This newsletter is about the Hickory City Council meeting that I attended this past week. City council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each Month in the Council Chambers of the Julian Whitener building.At the bottom right of this page under main information links is a Hickory, NC link. If you click on that link, it takes you to our city’s website. At the bottom of the page you will see the future dates for meetings scheduled for this year.At the top of the page, if you click on the “Documents” link, you will find historic Agenda and Minutes links. Agendas show what is on the docket for the meeting of that date. The Minutes is an actual summary of the proceedings of the meeting of that date.
The two items on the agenda of the 9/16/2008 meeting that stoked my interest were the following:
1) Important Outlays
Fairgrove Business Park(Geotechnical Testing Services)................……..$5,215.00
Hickory Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program….....................................$25,000.00
2) Readdressing the Moratorium on New Drinking Establishments for 120 days – Held over from 9/2/2008 -- This was a resubmission of a proposed ordinance preventing the establishment of any business, where more than half of gross sales were obtained through sales of alcohol, for a period of 120 days while new codes are implemented and instituted.
Asst City Manager Andrea Surratt noted that there have been serious public safety concerns on this issue and alternatives that have been implemented have not been successful.
The Chief of Police Tom Adkins basically restated that in the last 2 years 1472 calls were made on 14 establishments. 1,024 of these calls were made between 10pm and 2am. Of these, 7 establishments have been cited by ALE and 2 have been cited twice in the last 24 months. There has been 1 murder, 3 sexual assaults, and 43 drug and alcohol arrests during this period. He stated that many of these places didn’t have adequate staff for the number of customers that frequented them, causing safety issues
Also brought up, was the fact that when applying with the ABC board to open an establishment, the police are requested to fill out a local opinion form. They look into such issues as criminal history of the applicants and the locations in relation to local neighborhoods.
Speaking Against the Proposed Amendment
Attorney Larry Johnson spoke against the ordinance. He stated that the City staff was very professional in doing there job writing the ordinance, but the problem is laid at the feet of certain Hickory City Officials that wanted their mandates pushed through without regard to the law.
He spoke about his client having tried to open an establishment in the old Ferguson’s Plumbing building since October 2007. 3 times he applied (the last being on August 28, 2008) to open his establishment and each time he was given the run around. He stated that the procedures of this moratorium were kept in the dark until they were brought to light at a city council meeting.
He basically stated that the city was breaking the law, because of their actions. His client is the only applicant at this time trying to open a drinking establishment and e-mails show that Ms. Surratt and others are solely trying to stop his client.
Johnson said Ms. Surratt’s actions are unconstitutional, because she has been allowed to be the sole authority, arbitrer, and judge of this process. His client has been denied his constitutional rights by not allowing this issue to be heard by an independent body.
Mr. Johnson introduced e-mails and statements showing that Ms Surrat and officials of council have unjustly treated his client. These individuals had made statements about how they were going to stop the construction of this bar in these e-mails.
Mr. Johnson admitted that his client jumped the gun and tore down a wall attached to the building before he had proper building permits, but the city has held up the issuance of these permits. At a later point in time, e-mails show that the city (Ms. Surratt) wanted to institute the new nuisance law and tear down the rest of the building. Mr. Johnson stated that this was clearly a violation of the law. Mr. Johnson stated that this issue could be taken as far as the U.S. Supreme Court
Another citizen (we will call her Concerned Against 1) who owns a building on 1st ave SW (last established as the bar Chameleon) spoke against the proposed ordinance. She stated that she had just evicted her current tenant and the building has been a bar for as long as she can remember. This is her retirement income. Concerned Against 1 asked if she rented the building out to someone else that wants to open a bar, would they have to wait until the moratorium was over before they could open. Mayor Rudy Wright stated that they would have to wait.
Perplexed, she then asked if the (Powers That Be) decided to Zone her area to where they couldn’t have a bar, would that mean no bar could be opened there? The Mayor stated that yes that would be the case.
Speaking for the proposed amendment - if I have gotten any of these names wrong, I will fix them as soon as I am notified.
Lauren Vaughn – Safe Harbor Rescue Mission – (also attorney for Catawba County DSS)stated that her group has bought the old Geitner building to use as a shelter and they are concerned about a drinking establishment being located near the shelter. She says that people would be walking past their building as they went home from the bar.
A Ms. Dunbar Who is associated with the Cooperative Christian Ministry and Safe Harbor Rescue Mission stated that this proposed ordinance should be passed and that no drinking establishments should be permitted within a quarter mile of any non-profit agency. She stated that there are known parking issues associated with this proposed establishment.
Clarence Buehler (sp) of Newton stated that he has been in the redevelopment business for 50 years and that he believes in this proposed moratorium. He said that an All-American city needs to worry about its image and these bars bring it down.
Rebuttal – Atty Johnson stated that these people speaking for the amendment proved his point that this issue was completely about his client. He stated that this moratorium was not supposed to be about prohibition. That issue was fought long ago and there are guidelines for business being able to legally establish based upon those guidelines.
The Council – Mayor Wright stated that the proposed moratorium would not affect businesses unless they change ownership, prepare to open a new business, or plan to expand during the 120-day period.
Sally Fox stated that she had watched her ward be flooded with bars popping up and they have constantly gotten worse over time. That there are various hot spots that run right up against neighborhoods. Those areas want to remain residential. This issue, according to her, should have been dealt with 10 to 15 years ago.
Councilor Meisner stated that the Viewmont Village had no bars and that it wouldn’t have been able to attract the kinds of businesses it has if it had.
Z. Anne Hoyle asked, “…when the 120-day moratorium is up, what will happen with the 14. What will this solve? What will happen with the 14 trouble making establishments?” The City Manager said that nothing could be done until they violated the new codes to be passed.
Sally Fox quickly made a motion to adopt the moratorium and Jill Patton hastily seconded that motion. It seemed from their body language that they wanted this pushed through promptly. Mr. Lail and Ms. Hoyle were the only two to vote against the moratorium.
In the Hounds view, I still feel that this situation is not being handled properly. I understand the need to address the issue of rogue bars. It is time to crack down on those that do not adhere to regulations. However, something goes for the principle of innocence being assumed before guilt. I think some of our people on council don’t mind taking away our freedoms in the name of their personal interests and tastes.
How many of them partake in the consumption of adult beverages at their favorite country club or restaurant? You see, that’s perfectly fine, because that is in their setting. They look at themselves as upstanding citizens and they look at the people attending these bars as riff-raff. Yet, they turn a blind eye when one of their children go and hang out at one of these places until 2am.
I myself am an avowed teatotaler (really Coca-Cola), but I don’t believe in imposing that moral code on others when it comes to doing something that is legal. My belief is that if you get drunk and drive or act stupid then there are consequences. There should be consequences and that is why we have police.
If Atty Johnson’s client has legally met all of his obligations under current law, then he should be allowed to open his bar. But, I believe the dirty little secret is that the city doesn’t want this bar opened because his clients are Hispanic.
In my opinion, that just doesn’t sit well with Sally and Jill. Oh, it’s alright for these immigrants to work for $2 an hour less than most of us expect to be paid (then they love them). But, when the immigrants want to have some fun…Oh, God forbid, look at all of them over there.
I think it is purely hypocritical. I guarantee that the new Hickory Station will sell food until 10pm. But, once it gets to be 10pm, then the focus will turn to libation until the wee hour of 2am. But, that will be cool because those are the accepted people downtown.
The Mayor, on Hal Rowe’s show on Monday, was bragging about the little soiree in the name of “Economic Development” on Sunday night at Market on Main. I guess they were sipping tea and diet Pepsi before taking communion.
You see all of this is in the eye of the beholder. They can pass these codes without all of this dog and pony show. What is the importance of this moratorium? Do they think someone is going to run up and say, “Gosh we better hurry up and open this bar before they pass these new codes.” Someone that does that will be broke before they get started.
There are a few people on that council that obviously have no clue about business. All they care about is their social agenda. They always throw up that “Neighborhood Core” mantra. Hickory Proper is 28 square miles, that’s 5.3 miles by 5.3 miles. Where can you put a business, in that small of an area, that doesn’t have an impact on a neighborhood?
It is more than obvious that business commerce takes a backseat with some of these people. It is high time to put the city’s economic viability ahead of selfish, egotistical, socially driven agendas for once!
