2008 Woodie Awards
Staff Editorial: Glutton for punishment
Our VIew: College Park City Council is making the same mistakes in supporting Mark Srour's current petition.
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 3/6/08 Section: Opinion
Even though its approval holds no weight, the College Park City Council once again missed an opportunity to - at the very least - publicly condemn Santa Fe Café owner Mark Srour for his lack of safety standards and, instead, offered support for his bid to allow patrons as young as 18 into his bar.
The council balked on its own contractual agreement with Srour last month when it decided to issue a letter of support for his request to renew his liquor license, despite Srour's four-year failure to install proper sprinklers in Santa Fe. We just cannot figure out why he is continually getting support from the council despite the laundry list of bad ideas and inadequate safety measures.
Now, Srour is petitioning for support to allow more patrons - more accurately, patrons who are younger than the legal drinking age - to be permitted in the bar for music shows. And somehow, the council considers a trial run of Srour's wishes a "compromise."
A compromise would be supporting Srour's petition for underage patrons only if he agrees to install a proper sprinkler system. A compromise is meeting halfway, not giving in all at once and labeling it a compromise. The council has walked away from a "compromise" it made nearly five years ago with Srour regarding sprinklers, allowing him to continue to permit legal patrons into his bar without an adequate sprinkler system in exchange for serving a high ratio of alcohol to food. Is this a compromise, or are they simply bowing down to Srour's every request?
Not only would allowing underage patrons into the bar create more havoc in terms of underage drinking, but is it really the best idea to pack even more people into a bar laced with wood when there is no working sprinkler system? Why does this idea garner the council's support? What will it bring our city other than increased risk and a watered-down stance against underage drinking? Despite outlooks like that of District 2 Councilman Jack Perry, who pointed out "[Srour's] business, as far as we can tell, is selling alcoholic beverages to people, and suddenly he's providing entertainment? Come on. What does he think I've been smoking?", the council lent its support to Srour without hesitation, once again ignoring warning signs. Indeed, what is the council smoking, Perry?
The council has lent its support to Srour multiple times despite nothing but empty promises and an inability to keep his word, even in terms of a contract. It has been embarrassed time and time again because of Srour's inability to hold up his end of the bargain with them, and this situation will be no different. The "compromise" they are now supporting will be much of the same disappointment.
The council needs to realize the importance of its influence and act accordingly. While their support would not make or break Srour's petition, it speaks to whether the council is really considering the hazards Srour's most recent petition hold and continues to make the council look indifferent about student safety. Once again, the council has taken an easy and drama-free route in supporting Srour without, it seems, truly considering the potential consequences.
The council balked on its own contractual agreement with Srour last month when it decided to issue a letter of support for his request to renew his liquor license, despite Srour's four-year failure to install proper sprinklers in Santa Fe. We just cannot figure out why he is continually getting support from the council despite the laundry list of bad ideas and inadequate safety measures.
Now, Srour is petitioning for support to allow more patrons - more accurately, patrons who are younger than the legal drinking age - to be permitted in the bar for music shows. And somehow, the council considers a trial run of Srour's wishes a "compromise."
A compromise would be supporting Srour's petition for underage patrons only if he agrees to install a proper sprinkler system. A compromise is meeting halfway, not giving in all at once and labeling it a compromise. The council has walked away from a "compromise" it made nearly five years ago with Srour regarding sprinklers, allowing him to continue to permit legal patrons into his bar without an adequate sprinkler system in exchange for serving a high ratio of alcohol to food. Is this a compromise, or are they simply bowing down to Srour's every request?
Not only would allowing underage patrons into the bar create more havoc in terms of underage drinking, but is it really the best idea to pack even more people into a bar laced with wood when there is no working sprinkler system? Why does this idea garner the council's support? What will it bring our city other than increased risk and a watered-down stance against underage drinking? Despite outlooks like that of District 2 Councilman Jack Perry, who pointed out "[Srour's] business, as far as we can tell, is selling alcoholic beverages to people, and suddenly he's providing entertainment? Come on. What does he think I've been smoking?", the council lent its support to Srour without hesitation, once again ignoring warning signs. Indeed, what is the council smoking, Perry?
The council has lent its support to Srour multiple times despite nothing but empty promises and an inability to keep his word, even in terms of a contract. It has been embarrassed time and time again because of Srour's inability to hold up his end of the bargain with them, and this situation will be no different. The "compromise" they are now supporting will be much of the same disappointment.
The council needs to realize the importance of its influence and act accordingly. While their support would not make or break Srour's petition, it speaks to whether the council is really considering the hazards Srour's most recent petition hold and continues to make the council look indifferent about student safety. Once again, the council has taken an easy and drama-free route in supporting Srour without, it seems, truly considering the potential consequences.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Cindy
posted 3/07/08 @ 4:10 PM EST
Last time I checked it's not against the law to allow people between the ages of 18 - 20 in a bar, nor is it against the law to not have a sprinkler system in a bar. (Continued…)
Post a Comment