Throttling the bottle: Carrabelle debates limits on alcohol sales

A showdown between religious values and economic interests is taking place in Carrabelle.

The question: Where can alcohol be served in the city?

The city commission’s first reading in December of a proposed city ordinance, #450, which would allow for case-by-case city review of requested liquor licenses, led to threats, animosity and posturing on three subsequent occasions.

The fight resumed with a vengeance at the Feb. 1 city meeting, when more than 100 people packed the meeting room.

Originally scheduled for Jan. 5, the ordinance’s second reading was postponed until March, after it was greeted by fierce opposition from Carrabelle religious leaders, notably Homer McMillan, pastor of the Fellowship Baptist Church in December.

Because the ordinance raised passionate arguments from the both businesses and religious groups, Carrabelle commissioners called for a Jan. 21 workshop. About 50 people attended the meeting, which was marked mainly by the religious activists, led McMillan, voicing this position.

Chief among the business owners and landlords who strongly support the rule change are Skip and Kathy Frink, owners of a property at 203 Tallahassee Street which has been home to the Funky Oyster Shack and later Old Salt’s Café.

The Frinks say they want to “bring the restaurant back to life,” and maintain that only permission to serve wine and beer will allow them to do so. But, under the current ordinance, that permission is disallowed because businesses selling alcohol for onsite consumption cannot be located within 500 feet of a church, school or playground.

The Frinks and other business people argue the existing 500-foot rule would ban restaurants from practically all of Carrabelle’s commercial district, and could affect existing business owners’ right and ability to sell or rent their property.

At the January workshop, Skip Frink said the current alcohol ordinance prevents him from attracting a renter for the former Old Salts’ restaurant, which he said closed because it was hindered by lack of a wine and beer license.

“We would like it to go back to what it was before and do away with the feet,” he said. “All neighbors on the block have signed a paper saying they don’t object to the restaurant.”

An unidentified man in the audience said he lived two-tenths of a mile from the restaurant and wanted the 500-foot rule to remain in place.

McMillan argued the Frinks had allowed the original liquor license to expire before the ordinance changed in 2010 (see sidebar). He said it was their responsibility to maintain a business’s license. “This is not the denial of anyone’s rights, but rather an exception for a specific business,” he said.

Kathy Frink said Old Salts’ owners had asked for permission to serve wine and beer three months before the ordinance changed and were turned down. She said that as a result, there had been no reason to maintain the license.

McMillan told her to sit down. He said he did not believe it was necessary for a restaurant to serve alcohol and launched into lengthy remarks on the evils of drinking.

Carrabelle Chamber of Commerce Director Suzanne Zimmerman said she had owned two restaurants and believed visitors to the area expected to order wine or beer with a meal.

 “Most of you folks don’t know me but I spent 25 years as an appraiser of hospitality property,” said Ed Padilla. “Every dollar we spend (promoting tourism) puts $3 in our pockets. This is a restaurant that will create eight to 10 jobs in the city. To deny a business capable of bringing jobs and tourism to town seems somewhat short-sighted. A sophisticated tourist expects a cocktail or beer or wine with his meal and if he doesn’t get that he won’t come back.”

Several landowners expressed concern the ordinance would reduce the value of their property and limit potential tenants.

McMillan was strident in his opposition to the new “by consent” rule.

“To those of you who invested in our community, we appreciate that,” he said. “I would see us further the discussion later on of giving entrepreneurs more opportunity to do business, not less.

“If this ordinance changes, it will lead to case-by-case discussion. We have the likelihood of using city resources and the time of the commissioners. These meetings consume money. The current ordinance leads to most efficient use of city resources and it is in keeping with the policy of most cities in North Florida with similar characteristics. This change takes us outside the mainstream.,” he said.

McMillan said Carrabelle’s demographics will not support additional restaurants, and that 49 restaurants have been opened in Carrabelle in the last decade.

“With all due respect, what church is next?” to have alcohol served nearby, he asked.

“If this law remains in place no restaurant in the main commercial district will ever be successful,” warned Kathy Frink.

Commissioner Charlotte Schneider agreed. “The Marker (restaurant) does not sell alcohol and to me that’s a cost to them,” she said, noting that restaurant’s could still bear responsibility for drinking even if the alcohol wasn’t sold on premises.

“When you tell a restaurant they can’t serve alcohol, you take their control of it away from them,” she said. “They still have a lot of liability for no profit.”

After an hour of bickering, Mayor Curley Messer brought the meeting to a close against the protests of attendees, including Commissioner Cal Allen, who had brought to the meeting information on alcohol ordinances in other cities, including printed handouts.

‘Do you want to shut the whole city down?’

Both sides came to the Feb. 1 city meeting, prepared to continue the discussion, with more than 100 people packing the room.

Skip Frink handed out copies of an aerial map of Carrabelle - between 12^th Street East and the foot of the Tillie Miller Bridge - with an overlay showing the areas excluded from serving alcohol. Carrabelle’s designated commercial district is the area two blocks north of US 98 and south to the water.

Based on Frink’s map, which he said was created by an owner of commercial property adjacent to a restaurant, it appeared that more than half of Carrabelle’s commercial property, including most of downtown, would be excluded from the sale of alcohol under the 500-foot rule.

In a telephone interview, City Manager Courtney Millender said that, while the map has never been formally adopted by the city, she viewed it as an accurate depiction of the business district and the areas of exclusion. Businesses that sold alcohol prior to the 500-foot rule change are entitled to continue to sell it, but they are prevented from transferring their license to a new owner.

When the subject of the ordinance was raised, Frink was the first to speak.

“Look at all the empty businesses. We should be encouraging new business. If you had the misfortune to graduate this year where will you go to work? Let’s grow Carrabelle for our children and their children,” he said.

He said the 500-foot rule could also have a negative effect on existing businesses with liquor licenses that could not be transferred in the event of a sale. City Attorney Dan Hartman concurred, noting there were cases where local governments had prevented the transfer of a business license.

Former City Commissioner Jim Brown advocated for the existing 500-fott law. “We don’t need a bar in front of a church. We had a hard time getting this law passed,” he said. “I talked to (Supervisor of Elections) Ida Elliot and she said we only need 10 percent for a recall election. If this gets passed, I imagine there will be a lot of people out in the morning trying to get signatures for a recall.”

McMillan brandished papers and said, “After the last workshop, I was approached by some community leaders who asked me if I would initiate a petition. I have 176 signatures indicating opposition to the (new) ordinance.”

He said the signatures included five senior pastors, business leaders and some people who do not attend church.

Carrabelle resident Shawn Oxendine said McMillan’s petition was misrepresented at the church he attends and urged commissioners to scrutinize the signatures.

In a telephone interview, Oxendine said the petition had been described as affecting only the Frinks’ Tallahassee Street property. He said people attending the service where the petition was presented were told they did not need to be residents to sign, and that parents were encouraged to tell their under-aged children to sign the document.

 “Is this going to be Carrabelle under Prohibition?” he asked the audience at last week’s workshop. “I’m asking these men of God if it says anywhere in the Bible that it is illegal to drink or take a sip of wine. I wish they would show it to me.”

He said the Head Start nursery school, at 203 North 5^th Street was not shown on Frink’s map and would exclude even more of the waterfront from the sale of alcohol.

“Do you want to shut the whole city down?” Oxendine asked. “This is not a few selective properties; it’s almost the whole commercial district.”

McMillan replied that “the issue is not ‘Is it illegal to drink alcohol?’ The issue is ‘Are we going to change the law to allow a few people to do what they want?”

Ron Barks, pastor of the Assembly of God asked the commissioners “to look closely at the way it’s worded. I’m not convinced that selling beer and wine that will make a restaurant go or not go. I’m also concerned that there is a bar, an oyster bar, I can go in and eat a half dozen oysters and drink 10 beers and stagger out.

“I’ve been here almost 30 years and I’ve never tried to stop anything. A lot of us here are within the commercial zone that will be affected by this. Please don’t change this ordinance ‘till you have something respectful to put in its place,” he said.

Oxendine asked what would happen, under the 500-foot rule, if a church decided to open next to a restaurant that served alcohol.

 “Dan, look at the ordinance carefully,” Schneider said to the city attorney. “At no point did I ever want to have anything within one foot of a church. I believe everything can be solved. We need revenue for this downtown area.

“I deeply respect and love our churches and what they do for this community. I love it with all my heart but I believe we need to somehow come together as a community and solve this,” she said.

Schneider asked for another workshop but Messer said he would not allow one. “No!” he snapped. “It’s costing the city. This is what I call a put-off.”

Allen told the meeting the state statute “says 500 feet from schools and churches. It doesn’t mention Sunday school. However, the wisdom of the state also says there are exceptions. It allows a business that sells alcoholic beverages not for on-property consumption.

“A second exception is restaurants that take 51 percent of their income from food. Our ordinance says 75 percent,” he said. “Maybe we can rewrite it in such a way that we keep the 500 feet in there but keep it in keeping with the state.”

David Butler, director of Carrabelle’s Economic Development Council said, “I agree with getting the groups together to come up with a better rule. I think this community’s tight enough that we can find a solution.”

Commissioner Brenda La Paz said she “spent hours in research and with the attorney. I spent countless sleepless nights. A ‘consent of use’ type ordinance does not guarantee everyone who applies for a license will be given consent. This is also a moral issue. I don’t want to limit property rights and want to encourage growth.”

“Maybe we should assign the task to planning and zoning and let them make recommendations that would be more appropriate to modern times as well as paying special attention to the special needs of our churches and schools,” she said. “I would be happy to make a presentation and share my research.”

Hartman suggested the board advertise a joint meeting of the city commission and planning and zoning.

McMillan said the new ordinance should be voted down on the second reading, and demanded to know where commissioners stood on the ordinance.

Hartman said the board was not voting on ordinance 450 at that time. He said vote counting was improper.

The commission voted unanimously to table discussion of the new ordinance until a joint meeting of the board and planning and zoning to be held the third Thursday of the month, Feb. 16.