A few moments ago I witnessed stupidity on television. The local news was coving a story about the smoking ban in Monona. The Mayor of Monona agreed to a compromise with a special interest group about moving up the start date of the smoking ban. A committee and the council must approve the compromise however. A woman from the special interest group, Breath Free Monona, was interviewed about the compromise. She talked about children with asthma and said that the current ban start date of 2010 was too far away. Congratulations for being a total idiot. This is a smoking ban in bars. What does that have to do with children? I’m absolutely against the smoking ban, but I don’t make up crap ass reasons why. I believe in property rights and a smoking ban infringes on those rights. What next, a law banning the use of ground beef that has more than 10% fat at restaurants because fatty diets may lead to heart disease?

If you don’t like smoking, then don’t go places that have smoking. There were non-smoking bars in Madison before the ban. Some tried operating as non-smoking, but couldn’t get enough business and decided to allow smoking in order to stay in business. The anti-smoking groups claimed that many people avoided the bars due to smoking and if smoking were banned, business would increase. We now have a ban and that didn’t happen. Interestingly though, anti-smoking groups are running advertisements in cities without smoking bans that claim the ban in Madison has been a huge success for business. The anti-smoking groups use creative statistical interpretation of liquor license applications and some other select factors because not many bar owners or employees support those claims. I was at a bar for lunch earlier this month and the bar owner was being interviewed for a different reason, but they asked him how the ban has impacted his business. He said he’s seen a major decrease in business. I have no reason to doubt him since other than the two people that came with me, there was one other customer. Face the fact that the vast majority of people that enjoy going to bars also enjoy smoking. Most of the bars that have benefited from the ban are either outside the city limits or have dining areas that appeal to families. The straight up average neighborhood bars with menus the size of a napkin has been severely hurt.

Instead of a smoking ban, a program should have created to give incentives to non-smoking establishments. I have no problem with that. I believe in the free market, but sometimes there need to be minor government interventions to make it profitable for businesses to market a product that appeals to a minority of consumers. It’s too late for that of course. The anti-smoking groups won and they’ll never compromise. In the end, the bar owners and employees are the one’s that lose. The smokers will either stay home or take their business elsewhere. Either way, the local economy is negatively impacted. The anti-smoking groups don’t care about that though. It is only about anti-smoking and not for the health reasons they claim. They just don’t like smoking. That’s fine, but don’t force your choices upon others, especially when it causes them to lose their business or jobs.

I’m so sick of all these groups that want to regulate exactly how you may live your life, use your property or run a business. What happened to the basic rule that a person has the freedom to do whatever they choose, so long as it does not infringe on another persons rights? We’re turning into a society that is regulating freedom, choice and individuality into extinction.

Brenda Konkel discusses on her blog the various problems with controversial government meetings with many people wishing to speak. She manages to touch on most things I’ve noticed, but she missed one important thing. Space at many meetings is often inadequate. More and more people are deciding to attend the various committee and council meetings. This often means people have to stand. This is especially true with committee meetings which are typically held in the smaller rooms at the City-County building. I hate GR27.

Another problem with committee meetings is it’s often difficult to hear. Much of the time there aren’t microphones set up, so when a speaker is facing away from you, it’s often difficult to hear. That’s not a good thing when these type of meetings are supposed to be encouraging public participation.

Here’s the question I have, can committee meetings be held in larger rooms with microphones set up? Or perhaps they could just rearrange GR27 so more seating is available? Or if that’s not possible, is there a rule against holding the committee meeting at a different location? Can they grab the keys for the Monona Terrace and hold the controversial meetings there? After all, shouldn’t we be getting more use out of that building?

Last night I attended the Alcohol License Review Committee (ALRC) meeting in support of Club Majestic. Surprisingly, there was little discussion in regards to renewing the liquor license. Thankfully a representative from Capitol Neighborhoods Inc (CNI) spoke in favor of renewing and recounted the willingness of the establishment to maintain a dialog with the neighborhood and remain committed to reducing problems and implementing solutions. The renewal was unanimously passed with a handful of new conditions added that weren’t opposed by the Schiavo family, the owners of Club Majestic.

However the discussion on two other agendas were interesting.

The first was the discussion on the proposed remodeling of Wando’s. Wando’s was ordered by the city to improve the outside appearance of the building and to replace the third floor windows. They’d like to use this as an opportunity to expand the bar into the third floor. Currently the third floor is an apartment that provides only $800 of income a month. They’d like to convert that space into another bathroom, kitchen, service bar and more table room for serving food. Wando’s would like to take advantage of increased crowds during events at the Kohl Center and university sporting events. They’ve requested their capacity to be doubled once the remodeling is complete. The current capacity is 99. Part of the reasoning of the increase is to specifically address concerns of the neighborhood. There have been complaints about the crowd that gathers outside Wando’s on many nights. It’s hoped that if more people could comfortably fit inside the bar, the crowd outside would be reduced.

It sounds like a perfectly reasonable request, but a wrench has been thrown into the works. Apparently changes to a liquor license or remodeling must now be first reviewed by CNI before the ALRC will vote on a measure. It is reasonable to discuss changes with the neighborhood, but CNI is not the neighborhood. Wando’s is in the State-Langdon neighborhood. CNI is an umbrella organization that exerts control over and claims to represent the following neighborhoods; First Settlement, Bassett, Mansion Hill, State-Langdon, Mifflin West and James Madison Park. When dealing with CNI, you aren’t dealing with your neighbors, you’re dealing with a few unelected individuals with an agenda. Part of their agenda is to reduce bar capacities throughout the isthmus. They intend to remake Madison in their vision and our elected officials have thus far been a facilitator. It’s a complete subversion to our local democratic process. At least one member of the ALRC, Marsh Shapiro, raised questions about this arrangement and asked for clarification on the process business owners are now subject to. The rest of the members however are apparently comfortable with an unelected body having so much influence on a businesses future. The discussion on the remodeling of Wando’s has been rescheduled for next month to give time for CNI to review the plan. CNI will likely oppose the request to increase capacity. However, Wando’s has a deadline to improve the exterior and replace the third story windows. That’s bureaucracy at it’s finest. He’s ordered to improve his building, and then when he introduces his plan, he’s told the debate must be rescheduled. It’s unclear if the city will extend the deadline for the required improvements.

The second discussion that interested me was the renewal of Brother’s liquor license. One member of the committee, David Hart, kept raising questions about the dress code. Brother’s explained that three years ago in response to problems at the bar, the police department recommended a dress code. Brother’s adopted the dress code and problems decreased. Hart wanted to know why a dress code reduced problems. Brother’s didn’t have an answer for that. They just know problems did decrease. Hart was basically dancing around the issue. Everyone in the room could tell he felt the dress code was racist. When told by the owner of Brother’s that the dress code is not meant as a tool to discriminate against specific groups, Hart became defensive and said he did not say it was discriminating. Eventually the rest of the committee grew tired of discussing a dress code that was recommended by the police department and approved by previous ALRC hearings and the renewal was put to a vote. Hart requested a roll call vote and he was the only member that voted against the renewal. From that point on, Hart was visibly upset, rolling his eyes and muttering. In some cases, while other business was being discussed, Hart’s muttering was loud enough for me to hear what he was saying. I was sitting across the room and throughout the night I often had to strain to hear speakers. The fact that I was able to hear Hart’s comments demonstrates that he intended for people to notice his frustration. Hart was basically acting childish and I believe that kind of immaturity has no place at a city committee. He needs to either modify his behavior, or resign from the committee.

He also never specifically stated what problem he had with the dress code. If he thought a portion of it was wrong, that was the time to bring it up. The ALRC can require Brother’s to modify the dress code as a condition of their liquor license. But he didn’t do so. It appeared that he was trying to bait other members of the committee into asking the question on his mind. Get out with it, or shut up. There’s a lot of business that needs to be discussed at ALRC meetings and that time doesn’t need to be wasted by people dancing around an issue.

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t believe that all members of Capitol Neighborhoods Inc have ill intentions, but it’s obvious that enough well placed members do. CNI needs to clean house and remove the power hungry individuals trying to establish an unelected level of local government. And Alders that are cooperating with this subversion need to be opposed and defeated in the next election.

The proposed sick leave ordinance failed to pass last night, but I doubt this is the end of the debate. The final vote was 10-9, so it failed by a slim margin. I’m sure in the coming months we’ll see the proposal reworked and eventually brought to another vote. I’ve noticed that’s a popular tactic with so called “Progressives” in Wisconsin. If legislation fails to pass, they keep pounding it down peoples throats and forcing vote after vote until it passes. It’s just like school referendums, which are put on the ballot year after year until it passes.

At least businesses won this time, but I’m sure Progressive Dane will do their best to replace the Alders that opposed this proposal. Which means all effort must be expended to defeat Progressive Dane candidates or anyone else that supports this proposal.

The city of Madison and Dane County have created a second task force to handle gang problems. Statements from Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz say the second task force is needed to deal with changes in the gangs. Try again. I don’t believe that excuse. You need a second task force because the other task force has proven to be incompetent and ineffective. What makes them think a second task force will do any better? A new task force was definitely needed, but they gave it the wrong task. The new task force should be investigating the first task force, all law enforcement agencies in the area and the local governments. Its task should be to discover why our law enforcement agencies have failed to reduce the problem and what is impeding progress.

I already know part of the answer. The police actively avoid areas where there is known gang activity. I partially blame Madison’s ultra-PC environment for that. It’s no secret that the majority of gang members in this area are minorities. What would happen if the police really started cracking down on the gangs? That’s right, an increase in minority arrests. The City Department of Civil Rights would blow a gasket.

But here’s an idea. Crack down hard on all gang activity. Damn political correctness. If there’s fewer gang members on the streets, the gangs will lose recruiting power. Peer pressure works. But if you remove the bad elements encouraging kids to join gangs, we should see a reduction in gang size.

But we also need to get innovative. Why don’t we start treating gang members like sex offenders? Force them to register with local authorities and inform their neighbors that they’ve been convicted of a gang related crime. Also, a convicted gang member should’t be allowed to reside in the community where they committed the crime. Think about it, if some piece of trash guns someone down to earn “street cred”, why let them move back to a neighborhood where many respect what they did? Bring back ostracizing. They shouldn’t be allowed to so much as set foot within city limits for at least ten years, except for necessary trips to government offices or medical appointments and only when approved by the authorities.

Basically, if you want to reduce the gang problem, you need to make it more unappealing to be in a gang. That means the police need to reaching down the throat of gangs, not looking the other way in order to make arrest statistics look politically correct.