> There are already quite a number of "private clubs"
> in Minneapolis and one does not need a change in the
> Minneapolis City Charter to open one! The private
> clubs include veterans groups, golf/country club,
> women's clubs, service clubs, ethnic/cultural clubs,
> at least one athletic club, and probably some others
> that do not come mind right now.
The question is, is a "private club" that serves
alcohol to its clients required to be licensed under
Title 14? If they are not, then we don't have an
issue.
If they are (and my interpretation of what I have read
is that they are), then the general argument by those
who supported and passed the smoking ban is that the
establishment is, in fact, a public accommodation. If
this is the case, then I couldn't really consider it
to be private.
To repeat my previous post, I believe that ideally, a
private establishment should more or less be the same
as a private home. The only real difference is that
the guests are paying their hosts for any goods or
services provided.
> Changing the City Charter to exempt some
> establishments from health and safety ordinances
> while requiring others to conform is of dubious
> legality and obvious political chicanery!
Chicanery? No, I'm not attempting any sort of
trickery. I am trying to find a way to accommodate
the desire for providing greater freedom within a
restricted (private) realm, while allowing the
community at large to hold public accommodations to a
more rigorous standard.
In general, when going into any public accommodation,
one has certain expectations. We expect that food be
handled in a certain way, that certain hygiene
standards are met, max density limitations are met,
sexual exhibitionism is not allowed, etc.
I wish to be able to go to a private establishment
where those rules are relaxed. Perhaps I would like to
go out to dinner at a place that doesn't require me to
wear clothing (I believe that would be a health code
risk for establishments licensed under title 10).
Perhaps I would like to have a pipe or cigar while I
sample various scotches and listen to jazz. Unless I
am mistaken, these are not currently options, even if
everyone involved would wish it.
> A City Charter prescribes governance and
organization
> for the city. It should not to be used as an end
run
> around the ordinance making responsibility of the
> city council! It is even sadder to think that
> someone would consider this tactic after a new
> ordinance passes on a 12-1 vote of the city council
> and the signature of the mayor!
I find it sad that places like Club Ashe have
effectively been put out of business, even though no
one going there should have ever had any illusion that
they would not be exposed to cigar smoke. I'm
accepting the fact that a publicly licensed bar or
restaurant will now be held to narrower standards of
conduct, but I would like to see there be some way for
a private establishment built around a concept like
Ashe to exist.
Perhaps there is a way to do that without changing the
city charter. I have quite a bit more reading before
I am close to understanding the full Charter and Code
of Ordinances, but the terms I quoted in my previous
post seemed pretty all encompassing. As the Charter
was passed during prohibition, it isn't all that
surprising.
> The Minneapolis Charter Commission is nearing the
end
> of a year long process of re-drafting the
Minneapolis
> City Charter (but NOT changing form of governance or
> organization) that cleans up an existing charter
> that is loaded up with obsolete references and
> language, conflicting instructions, as well as
> baggage added haphazardly over the past 100
> years or so!
That sounds like a good idea.
I think I'll hold off on reading the full charter and
code until the updated version is released.
Ideally a both the Charter and Code should be able to
be read and fundamentally understood by all voting
citizens of the city. I'm not sure it is a realistic
goal, but I'm glad to hear that improvements are being
worked on.
###
> Would like to state...1920 city council rules were
> made to control the City from the common people.
> Citizens Allizence held control 1916 - 1934..it was
> an open market, big business and the wealthy until
> the Truckers Strike. To be following the City
> guidelines of control from that particular era is
> not one to favor.
Whether or not it is a good idea to follow the
guidelines written from that era, those are the
guidelines currently in place. If those guidelines
are no longer acceptable, they should be changed.
- Jason Goray
Sheridan, NE
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
