Time to vote on Sunday off-sale liquor

The City Council will conduct its second reading and final vote tonight on the proposal to allow Sunday sales of off-sale liquor, barring any unforeseen schedule changes.

With the benefit of a couple weeks to think about this since the first reading, do you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea?

Some supplementary material:

34 thoughts on “Time to vote on Sunday off-sale liquor

  1. Bad, bad, bad! Not necessary. Those that want a drink on Sunday have alcohol available already. Those that want to get falling down drunk on Sat. and Sun. can plan ahead.

  2. Pass it. If it does not work well, they can reconsider then ban it again later.

  3. What “problem” is there that changing the rules on liquor sales would solve?
    You can get beer every day of the week already! If you drink liquor–as I do–what are the odds you just happen to need a new jug on Sunday AND you could not forsee this? An urgent need to buy a new bottle of liquor on Sunday bespeaks an impulsivity and/or a level of consumption too irresponsibly high to merit remedy from policy makers.
    Please, someone, walk we through why this is necessary.
    Also, for whatever it’s worth, desire to place reasonable limits on the sale of alcohol don’t always come from teetotalers or prigs–it has often had a lot to do with public safety and worker productivity. Just sayin’.

  4. Please tell me ONE advantage that this would bring? If you are going to tell me more revenue for those retailers on Sauday, please I dont want to hear that. If that is the only advantage, is it worth it? If their customers arent smart enough to plan ahead then they dont need it. Heck the minors in this town are able to FIND, BUY and DRINK it, if an adult cant plan for it in advance…..well, come on! ***And Yes I too enjoy a drink with dinner, but if I dont have it before Sunday,I dont NEED it on Sunday.

  5. Councilman Jeff Smith said in introducing the ordinance that the city stands to gain sales-tax revenue from allowing off-sale liquor to be sold on Sundays.


  7. Why shouldn’t we allow liquor sales on Sunday? Why would Sunday be any different from Friday in the eyes of government?

  8. “Why would Sunday be any different from Friday in the eyes of government?”

    Now there’s a question that strikes at the heart of some weighty issues. I’d love to read some debate on that.

    I guess my simple answer would be that Sunday is different because this government, the Mitchell City Council, at some point in the past wanted to treat it differently. That’s how a democracy works.

    On the other hand, I’m sure some would argue that the government has no business doing things for religious purposes.

  9. Catholics technically don’t “get wine” on Sunday. The wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ.

    But I do see your point. Who cares when people buy liquor?

  10. So, it’s hard to believe that Sunday liquor sales won’t lead to the degradation of our fair community but easy to say that Catholics are transubstantiating wine into blood?



  12. So how did the counsel know how to vote since Scott wasnt there to tell ” What Jesus would do?” Perhaps Scott was “grounded” and told not make an appearance.

  13. Once again, the comments against the Catholics are alive on the DR blog. Uh-huh – you are an idiot.

  14. The last comment should have been addressed to Rev (???) Run Ronnie Run…YOU are the idiot.

  15. Whatever happened to the City’s trees that Houwman wrongfully cut down? Did he ever have to reimburse the City?

  16. Im guessing that the city hasnt seen a penny for those trees no has the Mayor pushed the issue..Remember Scott is untouchable. Sad huh?


  18. As I recall, didn’t the mayor and Dan Allen each contribute $1,000 toward trees when the City Budget ran out? I think there was a story in the DR.

  19. Why would Dan Allen and Mayor Sebert contribute $2k when it was Houman who cut down the City’s trees?

  20. I believe the story was that the power company trimmed the trees when Scott told them they were hitting the power lines. Dan Allen and Mayor Sebert donated money when a local group of volunteers needed additional funds to plant a few hundred trees on city property, mostly the Soccer grounds.

  21. for How-man not to show up at the council meeting after his “Jesus” comment, shows that he is a gutless coward. I’d bet he doesn’t run for re-election. Who would vote for this clown? What would Dr. Howe do?

  22. The Power Company only trimmed the trees after being contacted by Scott Howman. He pushed his weight as a council person to get those trees cut down. His reason for that is for his own selfish desire to have a better view to the lake from him new property, not due to powerline issues. Come on …seriously,powerline issues??? We can all see thru that.

  23. So you are saying that a city councilman in Mitchell, SD has the ability to tell a fortune 500 company what to do? You people are dilusional. By the way, drive by the scene of the crime. Looks a heck of a lot better now than it did before. Matter of fact, looks like it needs some more trimming further to the west. If Houwman wants a better view of the lake, why did he build a berm of dirt which covers up the lake more than the trees did? Am I missing something here? Where is the logic of what you are saying? The slough Houwman cleaned up looks a heck of a lot better and cleaner as well. Mosquitos that used to reproduce by the billions are not as bad either now that the standing water in the ditches and puddles is better as well. Overall, I would say he has done us all a favor. Get a life.

  24. Was Scott on the city council when this happened? I’m not sure, but I didn’t think he was. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  25. Yes he was on the council at the time. As for power on ..believe and think what you wish. We all get to do that. But I will tell ya, it is what it is.

  26. I stand corrected. I agree with most of you. No one has the right to do what Scott did, but he is pals with the Mayor. Are we sure the Mayor didn’t give him the OK? Just wondering. Maybe that is a can of worms.

  27. Anyone has the right to do what Scott did. Just call the power company. They are legally required to trim trees that could interfere with power lines and they face fines if they do not do so.

  28. Well the mayor may have given him the “off the record ok”…we will never know. 🙂 I agree with you that it is perhaps a whole different can of worms. Then Lou should speak up if so, ya know, get your buddy’s back kinda thing.

  29. You are right we all have the right to do that. That isnt the deal with this this scenario. He called as ” Counselman Howman wanting the trees cut down”…there were no powerline issues with the trees.

Comments are closed.