U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2017, 10:29 AM
 
15,371 posts, read 17,635,961 times
Reputation: 13496

Advertisements

It was part of a bill to crack down on liquor stores that were masquerading as restaurants. They were defining rules on what defines a restaurant and wanted to exclude liquor stores from meeting the criteria, which they had been doing for many years.

They went overboard with tweaking the rules. They were trying to make a clear separation from true liquor stores compared to restaurants.

They have sinced removed the rule about bullet proof glass but kept the other rules as defined in this link

This link has a good explanation of the intent of forcing liquor stores to not be licensed as restaurants.

https://www.metro.us/news/local-news...ebated-council
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2017, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,683 posts, read 3,653,594 times
Reputation: 16625
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
It should be obvious that there's a difference between banning and regulating.
What's the matter with you people? can't you read or do you deliberately distort?
Can't YOU read? From the article:

Quote:
“No establishment required to obtain a Large Establishment license … shall erect or maintain a physical barrier that requires the persons serving the food either to open a window or other aperture or to pass the food through a window or other aperture, in order to hand the food to a customer inside the establishment,” the bill states. It also calls for larger establishments to have bathrooms for customers.

[. . .]

“It says that the Department of Licenses and Inspections will determine no later than January 1, 2021 whether protective barriers like safety glass should exist in any large restaurant establishment and enforce any regulations stemming from that decision,” Councilman David Oh said in a statement after the Monday hearing, according to NBC 10.
He added: “In case there was any doubt about the City’s position, today City officials testified in support of removing these protective barriers. In other words, the City can and almost certainly will require the removal of safety glass as soon as the ordinance goes into effect."
Pretty much sounds like a ban to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 10:35 AM
 
26,744 posts, read 9,092,990 times
Reputation: 9327
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Bulletproof glass is racist.
lol

Not if its tinted. Bulletproof non tented glass clearly has white privilege. Clearly !!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 10:41 AM
 
51,993 posts, read 41,835,728 times
Reputation: 32439
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
While bulletproof glass may be considered racist rest assured bullets are not.


I'll bet part of the reason for the removal of the glass is to force these shops to close as they make a neighborhood more difficult to gentrify. This may simply be a way to throw the bums and deviants out of this neighborhood or into a neighborhood scheduled to gentrification in a few years.
Yeah, a number of cities use "safety" or other types of excuses in order to achieve a variety of goals with new laws. (It's done in small towns too.)

If they don't want certain types of businesses or even if they are getting paid off to eliminate competition for other businesses...then they can use all kinds of things like health inspections or regulations or citing them as a nuisance and yanking their liquor license etc etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 10:43 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,094 posts, read 1,392,079 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
It should be obvious that there's a difference between banning and regulating.
Correct, there is a major difference. And in this case it is clearly a ban.

The linked article quotes the text of the bill:
“No establishment required to obtain a Large Establishment license … shall erect or maintain a physical barrier that requires the persons serving the food either to open a window or other aperture or to pass the food through a window or other aperture, in order to hand the food to a customer inside the establishment,” the bill states.


"No establishment... shall erect a physical barrier..." ...how is this not a ban?

Quote:
What's the matter with you people? can't you read or do you deliberately distort?
The only one misreading or distorting is you. What's the matter with you?

Are you on some prescription medicines we should be aware of when reading your posts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 10:53 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,094 posts, read 1,392,079 times
Reputation: 3663
The linked article also quotes the person who wrote the bill (to no one's surprise, she's a Democrat):
Bass said the bulletproof glass and partitions at some of these businesses are a concern of the city’s health department -- if a customer is choking or having an allergic reaction, a barrier should not stand in the way of safety.

Where's her statement about "If a customer assaults the store clerk with a gun or other weapon, a barrier should not stand in the way of safety"?

I didn't notice that statement in the article. Maybe they exceeded their quota of words in an article, and so didn't have space to print it?

In, say, the last ten years in those neighborhoods, how many of each kind of hazard has occurred? How many customers choked? And how many threatened, injured, or killed the clerks?

I'd guess the latter is far more common in those neighborhoods.

It's clear to me what this legislative person really wants to prevent: People or companies taking their own initiative to defend themselves against thugs, robbers and crazed drug addicts.

And Democrats are virulently against any such personal initiative or self-defense. As usual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,540 posts, read 4,242,077 times
Reputation: 9858
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
That's nearly as bad the calls to banning bullet proof vests...

This has to be a liberal idea.
Really??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 11:08 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,094 posts, read 1,392,079 times
Reputation: 3663
Bulletproof beer delis and Cindy Bass' misguided hot potato | Stu Bykofsky

Quote:
[City Councilman Cindy] Bass’ idea hit a nerve, partly because of the ban itself, but also because of the reason she gave: The barriers hurt some peoples’ feelings.
“It’s an indignity” to be served by someone behind a bulletproof wall, Bass said
It becomes clear why this City Councilthing wants to take away the safety shields: "Offended" customers are easier to create, and far more numerous... and each has a vote.

While clerks are fewer... and dead ones don't vote at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 11:11 AM
 
2,469 posts, read 2,982,716 times
Reputation: 1726
Too bad they can't just be more like NOLA

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2017, 11:18 AM
Status: "I CRAVE Canine-stew" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Brawndo-Thirst-Mutilator-Nation
16,471 posts, read 16,581,098 times
Reputation: 12462
WUH, stores are doing it to for safety and loss-prevention.

Some stores in those very crime-ridden areas have the whole store closed-off, no customers may enter....customers "shop" at the bulletproof walk-up window.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top