State house doesn't vote for alcohol change

Donate To GopherHole
M

Maroon

This guy gets it!
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
545
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The Minnesota House has rejected a move to ease booze restrictions at the University of Minnesota's campus football stadium.

The vote was 111-18 on an amendment to a higher education bill on Monday.

Democratic Rep. Phyllis Kahn's proposal would have reversed a law requiring alcohol to be sold throughout TCF Bank Stadium or not at all. Her amendment would have let the university control where alcohol is available, potentially offering drinks in premium seats and suites.

A similar provision passed the Senate last month.

Rep. Tom Rukavina (roo-kah-VEE'-nah) says it would be discriminatory to sell alcohol in premium seats but not in the cheap seats.

The university banned all alcohol in the stadium last year.
 

111-18?!?

Wow. Lester Bagley and Jerry Bell must have really spread the cash around in Saint Paul.
 


Gee thanks, Legislature, for doing everything in your power to keep the U on a level playing field with the rest of the Big Ten. You all look really stupid wearing Rukavinas panties on your heads.
 

Maroon said:
Rep. Tom Rukavina (roo-kah-VEE'-nah) says it would be discriminatory to sell alcohol in premium seats but not in the cheap seats.

The university banned all alcohol in the stadium last year.
Click to expand...

how noble of them to be looking out for the little guy like this.
 


This is just unbelievable to me. I sit in section 232, I don't care if I can't buy booze but I WANT the Suite holders to have that option. They deserve the right to have a drink after spending $37,000 on a luxury suite. This is ridiculous that the powers that be feel like they need stick up for me and make things fair, I don't need pity from the government. Let the University decide what's right for themselves. I just took the stadium tour on Saturday and it's ridiculous that all those nice bars were built and now basically sit there empty. This whole debate is a f*^king joke. I wish that a little bit of common sense would creep into these issues just once.
 

Maroon...

"Rep. Tom Rukavina (roo-kah-VEE'-nah)" Wrong dude its ( com-u-nist). This guy is a tool.
 

Firejumper said:
Gee thanks, Legislature, for doing everything in your power to keep the U on a level playing field with the rest of the Big Ten. You all look really stupid wearing Rukavinas panties on your heads.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Michigan and Ohio state have the same policy.

Either way, this policy is ridiculous at best. Politicians take their half baked charges of "discrimination" way too far these days.
 

I just wish the U would sell beer to everyone. And I still don't get why they (or other Big 10 schools) don't. Why can't they just check IDs? I honestly don't get it.
 



Stupid. Just stupid. What was the estimate on how much the U lost last year because of this nonsense? This isn't seventh grade where you make the kid spit his gum into the trashcan if he didn't bring enough for everyone. You get what you pay for. That's what the premium areas are there for. Hell, I walk to every home game from lot C89. It's not fair that people who pony up more dough get to park right in the shadow of the stadium. Get to work on that, out of touch politicians. While you're at it, I want a nicer car too, but i don't wnt to pay for that either.
 

gopherjay said:
"Rep. Tom Rukavina (roo-kah-VEE'-nah)" Wrong dude its ( com-u-nist). This guy is a tool.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. I also see that Rukavina received a DUI in 2004. Maybe the guy just really, really likes to drink and really, really likes going to Gopher football games, and just can't afford premium seats.

Name: Tom Rukavina
Date of episode: 31 July 2004
Age then: 54
Incumbent then: Yes
Crime: DUI, driving erratically, 0.15%.

http://stopthemaddness.org/cached1/20050298.html
 

Maroon said:
Rep. Tom Rukavina (roo-kah-VEE'-nah) says it would be discriminatory to sell alcohol in premium seats but not in the cheap seats.
Click to expand...

Minnesota only sells alcohol to people over the age of 21, which is discrimination against those under 21, yet it is still legal to sell alcohol. This has to be the dumbest excuse for not serving alcohol that an elected official could come up with.

Hell its discriminatory that only people who can afford to pay the ticket prices for premium seats are able to sit in those area, yet it is still legal. In order to make this tool happy, should everyone sit in either luxury boxes or bench seats so that we are all equal. Dumba$$.
 

JoeDirt said:
This is just unbelievable to me. I sit in section 232, I don't care if I can't buy booze but I WANT the Suite holders to have that option. They deserve the right to have a drink after spending $37,000 on a luxury suite. This is ridiculous that the powers that be feel like they need stick up for me and make things fair, I don't need pity from the government. Let the University decide what's right for themselves. I just took the stadium tour on Saturday and it's ridiculous that all those nice bars were built and now basically sit there empty. This whole debate is a f*^king joke. I wish that a little bit of common sense would creep into these issues just once.
Click to expand...

I don't have any trouble seeing the all or nothing argument. They don't deserve the right to drink just because they spent $37,000 on a luxury suite. Let 'em wait until later or smuggle it in just like everybody else.
 



Possibly the best argument you unhappy folks could make is to cite other types of goods and services available to suite inhabitants and how having those extra privileges has already established an effective separation between how luxury box fans are treated and the rest of us rubes. There. In the last two posts I've advocated for and fought against serving alcohol in luxury boxes but not in other areas. I've become as conflicted as everyone else on this board.
 

The main reason for the U, and the rest of the Big Ten, not selling alcohol in general admission seating is simple: Liability. Students sit in general admission. Sure many of them were probably partying before the game. But if something were to happen to one student, just one, and parents discovered that they purchased (or was given by someone of age) a single beer at TCF, everyone will start blaming the U.

That said, alcohol brings in tons of revenue. The reason to sell alcohol only in the premium seats? It is highly unlikely that a luxury box will be full of students. This is the policy they have at Camp Randall, but I believe those luxury boxes were privately funded. The only reason alcohol was ever available in the Metrodome is because the U did not own the building and was not taking any liability for the policy. Hawkeye fans have an alcoholic episode in a Metrodome bathroom, and it is blamed on the Hawkeye fans and the Metropolitan Sports Commission, not the U.

Additional revenue from alcohol sales would give the U some extra cash to, oh let's say build a BBall Practice Facility, or baseball field, or increase the recruiting budget for all sports, or maybe have enough money to attract top coaches should we need them in the future.
 

Fist Class Plane Tickets

Gopherdrummer said:
The main reason for the U, and the rest of the Big Ten, not selling alcohol in general admission seating is simple: Liability. Students sit in general admission. Sure many of them were probably partying before the game. But if something were to happen to one student, just one, and parents discovered that they purchased (or was given by someone of age) a single beer at TCF, everyone will start blaming the U.

That said, alcohol brings in tons of revenue. The reason to sell alcohol only in the premium seats? It is highly unlikely that a luxury box will be full of students. This is the policy they have at Camp Randall, but I believe those luxury boxes were privately funded. The only reason alcohol was ever available in the Metrodome is because the U did not own the building and was not taking any liability for the policy. Hawkeye fans have an alcoholic episode in a Metrodome bathroom, and it is blamed on the Hawkeye fans and the Metropolitan Sports Commission, not the U.

Additional revenue from alcohol sales would give the U some extra cash to, oh let's say build a BBall Practice Facility, or baseball field, or increase the recruiting budget for all sports, or maybe have enough money to attract top coaches should we need them in the future.
Click to expand...

to me it's just like people buying a first class ticket on a plane. The main point is, let the U decide what the U should do. The legislature shouldn't have butted their collective noses into this in the first place.
 

Especially during the recession why is the State of Minnesota even remotely interested in getting their hands dirty on a decision that should be made by and only by the University of Minnesota?

Out of touch representation if you ask me. A Representative from Virginia? You have to be kidding me. If its anyone it should be a Representative that lives in this stadiums backyard.

This sort of crap is what's wrong with our legislation. Instead of tackling REAL problems, they try and get their name in the paper by doing this crap.
 



go4rob said:
to me it's just like people buying a first class ticket on a plane. The main point is, let the U decide what the U should do. The legislature shouldn't have butted their collective noses into this in the first place.
Click to expand...

Airlines are privately held. The UofMN is a public institution. I wish the UofIA had the guts like the UofMN, UofMI, and tOSU to say all or none.
 

tbebell said:
Airlines are privately held. The UofMN is a public institution. I wish the UofIA had the guts like the UofMN, UofMI, and tOSU to say all or none.
Click to expand...

The U of M hasn't said all or none, the legislature said all or none. The U would have been perfectly happy to allow alcohol in the luxury boxes, like most schools. Michigan and OSU have also not said "all or none", they have simply chosen not to have it at all.

And what does being a private institution have to do with it? People keep making that point, but it makes no sense. If we that seriously, then we must do away with luxury boxes altogether, and while we are at it, get rid of the chairbacks and have everyone use bleachers.
 

If you don't understand why alcohol can't be served in general admission and then feel the need to prevent/legislate it from being sold in suites as a result, common sense flew out the window long ago with you. May God have mercy on your soul.

Come off the fringes of life and join the rest of us in the real world.

This issue has been discussed over and over on this board and I'm still amazed that there is even a few people that think this law is a good idea. Nothing is more disturbing than legislating out common sense.
 

I stand corrected on the university vs. the legislature.
 

Pewterschmidt said:
If you don't understand why alcohol can't be served in general admission and then feel the need to prevent/legislate it from being sold in suites as a result, common sense flew out the window long ago with you. May God have mercy on your soul.

Come off the fringes of life and join the rest of us in the real world.

This issue has been discussed over and over on this board and I'm still amazed that there is even a few people that think this law is a good idea. Nothing is more disturbing than legislating out common sense.
Click to expand...

Well, 65 percent of the people who have voted in the Star-Trib poll think it should be sold to all in the stadium, so that's not really fringe elements, it doesn't sound like.
 

Maroon said:
Well, 65 percent of the people who have voted in the Star-Trib poll think it should be sold to all in the stadium, so that's not really fringe elements, it doesn't sound like.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the poll question.

Ask the question as to whether it should be up to the University to decide the alcohol policy or the State Legislature
 

Goldmember said:
111-18?!?

Wow. Lester Bagley and Jerry Bell must have really spread the cash around in Saint Paul.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Do you really think either of them care? They sell thier suites just fine and that is a straw-man arguement. Much like the Gophers whining about the Vikings, the Twins/Vikings benefit from this 'competative advantage' in selling suites is marginal at best.

What I really don't get about this (in addition to it being a terrible case of the legislature sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong) is where was the outrage over this exact same policy existing at The Barn and Marriuci for decades?
 

Those of you wanting booze throughout the stadium are a little like those who want Ziggy to pay 100% of the cost of the Vikings stadium. Sure it'd be nice, but it's never going to happen.

The choice isn't should Ziggy pay 100%, it's do we want the Vikings to stay here or not. Likewise, it's not should everyone in TCF get booze, it's should the U make a few million off of the premium seats or should it make $0? That's all this stupid law is accomplishing is costing the U a few million $ it could really use.
 

howeda7 said:
What I really don't get about this (in addition to it being a terrible case of the legislature sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong) is where was the outrage over this exact same policy existing at The Barn and Marriuci for decades?
Click to expand...

No one was outraged over the policy at the Barn or at Marriuci, because they were used to it. People had gotten used to beer at the Metrodome, and some people felt "their right to a beer" was being taken away. The only reason there was beer at the Dome was because we didn't control it. No one felt like their beer was being "taken away" at the Barn or Marriuci.

The all or nothing law the legislature passed may be irrational, but it's not a fringe position, it's populism. Populism isn't always a good thing, it sometimes becomes nothing but cheap pandering. I think in a couple years it may be possible to quietly put in changes to the law allowing alcohol in the luxury boxes, after people forget about the issue.
 

Jealousy at its worst.

Trust me when I say these same people would love nothing more than to legislate away the parking fee scale, the premium seating structure, and the different sized sodas at the concessions.

Is it really fair that Joe Millionaire gets to buy the large soda while I can only afford the small one, if one at all?

New state law I propose: Every soda in the stadium will be the exact same size and price. Every seat and parking spot be the exact same price. In fact, not only should every seat and parking spot be the same price, I want those that would otherwise pay for the premium suites to subsidize the price of my seat, parking spot, and soda. That'll show them for thinking they can pay more for a better product. How dare they!!!! How dare the University try to raise as much revenue as possible in a responsible, common sense fashion!!!! I'm taking my ball and going home. Jimmy's parents down the block bought him an Xbox. I'm going to destroy it because if I can't have one, neither should he!!!
 

Pewterschmidt said:
That wasn't the poll question.

Ask the question as to whether it should be up to the University to decide the alcohol policy or the State Legislature
Click to expand...

Should alcohol be sold at TCF Stadium?

Yes, for everyone who's of age
Yes, but only in certain areas
No, not at all
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom