Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />November 24, 1981 111 <br />Rocky's North and this Council is well aware of what's been going on in <br />this Surmanellsa's on the River corporation, the Sixteen Corporation and <br />the Rocky's Bar in St. Paul, What is boils down to, the threat of a law <br />suit is the only reason I've got to vote in favor of this liquor license. <br />In my mind, the threat of a law suit is no in the public interest and <br />allowing Mr. Surman to operate this bare is not in the public interest. <br />Unless other Council members want to ake additional comments, I will call <br />for the question on the vote again. <br />Mr. Jaworski reminded the Council that when the license was revoked, the <br />owners were told that the only way that place could be issued a license <br />was that it be sold to someone who was not a member of that corporation and <br />ti would seem that this Council is again dealing with the same corporation, <br />with the exception of a different name on the license. <br />Mr. Jaworski added that about a month ago Mr. Surman was turned down on his <br />requiest for a liquor license in North St. Paul for xactly the same reasons <br />stated by Mayor Gourley. <br />Mr. McLean reviewed the action taken by the Council at the last meeting and <br />assured Mayor Gourley that it felt that basically the members had no solid <br />reason for denial. <br />Mayor Gourley said he was aware of the fact that Mr. Locher is not com- <br />fortable with what he is saying. I've talked to him a couple of times over <br />the last couple of days. But for myself, I think the bottom line is that <br />1) the law does not require that we have any thing other than a belief that <br />this is not in the best interest of the public to not issue the license; in <br />my mind I'm not ready to vote in favor of this liquor license and bear the <br />responsibility of someone's daughter being raped, or someone's child getting <br />turned on to drugs, or someone getting knifed or shot, all of which we know <br />has been going on at the premises - and all of which are very similar to the <br />allegations that we heard in St. Paul and the City of St. Paul had no con- <br />victions - they merely had a belief that the issuance of that license was <br />not in the best interest of the public. <br />Mr. Locher does not feel comfortable with my position, and I respect him for <br />that, but the fact remains I will not have that operation on my conscience. <br />So I guess what I'm saying in voting to deny, I've considered the legal <br />opinion of our Attorney and in my mind it would be better to go to Court <br />and have the Court issue the license than for me to sit here at this <br />Council table and vote ti issue the license. <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz said 'this is all well and good, and I have to concur with <br />what you're saying as to the background of the former owneres. After <br />listening to Mr. Surman, I had doubts in my mind about the issuance of the <br />license and after listening to both Attorneys I did not feel the Council <br />had documented proff for denial.' Mr. Kulaszewicz pointed out that accord - <br />ing to Mr. Locher the Council had no legal reason to deny the license, and <br />that if this matter goes to Court, the City could very easily loose the case. <br />Mayor Gourley agreed and added that is what the Courts are there for. <br />Mrs. Elsenpeter noted that since the last meeting she had discovered that <br />the decision Mr. Rosenbower had presented had been on a very close split <br />decision. But she felt that what the Council had ignored was that Mr. <br />Surman himself was a part of the corporation that owned Rocky's and Friends <br />in St. Paul and has a track record of his won and the Supreme. Court case <br />