Austinist: BYOB Regulations On Their Way?

Wes

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:54:58 -0600

"What's the point of the security guards? Most places that are BYOB are small restaurants that can't afford the alcohol permit to begin with, so how will they afford security?" Bingo.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:47:36 -0600

One possibly affected business that comes to mind is Ginny's Little Longhorn. I would hate to think that they would lose money. When it is only $2.50 for 2 setups to see Dale Watson perform on a Sunday afternoon,it is obvious they value the simple and inexpensive. I also know that people go out to the parking lot, because it can get stuffy inside. The whole crowd is the most friendly and peaceful.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:03:18 -0600

remember how, a month or so ago, on the front page of the Statesman, there was a story about the City's budget report for 2007? And how the City was spending over its budget for this fiscal year? My guess is there's a crack team of folks over at City Hall figuring out areas where they can squeeze more tax revenue into play. This would represent one of those areas, sadly.

jchapa13

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:10:31 -0600

At the August 9th council meeting, we need to tell the council that this is RETARDED. If there are problems at Chester's Night Club, fix Chester's Night Club!

Scooby

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:57:20 -0600

I didn't even think of the restaurants. Now I'm definitely against it. There oughta be a law against saying "there oughta be a law".

greycat

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:48:38 -0600

What's the point of the security guards? Most places that are BYOB are small restaurants that can't afford the alcohol permit to begin with, so how will they afford security? Not only that, but I don't see security guards at places that *do* have an alcohol permit. Sometimes I really wonder if City Council actually thinks about things or if it's really such standard policy that everything needs a knee jerk reaction.

Elizabeth S.

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:39:01 -0600

Hey Scooby - Thanks for the link to that article.

Scooby

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:25:19 -0600

Link that didn't work in comment above: http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/07/16/StateLocal/Future.Of.Chesters.Uncertain.Community.Divided-2923975.shtml Daily Texan article regarding Chester's from 7/16.

heyzeus

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:22:32 -0600

Providing security guards is the real financial burden, and the only patently unnecessary provision in the permit. I'm pretty sure drinking in a parking lot is already illegal, and closing at 2:15 matches the rules that apply to other public venues where alcohol is consumed.

Scooby

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:18:48 -0600

There are gazillion things going on at and around Chester's that the city can already crack down on. These are things that the neighbors already complain about: noise, public urination, miscellaneous traffic stuff like blocking streets & driveways, littering, trespassing, etc. Just because a cop screwed up while answering a call and capped a guy in the back (allegedly) at this one place doesn't mean we need another useless law. The shooting might not have occured if the cops had been aggressively enforcing nuisance-type crimes in the first place. They are enforcing everything now, and I'm sure Chester's will soon be out of business (whether that enforcement is, at it's base, harrassment is arguable). Of course, with a new ordinance, council gets to demonstrate that it's "doing something" and isn't just meeting once a week to spew hot air. I'll reserve judgement 'til I see the actual ordinance, but I'm inclined to be against it.