Burlington gives extensions to 4 late applicants in debt
This entry’s a bit delayed, as it was to be posted on May 1st… it’s been wicked busy for work lately… but without further ado, here it is:
Just heard about this article from the Vermont Hum blog’s 4/30/6 entry , and couldn’t believe what I read… the city allowing select applicants get by the rules… Does it seem fair to allow this to happen to some establishments, and not let all the other businesses get by as well?
Here’s the article from John Briggs:
City grants liquor-license extensions to late applicants
This issue will further be discussed at Monday’s Council meeting.
Thanks for subscribing to my feed!
I always welcome comments, so please… feel free! 😉
I always welcome comments, so please… feel free! 😉
May 12, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
There’s an interesting article by Bill Keogh in the North Avenue News in which he opines that the extensions are actually illegal.
May 14, 2006 @ 9:33 am
Is that similar to Bushes “opinion” that wiretapping is legal?
May 14, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Not really, because he’s quite specific as to the specific laws and how they were broken. I assume that you value your credibility enough not to have commented without having read the article – which part of Keogh’s allegations do you have an issue with?
May 15, 2006 @ 9:33 am
If he had not allowed these businesses to renew their licenses, people like you would have whined that he was anti-business.
May 15, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Oh, so you didn’t actually read the article? How surprising.
The license extensions could have been accomplished in a legal fashion. The Kiss administration chose not to go that route.
May 15, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Yes, throw him in jail. You’re a whiner. I’m going to see to it he raises your taxes and no one else’s.
May 15, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
“You’re a whiner.”
Funny, that’s what Cheney said when people complained about the wiretapping.