Hide illegal aliens in Minneapolis? No problem.
Parade down the freeway without a demonstration permit? Here – have a police escort!
Sell a legal product on a day that isn’t “legal” today, but will be in four months? Incur the wrath of the All Powerful City!
by
Tags:
Well, here we have irrefutable proof that Democrats do not care about working class people. Everyone that works for Surdyk’s, will now go thirty days without pay. I wonder if Surdyk’s is considering either moving out of or at the very least, not paying their taxes to the city?
Unforced error on the part of Jim Surdyk. Seems odd that the Beverage Industry isn’t supporting Surdyk. Or is it they can’t support breaking the law? I wonder if Surdyk will be paying his employees during their month off?
two thoughts:
1 Grant Wilson will for sure drop a dime to the BATFE so they can stop by for a thorough(multi-month) audit of Surdyks
2 Surdyks is located on a block the city would love to redevelop so that it supported some 20+ story high rise condos – much more tax revenue and a great opportunity for friends of the city council.
Can a junkie still buy dope on Sunday? Asking for a friend. Jim Surdyk must have been off his meds. Did he think the bureaucrats were NOT going to respond?
SF, re #2: Instead, move to a friendlier neighborhood, raze the building and turn the space into parking lot. Unlit parking lot. With no “No loitering” or “No dumping” signs in sight.
Should we expect a Surdyk V. City of Minneapolis court case on SCOTUS docket come 2019-2020?
I can’t figure this guy out. What was he trying to prove? He’s in a highly regulated business, in a city that is wholly owned by reprobate leftists…this outcome can’t be a surprise.
SF – BATFE doesn’t really get involved too much in audits. On the federal level, it’s TTB (Tax and Trade Bureau). More of concern on the liquor store level are the MN Dept of Alcohol Gambling Enforcement (AGE) or Dept of Revenue. And, when something like this happens, there’s plenty of extra oversight from those agencies.
I think he deserves a slap on the wrist.
Instead the city kicked him in the balls.
and put a gun to his head metaphorically.
Absolutely shocking that Sturdyk’s peers and Beverage Lobby are not standing up for him.
Based on the prior reported $25M annual sales – this equates to a $2M fine – I doubt you can find anything even close in any other code/ordinance enforcement case anywhere in the city. I predict a court fight with the penalty radically reduced.
EI, you’re kidding, right? Reality here is that regulation shields them from liability for what drunks do with their products, and prevents new entrants into the market. They know what side their bread is buttered on.
I’m with Swiftee here. Can’t think of a court that would rule that such regulation is downright unconstitutional, so why provoke the beast here? What is to be gained?
Alcohol sales are one of the most heavily regulated industries in the state and legitimate sellers know that their livelihood depends on keeping their license in good standing. Openly challenging the people who have the power to suspend or even revoke your license by deliberately breaking the law after multiple warning is just begging to get put out of business. It’s possible that he could (after thousands of dollars in legal fees) get the thirty day suspension reduced but it was dumb for him to make this sort of unforced error.
I’m clueless what Surdyk’s motivation was. It occurs to me that if forced closure for 1 month would decrease their sales revenue by $2M as Brad mentioned and their State and City sales taxes amount to 7.775%, then the tax losses would be ~ $155K. I can understand the fine but not shutting the doors.
$155k tax loss to the City? The reason bureaucrats usually have such piggy, pug-like noses is because they keep cutting them off to spite their faces. Don’t worry, though. They’ll find another place that they can squat their porkbutts on and extract money to make up the difference.
BB: Dry humor on my part. Although it is funny how the (most of the?) public sides with the retailer. Yet as you say, the industry knows what the score is.
Brad, probably right about a court fight, but the liquor board can be remarkably stubborn even when it doesn’t make sense, and not just in Minneapolis. I remember a little bar in western Nebraska that was closed for a month because they were caught serving a minor. Was a shame, as they made really good burgers.
But given the financial stakes of what is going on–the ability to put huge markups on liquor–we can understand why the system remains.
I’m shocked they could find a city employee let alone a code enforcement type that would ‘work’ on a Sunday. Apparently Jim Surdyk was already a bit of a huckster (don’t know him or the store other than wanting to park in the parking lot for one of those MN ORG O’Bloggers shindig’s at Kiernans) – but a huckster that was against Sunday Sales before he had some.
Yep, I’m sure the rest of the ‘industry’ (As this comment boards resident shallow intellect terms them. Are a collection of: fascist high price muni’s; check cashers aka bankers for dirt bags that sell fortified alcohol on the side; corporate efficiency consultants cum alcohol purveyors; and ‘mom & pops’ where mom and/or pop are banging the help and junior is cleaning out the till and giving away the profits*; really an “industry”?) is waiting to see if ‘Surdyk’s Lives Matter’ and he gets away with this on appeal or if straight white liquor store owners are the only cohort the City of Minneapolis efforts law & code enforcement activity on when they protest.
*Years ago a CPA friend had ‘Mom & Pop’ liquor stores as clients (a niche practice). Scenario described above occurred and he had to sort out the sordid tale when mom & pop divorced, found out Junior had been robbing the place blind and the store had to be liquidated to complete the divorce. True Story, bro.
If it is okay to sell liquor on Sundays, why is it wrong to sell liquor at 3 AM? Because people shouldn’t be drinking at 3 AM? They should have thought ahead, and people that can’t think ahead shouldn’t be sold liquor at late hours?
I can get the reasoning behind selling liquor all the time, or arbitrarily restricting the day or time of sale. What I don’t get is “Banning liquor sales on Sunday is wrong, but banning liquor sales after 10 PM is good policy.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.