Sign control to affect convenience (stores)

Well, they did it.

Last week I wrote about the new keg ordinance. The City Council passed it, as expected, along with grabbing more control over window signs at stores that sell liquor.

I didn't go to the meeting. I would have stood to express the opinion in person that I had e-mailed to all seven, and I'm just as sure that they didn't want to hear it. Thanks to the one Council member (out of seven) who responded to me.

Before the liquor store at 47 and McConnell Roads was sold to the man who owns the liquor store just up the street, a question arose at the City Council level about the percentage of sales that was composed of alcoholic beverages. As I recall, the mayor said that alcohol-related sales were to be less than 50% of sales, since it was a convenience store that also sold alcohol, and not a liquor store that also sold bread and milk.

The next day I walked through the store, and it appeared to be that 90% of the shelf space was devoted to alcohol. I later raised the question with one of the Councilmen, but there apparently was never any follow-up or analysis of the store's sales records.

Then the sale took place, and now it is obviously a liquor store, not a "convenience" store.

OK, so what does 20% of window space that faces a public way mean, or does anyone (except the City Council) really care? And besides, the ordinance only applies to "convenience" stores, not to liquor stores. What's the purpose of an ordinance like that?

Says Councilman Mike Turner, according to the Northwest Herald, "In general, I don't like this kind of law, but we do regulate signs, and I think some stores have gone overboard, and this reflects poorly on our community."

So the law is in place for aesthetics? If so, the Council has skated way, way out into the pond on thin ice. Here come some more lawsuits?

Where's the hammer? When a question came up at a previous City Council meeting about enforceability of the proposed ordinance, the Mayor responded that, if a store were not in compliance when its license came up for renewal..... Well, you can guess the rest.

Sort of like, our way or the highway...

No doubt that cluttered windows look trashy, but is this law the way to fix that?

And, if the ordinance applies to convenience stores, but not to liquor stores, here comes a lawsuit. It's only a matter of time.

The City doesn't seem too concerned about the new temporary, cardboard signs attached to the permanent signposts outside the liquor store at 47 & McConnell Roads. They can't be within Code, but they are still there.

Oh, and the keg tag? What's next? A tag on a case of bottled beer or cans? Or a tag on a bottle of Jack Daniels? There are plenty of State liquor laws that control (or should control) dispensing beer to minors. A tag on a keg is not going to stop one glass of beer from reaching a minor!

The ordinance was passed unanimously. What I don't understand is, when a Councilman doesn't like a (new) law, why he doesn't vote against it?

Sometimes I think that an analysis of Council voting records would reveal an interesting insight in voting patterns. Too many votes by the Woodstock City Council are unanimous.