2020-07-02 Liquor Commission Minutes

Home

Mr. Shropshire, who is the landlord, not the applicant, presents to you the unethical protest organizers willing to take unfair advantage using something as serious as the lockdown. He wants you to rectify that alleged wrongdoing by granting his petition. His concerns are false. He stated, "I am also concerned that opponents of the application continued their door-to-door campaign, canvassing the neighborhood despite the mandatory stay at home measures imposed. This was not responsible and in violation of stay at home orders." This is not... When we first read this petition, we were rather stunned that the petition ... and the allegations are... I offer the facts of what actually transpired and when. These are in the written testimonies. There are three attachments. Each fact clearly demonstrates that a rehearing is not warranted. Here's what we actually did. Forbes: The Liquor Control Department process requires a number of actions on the part of each resident who does not want a drinking establishment next to his or her neighborhood. If the resident does not complete all of the action, he or she is counted as not opposed. This is not unlike having an election and deciding the registered voters who didn't vote to be votes for the incumbent. What we did was we facilitated the completion of a formal statement of opposition by creating a protest form that included all of the data elements required. We offered that form to any resident who wanted it. That's the completed form in a couple of folders, and eventually scanned and submitted them to the Department, all well before the May 7th hearing, as requested by the Department. Forbes: To ease the burden upon those opposed to equate more closely with the lack of any burden upon those not opposed, who have no requirements at all, the process of attesting to their opposition in writing, complete with a dated signature, took place before the lockdown, with the exception of one registered voter. The residents will tell you that they own their statements of opposition. They did the thinking for themselves. We were facilitators, not protest organizers in the vein we see on (television) these days. Forbes: In terms of property owners, the majority of property owners and registered voters had completed the protest forms before the lockdown. In fact, a majority had completed (them) by March 11. They began completing them in early January, January 11. Two of the attachments you have, one for property owners, one for registered voters, indicate a number for the protest form, the date it was signed, which is the date it was completed, and also the date it was delivered to the Liquor Control Department. Forbes: In the case of the registered voters, we had 19 out of 20 who had completed their form by March 11. That's 66 percent of the registered voters of record as of May 7. The twentieth submitted her protest form on April 1St, and she did that by delivering it to the lanai of Mr. Kaye. There was no personal contact between the two individuals. The third attachment that you have is an affidavit attesting to that fact. There was no unfair advantage despite Mr. Shropshire's sense of aggrievement. There were no meetings, no door-to-door canvassing that took place during the lockdown. (Mr.) Shropshire's concern that we violated the lockdown is not true, and frankly, it is ridiculous. It would have been irresponsible and given our backgrounds; I have a doctorate in public health, my husband has a master's degree, John Kaye and his wife are both retired attorneys; add to that the fact that all four of us are over sixty-five years old, and therefore, at risk of COVID-19; and further, when you JULY 2, 2020 -LIQUOR COMMISSION MINUTES 6