Comments for Polk County Government Watch http://polkliberty.wordpress.com Just another WordPress.com weblog Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:45:59 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on A mess in St. Croix Falls by Art http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/a-mess-in-st-croix-falls/#comment-7 Art Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:45:59 +0000 http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/?p=34#comment-7 Correction: I see that I made a date error in my first comment at the beginning when I was referring to the 1st meeting. The date of the first meeting was June 8th. The second meeting was June 29th. Correction: I see that I made a date error in my first comment at the beginning when I was referring to the 1st meeting. The date of the first meeting was June 8th. The second meeting was June 29th.

]]> Comment on A mess in St. Croix Falls by Art http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/a-mess-in-st-croix-falls/#comment-6 Art Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:05:12 +0000 http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/?p=34#comment-6 Ryan, this topic was so interesting to me, that I went to the second city council meeting about this issue just to see how the council was going to vote! I very rarely go to these meetings. I was originally at the first meeting regarding another matter which was boring compared to this one. I do agree with many things that you say. To me, you are missing the point. The fairness issue is not about good and healthy competition. I am a very strong believer of minimal government intervention in private business. I can’t stand all of the government interference these days and it’s getting worse all of the time. I agree that all businesses should stand on their own merits. As Mr. Balej (Dalles House) said, “This isn’t about the Dalles House against Indian Creek Winery” as he shook Mr. Welch’s hand at the 1st council meeting, I believe meeting him for the 1st time. It was about Licensing guidelines that were carefully considered before Mr. Balej invested over $750,000.00 in the re-opening of the Dalles House. Mr. Balej said right at the meeting that if the 300 seat rule was realistically and fairly satisfied by the winery, that he would immediately withdraw any objection he had. He was very polite through the whole debate, even as his establishment was viciously attacked by the winery guys, which was way off the topic and in my opinion came across as very unprofessional. I did hear some risky remarks from the owner, manager or spokesperson of Indian Creek Winery (not sure which) about the lower quality of liquor and patrons served at other bars in town. Then going on to say that Indian Creek Winery attracted a much higher quality of customer over the other establishments, many customers which came from outside our city, and commenting that they served only top shelf quality liquor, which of course had nothing to do with any of this. I thought these were very interesting comments to make at this local meeting. Did you see many of the looks on the faces of the observers after those comments? Wow – quite entertaining for a Monday night!! You said that you were strongly opposed to the concept of licensing and license quotas unless the licensing is aimed at protecting the general public. As I see it there is certainly way too much licensing and regulation on almost everything. Jim Miller made a good point at the meeting, “Marginalizing these liquor licenses puts pressure on for over serving, and serving business that really shouldn’t be served, such as minors.” These issues certainly would be in the general public’s best interest wouldn’t you say? I do think liquor regulation and licenses should exist because irresponsible bar operations can have severe consequences to society, whereas, for instance, a barber who gets a license to cut hair that grows back. I found it extremely interesting that the park that was leased to Indian Creek Winery for $1 per year was in fact donated to the city from former Dalles House owner Jim Miller. The park was donated to be used only as a municipal park. (Oceola Sun article 7/7/9). This lease is not only unfair advantage for the winery over the other businesses, but a slap in the face to Mr. Miller. The owner of another establishment said she wanted more seating and wanted the city to provide her with a park for a dollar to help her get it, a joke of course. She certainly seemed to think that the park lease was unfair to her. As I said before, the park thing, my park (as a tax payer) is lost to me for years to come, unless I pay the winery to use it. That’s the unfair bullcrap I’m talking about. 1 dollar was not “fair” market rent. I’ll pay 100 times that to get the park back for the citizens of SCF and someone else out there would probably pay 10 times more than that. You ask “Why then is there an issue here? Fairness? Level playing field? Again, the main issue for me (and I think many of the bar owners) is the park lease which creates the unfair advantage. Business #1 rents a park for a buck. A sweetheart deal for sure. Business #1 pays absolutely no property tax to the city at my and other tax payer’s expense and then benefits by receiving revenue from it. Business #2 purchases land at “fair” market value on the open real estate market, a financial burden to this business. Business #2 pays a “fair” property tax, contributing to the city’s general operating fund, another financial burden for business #2! Business #2 nets far less money than business #1 if all other factors are the same. You seem like a person that shares many values that I have. I would bet you don’t care for tax increment financing or unfair subsidies for one private business over another, or for that matter, subsidies at all. Isn’t the park lease granted to business #1 then in fact a subsidy that is unavailable to business #2 creating unfair advantage? Not a very level playing field at all. Business #1 isn’t really standing on its own merits when it doesn’t have the same operating expenses that business #2 has. I’m sorry to hear that you say that you will never go to any of these establishments that objected to this unfair advantage. I think these businesses and all property tax payers in St. Croix Falls are victims of poor city policies. I believe based on what the Mayor, City Administrator, and at least 1 Council Person said, they would do it all much differently if they had it to do all over. See the 3 conditions of the license granted to the winery referenced in the Sun article 7/7/9. Art Ryan, this topic was so interesting to me, that I went to the second city council meeting about this issue just to see how the council was going to vote! I very rarely go to these meetings. I was originally at the first meeting regarding another matter which was boring compared to this one.
I do agree with many things that you say. To me, you are missing the point. The fairness issue is not about good and healthy competition. I am a very strong believer of minimal government intervention in private business. I can’t stand all of the government interference these days and it’s getting worse all of the time. I agree that all businesses should stand on their own merits. As Mr. Balej (Dalles House) said, “This isn’t about the Dalles House against Indian Creek Winery” as he shook Mr. Welch’s hand at the 1st council meeting, I believe meeting him for the 1st time. It was about Licensing guidelines that were carefully considered before Mr. Balej invested over $750,000.00 in the re-opening of the Dalles House. Mr. Balej said right at the meeting that if the 300 seat rule was realistically and fairly satisfied by the winery, that he would immediately withdraw any objection he had. He was very polite through the whole debate, even as his establishment was viciously attacked by the winery guys, which was way off the topic and in my opinion came across as very unprofessional.
I did hear some risky remarks from the owner, manager or spokesperson of Indian Creek Winery (not sure which) about the lower quality of liquor and patrons served at other bars in town. Then going on to say that Indian Creek Winery attracted a much higher quality of customer over the other establishments, many customers which came from outside our city, and commenting that they served only top shelf quality liquor, which of course had nothing to do with any of this. I thought these were very interesting comments to make at this local meeting. Did you see many of the looks on the faces of the observers after those comments? Wow – quite entertaining for a Monday night!!
You said that you were strongly opposed to the concept of licensing and license quotas unless the licensing is aimed at protecting the general public. As I see it there is certainly way too much licensing and regulation on almost everything. Jim Miller made a good point at the meeting, “Marginalizing these liquor licenses puts pressure on for over serving, and serving business that really shouldn’t be served, such as minors.” These issues certainly would be in the general public’s best interest wouldn’t you say? I do think liquor regulation and licenses should exist because irresponsible bar operations can have severe consequences to society, whereas, for instance, a barber who gets a license to cut hair that grows back.
I found it extremely interesting that the park that was leased to Indian Creek Winery for $1 per year was in fact donated to the city from former Dalles House owner Jim Miller. The park was donated to be used only as a municipal park. (Oceola Sun article 7/7/9). This lease is not only unfair advantage for the winery over the other businesses, but a slap in the face to Mr. Miller. The owner of another establishment said she wanted more seating and wanted the city to provide her with a park for a dollar to help her get it, a joke of course. She certainly seemed to think that the park lease was unfair to her.
As I said before, the park thing, my park (as a tax payer) is lost to me for years to come, unless I pay the winery to use it. That’s the unfair bullcrap I’m talking about. 1 dollar was not “fair” market rent. I’ll pay 100 times that to get the park back for the citizens of SCF and someone else out there would probably pay 10 times more than that.
You ask “Why then is there an issue here? Fairness? Level playing field? Again, the main issue for me (and I think many of the bar owners) is the park lease which creates the unfair advantage. Business #1 rents a park for a buck. A sweetheart deal for sure. Business #1 pays absolutely no property tax to the city at my and other tax payer’s expense and then benefits by receiving revenue from it. Business #2 purchases land at “fair” market value on the open real estate market, a financial burden to this business. Business #2 pays a “fair” property tax, contributing to the city’s general operating fund, another financial burden for business #2! Business #2 nets far less money than business #1 if all other factors are the same. You seem like a person that shares many values that I have. I would bet you don’t care for tax increment financing or unfair subsidies for one private business over another, or for that matter, subsidies at all. Isn’t the park lease granted to business #1 then in fact a subsidy that is unavailable to business #2 creating unfair advantage? Not a very level playing field at all. Business #1 isn’t really standing on its own merits when it doesn’t have the same operating expenses that business #2 has. I’m sorry to hear that you say that you will never go to any of these establishments that objected to this unfair advantage. I think these businesses and all property tax payers in St. Croix Falls are victims of poor city policies. I believe based on what the Mayor, City Administrator, and at least 1 Council Person said, they would do it all much differently if they had it to do all over. See the 3 conditions of the license granted to the winery referenced in the Sun article 7/7/9.
Art

]]> Comment on A mess in St. Croix Falls by Ryan http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/a-mess-in-st-croix-falls/#comment-5 Ryan Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:32:43 +0000 http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/?p=34#comment-5 Well, I look at this from 2 perspectives: First off, if there were indeed shenanigans going on in local government, then yes indeed we should take a closer look at things. Second, and more importantly, is that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that this is/should be an issue of fairness for businesses. I do not in any way believe that the government should be involved in ensuring fairness or level playing fields where business practives are concerned. As such, I am strongly opposed to the concept of licensing and license quotas unless the licensing is aimed at protecting the general public (i.e. medical professions etc). Limiting the number of class B licensing in a particular area is asinine and is only designed with protectionism in mind (something which you addressed above and seem to be in favor of). Can you explaion why the city should be in the business of protecting businesses via licensing restrictions? I firmly believe that businesses should stand on their own merits, and if a business moves in that is better and draws business away from others, then the existing businesses either need to improve their business or risk going out of business. Whether a business survives or folds is 100% in the hands of the public by how they spend their money. At no time should the government interfere with this at all. That said, the established businesses in SCF need to take a long, hard look at what it is that they're worried about. If Indian Creek is doing good business, then it's because they're doing something right - NOT because they are getting some sort of unfair advantage... And calling the licensing bullcrap an unfair advantage is a fallacy because that has exactly zero bearing on how the business is run or why the public patronizes them. If there was no such thing as licensing and licensing quotas, there would be no issue whatsoever, so why then is there an issue here? Fairness? Level playing field? A business shouldn't be allowed to do better than another? It's all very petty if you ask me, and shows a terrible lack of maturity on the part of the local businesses who stood up against this issue. Instead of looking at them and wondering how they could be better and draw the crowds back, they decided to chase them down over silly administrative and asinine regulatory issues. Personally, I will never spend another dime at any of those places. Well, I look at this from 2 perspectives:

First off, if there were indeed shenanigans going on in local government, then yes indeed we should take a closer look at things.

Second, and more importantly, is that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that this is/should be an issue of fairness for businesses. I do not in any way believe that the government should be involved in ensuring fairness or level playing fields where business practives are concerned. As such, I am strongly opposed to the concept of licensing and license quotas unless the licensing is aimed at protecting the general public (i.e. medical professions etc). Limiting the number of class B licensing in a particular area is asinine and is only designed with protectionism in mind (something which you addressed above and seem to be in favor of). Can you explaion why the city should be in the business of protecting businesses via licensing restrictions? I firmly believe that businesses should stand on their own merits, and if a business moves in that is better and draws business away from others, then the existing businesses either need to improve their business or risk going out of business. Whether a business survives or folds is 100% in the hands of the public by how they spend their money. At no time should the government interfere with this at all.

That said, the established businesses in SCF need to take a long, hard look at what it is that they’re worried about. If Indian Creek is doing good business, then it’s because they’re doing something right – NOT because they are getting some sort of unfair advantage… And calling the licensing bullcrap an unfair advantage is a fallacy because that has exactly zero bearing on how the business is run or why the public patronizes them. If there was no such thing as licensing and licensing quotas, there would be no issue whatsoever, so why then is there an issue here? Fairness? Level playing field? A business shouldn’t be allowed to do better than another? It’s all very petty if you ask me, and shows a terrible lack of maturity on the part of the local businesses who stood up against this issue. Instead of looking at them and wondering how they could be better and draw the crowds back, they decided to chase them down over silly administrative and asinine regulatory issues.

Personally, I will never spend another dime at any of those places.

]]> Comment on A mess in St. Croix Falls by Art http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/a-mess-in-st-croix-falls/#comment-4 Art Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:53:32 +0000 http://polkliberty.wordpress.com/?p=34#comment-4 Regarding the Indian Creek Orchards issue. I was at the city council meeting on June 29th 2009 for another issue and I found this license issuing extremely interesting and suspicious. I heard the heated debate regarding this license. I agree with all of the other local bar owners in St. Croix Falls. The Class B Liquor license granted to Indian Creek Orchards does not meet the criteria required to qualify for the exclusionary license they applied for. All of the standard licenses are being used. There should only be 5 licenses in our city and there are many more than that! In addition the City gave unfair advantage to this Indian Creek over the others. What really appalled me was that the City of St. Croix Falls rented a public park, (my park as a tax payer) just south of Indian Creek Orchards for 1 DOLLAR per year. YES – 1 BUCK!! I believe that this park was donated or sold to the City at a reduced price to be used as a city park by the previous land owner Jim Miller. It appears to me that the city rented this park in an unfair attempt to help Indian Creek Orchards obtain additional seating at tax payer’s expense. This apparently was done so that the winery might qualify for a 300 seat exclusion license, a loophole in the law. Shortly after the council meeting I had the opportunity to go to the establishment because it bothered me so much that this park was just given away and now blocking a handicap access from the city parking to main street an access used by many. Indian Creek Orchards was certainly a nice looking place, the park area was nice and clean, but I found that even with the park seating, the establishment didn’t even come close to having 300 seats inside and out. As one city council person (who voted no) stated, “They couldn’t even come close to achieving the 300 seats required. I don’t think it was fair that the winery was given such a sweetheart / and unfair advantage over the other established businesses by our City. WHAT”S GOING ON HERE! We are already way above the quota of liquor licenses in this city. Why is the city trying to put a bar on every one of our street corners. How does one business get such an unfair advantage over another. VERY VERY SUSPICIOUS!! “YES – I think it does needs to be a level playing field for all businesses in our city,” Regarding the Indian Creek Orchards issue. I was at the city council meeting on June 29th 2009 for another issue and I found this license issuing extremely interesting and suspicious. I heard the heated debate regarding this license. I agree with all of the other local bar owners in St. Croix Falls. The Class B Liquor license granted to Indian Creek Orchards does not meet the criteria required to qualify for the exclusionary license they applied for. All of the standard licenses are being used. There should only be 5 licenses in our city and there are many more than that! In addition the City gave unfair advantage to this Indian Creek over the others. What really appalled me was that the City of St. Croix Falls rented a public park, (my park as a tax payer) just south of Indian Creek Orchards for 1 DOLLAR per year. YES – 1 BUCK!! I believe that this park was donated or sold to the City at a reduced price to be used as a city park by the previous land owner Jim Miller. It appears to me that the city rented this park in an unfair attempt to help Indian Creek Orchards obtain additional seating at tax payer’s expense. This apparently was done so that the winery might qualify for a 300 seat exclusion license, a loophole in the law. Shortly after the council meeting I had the opportunity to go to the establishment because it bothered me so much that this park was just given away and now blocking a handicap access from the city parking to main street an access used by many. Indian Creek Orchards was certainly a nice looking place, the park area was nice and clean, but I found that even with the park seating, the establishment didn’t even come close to having 300 seats inside and out. As one city council person (who voted no) stated, “They couldn’t even come close to achieving the 300 seats required. I don’t think it was fair that the winery was given such a sweetheart / and unfair advantage over the other established businesses by our City. WHAT”S GOING ON HERE! We are already way above the quota of liquor licenses in this city. Why is the city trying to put a bar on every one of our street corners. How does one business get such an unfair advantage over another. VERY VERY SUSPICIOUS!!
“YES – I think it does needs to be a level playing field for all businesses in our city,”

]]>