"Krueger, Luther" wrote:
> I didn't realize that council members were to put aside their roles as
> elected officials who respond to constituent concerns.
Am I correct in understanding that the Hard Times Cafe is located
outside of Joe Biernat's ward? Who's constituents is he responding
too, his or Joan Campbell's? Why is he lobbying other council members
to shut down a business that is not located in his ward? Also, in one
of Joe Biernat's emails to Joan Campbell's aide Patricia Kelly, he
seems to be concerned about the effect of those lobbying for the Hard
Times Cafe. This does not sound like he is responding to constituent
concerns, rather, it seems like he has made up his mind regardless of
what the public may believe or want.
> Regardless, I stand by my previous posts to the list
> regarding Hard Times which focussed on the public information surrounding
> the business, and it is far from corruption for us to make the case against
> a business which allowed criminal activity to take place on its premises.
Allowed? IS one criminal act involving one employee justification to
shut down a business? If someone is consuming illegal drugs behind my
house and I am not aware of it, am I allowing them to commit criminal
activity? Should I be run out of my house for "allowing" this type of
activity? The following is quote from the Pulse,
The admistrative law judge, Steve Mihalchick, stated in his Findings
of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation, �The record in this
matter
indicates that the Hard Times Cafe was not directly involved
in drug
trafficking and that significant corrective action has
already been
taken by the Hard Times Cafe.�
So, saying that the Hard Times Cafe allowed criminal activity to occur
is stretching it. Sounds like you guys blew the situation all out of
proportion.
Scott McGerik
Ward 3
Hawthorne
Minneapolis
www.visi.com/~scottlm/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
