The City of Minneapolis has decided not to completely put Surdyk’s out of business for the “crime” of selling liquor on Sundays because Sunday liquor sales would be a catastrophic moral blow to the state even though the law hasn’t quite expired yet. The city negotiated the fine down from a multimillion dollar one-month suspension of the liquor license to $6,000 in fines and eight Sundays of suspension…
…only to have a City Council committee reject the deal.
Why?
Reading between Lisa Goodman’s lines, it’s because the greatest crime is defying Mother Government, or even not paying instant obeisance:
“We went down and asked him not to open, the state called him and asked him not to be open, and he basically said, ‘Too bad, I’m not going to do it,’” Council Member Lisa Goodman said. “If he had shut down right after they came in and asked him to do so, I might have felt different.”
“Justice” in Minneapolis is a matter of connections, after all:
A new deal must be negotiated over the next month, the council committee said, and there may be a public hearing. Goodman said she has heard from “a lot of members of the public” about the matter, and they are not happy that Surdyk might have gotten off with a $6,000 fine and 10-day suspension.
Yeah, Goodman. I just bet you did, and I just bet they’re not.
The worst part? The best defense seems to be self-abasement:
His lawyer, Dennis Johnson, told council members that a $6,000 fine would wipe out any profit Surdyk made on March 12, the day he opened illegally. Johnson attempted to make no justification for his client’s actions, however.
“It’s simply that it was a boneheaded move,” Johnson said. “We need to deal with it, and accept any consequences that come from the city.”
Johnson said Surdyk just wants the problem to be resolved, and he is hoping that time and the fact that his business has been a model of regulatory compliance for 40 years, will help the city show some leniency.
“In the heat of the moment he made a horrible decision,” Johnson said, as Surdyk looked on. “He can’t justify what he did. He screwed up.”
It’s American in 2017, and striking a blow for freedom against a stupid regulation in an autocratic bureaucracy needs to be defended by pleading “I just can’t make decisions without the beneficent hand of the all-wise Council guiding me”.
This nation is doomed.
Somebody on the city council has a “friend” who wants to redevelop the property.
Surdyk currently pays $85k in property taxes – the city knows that his lot could provide much more.
Its no longer a run down part of town.
A 29 story high end condo highrise could bring in closer to half million with retail at street level making up for the lost sales tax
Surdyk painted a target on his back.
Government is far more of a scam than doing good or doing what is necessary. Does an increase in taxes ever equate with a better quality of life?
Does it seem odd that Liberals will earnestly insist that a lifetime of slaughter does not justify capital punishment; but a single mistake absolutely requires the business equivalent?
The liquor store was open the wrong day. Close the doors, put all those people out of work.
Trump made an off-color remark decades ago. Impeach him.
Milo said something offensive. Ban him from every social media.
A restaurant in Stillwater explains taxes to customers. Ruin his business with fake one-star reviews.
Where’s the moderation, the judgment, the care to fit the punishment to the crime?
JD,
Unfortunately, libidiots are morally bankrupt degenerates. They have convinced over 40 million gullible sheep that it’s OK to lie, cheat, steal and ignore both the law and the Constitution, as long as it benefits them. Conservatives need our version of George Soros, if that person exists.
The whole deal with Bill O’Reilly, orchestrated by the corrupt, lying bastards at Media Matters, could be leading to the downfall of Fox News. Like most of the children of the rich, Murdoch’s spoiled kids hate the network anyway. If Fox falls, the left will ultimately eliminate all conservative media outlets using the same tactics.
The worst part? The best defense seems to be self-abasement:
When your client is an idiot and everyone knows it, sometimes the only thing that you can do is throw yourself on the mercy of the tribunal. Surdyk operates in a heavily regulated industry that limits his competition. He knew what he was doing was illegal and he was told to stop by the people who he knew had the power to suspend his license to sell alcohol.
He had a sweet deal going and blew it because he thought that he didn’t have to follow the same rules that his competitors did.
“In the heat of the moment he made a horrible decision,” Johnson said, as Surdyk looked on. “He can’t justify what he did. He screwed up.”
I think Surdyk is getting some lousy advice here. He should say he did it on purpose as a protest move as he was against Sunday sales to begin with (as I understand it) and wanted to do it to show the idiocy of the GOP led legislature.
Then he should do press conferences in a room with a back ground of civil rights pioneers pictures like Rosa Parks and the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter protesters for example and fire his current lawyer. All due respect Joe Doakes and other law talkers of pallor; but he needs Nekima Levy-Pounds up there next to him/taking the mic away from him. No person terrorizes Betsy Hodges, the Kenwood/City Council types and the lilly white media more than her.
Hell, do it my way and Surdyks will probably get a waiver from the minimum wage ordinance and Mayor Hodges will make a campaign appearance here celebrating Surdyk’s as the Stonewall of the Sunday sales movement.
Selfores – he was one of the most vocal critics of Sunday sales. Which makes it all the more interesting. I’m thinking that he’s already been in talks with that developer, and is looking at space in a suburb that will likely give him an incentive to be there. And why not? Minneapolis hates business. The business will draw people no matter where it’s at. Prices go down just by not being in the Minneapolis downtown sales tax area.
There is a subset of people who call themselves “conservative” who hold that if you don’t lick a cop’s boots you DESERVE to get your brains bashed out.
Was afraid when I saw Joe’s comment that the Riverside Oasis Cafe had been closed due to nasty reviews. Thankfully, as with Memories Pizza of Walkerton, IN, this is not the case.
http://www.oasiscafemn.com/
https://www.facebook.com/memoriespizzaparlor/?rf=210391918999261
Back to the subject, I still don’t get what Surdyk hoped to achieve there. Yes, the city council is being petty, as city councils often are, and yes, the current state of alcohol regulation is insane, but….hey….let’s protest in a way that reflects our views, and speaks to others in a way they’ll understand.
Were this ancient Rome, the Surdyk family would be the headliners at this Sunday’s gladitorial show.
They might face the Lions of the Council.
Surdyk has no one to blame but himself.
That’s an easy thing to say when the mob isn’t howling for your blood, Emery. But whatever happened to proportionality? They were open one day, they should get punished for one violation.
It’s Liberals who embrace the politics of personal destruction that insist any deviation must be utterly crushed, to make an example of one so as to encourage others to obediently submit.
Why stop with putting them out of business? Why not have the employees lined up and shot, seize their bank accounts, confiscate their homes, banish their families from the city? Where does just punishment end?
Proof once again that DemonRAT elites really don’t care about anything but votes from their deluded minions. Gotta make the rule breaker pay, even if hurts his employees. If I were Surdyk, I would hammer that point home to my employees every day.
JD: I appreciate Jim’s Maverick decision to be open to a point. It’s his business and he can positively or negatively impact it as he sees fit.
It was rebellious and was a move that truly only hurts himself. He does enough business annually to still pay his employees wages if the suspension is a month long. The city shouldn’t have to worry about the impact on his employees. That’s for Jim to square away since he made the decision to be open. It was a good way to put the spotlight on your business. So now pay the band for the dance and move on.
As an aside, Surdyk fought tooth and nail against Sunday sales for decades I have zero sympathy for him.
“He does enough business annually to still pay his employees wages if the suspension is a month long.”
What are you his accountant, #chatbot Emery? I admire your (or the handler that controls your many online personas) overwhelming compassion paid for with other people’s money.
Commenter “SMH” is likely on to something with this being a ploy to shutter the business and sell that well situated piece of land for more residence and retail for the childless. If Nye’s can sell out while the people are still dancing, why can’t Surdyk’s?
Since when does being ‘friendly to business’ mean letting businesses do whatever they want, ignore laws they don’t feel like following and in general give city officials the finger?
Surdyk’s stunt was not ‘spur of the moment’ as he would have us believe. It was planned. He ignored a call from the state, he ignored a call from the city, and when the city inspector showed up in person he looked him in the eye and refused to close his store. Then after it was done, he indicated he would probably open the next weekend too. He wasn’t sorry until the next day when the city handed out the punishment. Now he wants mercy and can’t even get up himself to ask for it.
While you’re at it Emery wouldn’t it make sense for the city to get a search warrant and recover all the checks and credit card info that identifies all the people who aided and abetted the crime Mr Surdyk admits to. They should be at least fined the maximum allowed by the law, since otherwise they too will just continue to” do whatever they want, ignore laws they don’t feel like following and in general give city officials the finger? “ Don’t you believe Everyone involved should be punished?
Emery, it sounds as if you believe the punishment for an illegal act should be a sliding scale that can be adjusted up or down to fit the situation. That sounds fine in theory, but in practice it appears to give the government unlimited power to impose unlimited penalty after the fact.
If I’m considering leaving my car at the parking meter after my time has expired, I know my risk is a the possibility of being fined a few dollars. I don’t expect the penalty to be a sliding scale ranging from a slap on the wrist (if I’m a Person Whose Life Matters) to capital punishment (if the authorities are insulted that I dared to disobey). The fact that I’m a willful, wanton, knowingly malicious parking violator doesn’t change the gravity of the offense. I’m still just a parking violator. My motivation for doing it, the authorities’ warning not to do it, none of those should matter to the amount of the fine.
Increasing the penalty based on who commits the offense, or who was offended by it, or what their motivation was, changes a simple matter of cause-and-effect into a political witch hunt. It’s only a small step from there to Madame Defarge.
I have a tough time ginning up much sympathy for businesses that suffer the effects of a leftist local government. They knew what they were signing up for, or if they are legacies from a kinder past, nothing stopping them from leaving for gentler climes.
Pay up suckers.
“For my friends, everything, for my enemies — the law!”
(Attributed to Peruvian dictator Oscar Benavides)
Isn’t Minneapolis a sanctuary city?
If Minneapolis gets to choose which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, why don’t its citizens have the same right?
It’s from Orwell’s playbook — any law restricts the power of the state because it tells the state what it what it can and cannot do. There were no laws in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The set up:
“For my friends, everything, for my enemies — the law!”
(Attributed to Peruvian dictator Oscar Benavides)”
Fatality:
“Isn’t Minneapolis a sanctuary city?”
Emery, it sounds as if you believe the punishment for an illegal act should be a sliding scale that can be adjusted up or down to fit the situation.
Progressive punishment isn’t really a new or novel concept (it goes back as least as far as the Old Testament) and in the case of sanctions against a regulated industry like liquor sales, the regulators have more discretion than in a criminal case. They’re not limited to only a sanction that would deprive Surdyk of the profits from his illegal sales but also to take into account his willful defiance of the law after multiple warnings, his previously stated intention to continue reoffending and to craft a punishment sufficient to deter a business of his size from future law breaking.
He was warned. He was given an explanation. Nevertheless, he persisted.