Beer and Wine In University Park? The Battle Has Begun.

The University Park Merchants Association, led by my hero Max Fuqua, wants residents to be able to pick up some vino or grab a six pack within the city limits. They’ve officially declared game-on with an application to petition voters for an election that would make the sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption legal. Oh. Yeah.

Max, you are Ren McCormack. And something tells me you should get your speech ready. I’ll make arrangements for your grand entrance.

26 thoughts on “Beer and Wine In University Park? The Battle Has Begun.

  • April 23, 2010 at 10:19 am
    Permalink

    UP is just leaving money on the table by not selling it. Seems like a no brainer in terms of additional tax revenue. If someone wants alcohol, they go across the street.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 10:25 am
    Permalink

    That’s the point. It is just about the money. If it is just about the money, why bother?

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 10:35 am
    Permalink

    Where can I go to sign this petition?

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 11:05 am
    Permalink

    I’m ready to sign, Max.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 11:12 am
    Permalink

    @JT–No, it’s only partly about money. If the selling of alcohol at the local markets generates more tax revenue, and my taxes aren’t raised, I’m all for it. If the new mayor and city council can spend my tax dollars more wisely than the last one, that would be even better. Secondly, the TABC laws are ridiculously antiquated, and this is what we have to show for it. In other states, alcohol is sold in the grocery stores.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 11:55 am
    Permalink

    @Huh! How about we cut spending before we raise taxes. How about we not worry about the money that could be generated for the city and worry about the quality of life in our city instead? Does the presence or absence of beer and alcohol sales in University Park impact our quality of life? That should be the question.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    Permalink

    I think that question has been answered, JT. Changing WHO sells the alcohol won’t change the quality of life in the Park Cities one bit. It’s going to be sold by someone, and it may as well benefit the city coffers. Would love it if someone cut spending. The recent rash of sign alterings and ridiculous expenditures have me fuming just like you are. Until we get some competition in the city races, I don’t know that it will change.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    Permalink

    I appreciate the need for more revenue (even though we seem to have enough to re-do a park three times).
    I do wonder, though, given that we have a history of underage drinking, especially among our high school kids, is this is the best idea. Making alcohol MORE accessible just doesn’t seem smart to me.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 1:55 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t think changing the location of the booze purchase is going to make it more accessible. As a matter of fact, I doubt the kids will get it from the local store, and I doubt they buy it from the local liquor store right now. I think most of it is bought by an older friend or sibling that will keep buying for them regardless of the location, or, hold your breath, it probably comes from mom and dad’s unlocked liquor cabinet anyway. I doubt any of the underage drinkers will want to run into the neighbor at the local store given that they would likely mention it to a parent. The drinking age is still 21, and, until Mom and Dad and the local officials enforce that, the underage drinking problem will persist, regardless of who sells it.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    Permalink

    @Huh? “Changing WHO sells the alcohol won’t change the quality of life in the Park Cities one bit.” If it doesn’t change it for the good or better why bother? Alcoholic bevies are highly accessible to UP residents as it is.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    Permalink

    @JT, you concede that people in UP will buy booze regardless of whether it’s sold in UP or over the city line. Of course, they have to pay taxes to do so.

    You ask, “If it doesn’t change it for the good or better why bother?” Well, it would be a change for the better if some of those taxes ended up in UP’s coffers instead of Dallas’ or HP’s — which is exactly the point that started this conversation.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    Permalink

    For the convenience and the tax money, that’s why. Most PC residents can walk to a liquor store or grocery store on our boundaries to buy the wine or beer or booze, so it’s idiotic to ban it at our stores. If I’m picking up a few groceries and a bottle of wine or some beer for a BBQ on the weekend I’d be happy to go to the Snider Thumb to spend my $$, but not making two trips so I end up in HP Village or on NW Highway – stoopid and pointless laws are worth getting rid of.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 4:42 pm
    Permalink

    As a resident of HP I appreciate the extra income that UP residents provide us. I bet Tom Thumb in HPV gets a lot of business that might go to the Snider Plaza and Preston Center location.

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    Permalink

    @Huh?, TB, kmom, and citygirl: What is the expected amount of tax revenue from allowing beer and wine sales in UP?

    Reply
  • April 23, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    Permalink

    I’m pro this initiative because, in addition to moving the taxes we currently pay for alcohol in Dallas to UP, it will also move the taxes we pay for other products while we’re in a Dallas store. So instead of going to the Tom Thumb at Greenville & Lovers to buy groceries for dinner because I would like to buy a bottle of wine, I would make those purchases at the Snider Plaza Tom Thumb. And while I’m there, I might stop by some of the other Snider Plaza stores to pick up other things, that I would currently buy at Olde Towne because I was already there.

    In my view, it is a win-win for the UP citizens.

    Reply
  • April 24, 2010 at 12:32 am
    Permalink

    Max Fuqua for mayor of University Park.

    Reply
  • April 24, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    Permalink

    Sounds like voters would get to decide anyway so both sides would have a chance to present their arguments…to the maybe 300 people that would bother to show up to vote.

    Reply
  • April 25, 2010 at 10:01 am
    Permalink

    antiquated puritan laws bring a false sense of security and righteousness. where can i sign the petition? and while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the unicard. what a joke!!!

    Reply
  • April 25, 2010 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    for pete’s sake, i’m for it.
    it will reduce the amount of
    time our youth would be on
    the road with illegal beverages.

    Reply
  • April 26, 2010 at 8:34 am
    Permalink

    Are there any positive implications for the many restaurants who serve beer and wine?

    PS: Ditto the Max for Mayor comment. Write it in.

    Reply
  • Pingback:Which is More Family Oriented, a Semi-Automatic or a Beer? « Park Cities People

  • Pingback:Which is More Family Oriented, a Semi-Automatic or a Beer? « Park Cities People

  • April 26, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    Permalink

    Allowing the sale of alcohol within UP will not make it any easier/harder for underage drinkers to buy their Natty Light or Rasperry Smirnoff or whatever. When I was at HP, no student in their right mind would attempt to purchase alcohol anywhere NEAR the Park Cities, for fear of getting their ID taken up/running into a family friend.
    By Bachman Lake, yes. Lemmon Ave, yes. HP/UP, no.
    Class of ’04, btw.

    Reply
  • April 26, 2010 at 9:47 pm
    Permalink

    @James Tucker – re: amount of tax revenue. I don’t know how much would be raised. But I do know it’s more than zero.

    Reply
  • Pingback:You Can’t Vote Fuqua This Time But You Can Still Shake it Up « Park Cities People

Leave a Reply to Chanteuse Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *