And by quick we mean four monthes after it became an issue in the first place? I realize that this is quick for government, but if I sat on something this big for four monthes at work I would be fired.

I'm glad they are finally fixing this problem, but I would much rather see them permanently fix our backwards liquor laws than this peice of legislation, which amounts to a one time exception. I have already seen a bible thumping baptist church (and I'm not anti-religious, just anti-"impose my beliefs on everyone else") move into the middle of the strip in Stillwater to try and restrict new bars from coming in there, and its not good for anyone. It won't reduce drinking in stillwater, it will just de-centralize it, which makes it harder on police, harder on the drunks and harder on the other sober citizens.

did you want the legislature to do something when they were not in session??

I'm glad they are finally fixing this problem, but I would much rather see them permanently fix our backwards liquor laws than this peice of legislation, which amounts to a one time exception.

I agree. However that requires SEVERAL amendments to our state constitution; thus possibly requiring a series of state questions that ALL would need to pass. Its a very difficult process..

This in particular law is "somewhat" easier to override..

did you want the legislature to do something when they were not in session??

I would have rather it not be an issue in the first place.

From the Chamber's Weekly Legislative Report E-mail: (March 9th, 2012)

Bricktown Legislation Passed by Senate
Legislation to allow a college or university in a Business Improvement District to waive the state's 300-foot rule (which prohibits mixed beverage bars within 300 feet of a church or school) was passed Wednesday by the Senate 43-0. Sen. Holt authored the bill and was a strong advocate on the Senate floor. The legislation relates to the University of Central Oklahoma locating its Academy of Contemporary Music in Bricktown, one of Oklahoma City's seven downtown Business Improvement Districts. The legislation would permit a college or university to waive the requirement if it chooses to do so. The legislation would not impact state law that prohibits bars within 300 feet of churches, elementary, junior high, middle or high schools. The bill will now move to the House of Representatives.

Good news! Get this passed QUICK!

Definitely good news. Hopefully it doesn't fly backward in the HofR

Definitely good news. Hopefully it doesn't fly backward in the HofR

Yeah, they will probably amend it so that you have to get an ultrasound of your liver before you can buy a drink.

Anybody know how the Dollhouse was able to get around this?

How can something like this pass so easily and yet other liquor laws are the most difficult to change?

Anybody know how the Dollhouse was able to get around this?

Is there a 50% of gross revenue from alcohol requirement? That 20.00 cover is beginning to make more sense if there is.

How can something like this pass so easily and yet other liquor laws are the most difficult to change?

A lot of alcohol laws are intertwined with each other and with the constitution. This basically adds language that says X can be waived by a college age school, without doing anything to impact if it is a church or secondary school or one for younger students.

It's simply easier to say one can have a mulligan on hole 2 than it is to layout an entire new golf course.

A lot of alcohol laws are intertwined with each other and with the constitution. This basically adds language that says X can be waived by a college age school, without doing anything to impact if it is a church or secondary school or one for younger students.

It's simply easier to say one can have a mulligan on hole 2 than it is to layout an entire new golf course.

I understand that, but I think if the politicians want something done they make it happen.

Unfortunately, getting the liquor laws changed in this state has about as much chance as Obama carrying the state.

I understand that, but I think if the politicians want something done they make it happen.

By and large, politicos are not innovative and risk taking types. They get put into place by folks who want things to be a certain way.

Those folks fund the initial entry into public office and raise the funds to keep their preferred warm body in its chair.

A lot of people spend a lot of money to keep certain things as they are, and they spend a lot of mney to change things they think need changing.

So, with a large element not wanting change, some to protect their sacred cows, some based on faith, some based on fear of uncertainty, change does not ever come real easy on the macro level. You want the alcohol laws changed? Organize some money, make that a lot of money. Target multiple seats, and get pro-change candidates elected. Then get ready for a fight the likes of which most folks haven't really contemplated.

I'm not saying mass change is good or bad for our alcohol process, but wants and wishes alone will never, ever, cause it to happen in this state.

I'm not saying mass change is good or bad for our alcohol process, but wants and wishes alone will never, ever, cause it to happen in this state.+1

And if anyone is really serious about making changes, a good lesson can be found in the way J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon made the state go wet in 1959. They simply enforced, almost to the letter, the existing antiquated laws. They didn't have to raid the Petroleum Club many times, or shut down the 24-hour-service bootleggers' delivery operations very long, to force the change...

+1

And if anyone is really serious about making changes, a good lesson can be found in the way J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon made the state go wet in 1959. They simply enforced, almost to the letter, the existing antiquated laws. They didn't have to raid the Petroleum Club many times, or shut down the 24-hour-service bootleggers' delivery operations very long, to force the change...

unfortunately, the biggest "issue" that needs changing hasn't become "liquor by the wink". . . i.e., I don't know of grocery stores that are selling wine "under the table", so I'm not sure what it is that could be enforced.

They should have repealed the original law. But that might be a little too "small government" for some folks.

There simply is not enough root-cause analysis and solutions in the world today - just work arounds to work arounds.

I'm not sure what it is that could be enforced.Prohibit all alcohol sales within 300 feet of a school or church -- and establish new schools or churches within 300 feet of every existing bar. That should stir up the populace enough to force a rapid change in the law.

+1

And if anyone is really serious about making changes, a good lesson can be found in the way J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon made the state go wet in 1959. They simply enforced, almost to the letter, the existing antiquated laws. They didn't have to raid the Petroleum Club many times, or shut down the 24-hour-service bootleggers' delivery operations very long, to force the change...
So raiding the frat houses at OSU and OU for marijuana might work to get marijuana decriminalized in Oklahoma.

Yep; especially if the seize-everything rules were applied and all of the members sent up the river. Such a move might even get faster results than we saw back in '59.

For the record, my attitude on all of the "war on drugs" theater was formed by an editorial written by the late John W. Campbell some 50 years ago. He advocated decriminalizing ALL drugs, and letting people OD as much as they wanted, thus cleansing the gene pool. He also advocated removing all licensing and regulation from such things as health care, and allowing free competition so that quacks and frauds could not be protected by law. To put it mildly, he out-Randed Ayn Rand and made Libertarians look downright conservative...

However, the most effective way to get bad law changed seems to be to enforce it to the letter, taking special care to burn "the powers that be" to the maximum extent possible.

From the Chamber's weekly Legislative Update:

Legislation to Address UCO/Bricktown Issues Passes House Committee

SB 1218 (Sen. Holt), which previously passed the Senate 43-0, cleared its first hurdle in the House on Wednesday when passed by the House Public Safety Committee 12-0. The legislation addresses a state law that prevents the ABLE Commission from issuing mixed beverage licenses to establishments within 300 feet of schools or churches. As a result of the UCO Academy of Contemporary Music's presence in Bricktown, the ABLE Commission is presently unable to grant mixed beverage licenses to new bars in Bricktown.

SB 1218 would allow a college or university located in a Business Improvement District, such as Bricktown, to waive that requirement if it chooses to do so. The legislation would not impact the 300-foot rule as it relates to churches or schools that are not colleges or universities (elementary, junior high, middle, high school). The bill will now move to the full House for consideration.

Good for BT, but not any help for the areas that are within the no PBR zone of the new DT grade school.

Senate Bill 1218 passed the House this morning 63-29. Now on to the Governor's desk who is expected to sign.

Good for BT, but not any help for the areas that are within the no PBR zone of the new DT grade school.

That doesn't seem right to discriminate, with a no PBR zone, against one of American finest beers of all time. Pabst Blue Ribbon is delicious.

He shoots...HE SCORES!

Signed by the governor.

http://newsok.com/governor-signs-measure-allowing-alcohol-sales-near-ucos-bricktown-campus/article/3673742?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news

Unanswered question is "Why?"...fFrom the above article:

That law prohibits the opening of any new bars or clubs on the Bricktown Canal between the Bricktown ballpark and the BNSF Railway viaduct. It also affects properties between Sheridan and Reno avenues.
Personally am disappointed in this, the school knew the neighborhood in which they were moving into (apparently the law wasn't triggered while they were renting, only when they bought the building), those laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced or dispensed with. The loopholes need to be eliminated, not added.

Unanswered question is "Why?"...fFrom the above article:

Personally am disappointed in this, the school knew the neighborhood in which they were moving into (apparently the law wasn't triggered while they were renting, only when they bought the building), those laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced or dispensed with. The loopholes need to be eliminated, not added.

and what reason is that? i've yet to find a real reason for it.

This newly passed law will make it easy for the new downtown elementary school to waive the alcohol restriction as well.

This newly passed law will make it easy for the new downtown elementary school to waive the alcohol restriction as well.

i don't believe so .. i think the law only includes colleges and university's

and what reason is that? i've yet to find a real reason for it.
Reason for what? (Sorry if my post was confusing)

i don't believe so .. i think the law only includes colleges and university's

That is correct. This has no impact except as to post-secondary institution waivers. The area near the planned DT elementary remains a no new imbibe zone.

Unanswered question is "Why?"...fFrom the above article:

Personally am disappointed in this, the school knew the neighborhood in which they were moving into (apparently the law wasn't triggered while they were renting, only when they bought the building), those laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced or dispensed with. The loopholes need to be eliminated, not added.
I had some personal involvement with this one and in fact initially alerted David Holt about it. ACM@UCO had no inkling whatsoever that their presence would cause a problem, and was very involved in finding this solution. Unintended consequence of their laudable desire to locate in a downtown entertainment area.

Reason for what? (Sorry if my post was confusing)

sorry... after re reading your post, i'm not sure what i was asking either... lol... it was before i had my coffee today, so i'm blaming it on that

I had some personal involvement with this one and in fact initially alerted David Holt about it. ACM@UCO had no inkling whatsoever that their presence would cause a problem, and was very involved in finding this solution. Unintended consequence of their laudable desire to locate in a downtown entertainment area.
It seems the solution would have been for them to keep renting rather than creating yet another loophole, circumventing the intent of the law. I agree our liquor laws are antiquated but they need to either be enforced or eliminated (and this is coming from a non-drinker).

I understand that position, but from a Bricktown perspective I am thrilled that they are now owners rather than renters.

nm

It seems the solution would have been for them to keep renting rather than creating yet another loophole, circumventing the intent of the law. I agree our liquor laws are antiquated but they need to either be enforced or eliminated (and this is coming from a non-drinker).

the law wasn't circumvented it was changed ..

By changing the law, the intent of the law was circumvented with yet another loophole. The intent being that alcohol not be sold/in proximity to schools and churches. So many loopholes in it already (percentage of sales, grandfather clause etc)...if the alcohol is so bad of an idea to have within 300 ft of a church or school, is it any less bad if a business doesn't reach the percentage benchmark? Or stuff served from an establishment that existed before the school/church was built is somehow less dangerous than that sold from a new place? How does owning the space (instead of renting) make the presence of alcohol more dangerous? Etc, etc etc

Again, I am not saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. Either enforce the law or get rid of it completely instead of adding more loopholes to it.

By changing the law, the intent of the law was circumvented with yet another loophole. The intent being that alcohol not be sold/in proximity to schools and churches. So many loopholes in it already (percentage of sales, grandfather clause etc)...if the alcohol is so bad of an idea to have within 300 ft of a church or school, is it any less bad if a business doesn't reach the percentage benchmark? Or stuff served from an establishment that existed before the school/church was built is somehow less dangerous than that sold from a new place? How does owning the space (instead of renting) make the presence of alcohol more dangerous? Etc, etc etc

Again, I am not saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. Either enforce the law or get rid of it completely instead of adding more loopholes to it.

the intent of the law was to not have BARS/clubs near churches/schools .... . this university is helped by having bars/clubs (places their students can play) nearby.

By changing the law, the intent of the law was circumvented with yet another loophole. The intent being that alcohol not be sold/in proximity to schools and churches. So many loopholes in it already (percentage of sales, grandfather clause etc)...if the alcohol is so bad of an idea to have within 300 ft of a church or school, is it any less bad if a business doesn't reach the percentage benchmark? Or stuff served from an establishment that existed before the school/church was built is somehow less dangerous than that sold from a new place? How does owning the space (instead of renting) make the presence of alcohol more dangerous? Etc, etc etc

Again, I am not saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. Either enforce the law or get rid of it completely instead of adding more loopholes to it.


talking with one of my friends who is in the legislature... he said that they way most of the State Senators read the law as was originally written, that it never applies to colleges/universities... and that it was only the Able Commission that interpreted it this way, so he felt that the law change was really just changing the wording so that the correct intent of the law was known by all

From the Chamber Weekly Legislative Report Today:

Legislation to Allow New Clubs in Bricktown Signed Into Law

Legislation that will allow new bars and clubs to open in Bricktown was signed into law by Gov. Fallin on Tuesday. Growth in Bricktown had been impeded by a state law that prevented the ABLE Commission from granting mixed beverage licenses to new establishments within 300 feet of the University of Central Oklahoma's two Bricktown locations. Under the new law, a college or university located in a Business Improvement District (such as Bricktown) may waive the 300-foot prohibition by providing notice to the ABLE Commission, the establishment seeking the license and by publishing its intent to waive the rule in a newspaper.

I guess we can now consider this issue resolved!

talking with one of my friends who is in the legislature... he said that they way most of the State Senators read the law as was originally written, that it never applies to colleges/universities... and that it was only the Able Commission that interpreted it this way, so he felt that the law change was really just changing the wording so that the correct intent of the law was known by all
I think that is pretty accurate. The similar City ordinance specifies COMPULSORY education, which would apply to elementary through high school, but would not include college. So the City ordinance was never a problem. But ABLE enforces state law, not municipal, and they approached the issue with an abundance of caution. This basically refined the pre-existing law.

../.