The final piece of the Common Council recap from Tuesday . . . banning liquor sold in small quantities.
First, here’s what would be banned (at least I think so, there was version confusion, this says version 3, but you might want to check back here for new or future versions):
(a) No retailer licensed under this Chapter shall be permitted to sell, dispense or give away fermented malt beverages in the original container in amounts less than the amount contained in a six pack of bottles or cans, for consumption off the licensed premises. This prohibition shall not apply to the sale of microbrewery fermented malt beverages or to imported malt beverages.
1. Definitions.
Imported Malt Beverages. A fermented malt beverage that is manufactured and bottled outside the United States of America or its territories.Microbrewery. A brewer where not more than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) barrels of fermented malt beverages are manufactured in a calendar year by the permittee’s brewery group.
(b) No retailer licensed under this Chapter shall be permitted to sell, dispense or give away intoxicating liquor in the original container in amounts less than two hundred (200) milliliters in volume, for consumption off the licensed premises.
(c) No retailer licensed under this Chapter shall be permitted to sell, dispense or give away wine in the original container with an alcohol content of more than 15% alcohol by volume, where spirits have been added to the wine that have not been produced from the same fruit as the wine, for consumption off the licensed premises. This prohibition shall not apply to vermouth, port, sherry, and wine sealed with a cork and aged two years or more, and wine with more than 14 percent alcohol because of natural fermentation.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
I missed whatever Tractenberg was paid to say by whoever paid him to say it. [I can ignore certain annoying lobbyists with reckless abandon now. Yay!]
Rosemary Lee speaks in support as a downtown resident who has seen a positive affect of the ordinance in the downtown area.
Lisa Subeck speaks in support of the ordinance as a wast side resident. Talks about beer cans with straws outside a local gas station and says kids are getting alcohol. Says we need to cure alcoholism through other means, and this is really about packaging. She says ease of packaging allows people to easily hang out at the park or bus stop and drink alcohol. She thinks getting these products out of her neighborhood will be helpful. Its not about pan handling for her. She did point out that typically she speaks at the other podium, but she was on the right tonight, not her usual place to speak from.
Bill White, representing the WI Grocers Association in opposition. He points out he is speaking from the left. Says they were told that his ordinance was to address specific problem with specific target but this ordinance is wide sweeping. It prevents people from drinking small amounts of alcohol. Its a broad response to minor problem. He says its not about street alcoholics but others. Thousands of people enjoy these products in small amounts, which is better than large amounts. He says that the process on this one was not good, not all the industries were consulted and would like to explore other options – they would like referral. He also is concerned that this is the first of series of issues coming forward and would like to know what the other items are. [Think they will try doing this again?] He wants to know if this ordinance will lead to results. He also points out that the ordinance around 2:00 in the afternoon is different than the version that they got around 5 or 5:30 that evening. So, there is some confusion about what version they are talking about. He reiterates that he would like to help come up with alternatives and he said, even if it does pass, he would like to work on an ongoing basis to resolve other issues as the arrive.
Casey (Trudge?) – Wi Distributors from Sun Prairie – in opposition. Applauds ALRC for trying to fix behavior by leveling the playing field. He’s a member of DMI, GMCVB, Chamber and supports safe ride and taxi program. [Tim Bruer back in the chair, mayor leaves room] Thinks there are better alternatives to solve complex issue. Wants to know what measurements and goals are, what the economic impact will be, why the rush to get this done and what else is out there? He says banning the products will not cure the problem. He wonders why attacking the product or package not the persons creating problems. He points out that lower income people are being discriminated against. He says without goals and measurements, we’ll just have the problem in two years. He says Green Bay is banning the people and this should be explored. He also wants to understand issue, effects and economic impact on the community. Wants it sent back to community.
Jim (Shuts?), Open Pantry. Opposition last time, wasn’t a level playing field and industry didn’t get to speak its voice. Now its a level playing field and had an opportunity to voice opinion, but others were left out. He consents to this and isn’t changing that. Thinks others should be heard.
(Phil Reynolds?) – General Beer and Beverage Distributing, Fitchburg, Says he has 250 employees and most live in Madison. He says he runs a family owned business established in 1933 with repeal of prohibition. Prohibition didn’t work then and it won’t work this time. All this will do is have people buy more alcohol. Wants city to be safer. Says panhandling will increase because they need to raise more money to buy larger amounts of alcohol. He asks if we want to encourage purchase of more alcohol? And do we want to punish the entire population for the actions of a few. Thinks that they should consider the Green Bay ordinance and want to be part of the solution. He says that his company sells 36,000 cases of these products every year.
Steve Frank – Frank Beer Distributor and ?? – Middleton. Says the company is run by the 3rd generation of family with roots in Madison and doing this since prohibition. Says prohibition ended in 1933, 75 years ago, and it was a grand or noble experiment. Speaks against this poorly written public policy, doesn’t address the behavior problems. He says he sells 36,000 cases of beer, 50,000 cases of wine or spirits that would be prohibited. He thinks that these packages and products have a broader base than you realize and it will not correct the behavior of 50 homeless alcoholics. If ALRC wants to do a good job, they would include the industry in the resolution. They want to find a common solution.
Mike Witenwieler – Wis Wine and Spirits Institute – also does work for Beer Distributors – in opposition. He brought props. [See photo here.] Tammy (the clerk) suggested passing it around, Clear says not to put it too close to Bruer. After settling does, he says he wants to focus on three reasons why this ordinance is bad. 1. He says there are more effective and direct ways to deal with problem which he identifies as public inebriation and chronic alcoholics. He points out that a half pint of Jack Daniels would be prohibited, but for a cheaper price they can still buy larger bottle of alcohol. Jack Daniels is $8.99 vs the cheaper larger liquor bottle at $6.99. He says this ordinance does not get at the problem. He says there is a better way to do it and urges the Council to look at the Green Bay ordinance. 2. He says this ordinance is limiting consumer choice. Most of these items already prohibited downtown, but still selling in other areas. He says the problems can be addressed through license conditions. And, I missed the 3rd point.
(Robert Buehler?) Open Pantry. He says Open Pantry tries to be good community leaders, talks about efforts in smoking. Says Jim Shuts from Open Pantry was supposed to work with Schumacher two years ago, they had informal meetings, all the parties tried to come up with a solution. He thinks this is the best efforts, and still support the ordinance, but has heard that many others have not been included in these efforts and asks for referral. Some of the folks are not here tonight. Other issues have come forward that he doesn’t understand as they are not “in their zone”, so there may be a need for more education.
Bruce Jones – doesn’t want to speak. Same with Matt ??
Three registrants in opposition not wishing to speak.
QUESTIONS OF REGISTRANTS
Schumacher asks Subeck about her experience. She talks about prevention and intervention. Says this is the prevention end of things. Intervention could only be having more cops on every corner 24/7. Unless police state, can’t have that kind of intervention. So this can work on prevention.
Compton asks Subeck about the straws and says its not funny. [I didn’t realize anyone thought it was funny.] (Lisa notes aloud that a friend just texted her that she shouldn’t wear prints on tv) Compton also asks how do the young people get the alcohol? What gets exchanged to get the alcohol? Subeck says neighbors have been asked and followed and harassed when they said no to buying alcohol for young people. Compton asks if they might engage in prostitution like in the drug world? Subeck says it might, but points out that they can offer additional money to get someone to buy it for them and points out that what is what happened when she was a kid. Compton notes she likes Lisa’s blouse.
Palm asks Bill White if given what are other options? Bill says they should focus on 1% of people who are the problem. He points out the state statute that says that you can be allowed not to sell to people with convictions like in Green Bay. Can also go directly to the establishments and get voluntary compliance. He recommends a collaborative community building approach instead of top down. Plam clarifies that they can voluntarily not sell to “known inebriant“. Palm asks why they are not doing that now. Bill doesn’t quite answer and notes that ALRC hasn’t seen this version that the council has. He says Open Pantry has worked with people on the current version and others were not involved and want to be involved in the solution. He asks what is loss to city to work on this issue further?
Schumacher talking to Bill White points out that the current version is modified from ALRC because they listened to the concerns of Bill’s clients. Bill says the 2:00 version is different than 5:30 version and that they listened to some issues of some people.
Schumacher seeks clarifications from Bill that JD is less than half a pint. Bill asks to see the bottle and confirms it is 200 ml with a little coaching from the distributors in the audience. [I didn’t get what Schumacher’s point was.]
Compton asks Bill White about people not being heard. She points out many people in audience were at ALRC. Bill says that they thought it was an informational meeting to understand the ordinance, not to respond to concrete proposal and that they didn’t understand that it would be acted on that night. Bill says a person more familiar with city hall might have realized otherwise and that why he is here now to represent them.
[At this point, the Mayor wanders back by me to assure me that I no longer need to be at these meetings. I laugh and its a pleasant exchange. But, maybe that’s the answer to Kristin’s question about why he’s obsessed with the media?]
Compton asks how a liquor store would know not to sell to a “known inebriant“? Bill says that they should look at the program that works to find the answers. He’s raising real issues and he thinks that it should be discussed focusing on behavior. He thinks we can id the chronic folks and deal with them. Yes, we need more social services and it has to be a holistic approach. [At this point, Bridget is taking pictures of Bruer on her iphone, I think that’s where Dusty got his photo from. Is this why the mayor stepped down, to avoid that photo op?]
Alder Kerr asks Bill White what he’s saying – he says that collaboration is one tool that hasn’t been used. He shrugs. Julia asks why there is a statute that exists, why isn’t it being used now? He’s not sure that it isn’t done in some cases. He says that there can be a systematic approach – and there has to be safeguards for abuse.
Julia asks how frequently the statute is used. He doesn’t know. Bruer hands back the alcohol because, he says “the clerks office getting thirsty”.
QUESTIONS OF/STATEMENTS FROM STAFF
Schumacher acknowledges the past work done on this issue and asks staff to speak. There are severe mic problems. She switches to a different seat to find a different microphone. [If you’re counting, that’s three mics down in one meeting – Bruer, Rummel and Plominski.]
Kathryn Plominski says she can’t address everything. Says the ordinance is part of group of solutions in a larger project. She says they are working on a “known drunkard list” but they won’t catch everyone, so they need to ban the products. She says she’s getting calls from around the country that are looking to Madison to do this as well and see Madison as a leader on this topic. [Great, first the property tax exemption, and now this. What happened to our city being a leading on progressive forward thinking issues?]
Schumacher asks about the industry not being involved. How did she reach out? She says Joel Plant started this, in 2008 Verveer proposed license conditions in aldermanic districts, ALRC banned it in districts 4 and 8 and then held off. July 2008 there was a major distributor, 3 ind liquor stores, 2 attorneys, etc etc etc that came to a meeting. Then larger meeting later that Schumacher organized.
Schumacher follows up with Joel Plant. Joel says 2 years ago ALRC was talking about uniform conditions for Class A licenses. They agreed to postpone decision until more discussion. Some people were invited, but not everyone. First stated talking about banning products and packages – talked about best practices and other solutions – he talks about the three Es – education, enforcement and environment. He says availability and access is environment. He says employee training, supervision, restricting products size and packages are all considered. There was no one solution, there are a variety of things we need to do. We have taken a variety of steps. He said that Class A license holders agreed to work on best practices and that they were looking for voluntary compliance and it has worked to certain degree and that they had to place some conditions on licenses downtown. He says voluntary compliance is best way to affect change but that they don’t have enough enforcement resources. He talks about the state law and that they have a list of 100 or more that are going to detox on a regular basis. He says one person went to detox 43 times in 10 months and they are working on the ban list. He says he heard alot of support for that tonight. He says this ordinance is an additional arrow in the quiver.
Palm asks Chief Wray about chronic alcoholics and police awareness of the issue and the voluntary compliance. Chief says that unless of an extreme nature, people can buy alcohol. Lt. Balles did a study and it illustrates the point that someone goes to detox 42 times (incompacitated) in less than 10 months. He says that is just the tip of the iceburg. He say now that unless a person is incapacitated, they can purchase alcohol.
Palm asks what discussion is within the police department. Chief talks about detox, ride alongs and doesn’t really answer the question.
Palm asks why people won’t just go to a bar instead and why they are targeting small quantities – what is perception about why these products are a concern? Chief says if someone is purchasing a single can cold, they can drink it now. Usually buy multiple cans in a row. Palm asks if sales clerks know who the people are? Chief says yes in most cases.
Rummel asks about single cans. She says no one is buying them now, right? Chief agrees. [They are banned now by license restrictions.] She asks how these conditions are enforced. What kind of resources do you spend on enforcing individual conditions? Chief says he tries to work with the establishments and then bans people from the area near State St. [He sort of missed the softball.] Rummel then asks if there are just 125 people driving this issue? Chief says if you ban only in the downtown area, you will start to see displacement, and so this is a city wide approach. She asks if there are records on these cases? She asks if they have identified where the displacement is happening? Chief says yes, parks outside of the state st core area and even further out but gives no specifics.
Mayor back in the chair.
Marsha asks if the displacement can be linked to certain providers? She asks if there are problem license holders? Chief says he doesn’t think it is consistent, especially the further you get off the isthmus – and that individual providers are more of an issue on the isthmus.
Maniaci asks Plominski about the research she has done on the Green Bay ordinance and what else she is working on. Plominski says she looked at the Green Bay study, and talked with the police officer in charge of the list and she thinks it has been effective. She is working on criteria to get on and off the list and there is a small working group trying to come up with the answer now.
Julia moved for a recess, the Mayor made them vote because he thought some people wanted to keep going, but no one voted no. He told them to come back at 9:30. At this point I got my third or fourth offer to join the folks in the press row and I finally give in. That’s an interesting new role . . . I guess a blogger is now part of the press as the press disintegrates.
Meeting resumes at 9:30, er, 9:35 er, 9:38 . . . by 9:40, roll call done, quorum present.
DISCUSSION
Schumacher thanks people. Says this is not a cure for all the problems, talks about the climate of alcohol problems in the community. He says that some people in the industry did not participate and he doesn’t know why. Says he’s happy to continue putting conditions on licenses as alders request them but this ordinance is an attempt to level the playing field and it makes it easier for police to know conditions throughout the city. He wants a 30 day referral and says that they will set up meetings with the industry and all alders will be invited [and publicly noticed?]
His motion to refer for 30 days gets many seconds. [So, you’d think that they’d vote and move on, but no . . . half the council had to say why they supported referral and it took over a half hour, even tho it was clear no one was against referral.]
Initially Bruer passes on speaking.
Eagon supports referral, talks about access and availability. Notes he has only been able to legally drink for 1.5 months. Thinks ban list is progress, but availability is the issue here. So supports referral to bring new stakeholder to the table
Rummel didn’t see 2:00 version, didn’t like exemption for grocery stores because it was not fair to the small mom and pop grocery stores. [An argument I hope Maniaci joins her in to help the Cork and Bottle on E Johson St.] Wonders what we are trying to do here? Especially because rot gut is cheaper in larger volumes than what is being banned. She asks that small retailers be included in the discussions. She also notes that people should remember the civil liberties issues involved with the banned list.
Compton is worried about people grabbing something and drinking it on the way home in the car and straws. Mad at industry because not involved, they know better and how and she thinks this is a problem and will support referral, but thinks that the industry owes the council more respect. Hears that we are going to bring the stakeholders to the table, but wants to know why the industry is the statkeholders? Judy says she’s let down and hopes that next time the industry has done their due diligence and will work with people who are trying to solve a problem. She says “If you’re not with us, then you are against us.”
Clausius speaks because he was the one who pulled it off the agenda. He supports it, but has some concerns, specifically the prohibition of 200 mil and might be a problem in the downtown, but to have it in his district, that doesn’t seem fair, it’s a downtown problem. Was encouraged this afternoon, likes the grocery store exemption particularly for Woodmans and HyVee. He senses a new willingness to work with folks. He also mentions the new memo dated the 5th and says he will work with people on the list in the memo and ALRC and supports referral.
Verveer wants to encourage others to work with on another substitute. He says there is lots of activity in the last few weeks to come to compromise on how to deal with chronic street alcoholics and how they impact those of us who live work and play downtown. Supports referral, wants people to work with him and Schumacher on a compromise. He reminds the council that this is license renewal time and wants to encourage people to bring up issues with licenses in their districts and let him know if they have establishments that they want separated for consideration. He says now is the time to speak up – at May ALRC. To the industry, he says that they have been working for the last two weeks, need more of the meetings, thinks it would be wonderful to get to consensus and find a workable ordinance. So he wants to keep working on the issue. He talks about W Washington corridor and reads a sentence “Most agree that Kelly’s Mobile . . . has virtually stopped problems occurring in the area . . . .” He thinks that the license restrictions have been effective downtown. Has worked downtown, and its up to others to decide if it is needed beyond downtown, but he wants it solved before June.
Maniaci wants to work on the issue – has a neighboring district to Verveer and Eagon and is concerned about displacement but concerned about blanket ordinance that is far reaching. Wants to work on the issue.
Palm says it has been a fascinating discussion. He says this is a heavily regulated industry, and we have ability to make laws and we have the rights to establish conditions on the industry. Concerned that industry is not voluntarily working on this issue already. Green Bay has a list, he has the article and says its an interesting concept, but establishing levels of what is and is not appropriate will be hard. He is worried about a person who is a problem for a night. He thinks we should have minimum standards for retailers and clerks just like bartenders. Wants council to be more informed ahead of time and encouraged Schumacher to send communications before the council meeting. While we just see it pop up on the radar and compliments Schumacher to let people know.
[Snarky observation from someone besides me: The race is on for the next council leadership! Palm v Schumacher?]
Alder Kerr knows it’s a difficult issue and applauds peole working on the issue. She says the ban on high octane alcohol at Kelly Williamson has made a big impact on her district. Brittingham was a huge problem and the efforts there made a huge difference. She heard there were already tools in place and that is great, but then the industry should come back with a real sense of them working on it. Tell us how you’re going to use the tools that already exist. Also disappointed in the notion that the industry didn’t think that their participation was welcome and because she’s heard from people in her district from small retailers. She hopes they will now come to the table and work with us on it.
Alder Clear – appreciates leadership and realizes that the votes are probably there, and blah blah blah [I think I was getting tired. My fault, not his.]
Alder Compton – wonders if police department should be more involved on enforcement by police issue.
Alder Bruer – godfather reference, pandora’s box, history, [I’m losing it . . . and again, don’t really have to listen . . .] says industry on Park street stepped up to the plate, liquor license is a privilege not a right, limiting cheap liquor and booze helped in his neighborhood – so encourages solutions – staying out of liquor issues – says to industry if you’re smart you’ll participate in the discussions, the votes are here, but trust me when I tell you this, you need to come together, doesn’t like gov’t regulation and boarders on being a libertarian, so I would, in earnest, some of you will have to feel the pain –[ ok, I can’t do this, he doesn’t complete his sentences . . .] struggling neighborhoods, you need to be part of the solution or you are part of the problem, share the pain and responsibility, applauds . . .problem been around . . .this body will legislate . . . [ok – I was getting tired of listening to people talk about referral, but not only does he not speak in complete sentences, it seems that he doens’t complete his thoughts either before he rambles on to the next subject. ]
10:12 referred . . .
