Laserfiche WebLink
Special Meeting - September 20, 195 <br />E11 Nadeau, 2972 Centerville Road, explained a municipal <br />store setup operating in a small town in Northern MinrlesOta which lze <br />thought worked out well. His explanation involved some sort of plan <br />whereby a private owner ran the business but the municipality partici- <br />pated in the profits. Thi-s was a town where only one tavez'n existed. <br />After some discussion <br />gave a talk on the origin of our <br />progress up to date. <br />of a general nature, Roy Nadeau, Clerl{, <br />village, the reasons for it, and the <br />Dave OcI{eeffe, lla-`j County Road C., made a statement. in vrhich <br />he favored i:he establishmc:nl: of a municipal liquor store.. <br />John Hanna, (j?_'j Vilting llrive, asked if it was possible to <br />present a petition for a wet or a dry vote. He made no indication of <br />whether he favored either municipal or private ownership. <br />Walter Johnson, 335 Park Lane, stated that he favored a muni- <br />cipal store and categorically advised that all municipal stores in <br />?,Minnesota. made handsome profits, <br />Michael Stszeynslce, 7791 Centerville Road, gave some figures <br />which he had developed as to the possibility of malting a proflit in a <br />municipal operation. 1Iis figures indicated that it would be virtually <br />impossible to profitably operate a municipal dispensary. He then <br />stated t.lzat, he .favored issuance of licenses to private owners. <br />Jesse Chatpentier, 2170 Burr, made a statement, i.n which he <br />claimed that considerable money cov.ld be made in operating a municipal <br />liquor store and that, he, favored such an operation. <br />IUir. Joe Vitale., 281(1- Rice Street, stated that he and his wife <br />and children have put in many long hours operating their tavern and <br />izad accumulated what they have by result of many years oi' hard work, He <br />stated that he vaas against the government ownership of any business. <br />Robert Ross, 93 1'•. Bryant, aslted for i:he floor and stated that. <br />he was opposed to municipal ownership and favored private licenses. <br />Mr. William I-Iaines stated that he was in I•avor of a vote on <br />the question of whether any liquor dispensing at ail should be permitted <br />i.n the Village and that he did not think that the question of municipal <br />vs. priva%e ownership should be discussed at this time. <br />Mr. Bryce i'aust, 281?_ Centervi.ile Road, gave a number of rea- <br />sons why he opposed municipal ownership. <br />Mr. Ed i<dcCooi, ?_70?_ Lakeshore, stated Chat he at one time <br />thought municipal ownership had some merit but that he was now of the <br />opinion that private ownership is the best solution. <br />Fred iJtemrner asked to be heard and stated that he was speaking <br />as a private citizen and not as an attorney for anyone. He gave his <br />reasons for being opposed to municipal ownership and said that, contrary <br />to the very general opinion that we have no liquor problem, we in fact, <br />do have and that the only way the, Council can establish a sensible regu- <br />lation and supervise the use of liquor within the Village is to have it <br />licensed. <br />- 2 - <br />