Originally posted by BigFatMeanie
View Post
Originally posted by mpfunk
View Post
She's pretty pissed. The dining club license was made for places that are not quite all restaurant, but not quite all bar either. They were required to have the bar separate from the family restaurant - so many have 2 sections to them. Because of the unique nature of the dining club license, it cost them a premium to purchase the place they purchased. Which just lost most of it's value due to that designation of license going away.
She doesn't want to own a bar. But she isn't LDS, and liked that her establishment was a place that friends could go for a drink. Their business model was based on being able to attracted both families who want a nice meal and groups who are getting together for a drink. She doesn't believe that they'll survive financially trying to be just one or the other.
She doesn't understand why our state legislature wants there to be more bars that aren't required to serve food - resulting in more people drinking on an empty stomach.
The answer I didn't tell her is - our state legislature probably believes that there isn't a demand for more bars. So they're hoping that requiring businesses like hers to pick and either be all bar or all restaurant will result in many turning into restaurants, and those that choose to be bars going bankrupt and closing - and there being fewer places people can gather to drink.
Comment