There were several comments about my piece on the smoking ban and a few asked for an opinion on the alcohol in the theater ban.  Guess I’ll move a little further out on the limb on this topic as well.

In addition to the proposed smoking ban, there is a second petition initiative that is on the ballot on April 5.  This second issue deals with banning the sale of alcohol in the Campbell 16 theaters.

Keep in mind that the theater went through all the City’s licensing processes completely and, because the facility was not within 200 feet of a church or school, there was no need for the matter to come before City Council.  The theater did everything required under state and local law.  And it was routinely issued the license.

The theater had been selling beer and wine to adults in the theater for about six months when one of the local television stations did a news story about it.  At that point, certain people suddenly got excited and decided on a petition drive.

Never mind that there had been no alcohol-related calls to the police department.  Never mind that there were no alcohol-related accidents on the streets around the theater. Never mind that it was so low-key that most of us didn’t even know that the theater had received its license.  The petitioners had come to the conclusion that alcohol in theaters was bad and therefore should be eliminated.

The issue that I have with this petition is that the language of the petition is flawed.  The petition—if passed—mandates that the City of Springfield handle complaints and issues administratively.  This is the same thinking that was shot down in the Yellow Freight case in the 80’s and, most recently, in the red light camera case last year.  The Missouri Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is no avenue for appeal if the summons are handled administratively whereas, if it goes through the Municipal Court system, there is an appeal avenue.

When this fact was communicated to the petitioners, they acknowledged that the petition would probably not stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny.  However, they decided to go ahead with their petition and hope the theater would not decide to challenge the outcome if alcohol were banned.

The real issue with this line of thinking is that—if the Campbell 16 does not like the outcome of the election and challenges the results—it will not be the petitioners who have to foot the legal bill to the Supreme Court.  No, it will be the City of Springfield on the hook for the legal expenses.

I personally find the attitude of the petitioners to be a bit arrogant.  They were informed and admitted the language of the petition was flawed, but were unwilling to re-do their petition because they might have to wait until the next municipal election in August. 

So, they got their required signatures and Council put the issue on the ballot.  Our only other recourse was to immediately make the language of the petition an ordinance.  Because of the flawed language, I could not vote to do that.

So, if the alcohol ban is voted in and the theater decides to challenge the results on the basis of the language, then the City of Springfield will be laying out quite a few thousand dollars in legal fees and court costs.  To the petitioners, I say, “Thanks a lot.”

Next Tuesday, I will also vote no on this issue.  I don’t care about alcohol in the theaters; I wouldn’t buy any. But I can’t be voting in a law that I know is flawed.