Alcohol caused more than a few outbursts Wednesday at City Hall. Good thing the crowd wasn't drinking the stuff.
City employees gave residents another chance to hear a new batch of regulations concerning local liquor sales.
One of the key changes would require all employees involved with the retail sale of alcohol to obtain a city-issued alcohol server license. Bartenders, waitresses, cashiers and anyone else who handles alcohol - not including distributors - would have to take a class with the St. Joseph Police Department and pay a $15 fee to obtain certification.
Police Sgt. Larry Stobbs Jr. said all money collected from the fees would be used to pay for identification cards and the training. Many in the audience expressed anger at the fees, as the Police Department currently offers similar classes free.
Steve Holland, owner of Pop's Place, said the licenses would make it hard for bar owners to have adequate staff to handle surprise situations. If a bartender quit his job on Friday night, or a bus full of bachelorettes arrived with no notice, Mr. Holland normally would ask one of his regular customers if they wanted to step behind the bar and sell beer for the night. Now he worries the practice could jeopardize his liquor license.
City Customer Assistance Director Sam Barber said bar owners still could hire emergency help. New employees would have five days to apply for a 60-day temporary license and sign up for the training class.
The news didn't change Mr. Holland's opinion on the licenses.
"It's pretty ridiculous," Mr. Holland said. "I've lived in a lot of places and they've never asked anyone else to have a license to sell alcohol but the bar owner."
Licenses would be valid for three years and workers could use the same one if they changed jobs - like a trucker who uses the same commercial driver's license if he or she switches companies.
"If you work at two or three convenience stores, because a lot of people do, this permit will follow you," Mr. Stobbs said.
Another proposal would restrict the sale of alcohol by caterers within 300 feet of residential areas, except for locations within the Downtown Entertainment District. The restricted area also could be lowered to within 100 feet of homes, but only in locations that would hold one or two events per year.
The proposed changes will next go before the City Council's finance/audit committee, which will make recommendations on possible changes before sending the ordinance to the council for a vote.
Clinton Thomas can be reached
at clintonthomas@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
guarded says...
Next you will need a license to walk down the street sober. This town requires way more licenses than any other place I have ever lived. This is ridiculous and will cause a lot of problems and will give the city government another reason to come into your business and send their watch dogs to harrass people trying to make a living.
August 27, 2009 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
caseyjones says...
This city makes it impossible for anyone to start a business in this town.....its pay, pay, pay! The city nickel and dimes everyone to death!
August 27, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RJW says...
I would rather see the city/county require restaurant employees to take a food safety course prior to employement.
August 27, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shockedandamazed says...
In my opinion this is nothing but a grant being used to develop a permenant position for Mr. Stobbs.
Although I see no harm in employees being trained in the laws of serving alcohol, a video purchased for employee training and updates on laws being mailed to each establishment with a liquor liscense would do the same thing, with less cost to all involved.
The other issue is the "downtown entertainment district" why do these businesses get special exceptions?
August 27, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mr_America says...
We don't need more regulations for liquor sales. It's just a new way to squeeze money out of people.
August 27, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
Not to say we need to be like Kansas City(we don't), but Kansas City does this very thing; so a license for the server isn't unheard of. Obviously, Mr. Holland has never lived in Kansas City or worked there in an establishment that serves alcohol.
August 27, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shockedandamazed says...
Attached is what is funding the change in St. Joseph, found on the St. Joseph Youth Alliance web site.
Strategic Prevention Framework/State Inventive Grant 2006 to present ($399,828)
The St. Joseph Youth Alliance was awarded a State Incentive Grant for a Strategic Prevention Framework Project to address underage and binge drinking. A focal point of the grant is "Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol", a community organizing program designed to reduce adolescent access to alcohol by changing community policies and practices. The primary environmental strategy is youth asset development.
Look out if you sell alcohol, that is a chunk of change.
August 27, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
caseyjones says...
I heard if Mr. Stobbs had his way we would be a "dry" city.
August 27, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dingodog57 says...
I have owned numerious business's and property of many kinds within the city of St Joe. Happy to say, as of this date I own no real estate or business's in St Joe or Buchanan County.
Over the years I have come to the conclution that I can make more money with a whole lot less hassel elsewhere.
August 27, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retired_man says...
This is BS. The local government is out of control. The local cops have better things to do. The kids working these jobs are just getting by and now they are looking for ways to take more of their money. STOP IT!!!! Mr. Stobbs needs to do his job (find Larry's killer) and stop stumbing this proposal.
August 27, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
So a clerk in a grocery store, or Wal Mart, that sells alcohol has to pay 15 dollars and use his/her off time for this class? This is not right. They already check IDs and all that to be sure of age. How is 15 dollars and a class going to do anything more? All they can do is check IDs and watch for fake IDs and they already do this.It's just another way for the city to make money at others expense.This city is just going nuts with all these fees This needs to be stopped.
August 27, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RJW says...
As bad as this sounds, it could be worse. The State of Oklahoma charges an annual $40 liquor license fee, with NO instruction/education of any kind. It's basically just a tax on an individual who choses to work in an establishment that serves alcohol.
August 27, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
Only a bureacrat with a private agenda would be so insensitive to the operating nature of this kind of retail establishment.
It is difficult to obtain and schedule waiters & waitresses under any circumstances. Doing so and providing for several days or a couple weeks to schedule training is obviously next to impossible.
In an ideal world training and appropriate qualifiations is indeed perfect. We do not live in a perfect world.
August 27, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
graphicphotobug says...
wow! i think this is going a little too far! maybe a head waiter or a head bartender... but all? they don't make enough as it is! of course neither do teachers..... but that is a whole nother can of worms!!!
cops should be cops, not babysitters! can't wait to see what continues to happen in buchanan county!
August 27, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
BUT stjoemikey do they charge for the class or is it free as it use to be here? I still think it is wrong to charge everyone who works in a grocery store and the likes because they might have to run a bottle over the scanner.They are not "serving" drinks. Offer the class for a fee then make these people use there own off time, and own money, for the class doesn't seem right. I feel it is nothing but a money maker for the city to get more from the local working people. I'll tell you what I use to tell my kids when they were young,"just because someone else does it doesn't make it right"
August 27, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sunshine says...
Kansas City does do something similar to this however as I have had to do this in the past for employment in the Kansas City area they at the time did not offer a class. It was merely a background check. It did take a bit of time to complete this task which had to be done before you could start work. Not to mention the time it took to process the license which meant waiting longer to start work. Thank goodness for me this was a second job and not my primary source of income. Is the employer going to be responsible for this expense and the time it will take to get the license? Businesses that are trying to grow and people that are trying to start new businesses do not need this expense nor does the person that is trying to seek employment. St Joe is way behind when it comes to keeping up with other states, etc. At this time this is one of the last things that they need to worry about especially with the economy the way it is. We need decent restaurants in town not just another food chain and I think this will only detour people from trying to bring them here.
August 27, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nothingsoundedcool says...
All this law does is hurt a bunch of people who make minimum wage. You think every cashier in town wants to give up $15 dollars, for this. Basically that means they have to work two hours, for free, just to have their jobs. Why don't we come up with a law that takes money out of rich peoples' pockets in this town. Oh wait, that makes too much sense. Anyone who is currently working a job where they handle alcohol should refuse to get this license and keep working their job. There are constitutional, no ex post facto, laws that protect them.
August 27, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sam says...
momswisher asked the same question I have: Exactly what is this $15 "training" going to teach the workers that they don't already know?
This is reminiscent of the $15 they charged all of us to obtain an "official" birth certificate to apply for a driver's license. The only ongoing income from that farce is now new drivers, so maybe this is a way to keep the money flowing. Servers, convenience store workers, etc are occupations with traditionally high turnover, meaning that this license will be a guaranteed income stream. This city just never quits giving away the store to some while piling the costs onto the rest of us.
August 27, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nothingsoundedcool says...
Does anyone really believe that any money given to St. Joseph for adopting this rule is going to go somewhere that benefits the minimum wage workers who are paying for this ludacris law? Come on, seriously? Anyone, who experiences an internal sensation that says, "It's just $15," doesn't get it. To the person working for it, the people who swipe groceries, wait tables, and serve drinks its taking money out of their pockets. Its paying for a job that is not always a coveted positiion because it doesn't pay well. They have the job because they need it. In most cases these occupations don't offer benefits or vacation time. This law is a slap in their face. They've been able to do their jobs a long time without a fee, now they have one. I'm guessing the "training" mentioned isn't paid either.
ps. The "rich" have been going after the poor for a long time.
August 27, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Stjoemikey - My guess is that at least 85% of the "underage" drinkers caught are over the age 18 and it's a real struggle for me to understand that society says you're old enough and "responsible" enough to assist in making decisions for your community, state, and country. That you're old enough to get a job in almost any industry. That you're beyond old enough to have consensual sex or enter into a marriage and begin a family. That you're old enough to die for your country. But despite all of these things not so minor rights we entitle 18 year olds, drinking is not one of them.
August 27, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
stjoemikey .Ok you hit a nerve here. They already check ID's .Normally kids get some "of age" person with proper ID to buy booze for them. As for saving lives. I am a mother who lost her 21 year old and 23 year old sons to a drunk driver as they were coming home from fishing. The drunk driver that hit them was 58 years old and bought his booze without an ID.This stupid fee and class couldn't and wouldn't change this. kids will get booze as long as there are adults dumb enough to help them buy it. Everyone already checks IDs and can spot a fake on a mile away. This class and fee will not change that or help that.
August 27, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
questions:
is the state incentive grant going to be in jeopardy if the city continues to comply in the same way that we have been doing.... with a free class?
what is the point of purchasing some photo id machine? if sam barber say it should be more like $25 look for the price of this to go up in the next year.....
what is an ID checking guide? sounds like government speak for simple arithmetic, looking at the color of the background on the drinker's identification, and asking for a correct address, spelling of a name, or the person's birthday to be sure they aren't using someone else's ID. that needs a book?
do the math. how many people work at places that sell alcohol? every employee of every drug/grocery/bigbox/bar/restaurant? sounds like the meter maids on a much grander scale.......
as for preventing teen drinking? parents are supposed to be on the ball on that front, IMO.
August 27, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
Thank you but I didn't post the lowest point of my life to get sympathy, ,rather to make a point. This fee and class won't change a thing.
As heritage says the parents have this responsibility. I raised 4 sons and a daughter and 16 foster kids and NEVER had a problem with them drinking or with drugs.Parents have to teach and watch and instill self confidence and a sense of right and wrong. This is our job as a parent NOT the governments job ,or place. People have to grow up and stop buying and serving kids they know are under age.Kids need to be taught the consequence and dangers to themselves and what it could do to others as well. Parents need to do this on their own ,the government shouldn't have to tell you to teach this nor should they do it for you. they are OUR kids and OUR responsibility.
August 27, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
Tell me how this fee and class will stop bad parenting and adults buying for or serving kids at parties in private homes. It won't.
August 27, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momswisher says...
Thank you. I will go to the meeting.
As far as kids go, ALL kids are gifts from God, and they should be treated and protected as such.If not by the birth parents then by a parent (love makes a parent ,not blood) who cares about them and will love them and lead them into adulthood with the knowledge to continue their life as happy well adjusted,caring and responsible, giving adults. All kids deserve this.
August 27, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
apmastrangelo says...
Now this is an easy target; and the city wonders where the business is.
A liquor license is required to sell alcohol and compliance with the all statutes is mandatory in order to keep your license.
Nothing else should be required or needed.
August 27, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
It really doesn't matter if you feel 18 year olds are old enough to drink....the legal age is 21...PERIOD!! If you don't like that, work on getting it changed. Otherwise, accept the fact that the law is what it is...the law.
Additionally, many of those who are caught selling alcohol to minors are not being "fooled" by fake ID's. They're not CHECKING ID's. Big difference.
I'm not a fan of this $15 fee, and I think it's a poor choice for the city to make, but as for the enforcement of the underage drinking laws, I definitely support THAT....
August 27, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeter59 says...
The Class is a very good idea, but a card with the names on it? stupid. charging to take the class... stupid. why not a free class. Do the whole class on videotape or DVD, then make some copies, then let owners check it out ...for FREE! How much would that cost? Not much. The bar/ liquor serving owners/managers should be responsible to their patrons by not serving people who are obviously drunk, by calling police when they are pretty sure someone is too drunk to drive and not turning their back when they see it. Be proactive by not allowing people to leave their establishment drunk, then drive without calling police, noting a license number etc. Most of these laws to govern the situation are already in place. How about just enforcing what we already have? Stop trying to charge us for everything. Just like a garage sale license. It was 50 cents, then 1.00 for YEARS, suddenly 5.00 it doesn't cost 5.00 to produce and should not cost the citizens five dollars to get. The fees should be nominal, not a cash extravganza. The workers are already there for the whole day, so don't retort back that 5 bucks covers their wages.
August 27, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
Could we just have a city tax on all liquor sales?
August 27, 2009 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I have an idea. We, the people, should charge the city government an "excessive tax" tax!!
Does anyone remember the movie "Popeye" with Robin Williams?!! That tax collector was OBVIOUSLY from St. Joe!!
August 27, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justsayin says...
Maybe the Youth Alliance should offer scholarships out of the grant money it is receiving to change policies in order to reduce underage drinking.
I see this going the same way as most of the City licenses meant to regulate all the things that cause our city to be so inferior. The "litter permit" to keep people from allowing their cats and dogs to freely procreate comes to mind. What a joke! There aren't enough police officers or city inspectors interested enough or paid enough to enforce the regulations we have let alone the new ones that keep getting added. Get what you are already responsible for under control and THEN add a liquor license to the mix!
August 27, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justsayin says...
caseyjones August 27, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I heard if Mr. Stobbs had his way we would be a "dry" city.
Well, you don't have to be drunk to maim and total police cars. ;)
August 27, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Pops - I completely agree the law is the law. If you violate it, then you should be punished. The problem I have with nearly every liquor law is that the true intent never seems to be about improving the problem but much more about the financial gain of those groups driving for tougher and tougher penalties and the state. In most of these underage cases, the punishment should be less financially driven and more about education. The last I was aware, if you receive a MIP (minor in possession), then you're charged an outrageous fine and expected to attend a two day class. Is two days really educational?
If the true intent was about solving the problem, then make it a 6 or 12 month class with mandatory weekends. Want more of impact; make the class run from about 7pm till midnight or 1am. Heck, as class field trip they could be given individual chaperones and lead to a local bar:the chaperones would ensure they don't drink and while at the bar they could provide some volunteer labor bussing tables and cleaning restrooms. I'll bet you that after the class is over, everyone of them would think twice about doing it again.
Instead, we've basically created a system, where they (or worse mom and dad) pay the fine, suck it up for a weekend class and move on.
August 27, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I personally know an individual who was charged with MIP, but absolutely was NOT. The cops came to a party where there WAS alcohol present, and arrested everyone under 21, and charged them all with MIP. There was no class....no education...only a hefty fine. The police even refused to perform blood alcohol tests or even run them all throuh the breathelyzer. They didn't CARE if they had been drinking....they were in the vicinity where alcohol was being consumed.
You're right, inside....it's ALL about the money and any city official, judge, prosecurot or attorney who says otherwise is a liar.
Don't know if I can make it any simpler than that.
August 28, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
The Simple solution is, lower the drinking age to 18.
Many states already have this, and in MY opinion,, if you are old enough to go to Iraq, and be Shot at, you have EVERY right to belly up to the Bar and Order a Beer ! I know that a lot of you are not going to agree, but it is totally TRUE ! I can go serve my Country being SHOT at and there's a REAL possibility that I will come home in a body bag, but I can't go into a Bar and order a BEER ? Something is WRONG with that !!
August 29, 2009 at 2:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dpr95 says...
Steve_O
Physiologically, a person's brain continues to develope into their 20s. Alcohol can cause serious damage to a still developing brain.
Tell us which states currently have 18 year old drinking age. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed by the United States Congress Under the Federal Aid Highway Act. If a state does not enforce the minimum age, they could be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.
Some states appearently allow it with adult supervision, but not "just because". It can also be allowed for religous purposes.
September 1, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
myway123 says...
I have lived in more places than just kansas city and many states do require all alcohol to be sold by a licensed person. If these minimum wage individuals feel its to much responsibility to take a class on this maybe they should rally and speak out about buisness owners paying the fees and time off after so many days on the job. However some people never aspire to anything more. Why?? I know bar staff that make mega bucks in that position. If they like their career and yes its a career why shouldnt they be held to it?? and If just checking id was something everyone did we wouldnt have instances of serving to minors like we do. no one likes change especially steve holland. But I say suck it up. If this makes liquor servers more responsible so be it. At some point you also have to believe you can say "you have had enough you are cut off tonight" and call them a cab. Maybe if a picture ID and class will give them the right they will help stop some of the idiots drinking and driving.
September 6, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )