Last updated on 2011.07.28
Saves License to Lure National Franchise
Permit me to deviate from my alleged pro-Brookings agenda (not to mention my advocacy for the Women's Christian Temperance Union) to ask the Brookings City Council, "What the heck are you thinking?"
The City of Brookings has three liquor licenses available. Four outfits applied. One of them was the Old Market Eatery. Co-owners Katie Knutson and Jael Thorpe are renovating the old First Bank and Trust building downtown to house a restaurant, bar, specialty retail, event space, salon, and spa. They plan to open this fall. In other words, Knutson and Thorpe are putting a vacant building back in business as a unique revenue generator in a prime location. A liquor license would help them launch this project, draw more business to Brookings, and turn a profit.
Last night, the Brookings City Council granted two liquor licenses to the Shamrock and the Brownstone but denied Knutson and Thorpe their request. The council could have supported a new business that's ready to launch this fall. The council could have backed two local entrepreneurs with proven commitment to Brookings and proven entrepreneurial track records (see Knutson's realty work and Thorpe's Jael Photography and J'Ella Couture).
Instead, the council held its remaining liquor license in reserve, intending to "save it in case the "˜big buck'—i.e., a franchise—wants to come to town." In other words, the city is gambling on an out-of-town corporate maybe instead of investing in a local sure thing.
On the bright side, the Brookings City Council at least proved they don't play favorites with their own. Jael Thorpe is a member of the council. She dutifully recused herself from the license discussions and votes. And granting a license to the Brownstone meets the criteria I cite above of local investment and revitalizing a vacant downtown building.
But don't let that glow blind you to the fact that the Brookings City Council is missing a great opportunity. Why sit on that liquor license in vague hopes that some Applebee's clone will roll into town to offer more of the same-old-same-old and ship its profits out of state to corporate headquarters? Why on earth not invest that precious asset in a local business that's ready to go this year?
Brookings, you're smarter than this. Rethink this decision, and help a new local downtown business get off the ground.
Update 2011.07.28 10:24 CDT: Brookings food aficionado Trampling Rose expresses similar disapproval of the Old Market liquor license denial.
I would suspect their denial was based on the concentration of liquor licences already downtown. That, and saving their only availiabe license for a business that will generate more revenue. All of these licenses are a may grant, not a will grant..
I'm not so sure about that, Commissioner Abraham. If concentration were the problem, then they wouldn't have granted a license to the Brownstone, which seems to plan to do pretty much the same thing as the Ram and Skinners.
Would a clone chain restaurant really generate more revenue than Knutson and Thorpe's unique business? And even if it did, no chain is applying. A local team is. Brookings has a bird in the hand, but it's waiting for two in the bush... and the only chirping I hear from corporate is crickets.
This is my facebook rant of June 18 in regards to the Brookings City Council and the above proceedings.
So I read quite a few online papers, the Argus, the Press and Dakotan, the Madville Times, the Moody County Enterprise and the Brookings Register are my regulars. Lately in the Register there has been a ton of talk about liquor licenses and their application of and buying of and acquiring of and such. Repeatedly I see concerned citizens and council members wondering about the proximity to churches, schools, children's museums, boys and girls clubs, etc. They loudly scream
"WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!?!"
The drinking age in South Dakota is 21. Why would children be buying booze in these establishments?
One was a gas station. I doubt people are hanging out at the gas station getting hammered and then plowing into church goers and children (OH MY GOD THE CHILDREN!!!) as they pick up their after work 6 pack.
Many are eateries in the main street area. One is going to be an upscale European Diner with a spa!!!. I don't really think that these are the types of places that drunken jackrabbits will be during Children's Museum hours. I don't think there will be many drunken Jackrabbits or drunken others there at all.
Another is near to the boys and girls club and hosts....wait for it...weddings and conferences!!!!! OH THE HORROR!!! So many dead children on the road!!! Paint the highways red Brookings!!!!! Get the just think signs ready to put by the Shamrock NOW!!!
I have seen this argument all over South Dakota as it pertains to strip clubs and liquor licenses and gambling licenses and just don't understand the validity of it. There are age limits and laws...period. We don't need the morality police on top of all the other laws in this State. Lighten up people.
I guess in closing I think that Kids should get their own damn booze, strippers and lottery machines anyway...the same way I did. With a fake ID and older friends.
Good to see that in this sense at least Brookings maintains the South Dakota status quo of governing our own personal choices and morals above and beyond the law.
My business partner for local food promoting was in the council meeting last night, since we had our own business before the council.
The old saw about the 'TGIFriday's' MAYBE coming to town is the reason they cited. Apparently, it's their 'tradition' to hold one back for just such an 'opportunity.'
We need new leadership...and new traditions. How about a new tradition of believing in our own?
I think the problem is that they do think they have Brookings's best interests at heart by fatally believing in the profits of a conventional restaurant rather than homegrown talents.
The South Dakota inferiority complex at work. We can do better than this, and if they don't get their act together, we'll have to prove it at the polls come election season.
Jael and her business partner will move ahead, because they aren't the types to give up over mere short-sightedness on the parts of others. However, we must support them, however we can.
@Nick...why wouldn't they want to have more business downtown with all the money they have put into making it a "go to" place? The East side will take care of itself with Event Center, Wal-Mart and Lowes. The South Side is coming along nicely and has an anchor there with the Shamrock. I would think with many unique businesses and the children's museum downtown is *exactly* where you would want to concentrate bistros, diners, restaurants, nightclubs and such.
I'm guessing there were a few things at work here. Firstly, there is a pattern in this state as a whole to think that if it comes from outside, it's better. That happens from the local entrepreneurial business right up to the big recruitment efforts (see the governor's slush fund.....not much in there for locals).
As was said above, I expect all 4 establishments will go ahead. As I understand it, all this affects is the ability to sell hard liquor - beer and wine are excluded. Now if they wanted to recoup some of their licenses, they could look at some of them that were granted to establishments on condition they offer food (not mentioning any names!).....I personally would like to see fewer bars, more restaurants. When visitors come to town, I'm hard pressed to take them somewhere decent for a bite to eat that would shine favorably on the community (there are basically two choices right now frequented by faculty)
Phud makes sense. Does SD really need more bars? More drunks on the road? More abused children and wives? More drunken violence? More teenage pregnancies?
@Doug...those things *only* happen in places with bars. Certainly never in dry spots like reservations. Ridiculous. I can only hope you were being sarcastic.
@Phud The Shamrock, The Ram Pub, Applebees, Is there anyplace that says Brookings more than Nicks, great Greek Food and Pizza at Georges, 6th Street Diner, The Pavillion Bar and Grill, The Pheasant...Plenty of good places to eat and I wouldn't be embarrassed taking any potential client or prospective business owner to any of them.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why the above don't "shine favorably" on the community?
@Shane
a) I love living in Brookings. Don't get me wrong. And all the places you've named are great for taking the kids to, or are local hangouts. Personally, I won't specifically name ANY place on this blog as I respect the niche that each occupies, and I'd hate to see most of them close despite feeling that some have dropped in recent years. That being said....
b) Most of the people I'm talking about taking to dinner come from cities in excess of 1M people. These people are used to fine dining - something sorely lacking in our community that caters to student palates, and frankly represent alot of new faculty hires at SDSU. We've had some better restaurants come and go that have tried - Casper's, the private club underneath the Safari that Lori ran for awhile, Hagemann's bakery - but they are gone. At best, one of the places you name is on par with an average bar/grill in Boston, New York, or (to be blunt) Sioux Falls, and is one of my go-to places now. Nick's is great for lunch and somewhat quirky, but do you really want to take a visiting dignitary there for dinner???? (sorry, broke my rule, but I think even Dick Fergen would agree). Brookings is a great family place. But don't sell it as a wonderful source of culinary delights, please.
As for Douglas - I was not arguing on the "temperance" point. I'm hoping that one of these places will have a fine wine list and calvados for a dessert apertif. But we are overloaded with bars in Brookings, and underloaded with eateries. I would really like to take my spouse and guests out to a fine restaurant in Brookings, rather than having to meet visitors in Sioux Falls to get something other than a burger or steak.
It looks to me like a couple of these applications were for serious eateries that would try to be more upscale (please, DO NOT bring us a TGI Fridays, or ANY MORE FAST FOOD PLACES).
So you are looking for more of a Minerva's style experience of a Spezia's, or perhaps like M's pub or one of the other old Market eateries in Omaha? That would be wonderful and a place like that should be actively recruited for the town.
Brookings is going to cater to it's largest pocketbook which is the students. Their palettes just want food fast not food good. Good food can be done fast, and is, but I agree with your assessment that Brookings could use a 'destination" diner.
The quote I read from Knutson, when pressed about the nature of the business, was that liquor wouldn't really be a focus of their business. I really don't see the denial of the license as a significant setback. Instead, I'm skeptical about OM's business model. My guess is they'll detract customers from the Children's Museum cafeteria and the Mango Tree (upstairs in the library)--two really great places to eat with, I'd argue, "local-er" locals running shop and a similar clientele base. Any thoughts out there on whether the "coffeehouse/cafe" model in Brookings is oversaturated?
Interesting observation, Steve. I want to believe that Brookings isn't at that saturation point, especially not if it is growing. But I will defer to the opinion of locals like you who frequent these places and can speak to the daily vibe (busy enough? lacking buzz?).
I do hope the liquor license is not a make-or-break element of Old Market's business model. Deep down, I'd like to believe that the hard stuff isn't essential to anyone's business model.
Strictly on the dining side, OM and CM may compete. But OM seems distinct enough in its other pursuits that it doesn't have to represent a negative for the CM. Let's keep our fingers crossed for synergy! Is the Brookings pie big enough? Can the museum and Katie and Jael's unique endeavor make the pie bigger?
Destination dining: heck, George's is enough to make me go for a drive! But as a Madison resident, I keenly feel the angst of not having a really nice place to take visitors for dinner. Shane mentions really big and hungry student crowd as a primary target market, but the university also brings lots of professors, officials, donors, and other big wheels to whom higher-tier eateries can cater.
The foodie in me is going to be typing this, the guy who worked in the food business 20 of his 43 years.
The Ram, the Knotty Pine and the Pheasant were considered "fancy dining" for a long time in these parts. For some they still are top of the tier, put on your fancy going out clothes restaurants. The overdone steak, lettuce with shaved carrots and French dressing, a cup of soup and a piece of Texas Toast is the finest dining to many people in the area know.
It is very frustrating for new chefs who have learned abroad and want to bring continental or new American or pan Asian cuisine to this area and have no customers and fail quickly. The number one failing business world wide in the first 3 years of doors opening are restaurants and mostly it's because of one of two things; location or menu.
The economic climate demands that like it or not you must cook for the existing clientele and maybe, hopefully be able to sneak a couple of chef dishes onto the menu so you don't go completely insane cooking well done top sirloin (shoe leather), breaded seafood (gag), deep fat fried fat (MMMMMMM) and other Midwest standards. It is what it is. The big splurge is Prime Rib in most restaurants in this state.
There are places in Sioux Falls taking chances and succeeding and I think the right person in the right place could make it work in Brookings.
I personally am still shocked that with such a large multi national student base that there are no authentic ethnic restaurants in Brookings. I would love to see an Arabic or Indian cafe open.
So we are what we are. We are "meat and potatoes and don't be trying to slip none of that there raw fish stuff by us either there pinko" Mid westerners by and large. It's going to take a complete changing of generations of eating habits for that to change.
*steps off soapbox* I now return you to your regularly scheduled rantings.
Maybe Lake Thompson will fix Brookings once and for all.
[CAH: Sorry, Larry: Lake Thompson drains into the Vermillion River. If anything, it'll swamp Montrose... and the Coyotes!]
You're right of course. Asteroid?
There was a locally-produced public radio program on this. Maybe i can find it: http://www.westernsustainabilityexchange.org/montana-farm-to-restaurant/
Brookings is another candidate for the Metrodome salvage projects.
Winter of '75, i think: 10 foot snowdrift across 6th Street. You people are freakin' nuts.
Brookings has done everything right more times than not. They are an absolute blueprint in how to do things right. The one thing I have NEVER agreed with is the city has the ONLY liquor lisence and leases off of that to entities to sell booze.
Here is the reason why. These are 2006 numbers.
Liquor Stores: $6,837,000 ($338.73 per person)
Then there is this from the June 17 Brookings Register
As a local option community, the City of Brookings holds the city’s only liquor license and leases agreements to serve liquor to local businesses for $1,500 per year. The city will also begin charging businesses an up-front one-time fee of $25,000 for new, standard operating agreements.
The number of full-service operating agreements available here is limited based on population.
That last line is contrary to state law (From zdclaw.com)
Prior to 2008, cities and towns in South Dakota were only allowed to issue a limited number of on-sale liquor licenses. ("On-sale" liquor means the beverages are consumed on the premises. "Off-sale" means the beverages are sold closed, in the packaging, and must be consumed somewhere else.)
The maximum number of on-sale licenses was based on population. Each town under 1,000 could have three, and larger towns were allowed another license for each additional 1,500 residents.
These limitations have made on-sale liquor licenses scarce and valuable. A new bar can be added only when an old bar goes out of business (or when the town grows.)
In addition, this old system made it nearly impossible for an existing restaurant to add hard alcohol to its beverage lineup. The zero-sum game required a restaurant to buy an existing bar, shut it down, and then transfer the liquor license over to the eatery. This rarely made economic sense.
The Legislature attempted to fix this problem during the 2008 session. It passed a bill allowing cities to issue an unlimited number of on-sale licenses for full-service restaurants.
These new licenses are only available in restaurants where a waiter or waitress delivers food and drink offered from a printed food menu to patrons at tables or booths, but not those that only serve fried orders, sandwiches, hamburgers, or salads.
The price for these restaurant licenses was set at the higher of two numbers: either the price of the last sale of a regular liquor license between two private parties in the city, or one dollar for every resident.
Brookings, technically, has zero private license sales. Instead, Brookings has only one liquor license, which is owned by the City. The City then leases out the use of this license by entering into "operating agreements" with individual bar owners.
Since the owners can then sell or transfer the operating agreements, this system is virtually the same as issuing licenses. But the City of Brookings chose to read the statute literally. The City determined that since there were technically no "license sales", then it could set the license fee at the rate of one dollar per resident, which is $18,504. (Market rate, otherwise, is around $100,000 in Brookings.)
This didn't sit well with existing bar owners in Brookings, who had paid considerably more for their own liquor licenses, and didn't want cheap competition.
Shortly after this lawsuit was started, the Legislature passed an additional amendment to the liquor license rules, which clearly made the rules the same for Brookings. "Operating agreements" were now the same as "licenses".
Going forward, the City would have to issue licenses at market rate, rather than for the dollar-per-resident figure.
The big question in this case, though, was what to do about the system Brookings had already set up (prior to the 2009 amendment). Would the City be forced to collect more money from those restaurants that had already bought licenses at the cheaper rate?
Brookings has been sued and lost over the cost of liquor licenses.
It's that individual control by the city, that one and only license that makes Brookings unique and even more powerful when it comes to issuing than other city councils are.
Cory, I just had a conversation with a Brookings resident this weekend about the liquor license situation. My friend was incensed that Jael (from my home town of Gary, SD) had the audacity to apply for a license since just a short time ago she voted against giving a license to the new Children's Museum downtown Brookings, citing that downtown didn't need any more places with alcohol. I'm guessing this info is 3rd-hand since my friend's husband spends time in front of the council for his job. But I'm confident this is vote would be public record and that if anyone could ferret it out, it's you.
"Certainly never in dry spots like reservations." About as dry as Lake Superior. I am not making an argument for prohibition, but for reality that food can be eater without either booze or soft drinks. There is no shortage of places to get booze as it is. More booze joints and casinos are not the way to build a better South Dakota. Incidentally, probably more churches costing big bucks are also not likely to build a better South Dakota.
And, it is possible to fully cook meat without turning it into shoe leather. Eat your half raw meat if you want too, but that is not an excuse to destroy meat because it doesn't fit your idea of good cooking or good meat, so spitefully cooking good meat until nearly unchewable seems appropriate. That is another kind of unnecessary arrogance.
Doug you are just a joy. If you can't read sarcasm in a post I can't help you. Your assertion that alcohol is not "needed" is correct sir, but it is also not illegal and should not be denied to honest business people.
What if we start putting a cap on the number or religious book stores or capping the number of grocery stores or coffee shops. I simply will never understand the quick blaming of societal ills on alcohol.
I have been to the reservations many times Doug and despite your assertions there is no booze for sale (legally) on the reservation. Did you know that there are still alcohol deaths in the southern state dry counties too?
Over the past five years, completely dry counties in Texas had over three and one-half times the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities per capita than completely wet counties. Dry counties averaged 6.8 alcohol-related traffic deaths per 10,000 people, whereas wet counties had 1.9 deaths per 10,000 people. This, according to data from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Just amazing to me that people go straight from A to Z with assumptions without ever even acknowledging the rest of the alphabet. As you fall gracefully from your moral throne I hope you will at least pretend to look at facts before rambling next time Doug.
A. I did not say the reservations were dry.
B. Comparisons of crash fatalities due to drunken driving between dry and wet counties is irrelevant in some ways. People driving from dry to wet counties spend more time on highways drunk and have more crashes. Likely it has little to do with morality or appropriateness of prohibition. South Dakota alcohol-related crashes may be higher per capita than densely packed city fatalities for the same reason.
I see no reason to make excuses for the liquor industry in any way shape or form. The taxes collected on booze don't cover even a pitiful small part of the economic damages the industry causes.
Triple those taxes and they might cover the social cost of alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
There is plenty of data available to make blaming alcohol as a cause for social ills seem appropriate...even if other factors may or may not be more significant. There is very little data to support the idea that alcohol benefits anything in a society. It is a depressant anesthetic with multiple undesirable effects on brains, livers, and in relation to increased mouth and throat cancer, etc.
Unfortunately, the only thing worse than alcohol availability is a mediocre form of alcohol prohibition.
The fact that in your first post in this thread you make a blanket assertion that alcohol is the reason for all your listed societal ills is naive and grotesquely shortsighted.
Take away all booze and I'm sure we'll never see another abused spouse or pregnant teen ever again.
*rolls eyes*
So come at me with the statistics about the increase of those due to alcohol and I won't argue at all. Alcohol abuse is a terrible problem, but those ills exist without them. Treat the reason a person abuses alcohol rather than banning something.
I will never understand the "get rid of it" mentality whether it is booze, dog breeds, cage fighting, gambling...
1. It's not going to happen.
2. It doesn't stop the problems.
Maybe it was '74 when 6th Street had a 10 foot snowdrift. It seemed really far to the Liquor Store on the west edge of Brookings. There was a line out the front door.
Is gintheism a religion, Steve?
Can Shane Gerlach even read plain text?
"Phud makes sense. Does SD really need more bars? More drunks on the road? More abused children and wives? More drunken violence? More teenage pregnancies?"
Where does that say alcohol is the cause of all those ills?
Gerlach is an excellent attacker of the strawmen he invents.
Doug then please tell me what you were implying. Don't back track and double talk when your bulls**t blanket theories are folded up like the rest of your paper bag logic.
Treat the problem person and you won't have illicit behavior. Take away all the evil influences in the world Doug and there will still be evil.
I wasn't implying anything beyond what I wrote.
What were you implying in all your posts?
Perhaps you can see the problem with that kind of posting and question.
As part owner of the Old Market, I really appreciate this debate. On both sides I might add. We agree on the fact that there are plenty of bars in Brookings. One of the coolest things about Brookings is that our bars are specific as to what your style is. I find something unique in each one and depending on mood and crowd we choose our bar accordingly.
While we hope to not necessarily compete with these bars, we feel there is an untapped market that appeals to a person that likes the character of downtown but not the 'drinking crowd'. We are not going to be offering shot specials and we are not going to be white tablecloths. The bank building offers character, synergy with the other businesses, parking and our 3 season patio is one of a kind. We have 'the vault' which is literally a large vault in which people can reserve for meetings or small parties. It can also be reserved for those hard of hearing as we have heard many requests for this. We know we are close to the Children's museum, but so is the entire downtown and the city jail. It's a small town, location is not always going to work in your favor, but we will have a fantastic childrens menu and plenty to offer for a family.
Our reason for wanting the liquor license is because we feel we have a lot of amenities. They are unique amenities and we envision professionals having meetings or introducing visitors to the character (downtown) of Brookings and enjoying a drink, as well as a group trying some unique martinis while spending some time on our patio. I wouldn't say liquor is our "moneymaker", it's just a part of our overall business.
As far as the franchise position, I'm not going to say that I don't enjoy the occasional franchise, they're consistent and I leave feeling full and satisfied. But you know the places I remember and the places I seek out are local, inviting and one of a kind. Our goal, as well as the City's, is to provide something that will prevent our city from going elsewhere to spend money as well as getting people from elsewhere to come into Brookings to spend money. There are people that may drive a short distance to Btown for a franchise, but if they're driving they'll most likely keep heading south to Sioux Falls. We envision people from all over, including Sioux Falls, to come and enjoy a day at the Children's museum, do some shopping and have a nice meal. We can also entertain a birthday party, bachelor/bachelorette party with a day at the salon and have a private patio party.
Thanks again for your support!
You people are all nuts thinking that the Old Market Eatery is even a possibility to fly as a "higher-tire" eatery in Brookings. It's been tried to have an upscale place to eat. Don't get me wrong I currently live in Sioux Falls and working in the Financial Services industry am taking clients and being taken to dinner a lot at places like Foley's, Minerva's, Bracco etc. I don't disagree with the idea of having a place like that in Brooking, IF it could possibly work. Unfortunately when I lived in Brookings the previous 7 years and worked all 7 of those in the Financial Services area.....the residents of Brookings are not going to foot the bill of that kind of place! They don't want an expensive, fancy place to eat! If they wanted the uppity, hoity toity they would drive to Sioux Falls....ITS NOT THAT FAR! Keeping things local are definitely a great idea as well. I do as well agree with keeping things local....ultimately this debate boils down to OM not getting a liquor license, which they should not have ever gotten. If they're not trying to compete with other business's in town as far as the "bar" scene goes....they don't need the liquor license.
On the subject of them thinking there is a "group" of local citizens that currently don't go to the downtown area strictly because they're not a "drinking group" is asinine. The population of Brookings isn't going to have a big enough group of people to support one local business....They would have to depend on that group to eat there breakfast, lunch and dinner....it's just not possible.
On the matter of taking clients, or anyone from a higher-tier that would like to eat at a more classy dining establishment....There are not that many people coming to town that would require that kind of experience.
At the end of the day it boils down to two "locals" who did not get there way. Unfortunately that is life and hopefully their business will still flourish without the license.
I agree, that Brookings can't support a 'hoity toity' establishment, and we do not plan to be one. But as far as downtown restaurants, Cubbys is a fun, burger bar and The Ram has a strong focus on food. There isn't a bar or restaurant with a unique bar menu. To say that 'it's not that far to go to Sioux Falls', that's exactly what we are trying to avoid! I understand those who don't live here might not care, but we have a strong connection to this community and fully support keeping small communities alive.
As far as having a place to entertain clients, there is a need. We have met with the majority of large business owners in town and this is by their request. We have also talked to many others who simply do not go out anymore because they do not feel comfortable drinking with college students, and on that note, we've heard from college students that they would appreciate a place like this.
This business is renovating and opening an otherwise vacant building, it will create 30-40 jobs and is offering a different atmosphere than what Brookings currently has. Again, I appreciate the debate, but I am in full support of local business, young entrepreneurs, and bringing life into smaller communities.
@SM...
I don't think you realize how many young professionals/intellectuals live in Brookings. The 25-35 young professional group is our fastest-growing demographic. As a young faculty member at SDSU, the LAST place I want to be in the evening is a bar where I'm rubbing elbows with my students. No thanks. Having a classy drink and epicurean meal at a great local establishment, however? Yes, please. As much as I love Sioux Falls, I despise constantly having to drive back and forth, and hate that I really cannot enjoy a martini, wine, or beer tasting without staying overnight at a friend's house there. I love the thought that I may soon be able to enjoy my former urban lifestyle in lovely little Brookings and enjoy a classy evening out followed by a safe and responsible cab-ride home. Believe it or not - I am most certainly NOT alone in this thought.
@AB... you've nailed our mission statement. @Cory- thanks for your initial post; I know I'm a bit late- need to read your blog more! Katie has explained our concept well, so I won't belabor the topic, but I just wanted to clear a couple things up. @Carmen's 3rd hand information is false. I voted against a liquor license for a gas station casino in our downtown gateway. Why? Purely aesthetics. If you've been to Watertown, you understand.
Bottom line: being young, female entrepreneurs, one of us a highly-scrutinized local politician, Katie and I expected an uphill climb with the city council. It's just frustrating to invest your heart, soul and savings into a project and have such an unecessary roadbump.
The end. :) Thanks all for your comments- please, please contact us if you have any suggestions, or requests. We absolutely value them.
Just one man's opinion pertaining to the line of thinking that says we need to save a valuable city asset (liquor license) for a "chain" eatery: 1) Brookings is fast becoming (or has already become) the most innovative, economically blessed (per capita), and forward thinking community in the entire state. Why do we need to accept the norm when it comes to the type of establishments we support? Do we really want a TGIFridays type eatery in Brookings?
I offer this hypothetical as a good example of what I'm trying to say: What if Cubby's was a Buffalo Wild Wings? Instead of proudly taking friends/family visitors to a distictive, unique Brookings location I would have to take them to a place they've eaten at before (only they would've been in Fargo or Sioux Falls.)
Who is more likely to give back to the community? I constantly see locally owned restaurants plastered onto the backs of youth sports teams, various fundraising T-shirts, and banners for events such as the Brookings marathon, Uncle Sam jam, etc.
When I visit friends and family in places like Missoula, Bozeman, Omaha, or Duluth they certainly don't show me a good time at the likes of an Applebee's, TGIFridays, or Ruby Tuesdays. They show off their local flavor; places started by local people with a menu and experience specially unique from that of which
I've seen before. THAT is what Brookings should be aiming for. I agree with whoever posted that Brookings is like a blueprint for city planning done right. Why should we chicken out and rely on corporate restauranteurs to tell us what our city should taste and feel like?
What is George's was an Olive Garden? What if Cubby's was a Buffalo Wild Wings? The Ram
a Ruby Tuesdays? The Pheasant a Fry'n Pan? Chaco Latte a Starbucks? Nick's a Fuddrucker's? We would live in a grotesque, unoriginal dud of a community with zero energy.
Brookings is a bubble of progressive thinking, energy from both young and old, and natural beauty. Let's not sell out to the tired thinking that we NEED corporate chains in the food/entertainment economic sector.
First of all, Cory, I don't think it is really fair to use Jael's explanation of the City Council decision as your citation. I wasn't there, so I don't know what was said, but I do know that the City never had any intention of handing out all three licenses. In fact, during the application process they actually warned that they may not hand out any. Unrestricted licenses come open every -ten- years and we have a viable alternative solution in restaurant licenses that could open up any time. Saying that we're hanging on for the TGIFriday is a great soundbyte, but we're also looking at new development all over the city. The Register says the unrestricted license could go to a national franchise or 'other major project.' It is pretty easy to envision major hotel/retail/food developments that could use an unrestricted license in the next ten years and not all aspects would have to be franchise.
So, in my mind, the decision to grant two licenses is prudent. Then you have to look at who they went to. The Shamrock is a multi-million dollar investment that has been holding out for an almost promised license and the Brownstone is run by people that already know how to leverage a liquor license. Had the license gone to the Old Market Eatery and not one of those two businesses, I would see that as inappropriate.
This isn't a decision about franchise vs local. Look at Brookings...strip out the fast food places and how many national franchise eateries are there? Two? People constantly talk about how Brookings needs more of this and more of that and more fine dining. As a restaurant owner I would definitely take issue with that. I think that sometimes people forget that we are a town of less than 30k with a summer population almost half of that and a fast food density as high as anywhere in the world. Sioux Falls can barely support "fine dining" as it is. Some of the nicest small artisan restaurants failed there and it wasn't due to a lack of vision...it was due to a lack of the proper demographic...in a town with five to ten times the population.
This also isn't the Council handing a death sentence to the Old Market Eatery. Some people in these comments seem to think that now they won't open. Not only will they presumably open, but if they are successful they will undoubtedly get that liquor license in due time.
And by the way, AB...either the last 18 five-course wine dinners I've hosted and four beer tastings aren't classy or you just don't know about them. Either way I apparently need to work harder. Send me an email at jacob@cottonwoodcoffee.com and I'll put you on the August 28th guest list as my guest. We'll be featuring local produce from my farm as well as having Prairie Hillside Gardens talk about their operation.
@Jacob
That was spot on. Thank you.
http://www.brookingsregister.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&story_id=11835&page=76
here comes a Ground Round. (Which bombed out in Sioux Falls)
http://www.brookingsradio.com/New-Restaurant-Franchise-for-Brookings/10511338
and here comes a whiskey creek
If anyone looked in the Brooking Register today they would've seen the other new Franchise coming to town....Buffalo Wild Wings!!! So there you have it folks....thats why they were being very prudent on not releasing the last license.