Selling beer and wine in Morton—the mayor’s newspaper interview

My book—The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam—is available by mail (not yet in book stores). See post on August 31, 2008 entitled The Black Sword.

I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: http://www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/




https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367


The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”

Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.

I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:

September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

http://www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/

http://www.childpredators.com/

http://www.lifedynamics.com/

http://www.libertylegal.org/

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.searchtv.org/

After the President of the Board of Trustees’ (mayor’s) “State of the Village” address where he proposed the amendments to the liquor ordinance, I am sure he and the trustees received negative comments as well as possibly reading my letter to the editor which was the only letter printed by our two newspapers. On July 30, 2008, pages A1 and A2, the Morton Times-News published an interview with the mayor (for clarity sake I’m using the term mayor although that is not his official title). Tonight, some selected comments given by the mayor as well as my comments along the same lines. I may or may not deal with other aspects of this story. I have not yet decided.

(1) “Morton mayor Norm Durflinger contends that by not allowing such sales in grocery stores, the village is losing money to surrounding communities. He said people are not just leaving town to buy alcohol, but groceries as well.

‘We’re bleeding retail,’ Durflinger said. ‘When people leave town (to buy groceries), that means we’re losing retail tax.’

That has been the situation for too long, he added.”

My comments: How does he know this? Does he have any authoritative statistics to support this contention? If he does, I have not heard or seen them. Of course, the mayor and I are not in communication with each other but it seems that he is also not in communication with the whole community. Does he have any authoritative studies done by a reliable research firm to support this contention? Are we to just take his word for it? If he has such studies doesn’t he have an obligation to make them public BEFORE the vote to approve the amendments?

Furthermore, how much is being lost according to these reliable, authoritative studies? Is it a few thousand dollars a year or half a million dollars a year or more? Shouldn’t we, as citizens of the community, be given some concrete numbers instead of the vague generality that we are losing money?

Is it possible that some out-of-town adults shop in Morton because neither grocery store sells beer and wine? If grocery stores begin to sell beer and wine will they cut back on their Morton shopping? I know of at least one Mackinaw family that does a majority of their grocery store shopping in Morton. One of the individuals who spoke against the proposal on August 4, 2008 specifically said that she lives in East Peoria and drives to Morton to do her shopping in part because the stores do not sell beer and wine. Are there others? If so, how many? Will we lose some shoppers? Has this possibility been explored?

Does the mayor have any studies to support his contention that the solution to this alleged problem is to allow grocery stores to sale beer and wine? Will he come back later and say that selling beer and wine alone was not sufficient to stem the flow of money to other communities and thus we need to allow grocery stores to sale hard liquor too. Will he then propose that drug stores and other retail outlets also be allowed to sale liquor because we are still losing income to other communities? Is this the best solution available?

Exactly how much retail tax is being lost? What is the retail tax on food? I thought it was 1%. How much of that 1% goes to the city? Just how much is being lost according to his calculation? Does he know?

Does this proposed solution have possible negative ramifications that would outweigh the alleged positive results? Will the use of alcohol within the community increase and possibly result in more criminal damage to property, more vandalism, more domestic abuse, more accidents, more juvenile crime, more alcoholism, more deaths, more moral decay? How does he or anyone know if it will or will not? Has he done a cost (including social costs)/benefits analysis and not just a dollars and cents benefits analysis?

Is the Village now changing a long standing philosophical concept in relation to alcohol—in substance if not in words? The liquor ordinance declares “In order that the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Village be protected, and in order that minors shall be prevented from the purchase of alcoholic liquors, and in order that temperance in the consumption of liquors be fostered and promoted, there shall be a limit upon the number of liquor licenses issued and in effect, which is as follows:.” Has the mayor decided that (1) the protection of the citizens, (2) the promotion of temperance, and (3) the prevention of minors getting possession of alcohol is now LESS important than possibly increasing the revenue of the Village?

Is this a case of financial envy? I’m certain that the mayor has observed the increased revenues that the town of East Peoria has generated through state supported and approved gambling. Is he looking for a “painless” way to increase Village revenue?

If so, why stop at increasing alcohol sales. The Village has several motels along the I-74 corridor. Just look the other way and unofficially allow prostitution to flourish along that corridor. Think of the revenue that could be generated. Sure, it is illegal but others claim it is an alleged “victimless” crime. I’m sure other communities give a blink and a nod to illegal prostitution. Who really cares? Think of the revenue possibilities. Increasing alcohol availability might lead to alcohol poisoning and/or death by poisoning, accident, or other means. Allowing prostitution is probably less likely to result in a death than increasing the availability of alcohol. If the Village works at it, ANY activity can be RATIONALIZED as being for the benefit of the Village. Think of the possibilities! Get with the 21st century attitude that anything goes!

Of course, there might be one minor problem. “‘No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.’” Matthew 6: 24 (NIV) Contrary to what some humanists seem to believe, legal does not mean moral. Legal does not mean beneficial. But if getting more revenue means less protection of the community, who cares?

(2) “He (the mayor—my addition) has also heard several complaints that Morton does not have an upscale grocery store, causing residents to drive elsewhere for necessities and food.

‘That’s the one that most people talk to me about,’ he said.

Allowing wine and beer sales would be more attractive to potential grocery stores that might look the other way knowing they cannot sell alcohol, he said.”

My comments: Do I understand this correctly, he is now tailoring the liquor ordinance to attract one particular type of grocery store—a store that is upscale and also sells beer and wine? How convenient for those type of stores! What other ordinances is he going to tailor to attract a particular brand of business? I hope there are not several people within Morton promoting the adult entertainment community. Will he then soon propose changes in the ordinances to accommodate that expressed desire?

Just how many is “several” in the number of complains received? 10? 30? 100? 1000? Why do their complaints take precedent over the current liquor ordinance? Don’t they have a choice to move closer to those upscale stores? No one approves of the current ordinance?

“ … Causing residents to drive elsewhere for necessities….”—is that correct? “Necessities” can only be purchased at upscale grocery stores? I feel totally deprived because I have never driven outside the Village to buy necessities at an upscale, out-of-Village grocery store. Come to think of it, I’ve never driven out of the Village, since I moved back, to buy any type of groceries.

In fact, studies that I have read support that people overwhelming buy groceries within the neighborhood, when they can. The mayor would have us believe that hoards of people are driving five miles or more for the “convenience” of buying food and alcohol at the same time when they can buy both within about a mile of each other right here in Morton. In this time of higher priced gasoline does that make a lot of economic sense? If they are driving five miles or more to other communities, maybe it is for more reasons than just to buy food and alcohol at the same time at an upscale grocery store.

Guess what? From what I have been told, I personally don’t know, that upscale grocery store that sells beer and wine is Lindy’s Food located in Washington, Illinois. This is the same Lindy’s Food that I sent the letter to earlier and made reference to in the previous post. It has been denied, but it is hard not to suspect that these changes are being proposed for the benefit of that store. However, if the store is so appealing, why isn’t the owner willing to compete in Morton under the same circumstances that grocery stores now have in Morton—selling groceries; not beer and wine? Can the store only compete if allowed to sale beer and wine?

If three grocery stores are selling beer and wine will all three be economically viable or will one go by the wayside? We had two grocery stores in Morton when Wal-Mart arrived and the locally own store almost immediately closed its doors. If the demand is not present for three stores, will one close or will one or more liquor stores be driven out of business? Will there really be an overall economic growth or just a shifting of a set amount of income between different sources? Doesn’t the mayor have an obligation to address these issues BEFORE proposing a change in the liquor ordinance?

(3) “‘Having been a superintendent—many times (underage alcohol consumption) is with the sanction of the parents,’ Durflinger said. ‘Very seldom does an underage person go to purchase liquor.’”

My comments: First of all, arguing that seldom do underage people purchase alcohol is a “straw man” argument. I don’t think anyone would claim that most underage smokers purchase their own cigarettes. However, availability and accessibility are important. There are presently three liquor stores in the Village. If both of the present groceries stores begin selling beer and wine and Lindy’s Foods or a difference grocery store becomes a third grocery store selling beer and wine that doubles the accessibility and availability. If an individual was looking to steal a car with the keys left in the ignition, it would be more likely that he would find such a car with 6 cars than with three. And in fact, if three of the cars were in both groups (i.e. the three liquor stores now; six stores selling liquor after the decision), the other three can only increase the possibility of success.

The example I used in a previous post of the 12-year-old stealing hard liquor from a grocery store in Tucson illustrates the difficulty of controlling theft in grocery stores. Seldom are grocery stores as vigilant as are liquor stores. First of all, a 12-year-old with other children in a liquor store would be conspicuous and out of place. The same is not as true in a grocery store. Also, grocery stores are larger and tend to be more difficult to monitor. I doubt if the local grocery stores are going to lock up the liquor or have total control over who is present in that area of the store. Secondly, a major problem in many retail businesses is employee theft. Most grocery stores will have more employees and quite simply more opportunities for them to steal liquor from the store. Also, customers are known to steal from stores. I have a relative who used to work for many years as a grocery store checkout clerk. She relates several stories of employees and customers stealing from the store. And of course, these are only those who have been caught. I think it is beyond dispute that having liquor in grocery stores will only increase the TEMPTATION to get something for nothing.

Regarding the mayor’s claim that “many times (underage alcohol consumption) is with the sanction of the parents,” the first problem with this claim is that he again does not identify what he means by “many times.” To him that might mean 15% of the time; to others that might mean 40% of the time. Secondly, I would like to see his evidence that parents generally approve of the underage use of alcohol. I will agree that less than 50% of the time the alcohol comes from the family. However, probably a majority of those times it is WITHOUT the approval or knowledge of the parents. That figure may fall if alcohol is more available and accessible as underage drinkers shift to outside sources such as grocery stores.

The following is from a Peoria Journal Star article published on August 5, 2008, page B3 entitled “Underage drinking data to be shared.” “The most recent Illinois Youth Survey, conducted in 2006, found 41 percent of eighth, 10th and 12th-graders who reported drinking had procured alcohol from their parents.” Procured, of course, means they got possession of the alcohol through parent ownership of the alcohol, perhaps by raiding the liquor cabinet. It does not mean that the procurement was sanctioned by the parents. Even if it was though, it still means that a majority of the alcohol came from outside sources Also, it is more likely that particularly eighth graders and many tenth graders got the alcohol from parents because of accessibility and availability while 12th graders got the alcohol from outside sources. And the 12th graders are the ones more likely to be driving drunk.

One of the concepts in social science is that those who are involved in illegal activity tend to select the easiest way to achieve the results desired. Thus, car thieves would rather find a car that is unlocked and has keys in the ignition than a car that is locked and does not have keys in the ignition. It does not mean they won’t steal such a car but it does mean they would prefer the easy route rather than the more difficult. If it is easier to procure alcohol from liquor stores and groceries stores because of availability and accessibility, that is what they will tend to do. Logically, it is easier to procure liquor from six possible targets than from three.

This seems strange. This year, Morton High School is beginning the random drug testing of students who participate in extra-curricular activities. At the same time, the Village Board of Trustees is considering increasing the availability and accessibility of beer and wine within grocery stores. Is that increasing the temptation for students to try to beat the system and take a chance on not getting caught? Are the two government entities working at counter purposes?

Why does the Village leadership want to make it easier for such illegal activities for underage drinkers? Why does the Village leadership want to change a long standing philosophical concept in relation to alcohol? Why are they no longer willing to promote (1) the protection of the citizens, (2) the promotion of temperance, and (3) the prevention of minors getting possession of alcohol? Actions have consequences. “The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.” and I don’t see where these amendments can even remotely be classified as the best laid plans. What’s that computer concept? Garbage in; garbage out.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)