State house doesn't vote for alcohol change

[monk10]

I think you don't really understand the whole size comparison to the access comparison.

There is a difference in size/quality of services that is not being disputed in this scenario. People all have access to seats. Some people have better seats. People all have access to parking. Some people have better parking spots. People all have access to coke. Some people can buy more coke.

Some people have access to beer, some people won't. I don't even support the beer law, but your argument isn't applicable.

 

[ruralgopher]

I think you don't really understand the whole size comparison to the access comparison.

There is a difference in size/quality of services that is not being disputed in this scenario. People all have access to seats. Some people have better seats. People all have access to parking. Some people have better parking spots. People all have access to coke. Some people can buy more coke.

Some people have access to beer, some people won't. I don't even support the beer law, but your argument isn't applicable.

wrong, everyone would have access to beer, they would just have to buy a premium seat for said access.

 

[monk10]

Actually incorrect there is not enough premium seats for everyone to buy. I'd be interested in carrying on these technical details if you so choose.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

wrong, everyone would have access to beer, they would just have to buy a premium seat for said access.

Exactly.

 

[howeda7]

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.

Then the people who feel that way are acting like children. 'Thier right to a beer'? Give me a break. No one's taking away thier right to do what they want in thier own homes, etc. To not be able to understand the basic difference between a stadium that is on a University Campus and one that is governed by the state is not an excuse to be outraged, any more then it would be that you can't drink at the local HS game.

It's a fringe position because 90% of people wouldn't have cared to let the U do whatever it wanted in either case. They only get thier dander up when idiots like Rukavina make it sould like 'the rich' are out to get them. If he introduced a bill to ban booze in all First-Class cabins originating from MSP he could make the exact same arguments and the exact same group of people would agree with him, having no sense that all they are accomplishing is damaging the level of air service that will serve the airport and nothing more. When people are actually sat down and have it explained to them, they usually come around. But they have no concept that this is the way it's done in 99% of the college football stadiums in America.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Actually incorrect there is not enough premium seats for everyone to buy. I'd be interested in carrying on these technical details if you so choose.

Yes there are enough premium seats for everyone, if the demand existed. I'd be willing to bet that if everyone wanted alcohol enough at the game and were willing to pay the price of a suite to have that access, they would have built the stadium as such to accomodate everyone.

 

[monk10]

Exactly.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. But I can't figure out how to fit the whole stadium into premium seating. Maybe you can help?

 

[Maroon]

Then the people who feel that way are acting like children. 'Thier right to a beer'? Give me a break. No one's taking away thier right to do what they want in thier own homes, etc. To not be able to understand the basic difference between a stadium that is on a University Campus and one that is governed by the state is not an excuse to be outraged, any more then it would be that you can't drink at the local HS game.

It's a fringe position because 90% of people wouldn't have cared to let the U do whatever it wanted in either case. They only get thier dander up when idiots like Rukavina make it sould like 'the rich' are out to get them. If he introduced a bill to ban booze in all First-Class cabins originating from MSP he could make the exact same arguments and the exact same group of people would agree with him, having no sense that all they are accomplishing is damaging the level of air service that will serve the airport and nothing more. When people are actually sat down and have it explained to them, they usually come around. But they have no concept that this is the way it's done in 99% of the college football stadiums in America.

If they want to give free beer to people in suites and let people in regular seats buy beer, I have no problem with that. That would make it just like your airplane analogy. But unless they're offering to do that, the analogy doesn't fly.

 

[ruralgopher]

Actually incorrect there is not enough premium seats for everyone to buy. I'd be interested in carrying on these technical details if you so choose.

The right to buy a premium seat and the number of premium seats available are in no way related. Everyone has the right to buy the seat. That is like saying I don't have the right to buy a lake home on Minnetonka because there is limited waterfront space.

 

[Maroon]

The right to buy a premium seat and the number of premium seats available are in no way related. Everyone has the right to buy the seat. That is like saying I don't have the right to buy a lake home on Minnetonka because there is limited waterfront space.

The supply of beer, however, is not limited.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

If they want to give free beer to people in suites and let people in regular seats buy beer, I have no problem with that. That would make it just like your airplane analogy. But unless they're offering to do that, the analogy doesn't fly.

That analogy does fly because the idea that the University would sell beer to everyone in the stadium would never happen and those legislating it know that as a fact.

It's common sense. The all-or-nothing crowd truly understand (at least I hope) that it's not all-or-nothing in essence. It's just nothing, and that's the problem. Everyone knows the 'U' will never sell alcohol to students on campus at a football game.

 

[howeda7]

If they want to give free beer to people in suites and let people in regular seats buy beer, I have no problem with that. That would make it just like your airplane analogy. But unless they're offering to do that, the analogy doesn't fly.

There's no law that says they have to sell booze in coach just because they give it away in 1st class. And I've been on many flights where due to the length of flight, etc. they didn't. But they had already served the 1st class passangers thiers pre-flight. Should I be outraged? Should thier be a law against it?

 

[Pewterschmidt]

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. But I can't figure out how to fit the whole stadium into premium seating. Maybe you can help?

Simple supply and demand in the mold of understanding that the 'U' can't sell alcohol to students on campus at a football game.

If the 'U' knew that non-students would be willing to fork over the necessary cash at 3x times the current rate to have access to alcohol in the suites, I can guarantee you they would have built enough suites to accomodate all of them.

I also know for a fact that I can trump any current suite renter with enough money, ergo it's available to everyone. Everyone in the stadium has the opportunity to earn enough money to rent a suite.

 

[ruralgopher]

The supply of beer, however, is not limited.

I'm not sure how that is related to the topic at hand. My point is everyone has a right to buy a premium seat and the ammenities that come with it. Monk said that is not the case because of limited supply, which is a ridiculous argument because limited supply effects price, not rights to buy.

 

[monk10]

The right to buy a premium seat and the number of premium seats available are in no way related. Everyone has the right to buy the seat. That is like saying I don't have the right to buy a lake home on Minnetonka because there is limited waterfront space.

You have the right to buy a parking spot close to the stadium but the cost creates a supply/demand scenario. If you can't afford to buy the home or the premium seats there are other homes / seats available. In this scenario someone can't even buy crap beer as an alternative to not being able to buy good beer. I guess I don't believe I'm articulating myself well enough to establish the differences. The argument started about comparing differences in quality against the actual access of the item.

It was my understanding that Pewt tried to make all seats the same. Currently all people have access to seats, just a difference in quality.

Maybe I am misunderstanding his logic behind his post. I am pretty sure I agree with him that I think it is ridiculous that people feel like that are entitled to something that a premium seat person is getting. I just thought is analogy made no sense.

 

[RodentRampage]

If they want to give free beer to people in suites and let people in regular seats buy beer, I have no problem with that. That would make it just like your airplane analogy. But unless they're offering to do that, the analogy doesn't fly.

The stadium has chairs on the sidelines, but bleachers in the corners. Are you against that? By your own reasoning, you ought to: it's people getting more for paying more. Are you against the existence of luxury boxes, after all, that too is getting more by paying more. Or how about the souvenier sodas? Why should someone get a collectable cup just because they paid more?

 

[Pewterschmidt]

You have the right to buy a parking spot close to the stadium but the cost creates a supply/demand scenario. If you can't afford to buy the home or the premium seats there are other homes / seats available. In this scenario someone can't even buy crap beer as an alternative to not being able to buy good beer. I guess I don't believe I'm articulating myself well enough to establish the differences. The argument started about comparing differences in quality against the actual access of the item.

It was my understanding that Pewt tried to make all seats the same. Currently all people have access to seats, just a difference in quality.

Maybe I am misunderstanding his logic behind his post. I am pretty sure I agree with him that I think it is ridiculous that people feel like that are entitled to something that a premium seat person is getting. I just thought is analogy made no sense.

Not true...not everyone can buy a home. Everyone has the opportunity to earn enough money to buy a home but that doesn't mean everyone currently has enough money to buy one.

 

[monk10]

Simple supply and demand in the mold of understanding that the 'U' can't sell alcohol to students on campus at a football game.

If the 'U' knew that non-students would be willing to fork over the necessary cash at 3x times the current rate to have access to alcohol in the suites, I can guarantee you they would have built enough suites to accomodate all of them.

I also know for a fact that I can trump any current suite renter with enough money, ergo it's available to everyone. Everyone in the stadium has the opportunity to earn enough money to rent a suite.

I apologize but I totally don't understand this. The U thought they could sell alcohol in the premium seats and built enough premium seats with this in mind. Am I incorrect on their initial assumption?

 

[Maroon]

The stadium has chairs on the sidelines, but bleachers in the corners. Are you against that? By your own reasoning, you ought to: it's people getting more for paying more. Are you against the existence of luxury boxes, after all, that too is getting more by paying more. Or how about the souvenier sodas? Why should someone get a collectable cup just because they paid more?

Right, but everyone gets a chair. Everyone can see the game. The quality is different, but that's all. Not everyone would be getting a beer.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Right, but everyone gets a chair. Everyone can see the game. The quality is different, but that's all. Not everyone would be getting a beer.

Not true...not everyone gets a chair. Only those that can afford the price of a ticket get a chair. There are thousands of people in Minnesota that can't afford the price of a ticket.

 

[monk10]

Not true...not everyone can buy a home. Everyone has the opportunity to earn enough money to buy a home but that doesn't mean everyone currently has enough money to buy one.

Correct. Quality versus accessibility. Few! That took some posts.

 

[ruralgopher]

Right, but everyone gets a chair. Everyone can see the game. The quality is different, but that's all. Not everyone would be getting a beer.

By that logic everyone does have access to a beverage.

The real question is, is it fair to have to pay for luxuries? Beer is not water, it is a luxury item.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Correct. Quality versus accessibility. Few! That took some posts.

Correct...and just because everyone can't buy a home does it mean that those owning a home should be forced to leave it and become homeless.

In theory, that's exactly what's happenning here.

 

[Maroon]

Not true...not everyone gets a chair. Only those that can afford the price of a ticket get a chair. There are thousands of people in Minnesota that can't afford the price of a ticket.

Right. And I can afford a beer, but they won't sell me one.

 

[monk10]

Or being forced to live in a townhouse, apartment, with their parents, etc. That is the part that stood out to me. You have an extreme view of the situation. It is more like rural is saying. Everyone has access to housing, or a place to call home. However a "house" is being restricted inappropriately, from which I totally agree with you on.

 

[Maroon]

If there were only two choices - providing beer in suites or none at all to anyone - then I would be in favor of letting those in suites have it, but only because the U needs the money. But that doesn't mean I think it's fair. And it's very obvious why that situation is patently unfair.

So while I would be OK allowing the U to do that, I really just think all the petty criticism and personal attacks directed at those saying it's not fair and shouldn't be allowed is out of bounds and not warranted.

 

[monk10]

Right. And I can afford a beer, but they won't sell me one.

The cost of a beer is 1 premium seat+cost of the beer. That I can agree with.

Another cost of the beer could be 1 tv, 1 cable +big ten network + cost of the beer.

Another cost of the beer could be transportation to bar + cost of the beer.

In these scenarios you would have to determine which is more important to you.

 

[RodentRampage]

Right, but everyone gets a chair. Everyone can see the game. The quality is different, but that's all. Not everyone would be getting a beer.

No, they don't. Benches are not chairs.

 

[ruralgopher]

If there were only two choices - providing beer in suites or none at all to anyone - then I would be in favor of letting those in suites have it, but only because the U needs the money. But that doesn't mean I think it's fair. And it's very obvious why that situation is patently unfair.

So while I would be OK allowing the U to do that, I really just think all the petty criticism and personal attacks directed at those saying it's not fair and shouldn't be allowed is out of bounds and not warranted.

'Fair' has never really had anything to do with it. Was it 'fair' that in the dome our beer purchasing priveledges were always cut off early during WI and IA games because those fan bases are beligerint drunks? no, but that is what happened.

 

[RodentRampage]

If there were only two choices - providing beer in suites or none at all to anyone - then I would be in favor of letting those in suites have it, but only because the U needs the money. But that doesn't mean I think it's fair. And it's very obvious why that situation is patently unfair.

So while I would be OK allowing the U to do that, I really just think all the petty criticism and personal attacks directed at those saying it's not fair and shouldn't be allowed is out of bounds and not warranted.

I don't agree that it is at all obvious.