ICE’s lawless occupation will be handed an extra victory if Minneapolis resorts to using licensing authority as a weapon. Destroying norms is what Trump does. Are there no alternative ideas?
The left wing of the City Council wants to dive into the same gutter as Trump? Let them put skin in the game. Hold them personally responsible for the impending legal fees and settlements.
I knew the council of the whole was happening, I just could not watch all the performative theater. I do not know why I got it in my head it would be slightly better this term.
Thank you Terry. I would have no idea what is discussed at these city council meetings (or any other Mpls govt functions) without your posts! Thanks for doing the digging to keep us informed.
what's next with this council ? will they start dening building permits because they don't want certain folks in our neighborhoods? now where have i seen that before mpls council? history should be reviewed if they can even read or understand past actions.
So the Progressive wing of the Council wants to retaliate against businesses by denying them liquor license renewals, for reasons unrelated to their sales of liquor, because the businesses in question choose NOT to discriminate against employees traveling as a part of their government jobs. And presumably, they should not discriminate against ALL employees traveling on government jobs - only the specific jobs the CMs don't like. And they think that will be OK because "occupation" is not a legally protected class. Do they have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what a horrible precedent that would be? Will it next be OK to deny liquor licenses because a proprietor serves (over-age-21) college students? (...and do they really think no one living near a "rowdy" college-adjacent bar will ask for that?) MPD officers? Lawyers? (OK, maybe just prosecutors, but defense attorneys would be OK?) Do these people EVER stop to think that there are things that MIGHT be LEGAL for them to enact, but that are such bad ideas that the only lasting consequence would be for the state government to "pre-empt" before it gets out of control?
At least there was comic relief in Chughtai questioning the assertion that removing a hotel's liquor license would damage its business. CM Chughtai - Why ELSE do you even want to DO it? Do you really think licensees pay the license fees, and risk the liabilities for screwing up when serving, etc., because they just like extra costs and extra risks?
It sounds like CM Vetaw's "Trump...Kimmel" observation may have been the most intelligent thing said all day...
Withholding a license is discriminatory in this case. It signals the types of actions that socialists find acceptable in support of their ianti capitalism ideology, and short sighted, narrow viewpoints. MN has the second highest corporate tax rate in the nation, and this kind of political hostility will harm the chances of Mpls being viewed as a good place to do business. “Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” comes to mind.
Who's acting like a "Nazi" now? Do as I say or I will run you out of town or just destroy your business? Perhaps they will they start arresting people who won't say yes to them? Is the City Council really no longer capable of seeing how petty and small minded they have become? Is hate and revenge really all they are capable of?
Even considering such a topic publicly is enough to chase long standing businesses out of the state and further discourage any new forms of revenue. Who's going to pay for all the social services when the businesses have all closed or just left the state along with the wealthy?
According to the Star Tribune, Joan Soholt, an SEIU member, seemed to call out Aurin Chowdhury for "false and deeply damaging" statements about drunken driving and an ICE agent, and trying to link it to Minneapolis hotels. In other words, she's worried hotel workers will lose their jobs over allegations like these from city council members.
On the other hand, the SEIU lawyer seemed to want to punish hotels.
Then it seemed like some City Council members (Chowdhury and Wonsley in particular) were deliberately trying to blur lines about "safety", "guns", and "staff/workers."
-Some hotel workers felt unsafe around unsecured firearms in hotel rooms. That's a legitimate concern.
-Other hotel workers needed to be "protected" by sheets covering certain areas of the hotel, presumably because these workers are undocumented. That also feels wrong. We need a sane immigration system.
-Then some city council members said federal agents were getting drunk at hotels, and that leads to problems, especially with guns involved. This feels like a stretch, not least in part because these agents can get drunk anywhere, not just a hotel bar, which was the crux of at least one union member's arguments.
The DSA doesn't have much to stand on in their line of argument. It feels like theatrics because they simply need to be in opposition, even if they can't articulate a coherent form of "punishment" for bad actors (be it ICE or hotels or whatever other target that they feel is complicit in the federal government's actions).
I view this solely as a safety issue. The ICE agents aren’t competent to handle firearms when sober, let alone when they are drunk. I saw a video a few weeks ago of an idiotic ICE agent walking with his finger on the trigger of the gun, slipped on a patch of ice, and the gun went off. Thankfully no one died. These are not the type of people who should be allowed to get drunk with guns. Especially given the apparent “unlimited immunity” that they have from the Federal government. If the ICE agents get drunk and kill someone, the Federal government would just cover it up. Which makes it especially dangerous.
ICE’s lawless occupation will be handed an extra victory if Minneapolis resorts to using licensing authority as a weapon. Destroying norms is what Trump does. Are there no alternative ideas?
The left wing of the City Council wants to dive into the same gutter as Trump? Let them put skin in the game. Hold them personally responsible for the impending legal fees and settlements.
I knew the council of the whole was happening, I just could not watch all the performative theater. I do not know why I got it in my head it would be slightly better this term.
Thank you Terry. I would have no idea what is discussed at these city council meetings (or any other Mpls govt functions) without your posts! Thanks for doing the digging to keep us informed.
what's next with this council ? will they start dening building permits because they don't want certain folks in our neighborhoods? now where have i seen that before mpls council? history should be reviewed if they can even read or understand past actions.
So the Progressive wing of the Council wants to retaliate against businesses by denying them liquor license renewals, for reasons unrelated to their sales of liquor, because the businesses in question choose NOT to discriminate against employees traveling as a part of their government jobs. And presumably, they should not discriminate against ALL employees traveling on government jobs - only the specific jobs the CMs don't like. And they think that will be OK because "occupation" is not a legally protected class. Do they have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what a horrible precedent that would be? Will it next be OK to deny liquor licenses because a proprietor serves (over-age-21) college students? (...and do they really think no one living near a "rowdy" college-adjacent bar will ask for that?) MPD officers? Lawyers? (OK, maybe just prosecutors, but defense attorneys would be OK?) Do these people EVER stop to think that there are things that MIGHT be LEGAL for them to enact, but that are such bad ideas that the only lasting consequence would be for the state government to "pre-empt" before it gets out of control?
At least there was comic relief in Chughtai questioning the assertion that removing a hotel's liquor license would damage its business. CM Chughtai - Why ELSE do you even want to DO it? Do you really think licensees pay the license fees, and risk the liabilities for screwing up when serving, etc., because they just like extra costs and extra risks?
It sounds like CM Vetaw's "Trump...Kimmel" observation may have been the most intelligent thing said all day...
Withholding a license is discriminatory in this case. It signals the types of actions that socialists find acceptable in support of their ianti capitalism ideology, and short sighted, narrow viewpoints. MN has the second highest corporate tax rate in the nation, and this kind of political hostility will harm the chances of Mpls being viewed as a good place to do business. “Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” comes to mind.
Who's acting like a "Nazi" now? Do as I say or I will run you out of town or just destroy your business? Perhaps they will they start arresting people who won't say yes to them? Is the City Council really no longer capable of seeing how petty and small minded they have become? Is hate and revenge really all they are capable of?
Even considering such a topic publicly is enough to chase long standing businesses out of the state and further discourage any new forms of revenue. Who's going to pay for all the social services when the businesses have all closed or just left the state along with the wealthy?
Imagine if we had a right wing city council, and they were denying a liquor license to a hotel for allowing gay weddings to be held there.
According to the Star Tribune, Joan Soholt, an SEIU member, seemed to call out Aurin Chowdhury for "false and deeply damaging" statements about drunken driving and an ICE agent, and trying to link it to Minneapolis hotels. In other words, she's worried hotel workers will lose their jobs over allegations like these from city council members.
On the other hand, the SEIU lawyer seemed to want to punish hotels.
Then it seemed like some City Council members (Chowdhury and Wonsley in particular) were deliberately trying to blur lines about "safety", "guns", and "staff/workers."
-Some hotel workers felt unsafe around unsecured firearms in hotel rooms. That's a legitimate concern.
-Other hotel workers needed to be "protected" by sheets covering certain areas of the hotel, presumably because these workers are undocumented. That also feels wrong. We need a sane immigration system.
-Then some city council members said federal agents were getting drunk at hotels, and that leads to problems, especially with guns involved. This feels like a stretch, not least in part because these agents can get drunk anywhere, not just a hotel bar, which was the crux of at least one union member's arguments.
The DSA doesn't have much to stand on in their line of argument. It feels like theatrics because they simply need to be in opposition, even if they can't articulate a coherent form of "punishment" for bad actors (be it ICE or hotels or whatever other target that they feel is complicit in the federal government's actions).
I view this solely as a safety issue. The ICE agents aren’t competent to handle firearms when sober, let alone when they are drunk. I saw a video a few weeks ago of an idiotic ICE agent walking with his finger on the trigger of the gun, slipped on a patch of ice, and the gun went off. Thankfully no one died. These are not the type of people who should be allowed to get drunk with guns. Especially given the apparent “unlimited immunity” that they have from the Federal government. If the ICE agents get drunk and kill someone, the Federal government would just cover it up. Which makes it especially dangerous.
Wow. I guess that's one way to look at it. Nick, so you're saying only ice agents stay at these hotels?
And only ICE agents get drunk at those hotels? And only ICE thugs mishandle their weapons?