Today's Feature

Approved Special Use Permit.

Many Citizens Were Heard.

The Carthage City Council at Tuesday night’s meeting approved the addition of a new special use permit to the City Code. The permit, when granted to a business, would allow for the sale of liquor by the drink if 60% of the business income is derived from the sale of prepared food.

This item was originally presented as an alternative to a rezoning for property at 1926 South Garrison. Vince Scott, owner of the former Hazlett’s restaurant on Garrison, had requested that the property be zoned to allow for sale of liquor by the drink. The rezoning was rejected in part due to concerns voiced by neighbors near the building. These concerns included decreased property value and the effects of alcohol on driving in the area.

The special use permit was proposed as an alternative which could place further restrictions on the establishment including the 60/40 ratio of prepared food-to-liquor sales, hours of operation and review periods. The special use permit would also be revoked if the purpose for which it was issued was changed, as opposed to a blanket rezoning which would reflect on the building itself.

The addition of the new permit attracted a crowd of citizen participants to Tuesday evenings meeting.

Citizen Jess Kessinger spoke against the special use permit.

"There are plenty of places in Carthage where they serve," said Kessinger of alcohol serving establishments in Carthage. Kessinger added that encouraging additional places for alcohol consumption was "not in the best interest of Carthage."

Citizen Ivan Hager spoke against the permit in conjunction with its proposed use at 1926 Garrison, citing too many unknown variables.

"You need to know who’s going to operate this business," said Hager. Other concerns listed by Hager included the current lack of restrictions included in the permit.

Citizen Robert Motch spoke in opposition to the permit saying he felt most citizens would not want bars in their back yards.

"Don’t do to these people what you wouldn’t want done to you," said Motch.

Representatives from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and several local churches were also in attendance to speak against the permit.

City Administrator Tom Short stated that this bill approving the special use permit would not necessarily insure its application at 1926 South Garrison.

Council member Tom Flanigan inquired about the special use permit in relation to state liquor licenses. Short said that a state liquor license would still be required. City Attorney David Mouton added that the special use permit could allow for further restrictions specific to the neighborhood.

Council member Ronnie Wells said he intended to vote against the permit because it seemed like a loophole. Wells expressed concerns that the approval of the permit would create more loopholes all over town.

Council member Mike Harris said that he didn’t feel it was a loophole, or a way to circumvent the opposition to rezoning, but a way to allow for more restrictions. Harris also noted that the approval of this ordinance did not apply to any particular restaurant.

The item was approved in a 7 to 3 vote. Council members in favor included Diane Sharits, Bill Welch, Bill Johnson, Dan Rife, Larry Ross, Claude Newport and Mike Harris. Council members opposed included Cynthia Curry, Tom Flanigan and Ronnie Wells.

"We Need To Be Responsible."

Carthage Water and Electric Plant General Manager Bob Williams spoke before Council at Tuesday evening’s meeting. Williams discussed the drought and status of Carthage wells asking for voluntary conservation of water.

"We need to be responsible," said Williams of local water use.

The City is not issuing any bans on water use, and Carthage’s multiple deep wells are not showing much sign of fluctuation at this point, according to Williams.

It was noted that recent rains had improved local water levels, but Williams said more rain was still needed to improve the drought condition and increase the availability of hydroelectric power.

Williams told Council and the citizens present that a news release would be issued to further encourage voluntary water conservation.

Stench Report:
Wednesday,
4/26/06

No Stink Reported

It appears that the animal fell out of the two story window to the dismay of its owner. Upon further investigation, the cat was clingin’ to the rock wall by its toenails. Screamin’ bloody murder. Fortunately it was perched next to the fire escape and the owner was able to reach the now slightly aggravated fur ball.

Fortunately for the cat it had not be declawed. Unfortunately for the owner, the cat was insistent upon using the hooks to cling to various parts of the owners extremities as the rescue was taking place. Another Carthage tale survives.

This is some fact, but mostly,

Just Jake Talkin’.

Dear Tom and Ray:

I am considering the purchase of a 1926 Buick that appears to be in very good condition. I am not a mechanic, so I am a little doubtful. Does this seem like a stupid idea? I know my wife thinks it is! What are the pitfalls? - Ray

TOM: The only pitfall is to think that you’re buying a car, Ray. You’re not. You’re buying a hobby.

RAY: Right. You might be lucky enough to drive this thing around from time to time, entertaining yourself and your neighbors in the process. But mostly, you’re going to be tinkering with it. You’re going to spend as much time under it as you will in it.

TOM: You say you’re not a mechanic. But are you willing to learn? Do you know of anybody who might enjoy working with you and teaching you? Whiling away some Saturday afternoons in the garage, out in the driveway or in the living room, until your wife catches you?

RAY: You have to be interested in learning about mechanics in order to buy this car. Because you’re not going to be able to take this thing down to Skippy Lube when it starts running rough.

TOM: But if you’re willing to learn, and have the time, and don’t mind buying some tool and reading some books, this 1926 Buick could keep you out of trouble for years. And that’s why your wife should wholeheartedly endorse this idea. After all, which would she rather have you tinkering with - a 1926 Buick, or your secretary, Bubbles?

RACING
By Greg Zyla
Sponsored by Curry Automotive

Restrictor Plate Racing Is Two-Edged Sword

Q: When will NASCAR finally see the light and remove the restrictor plates from the cars at Talladega. I don’t feel it’s in the best interest of racing to continue to allow these drivers to run so close at 200-mph for "safety’s sake." It’s not right, and we’re going to see drivers hurt real bad or killed one day. -- Calvin, South Carolina

A: Calvin, you bring up a "Catch-22" with your statement regarding "for safety’s sake." While restrictor-plate racing has made it more dangerous for the drivers, the opposite is true for the fans.

Restrictor-plate racing was re-instituted by NASCAR following Bobby Allison’s Talladega crash in 1987, when his Buick Regal nearly went into the crowd after blowing an engine on the front straight and crashing hard into the catch fence. NASCAR immediately slowed the cars down via the restrictor plate, which it had used in the ‘70s as a "horsepower equalizer". NASCAR also built stronger catch fences at all its tracks, reducing the possibility of a major tragedy.

As you say, one day something bad will happen to a driver or drivers, and NASCAR will re-examine its car-slowing rules for spectator safety. I just don’t have the answer, but hopefully, in the future, new rules will slow the cars without a carburetor "governor" and relegate the restrictor plate to the garbage can. This way, cars will be able to "break away" for an overall safer race.

In ending, I again emphasize it is a "double-edged sword" problem with no immediate solution. If we continue using the restrictor plate, the driver is in more danger. If you remove the restrictor plate, the cars will probably run 225-mph laps easily and pose a danger of ending up 35 rows high in a packed grandstand.