Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016    Login | Register        

PTC warning: don’t ‘brown bag’ your booze at local businesses

Peachtree City officials are warning residents that it remains illegal to bring their own alcohol to city establishments, a process known as “brown bagging.”

City ordinance forbids anyone bringing their own alcohol to any business that provides food or entertainment, officials said. There is one notable exception:

the city-operated Frederick Brown Jr. Amphitheater, where customers can bring alcohol to concerts and certain other events.

The distinction is that at the amphitheater concerts, paid police officers are on duty providing security, the city has indicated.

Brown bagging has come to the forefront recently as the city noticed two advertisements for recently-opened businesses encouraging customers to bring their own wine for an evening event, according to a city notice. City officials notified both businesses that the practice is illegal.

Anyone caught brown bagging in violation of the ordinance can be issued a citation, according to the city. Officials are encouraging residents to notify such businesses they should stop brown bagging immediately and should contact City Hall to make sure they are complying with the city’s alcohol laws.



Mike King's picture

"The distinction is that at the amphitheater concerts, paid police officers are on duty providing security, the city has indicated."

As if this actually makes any difference other than to insure Chief Skip's crew are gainfully employed one night every other week in season. How long will it take for those same city officials to require individuals to obtain servers permits for entertaining guests in one's own home? Are they not attempting to dictate whether a homeowner can remove a tree from their property?

Alcohol licenses now cost $5K and up, can we as citizens of Peachtree City be considered responsible adults? Would the teetotaler responsible for this please stand up, Don?

Don Haddix's picture

This is an old issue that came before the last Council from a couple of citizens, not the establishments.

Most establishments said they would not do it. A couple said they would because of the serving and corking fees they would charge. So you had the issue of how to indicate which allowed and which didn't allow bring your own.

Other complications were you had to have a wait staffer that could serve alcohol, the bottle had to be taken to the bar tender and kept for pouring, the bottle had to be corked again before it could be taken to a vehicle due to open bottle laws and some other complications.

There was just too much business resistance and legal issues to make it worth while. Most businesses said it put a burden on them they did not want.

I do not believe anyone on Council had a problem with the concept. The legal problems attached did more harm than good. Plus we have to abide by State laws as well.

Why these two new businesses said differently, I have no idea.

As for the cost, those are normal and there are costs to the City attached to those asking for and obtaining such licenses.

But new? No, none of this is new. It is in fact years old.

It use to be more restrictive but we broke it down to allow for more serving to take place.

The Referendum in November could result in even more easing of restrictions.

As for the trees, Mike, what we are looking at is trying to stop clear cutting of large numbers of trees where it harms neighbors home values, protecting set backs, wetlands and other potected areas. We are not trying to stop someone from cutting down a tree in the front yard, etc.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

NUK_1's picture

[quote=Don Haddix]
As for the trees, Mike, what we are looking at is trying to stop clear cutting of large numbers of trees where it harms neighbors home values, protecting set backs, wetlands and other potected areas. We are not trying to stop someone from cutting down a tree in the front yard, etc.[/quote]

From what I read from David Rast, there is a LOT more involved in just the above protections and yes, it would indeed affect someone wanting to cut down a pine tree in their front yard. I don't like the idea that any trees on MY property have some affect on my neighbors either. I am all for my next door neighbor's houses selling for top dollar if they go on the market, but that doesn't mean that my property gets restricted because their shade happens to depend on a tree in my yard that I want gone.

Maybe your vision of what the proposed tree ordinance should be is different from what the staff is considering or has been reported. I hope so.

Don Haddix's picture

I do not believe what is being sought is being accurately reported.

My position is either we get an effective ordinance in place that accomplishes what needs protected or we eliminate the ordinance altogether.

Currently there are no teeth and basically we are just counting how many trees are cut while charging homeowners. That makes no sense.

How it is structured as regards specimen trees, etc, is important. But the end goal of the structure is the real issue.

How this got into discussions about shade from one lot to another I do not know. But I do know a treed lot is worth more than one without trees and it does impact neighbors values.

Getting the right balance is the issue.

Like the guy that argues it is his home so he has every right to park a car on his front yard and let it rust. It does not fly because it impacts the neighbors.

Where we are now isn't working.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

MajorMike's picture

You say "I do not believe what is being sought is being accurately reported.". Well then, it would seem to me that this would be the ideal forum and the ideal time to let your constituents know exactly what is being sought.

"Getting the right balance is the issue." I must ask; the right balance for who?

"Where we are now isn't working." - It seems to me, and many others, that it's working just fine.

I am eerily reminded of gas golf cart bans and leash laws. Is it the same precognitive EPA twit driving this latest fiasco or perhaps a couple of the same unidentified megawhiners. At one time PTC had an ordinance that prohibiting parking one's car on the street. Perhaps our city attorney could lend some historical perspective on how that's working out.

Don Haddix's picture

Well, it isn't working fine. People are being charged money for what exactly? To just let the City know they are going to cut down a tree?

Balance for the City as a whole. Contrary to what you want a lot of people want something else. They don't want clear cutting, etc. Plus too many protected areas are getting cut.

The leash law is working fine. Complaints have disappeared. The majority who contacted the City wanted it.

On the gas carts, there are still many who want the change. I voted against it because what was finally proposed was as useless as the current tree ordinance.

There are still streets where parking is not allowed. In those areas it is working just fine because the resident want it. No problems and no complaints.

That is the fun of representative government. There are always those who complain they are not being represented. But reality is those elected cannot vote for both sides of an issue, they must vote for only one.

What is being missed by many is PTC is great not only for what is allowed but as well for what is not. Allowing the not and we would be no different than those places you would not want to live.

Fact of life, you cannot have it both ways.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

MajorMike's picture

That's a whole lot of blustering there Don but you still did not answer the question: What is being sought if the proposed ordinance is "not reported accurately".

"People are being charged money for what exactly?" - sooooooo, you want to charge more money and tell them which trees on their own property they can do anything with?

Past that and the other issues - check your facts.

Leash law- review the somewhat recent dog attack on the cart path - dog broke away from it's leash. The PTC leash law was not needed and accomplished nothing except to quiet the complaints of the megawhiners who wanted it.

Gas golf carts - been there, addressed that. My regards to the precognitive EPA twit.

Tree ordinance - since when has clear cutting been a problem. It's not except in the minds of those who want to restrict property owners rights to their own property.

Street parking - Sure there are streets where there is no parking. Again, check your facts and check with the city attorney on the defunct street parking ordinance.

Not asking for it both ways Don, asking for common sense and a return to priorities. Quit trying to address a few (if any) isolated instances with regulations (ordinances) and get out and talk to the people who DON'T complain to City Hall continuously.

BTW Don, the beauty of true representative government is representing the majority of your constituents and not just a chosen few and not blatantly treading on the RIGHTS of the minority in the process. The objective of Government should be day to day fiscal and legal management without resorting to over regulation as a means to an end.

Well if we just knew what "over-regulation," was as it applies from the highest citizen to the lowest citizen (another hard to define thang).
we could proceed with just those regs that suited just the majority---the law would mean NOTHING if the majority didn't want it, I presume.

Personal, Ah does not wont no coon skins a hangin offn porches. Ah ulso kin git by wif out no old couches or refriges sittin bye the stoop.

And ah wont tuh bee able to git outen mah drivwaye wifout askin fer 3-4 cars to be mved outn way!

Thar air likly tu bee mor portant thangs ferever to wurk upon then coon skins--Ah no thet, but mebee a leetle tim after wurk hours to con sidder sich wood hep.

you betray your heritage when you use "coon skins" instead of "coon tails" and "refriges" instead of "icebox" or "frigerator". You need to study some more or change sources.

Coon tails are what West Virginians hang onto their car radio aerials (as they call them).

Davey Crocket wore a coon skin cap because that was what was expected of him.

Coon skin coats were the cat's pajamas when you were young.

Now I'll jist bet you thet you have nevir "boarded" (stretched) a coon skin, Muskrat skin, mink skin, nor a silver fox skin! (I have muskrats) That wuz a cash crop durin the last great depression--I member them hounds a bayin after midnite on jist ennybodies praperty! (and others also).

Groundhogs wernt too bad tuh eat, I'm tole, ifn ye onioned and butered em a rite smart, and coked em in a wood stove all day! I kin skin a squirrel, but i never did a rabbit, altho I haf kilt em.

Hard corn on thuh cob (if shuck stil on em wuz rail gude bakd ina oven wif butter. Corn had tuh be purdy brown thoe. Gude teef necess.

I heered uf peeple ah eatin chopped black snake stew wif weeds and branch lettuce, but ah nevir did. Pot never cold, jest ad more ever day uf somethin. Lotz uf water corn bred heps eatin sich stuf.

Wif milk and eggs---nuthin else neded.

Looks lak Greece mite go broke enny minute! Ifn they due, I heer Italy will foller. Then Europe falls. Ifn Europe falls, then we start eatin thim armadellers I been a seein on thu rode.
Meanwhil them money changer fellers wil haf all gone tuh Bimini or sum Mexican isle.

Now bar mete aint reel bad. Hit air tuf sumtimes, but if hongry--youl et hit.

"Kelvinator" wood haf bin a beter wurd fer refrigerators stid uf refriges. Ice boxes wood be more yore xpertese!

Don Haddix's picture

No blustering, Mike, facts. Please don't try to spin what I said.

Currently there is a fee for a tree permit. But there is no teeth in the permit process so either teeth are added or there should be no ordinance. It has to accomplish something or it has no purpose.

As for the rest, remember the old saying, "Your rights end where my nose begins."

You do not have the right to damage the property values of others in many ways on your property. It is called Codes.

Should we allow derelict cars in front yards, yards that are never mowed, homes with cardboard windows and so on? Would you come to the City if your neighbor did those things?

As well, on the trees, homes with trees are worth more than those without.

So, in example, Scott Bradshaw, who has criticized votes, and his neighbors wanted us to stop one owner who wanted 55 trees removed, this year, were they wrong? Was it wrong to try to defend their wooded community and home values?

How about the owner on the south side, in a wooded community, who clear cut 60 trees over the protest of his neighbors?

Or the one who bought in a wooded community and immediately wanted to clear cut because they didn't like trees? Then, after clear cutting, didn't like the trees on the neighbors lots and put the home up for sale, all within a few months?

How about the retail stores where the owners don't even live here, but has cut down all the trees between them and the road?

So, yes, it is a problem, as are those cutting protected areas that are never to be touched.

On checking my facts, Mike, no insult intended, but I do have a lot more information than you do.

I really don't think you would want to live in the places where pretty much anything goes.

I can tell you is that a whole of reports about uncontrolled dogs went away when the Leash Law was enacted.

As has been said, rights and restrictions are usually dependent upon how they impact each individual. But when impacted they want some way to address the problem.

Probably not going to agree, but just arguing isn't going to resolve anything.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

MajorMike's picture

You danced all over creation and still did't answer the question about what you sought vs what was reported. To many/most that's call blustering. Please don't you try to spin it into something else.

No control is not the issue here Don, over regulation is.

You argue, but as I said to one of your detractors recently; "Don't mind me, I'm just an old fart with a hair trigger on my BS alarm".

But on the Scott Bradshaw request. Yes, in my opinion, his rights stopped where the landowner's rights began. Exceptions DO occur, over regulation is still not the answer.

Property rights Don, property rights. And we're not talking about derelict cars here - stay on topic.

Don Haddix's picture

You proved my point. We are talking about the limits or property rights.

By admitting there are things, such as derelict cars and so on that should be limited you are agreeing, like it or not, that property rights are not absolute.

What you call over regulation others call protection of their property rights and value. Someone has to judge whose rights are superior. That is why people are elected and courts exist.

Clear cutting in wooded communities, protection of HOA requirements, preventing cutting in protected areas, such as wetlands and buffers needs to be controlled.

With your property you have very few trees in a non heavily wooded community, so clear cutting isn't really an issue. Your one neighbor has maybe 3 trees total?

Blanket prohibition of cutting is neither wanted or warranted to me.

Thus the statement on balance.

The one thing that is absolute is that no matter what any elected body decides someone isn't going to like it.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

MajorMike's picture

The only point that you proved is that you are still unwilling to answer a simple question.

My next door neighbor with three (actually two) trees that you refer to CLEAR CUT HIS YARD about nine or ten years ago. It looks far better than the overgrown jungle that he started with. Across the street and down one CLEAR CUT HIS YARD about two years ago except for the magnolia tree out front. Same scenario - looks much better. Do you reckon that they just might have improved property values, both theirs and mine, in the process?

Do you still think that you have a lock on information?

Property rights Don, property rights.

One more time, we're not talking about junk cars here. We're not talking about wetlands, buffers, or COVENANTED HOA rules. Stay on topic.

Say goodnight Alice.

MajorMike's picture

Ooh, stuck key.

MajorMike's picture

Ooh, stuck key.

MajorMike's picture

Ooh, stuck key.

MajorMike's picture

Ooh, stuck key.

MajorMike's picture

Ooh, stuck key.

MajorMike's picture

Ooh, stuck key.

Mike King's picture

"As for the rest, remember the old saying, "Your rights end where my nose begins."

Taking Lincoln's quote out of context does not address private property, but had to do with smoking. Had the individual been smoking on HIS private property Mr Lincoln would simply have kept his distance.

Your statement regarding homes with trees being more valuable than without is merely your assumption. Many other factors are involved.

Go Mayor, Go! You are making too much sense for some here on the blogs! Your sentence structure is much improved too! Thanks Lars! People live in PTC and pay the high taxes precisely because of tough codes and regulations! Mike and the gang can go cars-on-blocks and tall-grass crazy over in Palmetto! Heck, PTCO can even jello wrestle with his bikini girls right out in the front yard over there!

Vote No On Motel Six In PTC!

Mike King's picture

Point is that the more restrictions placed on the citizens of our town, the further you erode what is left of our quality of life. Please accept the fact that you nor any government entity can control each and every facet of our lives. Case in point is that an average citizen cannot legally enjoy an adult beverage while watching the sunset on Lake Peachtree adjacent to Battery Way. Technically, a golfer cannot traverse a city street while going from green to tee at either of the three golf courses with a recently purchased adult beverage from the refreshment cart.

As for trees on private property, you currently have no say. For a homeowner who does not know the zoning of property 550 feet from their backyard, is no different than a homeowner in Planterra Ridge complaining about airport noise.

In short, stick to issues of substance.

Don Haddix's picture

I hope you realize the drinking laws your talking about are State. A golf cart is a vehicle and a path a road, therefore you cannot drink and drive on a golf cart. Nor drink on a street.

Trees are issues of substance. Maybe not to you, but to many they are.

Just like the sign ordinances, they are at the top of the list for why PTC attracts people. That makes them quality of life issues.

This is an issue of substance. Try explaining they are not to someone who suddenly has a clear cut lot next to them in a wooded community, thus losing home value. Or where developers have clear cut to make the land more saleable, only to have it sit there for years with people complaining how bad it looks.

Like it or not, Mike, our ordinances are what keeps us from being places noted for being undesirable.

Balance is the hard thing to find.

By the way, in Planterra the Airport noise is covered in the deed. A legal document, like an ordinance.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

PTC is a regulation-heavy city! Keeps the Scots Irish among us at bay! Confines them to Brooks and the Inman community! No pink doors, cars on blocks, sofas on the porch, tall grass, loud music, chickens in the yard, drinking on the cart paths, bonfires on the roof, clear cutting lots, and such stuff! If you want all that, Palmetto is the place to be!

Vote No On Motel Six in PTC!

PTC is a regulation-heavy city! Keeps the Scots Irish among us at bay! Confines them to Brooks and the Inman community! No pink doors, cars on blocks, sofas on the porch, tall grass, loud music, chickens in the yard, drinking/fighting/quarreling/feuding on the cart paths, bonfires on the roof, clear cutting lots, and such stuff! Balance not needed! If you want all that, Palmetto is the place to be!

Vote No On Motel Six in PTC!

Mike King's picture

If you believe that sign ordinances are at the top of the list for why PTC attracts people, you are well removed from reality. It may be on the list, but it's not at the top. You and I differ on what is substance-Understanding your budget is what I would characterize as substantive, not walking signs and such.

If the city subsidized the planting of the trees, you might have a case. Private property rights precede both of us.

a myth of sorts. You own your own property except for that 30 years or so that the bank does. You own your own property except for when the government wants to build a road through it--ask Ginga1414 and her savior Steve Brown! You own you own property expect for when you don't pay your taxes and the government sells it to settle the bill. You own your own property except for when there are regulations against using it any which way you please. You own your own property except for when the preachers don't pray hard enough and the police run you off of it to protect you from the wildfires. And, you own your own property expect for when you die and your kids sell it off the next week and spend the proceeds living it up in Las Vegas!

You would think that one would own their own bodies at least! But, you can't lease your body out to others for pleasure, sell its various parts/organs, shoot it up with opiates, throw it off a building (illegal yes, but unwise to incarcerate a corpse), or parade it unclothed in public!

Private property--yeah, kind of a myth

The only real property I want these days is an NFL franchise, and Limbaugh can't even get one of those with all his bucks!

Mike King's picture

No myth, no mortgage. Don't need petty politicos dictating what I can or cannot do on my property, behind closed doors, etc.

Can you prescribe a cure for the Bravos?

I just feel better when the worst inclinations of the Scots Irish are kept at bay with petty regulations on things I have no interest in doing! Now, if they were to start regulating assinine blogging, then I would have to whip out the sword and perhaps the nunchucks!

Glad you have the homestead paid off, but there is still that nasty property tax bill! I just got mine today! Pay up or you're out on the street! Face it, you are just renting your house from the government! Can't even keep pigs in the backyard if you want!

As for the Braves, gosh I don't know. It's like they all drank 'suck' juice at the same time! Maybe its simply a case of choking! Having no TV, I can't watch them live to determine exactly what's wrong, but they gotta do something. Would be a shame to play so well for most of the season and blow it in the last three weeks!

Maybe Fredi can talk to the FB coaches at Mcintosh HS for advice!

sense! Keep those Scots Irish at bay!

Vote No On Drunken Brawling With Golf Clubs in View of School Children! suit everyone.

It gets tiresome to hear about not wanting regulations, that is, except the ones we as individuals want!

Similar to not wanting any federal money for schools, roads, cops, etc., from Obama and congress (TEAS stupidity) but are willing to fight for every dime that is possible to get! And "circumstances" is not a reason to violate principles when it comes to government. I'm sure it is in war.

It is common sense for some to blow up buildings, but not to hordes of others!

You are forgetting that MajorMike is one of your bosses. As mayor you work for him and the rest of the citizens of Peachtree City.

Time to stop lecturing people on this blog. I suggest you consider one of the following:

1-a personality transplant, which I thought you would have considered after
being "censured".

2-resign from office.

3-stay off the blogs because clearly you lack the skills to properly communicate when people disagree with you or challenge you.

It's amazing that you are attacking your own supporters. MajorMike and Citizen Steve have defended you in the past and now you are speaking to them in such a condescending manner.

Think twice and clean up your act if you thinking about running for mayor again!

drive through your window again?! Pretty testy today! I thought the Mayor's recent responses have been pretty well written and reasonable! Perhaps he has been visiting the Learning Palace incognito to improve sentence structure! Had any customers with liver spots on the backs of their hands and wearing dark glasses and a hoodie lately?!

Anyway, Jackets looking good so far beating up on high school teams. When are they scheduled to play a real game?


mjm1204's picture

What this article has to do with trees.. I don't know.

$5,000 for a liquor license is the norm. I can name multiple comparable cities around Atlanta that are higher.

I take issue because their reasoning is bogus. They can carry to the amphitheater because there are officers present? What does that have to do with anything? Do all places that alcohol being served need officers present?

BYOB is allowed by state law.

They also have no experience with how BYOB is handled. You can have servers, but they don't make your drinks. They bring you a bar set up and you make your own drinks.

What is the definition of entertainment? Does this mean that these new drink and paint places aren't allowed? They allow you to bring your own wine while you paint your own canvas...

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan

Let's see how the Jackets do on Saturday...University of Kansas. Might be a whippin! Let's hope not.

As for the Dawgs...well, time for a new coach, don't ya think?

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content