Long Story Short, the MPLS City council is considering screwing up our patio season with crazy outdoor restrictions.
Here is an open letter to them from Christian-Philippe Quilici
To whom it may concern,
I am a citizen of the City of Minneapolis and active participant in my community: professionally, socially and politically. I am writing you today to express my grave misgivings with the proposed amendments to Section 360.100 of the City of Minneapolis Ordinance as proposed by Councilwoman Meg Tuthill.
As someone who supports local business and who loves the vibrant lifestyle and nightlife my city has to offer, these proposed amendments will prove detrimental to the sustainability of Minneapolis business and culture and threatens to strangle elements of my neighborhood which I love.
As a grown-up, I made the conscious decision to move into my neighborhood in Minneapolis because of the community it has to offer. If certain residents and City Councilmembers choose to punish the actions of a few with blanket prohibitions on the entire city that are arbitrary, absolute and arguably illegal, I will seriously have to reconsider why it is I chose to live here in the first place. We have precious few summer nights living in Minnesota and these efforts to drive us inside and/or downtown drastically impede upon our rights to enjoy ourselves and contribute to our local economy. I refuse to see my local businesses suffer unnecessarily.
Amendments to section 360.100 of the City of Minneapolis Ordinance will have negative financial and operational impact on local business in the following ways.
1) The City Council is giving itself the absolute power to regulate local business, especially patios, sidewalk cafes and roof top venues including:
a) Restricting your hours of operation
b) And “other reasonable and necessary” conditions
2) Restrictions imposed by the City Council are arbitrary, in their sole judgment, to “preserve the safety, repose and welfare” of “residents and businesses and other uses” near local business. Local business operations can be restricted in any way based on the sole judgment of a City Council person.
3) The City Council will impose an absolute restriction on any music, radio and television outside after 10:00 P.M. even if it is not too loud or a problem.
4) The City Council gives itself the right to impose restrictions on the “days, hours, nature, volume and other aspects” of local business operations in any outdoor area on a case-by-case basis. No standards that all would be held to are set forth.
5) The City Council maintains and increases two separate standards of operations, one for the downtown zone and one for everyone else. This worsens the unlevel playing field and fundamental unfairness of two separate standards.
6) Everyone outside of and bordering the downtown zone is at a competitive disadvantage. Given the potential for additional restrictions and arbitrary oversight by the City Council this situation could worsen.
7) The ordinance will require determining a Maximum Customer Capacity, which must include customers who are “seated, standing or otherwise present and occupying the area and shall also include customers who are waiting to be seated”.
8) The ordinance prohibits all bars in an “outdoor area” except service bars, but does not provide definitions as to “outdoor area”.
Amendments to section 360.100 of the City of Minneapolis Ordinance are unnecessary. There are adequate provisions in existing ordinances giving the various city departments and police the ability to enforce noise, nuisance and “livability” complaints. All of the matters these amendments try to address can be resolved through enforcement of existing ordinances.
Why is my City Council wasting its time on this?
This isn’t the Minneapolis I chose to live in so I’m prompted to ask, why doesn’t my city want me to stick around?
Sincerely,
I am a citizen of the City of Minneapolis and active participant in my community: professionally, socially and politically. I am writing you today to express my grave misgivings with the proposed amendments to Section 360.100 of the City of Minneapolis Ordinance as proposed by Councilwoman Meg Tuthill.
As someone who supports local business and who loves the vibrant lifestyle and nightlife my city has to offer, these proposed amendments will prove detrimental to the sustainability of Minneapolis business and culture and threatens to strangle elements of my neighborhood which I love.
As a grown-up, I made the conscious decision to move into my neighborhood in Minneapolis because of the community it has to offer. If certain residents and City Councilmembers choose to punish the actions of a few with blanket prohibitions on the entire city that are arbitrary, absolute and arguably illegal, I will seriously have to reconsider why it is I chose to live here in the first place. We have precious few summer nights living in Minnesota and these efforts to drive us inside and/or downtown drastically impede upon our rights to enjoy ourselves and contribute to our local economy. I refuse to see my local businesses suffer unnecessarily.
Amendments to section 360.100 of the City of Minneapolis Ordinance will have negative financial and operational impact on local business in the following ways.
1) The City Council is giving itself the absolute power to regulate local business, especially patios, sidewalk cafes and roof top venues including:
a) Restricting your hours of operation
b) And “other reasonable and necessary” conditions
2) Restrictions imposed by the City Council are arbitrary, in their sole judgment, to “preserve the safety, repose and welfare” of “residents and businesses and other uses” near local business. Local business operations can be restricted in any way based on the sole judgment of a City Council person.
3) The City Council will impose an absolute restriction on any music, radio and television outside after 10:00 P.M. even if it is not too loud or a problem.
4) The City Council gives itself the right to impose restrictions on the “days, hours, nature, volume and other aspects” of local business operations in any outdoor area on a case-by-case basis. No standards that all would be held to are set forth.
5) The City Council maintains and increases two separate standards of operations, one for the downtown zone and one for everyone else. This worsens the unlevel playing field and fundamental unfairness of two separate standards.
6) Everyone outside of and bordering the downtown zone is at a competitive disadvantage. Given the potential for additional restrictions and arbitrary oversight by the City Council this situation could worsen.
7) The ordinance will require determining a Maximum Customer Capacity, which must include customers who are “seated, standing or otherwise present and occupying the area and shall also include customers who are waiting to be seated”.
8) The ordinance prohibits all bars in an “outdoor area” except service bars, but does not provide definitions as to “outdoor area”.
Amendments to section 360.100 of the City of Minneapolis Ordinance are unnecessary. There are adequate provisions in existing ordinances giving the various city departments and police the ability to enforce noise, nuisance and “livability” complaints. All of the matters these amendments try to address can be resolved through enforcement of existing ordinances.
Why is my City Council wasting its time on this?
This isn’t the Minneapolis I chose to live in so I’m prompted to ask, why doesn’t my city want me to stick around?
Sincerely,
Christian-Philippe Quilici
get involved HERE
