all at the stadium? There is no way you can control who's drinking what in the stadium. Apparantly it wasn't a problem at the Dome (never heard of any problems), but I'm not sure the U can afford the liability. If somebody could give me assurances that this wouldn't be a problem I'd care less about serving beer all over the place. I never drink during the games, only before while tailgating. Seven bucks a pop for cheap beer doesn't fit my financial principles. I would like to see the U make maximum profits from the stadium.
 

scools12 said:
From my understanding it was the Chair of the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee in the State Senate. I believe this is the committee that oversees granting liquor licenses.

The chair is a DFler from Brooklyn Park.
Click to expand...

I think it was an amendment on the floor to the liquor technical corrections bill.

There was a thread with those who voted to keep liquor in the suites earlier.

It was bipartisan all the way with Ds & Rs on both sides.
 


GO4FAN65 said:
So who's going to pay for the lawsuits the first time some 19 year old student dies of alcohol poisoning and the family says he drank it all at the stadium? There is no way you can control who's drinking what in the stadium. Apparantly it wasn't a problem at the Dome (never heard of any problems), but I'm not sure the U can afford the liability. If somebody could give me assurances that this wouldn't be a problem I'd care less about serving beer all over the place. I never drink during the games, only before while tailgating. Seven bucks a pop for cheap beer doesn't fit my financial principles. I would like to see the U make maximum profits from the stadium.
Click to expand...

Well if the stadium handles it correctly land shows proper care lawsuit would be struck down. Wristbands etc. Sure it's a pain but it's probably costing the univeristy a conservative estimate of 2-3 million per year. Alcohol in the suites is essential for corporate sponserhip.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom