Last week, the Lee County Commissioners discussed the site selection of the New Library to be built on Hwy 82. Addition costs to acquire land range from $135,000 to $635,000 over the original $4.4 million plus the $1.5 million expansion. And this is not the end; additional costs will be coming, such as required road improvements. What is the final price to be?
Not reported by any other media was the word Alcohol. When discussing site B, directly across from the Lutheran Church, Commissioner Duffy asked the SRJ Architect representative if the Library would be far enough away, and was assured that the design had taken this into account. At least 3 times during the discussion Alcohol was brought up. Although I will take a glass of wine once in a while, I do have an issue here. When I asked Commissioner Roland after the meeting, he said this was the first he had heard of it.
My issues:
• The meeting room is part of the library, children go to the library, are we to close the library anytime an event occurs with Alcohol being served? I surely wouldn’t want children in the same building, if you are worried about the distance to a church why not children?
• Do we even want Alcohol to be allowed? The public hasn’t been asked, why not?
• Is the county going to issue itself a Liquor License?
• Is the county going to be open to a lawsuit, if someone drinks too much, leaves the event, and hurts someone while driving? Bars have been sued and so can the county.
All this, appears aim at getting just one event, the yearly Chamber of Commerce event, but it opens a big bag of worms.
There was only one other county resident at the last meeting, county residents need to make their views known to the County Commissions or you will pay the price.
-Mike Sabot
Parents take their kids quite frequently to Chili’s, Applebee’s, Longhorn, and several other area restaurants that serve alcohol.
They also take their kids pretty regularly to Winn Dixie, Publix, Harvey’s, the Chevron at Robert B. Lee Rd and US 19, and several other stores that sell alcohol.
NONE of these places have any kind of warning about what they sell, because it is understood that alcohol will be served/sold there.
While I acknowledge the discussion on the liquor license and liability issues needs to be had, I do not believe they apply in BYOB situations, correct?
I’m not saying the Library itself should sell/serve alcohol. It is a library, not a store/bar/restaurant. But neither should a private group be banned from using this multi-million dollar meeting facility just because they want to bring in their own adult beverages for their guests/members. After all, this is a PUBLIC facility, and should be open to ALL members of the public – not just those certain people agree with.
The ‘For the Children’ BS is just that- emotion based BS not grounded in any fact whatsoever.
The difference, they are not allowed to drink those beverages at Winn Dixie or Harveys and all the other stores. You must leave the store to drink.
Now a library is not a retail location, it is a government location. The fact that my tax dollars are supporting this makes it my business and every other person in Lee County.
I reject your statement as BS for the Children. I do not want booze given away at some function when kids are present where my tax dollars are used. In my previous posting on the library, these events are costing the Tax payer over $6k per event. My money, I should have a say.
You can’t compare a Library to a Dinner, that’s apples and oranges.
Are you allowed to drink at work? Can you bring a open bottle to town hall?
You are on the wrong side on this Jeff
Both are places of public gathering, and as such should be under the same laws – hence the reason I object to smoking bans and alcohol regulations.
What about State Parks? Should people be limited in their private recreation just because YOU don’t agree with what they’re doing?
If YOU object to alcohol being at the Library, don’t go to the Library when there is a private group meeting there. Again, I am NOT saying that the Library should be turned into a bar/restaurant – only that if a private group wishes to bring in its own beverages – adult or otherwise – it should be allowed to, and government should not ban one group from bringing in budweisers while allowing another group to bring in cokes. (Now, if you want to make a rule – with no exceptions – banning ALL food and beverage, that I may not like, but I can live with.)
And I repeat, my money is subsidizing this event.
When you go grocery shopping, you expect to be able to buy beer or wine, you don’t expect tosee it being drunk in the aisle.
When you go to the convent store, you expect to be able to buy beer, you don’t expect to see it being drunk in the store;
When you go to a restaurant, you expect to be able to order a beer and drink it with your meal.
When you go to a liquor store, you expect to be able to buy it, but you don’t expect to see it being drunk there.
When you go to a government building, you don’t expect to be able to buy a drink or consume it.
When you go to a police station, if you have an open drink, you expect to be arrested.
When you go to work, with booze on the breath, you expect them to fire you and you don’t expect to see one with a drink in hand.
When I go to the library, I expect to find books, movies, see people on computers, see kids, depending on the day and time, maybe a reading program for the kids. I don’t expect to see booze, I don’t expect to see people drinking.
As I said in the article, if they are concerned by how close are they to a church, why are they not concerned with a library.
Isn’t that church for sale? It may not be a church much longer so that issue could soon become moot.
Mike,
You list things that you expect, like being arrested for drinking in the police station, and thinks you don’t expect, like seeing someone drinking in the grocery store, but I have to ask one question: why does it matter?
An adult drinking alcohol, in and of itself, hurts no one. Yet, you have stated the expectation that there should be limits on when and where an adult can drink. Why? Why should someone expect to be arrested for having an open drink in their hands when they go to a police station. What harm is being caused by that act itself?
One’s expectation isn’t the basis for what is right and what is wrong. Instead, it’s no different than passing laws based on one’s “feelings”. Everyone has expectations. Mine are to let adults be adults. Unfortunately, my expectations are the minority.
I’m with Jeff on rejecting the “for the children” argument, mostly because it’s irrelevant in most cases. Children aren’t allowed to consume alcohol, and the alcohol itself will more than likely be segregated from the regular activities of the library. Now, I’m OK with the library posting something regarding special events where alcohol will be served so parents can make an informed choice, but that’s about the limit on that.
Now, if tax dollars were buying alcohol and selling it at a reduced rate, and you were therefore subsidizing alcohol, then I’m behind you 100%.
Under 18 and your not allowed in Bar, you can’t by alcohol. Places where alcohol are sold or consumed are not allowed near schools. Whats the diff?
Tax payer money is funding this building
There isn’t one, and I have a problem with all of these acts as well. Under 18 and you’re not allowed into a bar, but you can go into any restaurant in town…even those with bar areas and they can sit there and not drink, just like if they were allowed in a bar. And limiting the distance between anything and a bar is a real problem for me, since it limits property rights. After all, if your property is right next to a school, the law currently limits your ability to do what you wish with it. After all, you can’t build a bar there.
And while tax payer money may fund the building, it’s not funding the alcohol, is it? The two items are distinct and should be seperated in discussions.
It is when you are subsidizing each event to the tune of $6.2k (assumming (12 events x 20 years)/$1.5mil being the cost of expansion of the room from 300 to 400 people higher if you take the share of the 4.4 mil to build the 300 person room)
You’re subidizing the building though. The dollar amount doesn’t change whether or not alcohol is served, correct? Hence my assertion that you’re not subsidizing the alcohol.
Don’t get me wrong, I support your position on the library in general. Just not the focus on alcohol as such a negative thing. Truth be told, it might offset the expense to the taxpayer.
The library changes no fee to use a meeting room if you are a non-profit, else they charge you $50.
As a county resident, who’s tax dollars are beinging used to subidizing an event, I strongly beleive I should have a voice if a public building should be allowed to serve alcohol while minors may be present.
You want to server alcohol, seperate the meeting room from the Library. I don’t want the possibility of some idiot who drinks to much, to be able to walk into the next room where I or my grandchildren maybe, nor do I want as a resident of the county to be liable for what ever that same idiot may do when he leaves.
But the alcohol itself isn’t being funded with tax dollars, right? It’s only for the facility itself that’s being paid for with tax money, which has been my point all along.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you completely about the liability issue. That’s something that can not and should not be overlooked and I think it probably has been.
Here we go again. What started as a good idea – a public library, has now morphed into being Lee County’s mini Chamber of Commerce civic center. The idea of spending the money at all during our current revenue crisis already made me a ill. Expanding it during this financial environment is lunacy.
As a property owner in both Lee and Dougherty Counties, I have standing to gripe about spending in either county.
Isn’t this project state funded? I thought the state was tightening its belt right now? Why not table the library project altogether? It won’t kill the chamber to have their fling at Chehaw again. They can at least do that until the economy recovers.
Step back and look at the whole forest. People are losing their jobs. Families are losing their homes. Businesses are shutting down. There is little stomach for new ideas on how to spend tax dollars.
In a nutshell: palatable idea – bad time.
Mike:
Grand Island.
Owned by Lee County and actually SERVES alcohol – not just allows it on premises, as I am saying the Library should do. Also has kids all over the place over there.
Also, you don’t know the layout of this library, do you? Is it not possible that the meeting rooms could have a side entrance whereby any kids that happened to be in the main part of the library would not be exposed to even a *gasp* COOLER coming in? (Which is something else – I never objected to requiring that any alcohol brought in be in some kind of cooler or package such that its actual contents/label is hidden from plain view.)
Jeff Apples and Oranges can’t compare the 2
Grand Island is a golf course not any where close to a Library.
No floor plan released to the public, though I’ve been told about 36000 sq ft.
They are hiding to much of this project from the public view.
Oh, by the way, Lee only owns the building, everything else is a private concession.
and how is that different from allowing individuals/groups to bring in the drinks of their choice? After all, the County would only own the building, everything else would be a private decision.
Your objection thus far has been government owned property where kids are present.
Yet when presented with evidence of just such an establishment, you say it is not relevant.
How very… hypocritical.
Apples and Oranges Jeff.
Lee County owns Grand Island, yes, but they in turn lease the club house out to private concerns for a price. They don’t run those private concerns. The Restaurant has a license issued by the county.
Library is a totally different story, is owned and run by the Library authority funded by the county and controlled by the county.
When you can find me 2 apples to compare, let me know, otherwise my objections still stand and are valid.
I’ve given you two apples, and you’re too blinded by your own Theocracy to see it. But hey, your problem, not mine. I’m out.
Of Course Jeff I want the last word.
It’s illegal. County Code states:
Sec. 6-56. Proximity restrictions.
(a) No person knowingly and intentionally may sell or offer to sell:
(1) Any distilled spirits in or within 100 yards of any church building or within 200 yards of any school building, educational building, school grounds or college campus which are also located in the county.
(2) Any wine or malt beverages within 100 yards of any school building, school grounds, church or college campus.
Sec. 6-163(b).
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to drink or have in his possession an open container of any alcoholic beverage on any public street, sidewalk, park, or other public place within the county, or upon or within any motor vehicle on the streets, sidewalks, parks, and public places of the county
Yeah, but that’s an easy fix. The county could easily change the law to exempt the library. IIRC, didn’t they already change the distance from a church to Chili’s could open up over by Wal-Mart?