The Woodstock City Council apparently believes in the Golden Rule. You know what that is; right? “He who has the gold, rules.”
In this case the “gold” was a liquor license. On Tuesday night the City Council granted a liquor license to the Linda Tejeda, new owner of the Courthouse Grill Restaurant, located on the Square near the soon-to-depart Dick Tracy Museum. That’s good. It’s pretty hard to run a full-service restaurant without a liquor license. So, out goes $1,950 for the liquor license.
What’s the rub? The City Council imposed a condition on her that she must assume a debt of the previous owner/operator of the Courthouse Grill for water and sewer services and snow removal. How much is that? $5,630!
Why should they stick it to the new owner of a business? Just because they can is not a good enough reason! Are we trying to attract and retain businesses or drive them away? Wouldn’t you think that the City Council would be delighted that someone was taking over a major restaurant on the Square? I mean, just think of all the sales tax that the City would miss if the restaurant closed!
It is unconscionable that the City Council would impose such a condition, but it’s nothing new. I was reminded of action by the Woodstock City Council just a few years ago, when the owner of a home was seeking permission from the City Council to convert to a bed-and-breakfast. After months of wrangling and a peace-making effort by a Councilman (now the mayor) and about 20 angry neighbors, the homeowner succumbed to the pressure and agreed to three absurd conditions on her right to transfer her property by sale or upon her death.
At the final City Council meeting, when these conditions were presented as an amendment to the ordinance, one councilman asked, “What business owner in her right mind would accept these conditions?” (or something very similar to that)
I’m sure then-Mayor Cornue didn’t know his voice would carry to the audience when he replied, “It’s called extortion, Jim.” I almost laughed aloud and wanted to applaud the mayor’s honest comment. He hit the nail right on the head! He earned my ever-lasting respect, confidence and admiration for his honesty.
So, will someone tell me why Linda Tejeda should have knuckled under to the City Council, except for the very important reason that she needed the liquor license to have any chance of succeeding in the restaurant business on the Square?
In this case the “gold” was a liquor license. On Tuesday night the City Council granted a liquor license to the Linda Tejeda, new owner of the Courthouse Grill Restaurant, located on the Square near the soon-to-depart Dick Tracy Museum. That’s good. It’s pretty hard to run a full-service restaurant without a liquor license. So, out goes $1,950 for the liquor license.
What’s the rub? The City Council imposed a condition on her that she must assume a debt of the previous owner/operator of the Courthouse Grill for water and sewer services and snow removal. How much is that? $5,630!
Why should they stick it to the new owner of a business? Just because they can is not a good enough reason! Are we trying to attract and retain businesses or drive them away? Wouldn’t you think that the City Council would be delighted that someone was taking over a major restaurant on the Square? I mean, just think of all the sales tax that the City would miss if the restaurant closed!
It is unconscionable that the City Council would impose such a condition, but it’s nothing new. I was reminded of action by the Woodstock City Council just a few years ago, when the owner of a home was seeking permission from the City Council to convert to a bed-and-breakfast. After months of wrangling and a peace-making effort by a Councilman (now the mayor) and about 20 angry neighbors, the homeowner succumbed to the pressure and agreed to three absurd conditions on her right to transfer her property by sale or upon her death.
At the final City Council meeting, when these conditions were presented as an amendment to the ordinance, one councilman asked, “What business owner in her right mind would accept these conditions?” (or something very similar to that)
I’m sure then-Mayor Cornue didn’t know his voice would carry to the audience when he replied, “It’s called extortion, Jim.” I almost laughed aloud and wanted to applaud the mayor’s honest comment. He hit the nail right on the head! He earned my ever-lasting respect, confidence and admiration for his honesty.
So, will someone tell me why Linda Tejeda should have knuckled under to the City Council, except for the very important reason that she needed the liquor license to have any chance of succeeding in the restaurant business on the Square?
6 comments:
I think that Linda is doing all that she can to make this buisness successful. The city needs to recognize and support her efforts. I can't believe that the city of woodstock could truly want a buisness in this location to fail, and lose out on all of the tax revenue. The extortion that is going on is not the first I have seen and I know won't be the last. With the old owners out of the picture, this should be a no brainer. A slight apology in a blurb in the Herald isn't enough to make people forgive, but the effort on Lindas part should definatley show that they are out of the picture!
I wouldn't trust that the old owners are completely out of the picture.
Check the Sec. of State's website and look up the LLC name "Courthouse on the Square". I think you'll find that that Corp. was started on 2/4 but Linda wasn't named the agent until 4/14 - the day they went before the Council to get the liquor license. Hmmmm....
Owners are usually not named as the agent for legal service. Often the owner's attorney is named as the Agent.
I don't know Linda, but I hope to get acquainted with her.
Perhaps someone will set up a jar for contributions to help her pay off the City's very unusual "fine" or surcharge for her liquor license.
It would probably cost her more than $5,000 to haul the City into court and have a judge slap the City's paws for such a gross and unfair requirement. Of course, she could probably get the judge to tack on her costs of suing for recovery, if she won.
I wouldn't trust your "legal" advice either. BTW good job changing your blog to the Gus lovefest.
No legal advice is offered here. Of course, if you find anything here helpful, I'll be glad to set up a PayPal account so that you can express your appreciation appropriately.
I did save a client $75,000 in unnecessary income taxes, after his lawyer recommended a certain change in his life insurance policy that would have caused the death benefit to be taxable as ordinary income, instead of passing income tax-free.
I'm still laughing over that one. His attorney told me he had the best tax lawyer in the state (Colorado) on his staff, and I told him he'd better go to Wyoming for a second opinion.
Post a Comment