"Who needs the Qwik-E-Mart?"
Four out of seven San Bernardino city would say "not San Bernardino." The council narrowly voted Monday night to restrict new convenience stores from opening in the city.
By Andrew Edwards
Staff Writer
SAN BERNARDINO -- The city's ban on new convenience stores remains in effect.
The council voted 4 to 3 Monday to retain the prohibition.
The stores had been generally banned under a 2004 moratorium that prohibits a dozen business types from opening in the city.
One issue of concern was whether the addition of new convenience stores, which typically sell beer and wine, would have a negative impact on a city that is already home to many alcohol venders.
"We don't need more liquor stores in this city," 2nd Ward Councilman Dennis Baxter said. "We need to make sure the alcohol is being controlled. I will not support this in any way, shape or form."
Baxter joined council members Esther Estrada, Rikke Van Johnson and Wendy McCammack Monday in voting against a proposal that would have relax restrictions on convenience stores.
Councilmen Tobin Brinker, Fred Shorett and Chas Kelley supported a plan that would have made it easier for convenience stores to set up shop in San Bernardino.
"It's my understanding that our city doesn't have a business friendly reputation at this time, this is a way to change that," Shorett said.
San Bernardino's moratorium targets businesses that city officials have believed to attracted shady customers. Besides convenience stores, the moratorium also prohibits additional smoke shops, tattoo parlors, check-cashing businesses or second-hand stores.
Kelley and Brinker have sought changes to the moratorium for more than a year. Brinker represents the southern neighborhoods of the Third Ward, which includes the vacant storefronts of E Street, once thriving with business and entertainment.
Brinker said Monday that being too strict on potential businesses can create a new set of problems.
"We create other issues when we have vacant buildings, and we have blight and other types of crime that are associated with that we have to strike a balance," Brinker said.
In January, the council rejected a proposal to modify the moratorium that would have given the council case-by-case discretion to allow businesses after the City Attorney's office opined that the process would have been to vague to be legally valid.
The proposal that failed Monday would have allowed convenience stores that met certain size requirements that favored larger stores.
The proposal also included provisions that would have mandated stores to have security cameras that record to DVR and that any pay phones at the stores are installed inside the shop and not able to take incoming calls.
8 Comments
Leave a comment
About SB Now Blog
Andrew Edwards. E-mail Andrew here.
I agree, we do not need more alcohol venders and smokeshops in our neighborhoods, where we are trying to raise our families. School age children have to walk by liquor stores, smokeshops and pornshops daily to and from school, and now there are those who think this is not enough! E Street needs businesses but not these types, I would really love to see a more modern and respectable version of E Street businesses, perhaps retails that are found outside the city limits, such as Book Stores, Museums, Restaurants and Cultural Centers for the whole family to enjoy. Think about it, San Bernadino residents have to go outside city limits to go to a good bookstore (Barnes and Nobles-Redlands), a museum (San Bernardino County Museum-Redlands), to restaurants (all near the city lines with Loma Linda), hospitals (Loma Linda or Colton). We have nothing here. We have to spend our money in other cities, no wonder we have no significant revenue coming in. We need positive businesses to start investing our money into and feel safe around, but before we can attract those businesses we need to start cleaning up our acts, and when I say we it's you City Council!
San Bernardino needs to become a dry city.
Great idea! Let's just make alcohol illegal in this city! Constitution: what's that? Since there are folks who abuse alcohol in this city, let's just get rid of it and lock up all the addicts while we're at it: tobacco, too! Since a few don't know what's good for them, let's just make them be like the rest of us! YEAH! Let's just give Uncle Sam more power because, as we all know, the government officials know what's best for us and they only want to help... HOORAY FOR COMMUNISM!
What about the slurpees? Where can I get a quart of double-fudge-dipped CherryGarcia and pickles for a pregnant wife after hours? What if my kid gets a fever and I need baby cough syrup after hours? What about the productive members of society who just want a cold beer after a really long day at work & they don't keep it stocked in their fridge because they're not alcoholics or maybe have kids at home? This law doesn't help clean up S.B. It just makes it harder on the people.
You all missed the point, but you made good fun or good sense.I wont refute any of your statements or sarcasm.
Kelley and Brinker were beholding or promised, to a 7-11, Dollar Tree, and a Stereo shop each, where-by, they had their agendas to help these enterprises skirt the very regulation they ( these two agendized council boys and the whole council et al), voted for and now want to show some "BRAVISIMO", and slip some variances in .
They worked out a good buddy deal between themselves, to help each other try to get these clients thru council. Didnt work.
Trust me, these two will try this stunt again and again, as it is a "power thing" to them. Each is showing some ego lately, and the "little guy" is upping the sarcasm level lately.
Rikke has good reason to fear more Alcohol sales in his neighborhood, and yes Baxter would probably favor a dry city. City has been wet and probably will be that way forever.
McCammack just wants to keep the "hangouts,crime centers,and negative influences, few and far between with out suppressing all sales completley.
Ester saw the "Bravisimo", and the illogic going on and fired off her salvo in the form of a good vote.
Who knows what the new guy ( Fred Shorett) wants. He seems to be using the "Bill Clinton- finger in the wind" technique, and doing votes to favor Morris and Brinker.
It is fun to see the 2 boys get "tweaked " when their agenda gets foiled or "muddied up".
Mr. Kelley, still likes to wonder off from the council seat too often and maybe he just doesnt like his chair that well.
Where does he keep wandering off to? HHMMMM?
The Mayor ought to tie him down or nail his shoes to the floor.
Ester has been delving out some really good logic lately. Great going Ester. Good to hear Rikke get involved more too! We need more say for the 6th at the council meetings.
"Et al," huh? Well, Kelly isn't profiting on side deals. He may ping pong about the room, but he's always visible. He's not cutting deals right in front of everyone. He's changed quite a bit. I think Fred is looking to further his political career, but still sees that he's got to go with the people in order to win this game. I just can't believe Morris has the guts to run again...What a disaster! He is the KING of back-door dealings!
Some missed my point. You take away the alcohol and many of the " Leaches of Society " will want to move. They won't want to live in a dry city. They will move to other cities in the area, so they can go to their neighborhood liquor store and buy their favorite 40 OZ. bottle. Many of these people travel by foot, bike, and some that do travel by vehicle, will not want to travel far. Not all out there are drug users and no this won't cause others to become drug users.
...My2Cents:
We understand what you THINK it'll do to this city and we know you are wrong. It'll just make the problem worse. They'll buy it from Super Markets...It'll just save them money.