Letters To The Editor
Citizen Didn’t Deserve Poor Treatment At City Board Meeting
Dear Editor,
I attended the Water Valley Board of Aldermen meeting last Tuesday, April 7, where Amos Harvey, a private citizen and an employee of a Main Street business, addressed the board concerning the new beer ordinance. Mr. Harvey was prepared and composed, and he spoke respectfully and knowledgeably. However, when the mayor deferred Mr. Harvey’s questions to the city attorney, John Crow, the manner of the conversation changed abruptly.
I will speak to the details of Mr. Harvey’s concerns in a moment, but what seems more problematic to me is how a private citizen was treated when he voiced legitimate concerns. Mr. Crow became very confrontational, which had to be apparent to everyone in the audience, including Mr. Harvey’s wife and two young sons. From my point of view, the degree of Mr. Crow’s response seemed unprovoked. Mr. Harvey was not making a personal attack or disputing a personal matter. He was airing a legitimate concern, and he was treated poorly in response.
Mr. Crow was adamant, at one point, that he did not represent Mr. Harvey, inferring that he represents the Board of Aldermen, which is technically true. However, the Aldermen work for the city and are elected by the constituents of Water Valley. For Mr. Crow to show such disregard toward the civic interests of one of those constituents is disconcerting. Mr. Crow’s demeanor was alarming to me, and I am willing to bet I am not the only audience member who thought so. It was also alarming to me that there was little-to-no attempt by the mayor or another Alderman to mediate or alleviate the mood of the confrontation. Mr. Harvey deserves an apology for his treatment at last week’s meeting.
One of the points Mr. Harvey mentioned was the inclusion of consumer penalties in the new beer ordinance and stiffer penalties for both retailer and consumer, which occurs in Article 19 and states: “Any person violating any provisions of this ordinance, either retailer or consumer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the sum of one thousand dollars ($1000) or sentenced to serve not more than ninety (90) days in jail, or both.” In the previous ordinance, penalties were only outlined for possession of alcohol or false ID use by minors and for retailers/servers. Where, then, does this penalty for consumers of legal age come from? There are already alcohol statutes with penalties that apply to consumers (e.g., legal BAC, driving under the influence), making the need for consumer penalties in this ordinance not only redundant but also not reasonably enforceable. In response to Mr. Harvey’s hypothetical situation of a consumer ordering and drinking a beer “in anticipation of a meal” (a stipulation of the ordinance) but then having to leave the establishment unexpectedly, therefore violating that particular stipulation, Mr. Crow claimed “that would never happen.”
Why include such strict penalties in the ordinance if common sense demands they will not be enforced to the full extent? If its statutes can be ruled by common sense, as Mr. Crow has claimed on several occasions, then what is the purpose of it? Where is the need for an ordinance that is causing such upset among city business owners if common sense dictates what is addressed in it? To echo remarks already made repeatedly to the Board of Aldermen itself, this most recent beer ordinance is redundant and overly restrictive, and, furthermore, an insistence on common sense makes it unnecessary.
Sincerely,
Dr. Claire Mischker
Lack Of Anticipation Could Mean Jail Time For Beer Consumer
TO THE EDITOR:
I am a 75 year old speech and language pathologist. I am a property owner in Water Valley. I pay the fees and taxes associated with my private practice, my property ownership, and all other obligations before they are due. I try to drive within the speed limit. I stop at all red lights. I donate time and money to my church. I am a specialist in communication problems associated with deafness.
I now discover that I can be jailed if I continue a practice I have engaged in for most of my adult life. Sometimes I like to go to El Charrito for a beer and chips—not in anticipation of a meal. I don’t much care for stronger drinks.
Usually, I am accompanying someone else who is eating there, but not always. Not only can I be jailed for three months and/or face a $1000 fine, but so can the manager of the establishment, a hard-working man who puts in 15-hour days and probably is in the kitchen or the other room when I am ordering. We BOTH can be jailed! What!?
Our Board of Aldermen passed this new ordinance unanimously. Not one of them has said it was a mistake. Did they work together in crafting it? Did any of them even read it? If so, be worried. Be very worried. What’s next?
Yours truly,
/s/Betsy Person
BETSY PERSON