barry liss on 
Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on So, once again downtown is aswirl with rumors. Once again there is talk about the city council and Lisa Rassmussen, Exhibitour, and booze on the streets, and now we add in the concerts on the square and Romey Wagner. And, for lack of a better phrase, we add a sort of walking chardonnay fatigue.
Last year we went through this whole thing. Exhibitour organizers did, or did not, have a waiver that let people walk the streets of downtown with wine in glasses. They had been doing it that way for years. All this nonsense about Public Health and Safety Committee Chair Lisa Rassmussen and the police chief having too much power, and all the rest.
Well, we are back to those rumors. I have heard form Exhibitour people that Lisa Rasmussen has once again started her vendetta against all things wine- and culture-related downtown. My good friend Mark Craig had a pretty good thread going on Facebook, with lots of sort-of true things going on. The e-mails flew, Twitter was alive and Lisa was once again a demon. Chief Hardel came out and said…no wait, he did not come out and say anything. Contrary to what people might say, the chief made no public comments about this recently. Public is different than what you think he might have told you in private.
So let us review…it is illegal to drink booze while standing on the street, on the sidewalk, in a car, while walking down railroad tracks, and while piloting a plane. It is illegal. Exhibitour would like people to walk from venue to venue with a glass of wine in their hands, if they so choose. It seems to be the backbone of the event, the walking from place to place with wine.
It appears that this part of the event is in some sort of jeopardy. From my reading of last year, it appears that a waiver can be given to Exhibitour for the event, allowing for this to happen.
This is once again a real and valid discussion. The city council put together a policy that would address this style of event and make some sort of permit-type process happen. Wausau Area Events made proper use of the process, even getting in their waiver request more than 60 days in advance, which seems like a ridiculously long lead time. All that aside, they applied and Monday, March 21, were denied a waiver which would have allowed walking with wine between Exhibitour galleries. Setting up the process, it turns out, does not mean an application will be approved.
Now we start into the rumor mill, Part Two. The rumor started off with Lisa Rassmussen and Chief Hardel supposedly wanting to stop people from bringing their own carry-in wine or beer to the concerts on the square. The rumor was that they wanted to make these dry events and start ticketing people who opened containers filled with pain-go-bye-bye juice. Boy, was this false.
What actually happened was Romey Wagner, a member of the Public Health and Safety Committee, asked the chair of that committee, Lisa Rassmussen, to put the alcohol-on the square issue on a future agenda for discussion. Wagner has a legal right to ask for this conversation. He is a member of the committee and has a right to put something on the agenda for the committee to discuss. That is not going to happen until April 18.
But, then things spun completely out of control. Lisa Rassmussen sent me a nice e-mail explaining what had happened and her position on the whole thing. It was unsolicited and, honestly, it was nice. She explained that Romey is allowed to put something on the agenda.
So, it seems that all of this is a bit premature. Does it signal a desire on the part of a least a few people to make changes in policy? Sure it does. Does it have a clear and easy way out? Sure it does. Go through the process of naming The 400 Block a park, and then all the rules and policies that apply to a park will apply to it.
Is there anything that can be done for Exhibitour? Who knows? What should be done? A temporary waiver of the open intoxicants rule that applies to everyone else throughout the city? I cannot imagine the chief going for that. So, you tell me what should be done.
There is always a ton of criticism that all of the city council’s time in is devoted to downtown issues, at the expense of the rest of the city. Well, doesn’t this sort of thing validate that kind of thinking? I cannot walk from Athletic Park to The Red Cross Office with a glass of Pinot Noir in my hands. Why should I be allowed to do it from Allistair Deacon’s to The Mint? What is the essential difference?
A couple of points I want to make…
1) I am happy you pointed out about Ms. Rassmussen contacting you. I have found her to be one of most willing to engage people on the current city council.
2) Just because a varience to an ordinance is allowed and there is a procedure to apply for said varience does not automatically mean that one should be granted every time one is requested. The last time this issue came up, a primary consideration was a report by Wausau Area Events that not allowing the wine to be taken from venue to venue had no impact on the event’s participation. So, if the event can sucessfully without a varience, it is difficult to justify the varience.
3) One of the things heard quite often is talk of this (percieved) double standard when it comes to alcohol, that events on the 400 Block like concerts on the Square can have carry-ins while many other non-downtown venues cannot. I have little knowledge on what the policy differences are between the 400 Block and official parks to be honest… but I do think that establishing a formal, consistant policy is not a bad thing.
4) Any talk about this being a personal mission of Rassmussen or the police chief should have been eliminated the last time this was discussed. The law was changed that made this no longer a decision to be made by one of two people, but instead is addressed through committee. A majority vote in the committee, which then gets forwarded on to the city council is how this is now handled, so that one or two people alone do not have this power to approve or deny.
I like Dino’s point that public drinking downtown while looking at art or watching a jazz band play is somehow acceptable to some people. But a guy walking home from the Cop Shoppe with a beer is somehow not OK to the same people.
Those downtown folks sure get upset when you try to take away their drugs.
I love to have a beer now and then. But if I go to a place where I’m not allowed to drink, it doesn’t even phase me. I just order a soda or water. Big deal, I can’t have a beer. Who cares.
I’m glad I’m not that addicted to something that the mere thought of having to endure 2 hours outdoors with my family/friends without being high sends me into a rage.
There is a difference between walking home from a bar and attending a city event. Exhibitour is a wine tasting event that was designed to encourage people to mingle around in and out of downtown shops. It is a very limited window of time and is very well attended.
Personally, the event got me into more shops downtown than I would have ever considered visiting. I was surprised at what was actually there.
Last year, it seemed that more people were crammed inside the shops with their wine and there was far less social activity out on the street. Instead of being an open and free event, it felt like every shop was a bar and people were hanging out inside. To me, it had a totally different (negative) vibe to it. On top of that, I saw quite a few people that would drink their remaining wine in their glass before exiting the building. How is it that having wine inside your belly better than in a glass out in front of you?
It is possible to enjoy a couple glasses of wine without becoming intoxicated. There are laws in place that if you are intoxicated and unruly, you can get locked up, and there should be. But to enjoy a glass of wine responsibly? What’s the problem?
I just think the average Wausau Area citizens can’t figure out why we can’t have a few street festivals like Bastille Days in Milwaukee, Taste of Madison, Fun Days in Marathon, River Front Days in Point, The 4th of July Street Dance in Wisconsin Rapids (to name a few).
At all of these events communities come together a have a great time, tourists come and with it dollars, many downtown shops in other communities see a nice boost in sales during these events-it helps in the Summer Months when lots of folks LEAVE OUR TOWN to go elsewhere to enjoy events we can’t have here for some reason.
Why can’t Wausau have a few events like these?
If we didn’t make such a big deal out of beer sales, maybe it would stop being a big deal.
In regards to the waiver process specifically, I would like some one to provide a list of conditions that would need to be met to get the waiver-it seems like even though the process exists, it won’t ever be approved.
The waiver process is basically to ask permission of the council. The council can either allow or deny the waiver, so even if you do everything right, if the council disagrees, no waiver for you. Even if your event went smoothly the last number of years, if you somehow manage to upset them, your event is OFF. No recourse, sorry. The same rule applies to the beer fence rule regarding wrist bands.
It’s this sort of policy that makes it extremely difficult to get events off the ground in Wausau. There are no hard fast rules to follow and it’s based on the feeling of a select group of people.
I read a recent Wausau Police Dept log on the city website where a certain bar downtown was serving past 2:30am (more like 3:30am). When the officer knocked on the window, the customers fled the bar out the back door and the person in charge of the bar refused to open the door for police when the police knocked.
We also see that other bars around Wausau have been getting into more and more trouble with violence, drugs being sold on premises, underage drinkers, etc.
Maybe stuff like that is why the council isn’t so quick to approve even more drinking around Wausau. And why the police chief isn’t accepting of it either.
The currently approved/licensed establishments can’t seem to follow the very simple rules already in place. I can see why the requests for even more drinking are denied each time. They probably feel the rules they’d put in place with the waiver would be ignored as well.
Good Job bringing up something that had nothing to do with the actual topic here.
I will tell you exactly what happen.
That night we had 2 local bands that were taking for ever breaking down their gear. I told the guys to get there stuff packed up, I was exhausted. Normally I wouldn’t leave the bar area unattended with a band, but I have known these guys for years, and trusted them enough to do this.
I went in to the basement to count down tills, and get stock ready. I had no idea the police even came (they didn’t try calling the bar-I’m sure I would have heard the phone-and we could have solved all this right then) until the next day when the some of the members of the band called me. I was in the basement for maybe 35-45 minutes, I’m not sure how long the police were there.
The new officer on the beat downtown visited me a week later, and I explained the same thing to him. I received no fines-nor did any of the band members, and I offered to show him the room in the basement where we keep our stock (which is constructed out of solid concrete) He told me a robbery had happened in a nearby neighborhood, and I guess he thought they broke into Malarkey’s. As a side note, bands that cannot clean up fast enough, will not be able to play at Malarkey’s-we don’t want this kind of attention.
There were about 7 or 8 people total in the bar-musicians and and sound tech.
Lights were off, chairs were up, no drinks were on the bar-all the people that left were sober, or had a ride.
In December I was fined for being open after hours because two musicians were waiting for me to finish cleaning because they were staying at my house (one was from Madison, and the other from Minneapolis.)
Again-chairs were up, bar was clean, I was doing my last load of dished-We were all sober. The officer told me no one could ever been in the bar after hours even if they weren’t drinking. This would include people waiting for a cab, employees waiting for a ride, or even myself unless I was cleaning.
During this experience I asked the officer where someone waiting for a ride should wait. One of his suggestions (I swear this is true) was to walk to the Back When Cafe and wait. Informed the officer they weren’t open all night, and they also HAVE A BAR-you can see it a clearly as mine through the front window!
And the ONE TIME out of the thousands of guests we have, that we got busted for serving a minor, the police sent in two underage girls that ran past our bouncer, and got served the bar before our bouncer could point them out (The bouncer was carding the next person in line and couldn’t just leave the door when these two girls ran past her.)
Immediately after we served the girls, the bouncer pointed them out at which point we would have carded them and thrown them out-but they were already served. There is no way an underaged person (who weren’t backed by the police) would have RAN past the bouncer to get to the bar, because they would get thrown out anyway. But in the case of a sting operation, they don’t have time to drink a beer, only get served one (also is turns out just having a underage person trespassing in your bar is also a fine for the establishment, so if the cops wanted they could just have underagers run into your bar and follow them in and give you a fine-which is basically what they did to us.)
I explained this to the officer, who also seemed to think it was an unfair situation, so they gave us one ticket instead of two.
In the 3. 5 years Malarkey’s has been open, we have had over 750 shows, countless events, and tens of thousands of customers we have never had a time when any of our guests or staff had to call the police.
I can’t speak to other bars and their alleged issues, but Malarkey’s is not a public threat.
As far as rules being simple-ask yourself where are the rules pertaining to the 400 block posted? Why aren’t they posted ON The 400 block? And in the situation of an officer telling me to have my customers wait after hours at a different establishment with a bar, maybe their interpretations of the rules are different than mine. In the case of underagers running into the bar, how can I stop that-I mean should we tackle them?
Just a side note for The dbc: The police log in the paper is there to sell papers, not necessarily inform the public. For starters it is only from one point of view, and the paper chooses which ones to print based on entertainment level.
Also, I interned at the Public Defenders office, right here in Wausau, and the dash-cam footage from an officers car didn’t always match the report.
We respect our officers, and want to run a clean business that brings in acts that bring people to Wausau, we are interested in working with the police, there is no longevity in not working with them. We are not open to cause problems.
I share this with you, only so you can try to see situations from another point of view-most stories have more than one side.
I usually don’t really write about all this stuff, I just accept our fines as part of doing business in the City of Wausau, but obviously without another side of the story people like yourself are getting a negative impression which I feel is unfounded once you know all the details.
Nice follow up Tyler.
DBC .. you lost me here when in your first comment you brought up addiction as somehow relevant to this discussion.
Most reasonable people know that if anything, corralling drinkers together ENABLES binge drinking, a favorite pastime of those afflicted with the disease addiction.
But again .. let’s keep it relevant. Your invocation of this issue, a very separate issue from what is being discussed here, although very interesting and worthy of it’s own thread, is not relevant to this thread.
If we were somehow dumb enough to craft all public policy regarding public drinking with addiction as the cornerstone .. well that would be just sad and not help any addict get the treatment they need.
It wasn’t in the paper. I clearly said I got it off the city website where they post all police activity. It’s not hand picked like a newspaper does.
Referencing it has EVERYTHING to do with the city approving more events where liquor is served. Many of the current approved facilities can’t follow the rules, and many of those facilities are the ones pushing for more drinking. It’s a direct comparison.
The bars that are open can’t follow the laws and give a million excuses each time they get busted for breaking a law. You broke the law, it’s that simple. And YES, if someone rushes past your bouncer, they grab them instantly. That’s the point of a bouncer. You don’t serve ANYONE until age is confirmed. Again, the point of door personnel. Someone dodges the door guy, he grabs them. Maybe a simple stamp is what you need. No stamp, no booze. Is it that difficult? Nope. You’re just being lazy and blaming everyone else for making a mistake, trying to blame the cops, the kids, etc.
Your friends could have waited in the parking lot. In their or your car. Issue solved. Patrons waiting for a cab can stand on the sidewalk when you’re closed and you lock the door. Again, easily done. But no, it’s excuse after excuse for why simple rules and solutions cannot be followed.
Why aren’t the 400 Block rules posted on the 400 block? Because it’s not practical. Are all the laws for the city supposed to be posted at every street corner as well? Imagine the billboards needed for that.
The dbc…just so you know you can’t just “grab” somebody there is a law against that too.
Some other parks in Wausau post the rules, somehow that is practical-but why not on the 400 Block?
Finally it is not practical to make people wait in sub-zero temperature on the sidewalk. Many Fri. and Sat. we call cabs at 1:45 or 2 (the bars don’t close to 2:30 those nights) and they show up at 3-should I call the cabs at midnight in hopes someone will need one?
Also we don’t have a parking lot. It’s clear you haven’t been to, or spent much time around our establishment-it bothers me that you feel as though from reading the police log you give yourself the right to call me “lazy.”
I think a more rational view is that many of the issues that come up are have too many variables to simply label black and white-that is why the police use their judgement when deciding these matters. I am not complaining or making excuses-I paid my fines, and accept them as part of doing business in Wausau. I still cooperate with the police at time I can-as I wrote in my last post, I only share these examples to show another side of the story, one you are obviously not willing to look from.
My point was all these issues are hardly unique to Wausau….which after a thread in which you called me “lazy”, told me to “grab” people as a way to stop them from entering the bar, suggested patron wait in sub-zero weather to wait for a ride, and claimed posting ordinances in parks was not practical-we arrived back to my original post about how all these kinds of events happen in other towns year after year, and bring people and tourism dollars to their respective communities.
My one experience at the Riverfront event in Point was quite remarkable. Carry-ins everywhere, plus available for purchase on-site. In a much larger area than the 400 Block. By my account it seemed to police itself, and we were there later in the evening.
Sure it’s my own anecdotal experience, which amounted to about 3 hours, but it’s something to consider. I’d be curious to know how many problems they’ve had over the years. For comparison’s sake.
There are very simple solutions to cure some of the issues a bar has with clientel.
You can definitely physically stop someone from trying to enter your business without showing ID. Trust me, I know. I didn’t say beat them down, I said grab them. You are allowed to stop them from entering, just as you are allowed to (using your words) “throw them out” when need be. And of course, you wouldn’t throw them, you’d take hold of them and escort them to the door. All perfectly legal.
If your door personnel are too small or weak or timid to enforce rules or you choose to only have one at the door and they can’t handle more than one person’s ID at a time, again, that’s your choice, but you’ll have deal with the consequences (fines, etc). If you are busy, two or three door people may be needed at the time. It’s the cost of business. Again, I recommend the stamp thing. No stamp, no booze, problem solved. You own the place, you’ll decide if the fines and hassle are worth more than $60 or so per door guy (at $12 hour) on band nights. One municipal fine and city council reprimand wipes out the $180 you’d have spent making sure the door and bar was covered well.
We always made people wait for a cab outside if it was going to arrive after we were closed. So do most of the other bars in Wausau. They should be wearing a thing called a jacket when it’s cold out. If they are dumb enough to come to a bar in winter and not have a jacket and get so drunk they need a ride home, their momentary physical discomfort isn’t my problem. Their stupidity and poor choice of clothing isnt worth the fine or losing a business license. Call the cab company, tell them the guy is waiting outside because the bar is closed and that’s that. A store won’t let a guy wait inside after they are closed to wait for his cab. You should be no different after bar close time.
Your closer friends could have waited in your car or their car, no matter where it was parked, regardless if you have a parking lot or not, they had to park somewhere.
You also have a large sidewalk where people can wait after hours. Once they are outside your door, you are legal. Whether it’s a block away or they are leaning on the wall outside, it doesn’t matter. They are outside, your door is locked, and you are legally covered against being open after hours.
I apologize for calling you lazy. You aren’t lazy, you own a business, so I guess lazy isn’t the right word since most lazy folk can’t keep a business running very long. I’ll take that back.
Actually… I agree that these are two separate issues. If I were going to open a bar and apply for a liquor license, that application should be considered on its own merit and my ability to comply with the law, not whether other similiar businesses.
I looked back at one of the previous times that CW took on this topic and there were nearly 80 comments, and a theme that kept coming back and back were established guidelines as to what would be needed to grant a waiver. I can see how said guidelines would be beneficial, but the truth is that every single varience to some kind of law needs to be taken on a specific case by case basis.
I had also seen that incident on the Wausau police logs, I am also a regular reader of various meeting minutes and the Wausau Public Health and Safety committee minutes always contain a police department reports on “notable incidents” involving liquor license holders.
I found the incident dbc also saw and found it interesting, but assumed there was probably a rest of the story.
One thing that Tyler and I have in common is that we choose to be fairly high profile, we choose to engage and get involved. Because of that, we tend to get held to a higher standard.
The simple fact is that sh** happens. You can put policies in place and take certain actions, but nothing works 100% of the time… ever. You cannot eliminate risk, you can only eliminate it.
I teach landlords how to properly screen tenants, yet I have people slip through my own criteria. I teach landlords how to maximize collections, yet I have tens of thousands owed to me that I know is uncollectable.
I was actually surpised by how Wausau enforces that after bar time law. I used to date a bartender and two or three times a month, she would ask me to come down to the bar after close as a security measure. I would help out a little bit, putting up the stools and rolling up carpets and restocking… but for the most part I would sit with a coke and watch tv until she was done.
On more than one occation Everest Metro would stop by, we would explain that I was there as her security and they would verify that it was a coke that I had in my glass, and then they would just leave.
I seriously need to read what I write before I submit it…
about the middle of the article, that sentence SHOULD READ….
You cannot eliminate risk, you can only minimize it