Open Thread (2/25/2008)

Politicalchemy, It was still snowing in the late afternoon Friday. How many times should the city plow that lot?

I join both politicalalchemy and Ano 11:01. By that I mean, I'm no fan of the ultra-liberal Jerry Schweighart.

You know who he is, the Mayor who rammed through a feel good unfunded mandate on private businesses, an ordinanace with no teeth and no enforcement, and the government telling us to do as they say (on our dime) and not as they do.

Snow removal. What a joke.

Question: is Friday's snow, which has to be removed by Wednesday at 8:00 am, different from the snow that is coming tomorrow? Do we have to remove Friday's snow before Tuesday's snow stpos falling, or will the Order to Remove Snow be dropped, with a new Order to Remove Snow that falls on Tuesday go into effect on Wednesday, meaning we have to make sure our snow is removed by Friday, just in time for Unofficial, so the drunken kiddies won't slip and fall?

I used to respect Jerry as a pro-business conservative. Now I realize he is just another pandering liberal nanny.

Laughing stock, except this costs real money for businesses.

DaveM, the letter doesn't say anything about the kid having an Unofficial party in his dorm room.

Maybe he just wants to get laid.

After reading the N-G article Sunday about Scott Cochrane's continued promoting of Unofficial St. Patrick's Day on campus; the money it is costing the city to police the affair and the lives it has impacted, I wonder where is the outrage?  The mayor has the power to close the bars down; why isn't he doing it?  The article says there would be an angry mob on the street, but if it is announced beforehand that the bars are going to be closed, and if anti-loitering laws are enforced, so there is no chance for a mob to build up, I think the lid could be kept on.   I know the right wingers start yelling "nanny state" anytime the cities put any restrictions on private business, but this is affecting the safety of residents of our community, not to mention our pocket books.  I guess Cochrane's pocket book is more important than the taxpayers'.

Ezra, the city makes a profit, and a big one at that. It's hyperinflated statistics of bad things, for example, every kid who throws up is forced to take an ambulance ride to the ER. The city makes a ton on beverage taxes. The cops make a ton, because they get overtime pay that they wouldn't get, and finally, Scott Freidlein, cheif bar enforcer for the Champaign Police, gets to pad his resume for his side consulting job, getting paid plenty to go give speeches on the evils of kids and alcohol.

And the hospitals and ambulance companies make a ton of money, too, while prescribing hot coffee and wait it out to the little boys and girls who have gotten drunk. Not drunk for the first time in their lives, I assure you.

It's all a sham, Ezra. The Mayor could shut it down with one pronouncement, but he won't. Now you know why. "Unofficial" makes a lot of money.

wrong, bhss73, the city is not liable. Bars are limited to 20,000 under dram shop insurance.

The city makes way too much money, especially in fines, for a spineless mayor like we have in Champaign to shut it down. He's a former cop, and he's looking out for his cop buddies, and nobody else, except Cochrane and the other bar owners. Certainly not the citizens. The proof? One press release is all it would take. "As Liquor Commissioner, I order alcohol not be sold or dispensed from 8:00 am Friday until 10:00 pm. Sunday." Not only will good-old-boy Jerry not do it, he won't do it today, or even tomorrow, early enough to spread the word to other campuses and keep them away.

Look him in the eye and ask him, "Why won't you shut it down?" His answer will make Hillary Clinton look like a straight talker, and compared to him, she'll look saintly when it comes to telling the truth.

If I'm remembering the N-G article, the city doesn't make any money on the fines for liquor violations.  Maybe the individual cops make money from the overtime, but city coffers as a whole are taking a hit if I'm remembering the article correctly.  I did read that Chancellor Herman is planning to confront the city council about it.  Good for him.  This nonsense needs to stop this year; not next year after more people have been hurt and more tax dollars have been wasted.  I don't think bhss73 is correct that the city could be successfully sued for not shutting the event down if someone is hurt.  If they could, I think their insurance company would make the city shut it down.  There has to be some reason Schweighart won't do it but we haven't been told what the reason is.  Is there any place one can go for a list of campaign contributors for city council members, like there is for national politicians?

bhss73 - you are right because I was there and saw it.  It was a Halloween party that went crazy, there was a bonfire right in the middle of green street, thousands of students everywhere.

They should enact a two-day 2,000 percent tax on alcohol. That would ease the problems a little.

The first year I was here I hadn't heard about unofficial until my wife emailed me about all the people who were in campustown wearing green and drinking in the morning. Since then, the university and city have increased the enforcement every year. This has caused students to react in ways that have made things worse. More importantly, it has publicized unofficial in a way that the bar owners hardly could do.

Since 2004 I've never known when unofficial was going to happen until about a month before when I started reading about it in the papers. I've never seen any advertisements, and I never go to campustown bars. All I have to do is look in the Sunday paper and see the four articles about unofficial and the lead editorial.

It was 1986. Halloween 1987 was like a prison camp.