Pantagraph.com | News | City denies movie theater's request for liquor license

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

In Japan wrote on Sep 26, 2007 1:15 AM:

" Thank God! I'd let my children watch Hollywood movies at a theater and have some large sodas and popcorn with immitation butter, but I'd never, ever let them be around alcohol as well. It's the downfall of society! We all know that even one beer leads to drunk driving. And we all know that anyone that would drink at a movie theater is really an alcoholic and not a responsible adult. People can drink at sports games because we've always be able to do that, so people are more responsible. These new fangled ideas will be the death of us. Beer is like Pringles, once you pop, the fun don't stop, even at 8 bucks a pop! "

Glad and Sad wrote on Sep 25, 2007 10:23 PM:

" GLAD that I can go to the new theater; I would not have gone if they had sold beer. SAD that the theater was not allowed to decide whether to sell beer; I believe their rights were violated. "

Beer Man wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:20 PM:

" You know what would stop all this.... Bring an Alamo Draft House to Bloomington area, where you CAN have a sit down meal, and a beer while watching a movie. Right now they are only in Texas. I had the best dinner at this movie theatre. Who is to say you can not have the same type of theatre there. "

What this town needs... wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:52 PM:

" Is a good lesson in the Constitution of the United States of America. We have definitely lost sight of the idea of FREEDOM of CHOICE over the past few years. We WILL pay a heavy price if we allow every minute detail of our lives be DICTATED by a few city Aldermen, or other government agencies. Many more laws will bring more easy comparisons to the time just before World War II when the Germans began making all-encompassing behavioral laws; it was very easy to convince them that Hitler was a good thing. A more sheep-like mentality will only make it that much easier for someone with great ambition to complete the mental and physical takeover of this country. Very sad, and not a little scary. "

NAWP wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:42 PM:

" To NAWP: When's the last time you went shopping for soda and beer?? Even the most expensive soda at Cubs is 7.50 for a case and the cheapest case of beer is at least 13.00! Now I'm not a math major or an accountant but.....................you do the math. "

Our Council? wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:21 PM:

" JON HANSON. Get off the council or get with the program. Where does this guy get off thinking he has the authority to meddle in the private sector? News flash council member, your not an expert just a volunteer. It is never a council members place to be offering business advice to a company he has no experience in and knows nothing about. (Boy is my face going to be red when it turns out that this guy owns and operates 20 theaters somewhere) Anyways, this organization seems to have a legitament and proven track record. It is not the place of city council members to make value or business judgements. Bloomington needs to invest in some remedial training for this council member. I hope some of the other ones try and pick up the slack for this guy. "

Poor Skaters wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:19 PM:

" They should cut the skate park, our town is not subservient to a bunch of teen age punks. The skate park is the last of the concerns for a city like ours. On another note, it is sad that their skate park has to be cut to make up for other short falls in the budget. Cut services to the people that cause the short falls, not to the young kids just trying to get their fair share. Sad thing is the skate park could generate more revenue than that big resource gobbling monolith in the downtown. So I change my mind, lets get these kids their park. "

??? wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:06 PM:

" Reading these post it is clear this town is filled with crybabies that don't like any change. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that they can't make it through a movie without a drink. So, this hardly has to do with being an alcoholic. Why do we serve drinks at food establishments then? Can't you eat your meal without having a drink? Who cares if you want to have a cold beer or mixed cocktail and watch a movie? The only people who would care have no life and need something to complain about. What happened to letting the business decide what “they” think will work; and people can go if the please, or stay home and complain. "

To: Digs Deeper wrote on Sep 25, 2007 4:46 PM:

" I really think that you should go back on your medication! It might get more than the 3 or 4 brain cells you have working, on line! "

To concerns wrote on Sep 25, 2007 3:58 PM:

" Your right, and as a matter of fact, unless it is a G rated Disney movie maybe your children shouldn't be seeing it at all. "

due to concerns about children wrote on Sep 25, 2007 3:15 PM:

" we should ban all sweets and sodas at movies since they are unhealthy and are teaching your kids poor eating habits. "

To N.A.W.P. wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:41 PM:

" Whether it's beer or pop, it's still a liquid drink that you are drinking out of a can or cup, so what is the difference? In fact, Beer is cheaper than pop at the grocery stores! "

Pop too! wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:38 PM:

" Also, why do people have to constantly have pop in their hand in their waking hours? Is it a security blanket? "

Good! wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:36 PM:

" Whenever there is an article about smoking or beer, you can never find the end of the comments...sad! Anyway, all I can say is good! I'm glad there will be no beer! "

Aww nuts! wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:07 PM:

" How am I supposed to sit through movies like "good Luck Chuck" without chugging an $8 beer. Guess I will just have to keep sneaking in my own at a fraction of the price. "

jimmy wrote on Sep 25, 2007 1:31 PM:

" how interesting that a privately-financed theater like this one is denied a liquor license, yet ben slotky had no problem getting one- AND hundreds of thousands of dollars- from the council. i guess 'ol ben shmoozed them better than the wehrenberg group. the ironic thing is that this new theater will undoubtedly be around far, far longer than the castle ever was. with luck maybe some of the tax revenue will offset all of the losses the city suffered when the castle went belly-up. "

TC wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:50 AM:

" Although it's difficult to believe that the "Thank you to the five wonderful aldermen who listened" (9:24) post was serious, it does raise the issue of sheltering children from liquor. In other places, where beer and wine are more commonly served, even at lunch and family meals, liquor is not as much of an issue. Prohibiting situations where liquor can be responsibly consumed by parents and others as role models (restaurants and places where liquor is secondary), and only allowing it where it is more likely to be abused (taverns and places where liquor is more prominent), makes it difficult to teach responsibility. Knowing that our children would soon be off to high school parties and college, we always have tried to set responsible examples for them. We would drink, but one of us would always say, "I'm driving tonight, so I'll skip the drink", or "I've already had enough". It is a mistake to make liquor the "forbidden fruit" and avoid setting good examples. "

To: Digs Deeper wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:39 AM:

" You are a great example of why we have to save people from themselves. Your anti-american over statements are why you are irrelevant. Example: "supporting killing millions of Innocent Iraqi's". It's called Democracy. Did you call or write anyone in support? Or are you a sit and standby, let someone else take the time and effort, then complain if it does not go your way person? If you do not like it, then try to become a counsel member and change it. But with your immature posts that will never happen. Thank God. Or does believing in God make me a BAD person in your eye's? Bravo to the Bloomington counsel for listening to the people. "

To: Joy wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:27 AM:

" The motion to deny the theatre's license request was made by A. Gibson and seconded by J. Hanson. Those voting to deny were: J. Finnegan, A. Gibson, J. Hanson, S. Purcell, and J. Stearns. Two previous motions to allow the license with some rules for amount and place of consumption within the theatre were rejected by the council 6-3 and 5-4. "

Julie wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:23 AM:

" This is too bad. I was looking forward to taking my dates here and enjoing some malt liquor. Looks like we'll just have to watch the stars in my newer convertible Mercedes. "

when did this town wrote on Sep 25, 2007 11:07 AM:

" become about nothing more than churchs and little brats. Too many breeders in this town. "

Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Sep 25, 2007 10:40 AM:

" Glad to see fascism STILL alive in B/N. I thought it was on a down spike after the smoking ban. Ever notice it's the "reformed" smokers that scream about smoke the most? As well as recovering alcoholics screaming about how readily available alcohol is? Another ban by people who can't control themselves so they make the rest of us suffer. GOD I LOVE THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTABLILITY OF "OUR" COUNTRY! "

Dead Eye Dick wrote on Sep 25, 2007 10:01 AM:

" To: " TO IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICE": Holy Trinity Church already serves wine. "

Joy wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:28 AM:

" Clearly the liquor commission had recommended it and it was a close vote on the council. Who were the five aldermen who voted it down? "

NAWP wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:25 AM:

" It's not about being able to "endure a 2 hour movie without a drink" - it's about having a choice. It's about local government stepping in and telling me I have no choice. If you people are too damned blind to see this, then you reap what you sow and you deserve what "they" allow you to have and nothing more. I am also a smoker but the ban doesn't bother me. I agree that restaurants should be smoke free. I like to enjoy my smoke after my meal, but I do so with respect to others and I go outside. Am I offended? Not in the least. What offends me is people who think that I should live my life according to their rules. People in today’s society have become so disrespectful to each other that it’s no wonder why we have the problems we have. Now let me see what kind of idiot comments this post receives from all the bible-toting right-wingers. "

NAWP wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:25 AM:

" Are you all finished now? Allow me to respond. I am not an alcoholic and in fact I don't even have it in my home unless I have company. Having said that, I like to enjoy an occasional drink every now and then when I go out for dinner. Why should I not be able to do the same at a movie? Yes I would go and pay $8 for a glass of beer. What I won't do is spend almost $6 for a soda that's worth only .50 cents or $5 for a bucket of popcorn that’s worth even less. Why do you think popcorn refills are only .25 cents? They still make money on that quarter! Refreshments currently served at the movies are too overpriced and that is the reason I don't go to them now. But if my experience could have been made a little nicer by being able to choose something different to drink, it would have been worth spending the money. "

How long wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:24 AM:

" must an event be in order for someone to have a drink and not be considered an alcoholic? Why is beer served at hockey games? Surely you can go three hours without a drink. Why is it sold at baseball games? Surely one can go 2 1/2 hours without a drink. Please educate me as to why having a drink with a movie is any different than a cold one at the ball game. "

Thank you to five wonderful aldermen who listened wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:24 AM:

" to our letters and phone calls. These progressive thinkers have now come to their senses and rejected the devil’s businessmen who have long sought to spread the diabolic juice of crime and disorder within our neighborhoods. Beer and its sisters marijuana, heroin and cocaine are the root of mortal’s crime against fellow men and those evil substances have no place in a law-abiding community. We have seen alcohol welcomed not just into saloons but into places where responsible people, families and children congregate. Our impressionable children should not be exposed to alcohol for purchase in our food stores or allowed to witness the behavior of drunken miscreants in palaces of alcohol consumption like restaurants and bowling allies. Children should never be allowed to attend so-called family events at the sinful, debtor arena and the cultural district where alcohol is not only served but consumed. We have struck against the theatres that exhibit moving pictures filled with sex and language unsuitable for children and must now carry our crusade forth to Chuckie Cheese from which spew forth drivers unable to control their gasoline-powered vehicles. Please instruct your aldermen to follow my standards to control others, and all will be well! "

Nick wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:02 AM:

" How is this any different than any other entertainment venue selling alcohol. If the aldermen asked why it was necessary to serve beer in a theater, then why don't they ask why it is necessary to serve beer in their sports complex. I don't need to drink while I watch the town lose money. The aldermen deciding what is good for a business model seems absolutely ridiculous. "

Im a conservative wrote on Sep 25, 2007 9:01 AM:

" and this was a very bad move by the Council. This company is a privately owned and operated business. Their business model included responsible sales of alcohol and in a method and manner to mitigation the potential for abuse. If they were willing (and they were) to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regs, they should have received a green light. This wasn't a conservative act by the Council, it was an authoritarian dictatorial decision which substituted government wisdom for good capitalism. Sounds very socialist and liberal to me. "

Irony wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:51 AM:

" They'll turndown the movie theatre's request for a liquor license because they're concerned about DUI's and alcohol abuse? Seems hypocritical given the number of bars in this town and especially downtown Blm. I don't really care either way, but I do think people would like the choice just like they do at restaurants and entertainment venues. When you go to the live theatre, they offer wine, beer, cocktails - so you put the entertainment on a screen and all of the sudden it makes you an alcoholic if you want to drink a beer?? "

Why not??? wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:40 AM:

" It would be great to have at least one or two theaters in a complex be over 21 only. I want a recliner, some pizza and a beer or two with my movie. If we have to watch movies on a small screen (instead of the huge screens of the past) in these giant complexes, it might as well be like home. "

marc wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:37 AM:

" Small town thought strikes again. Look to other places for lessons, big theatures in the chicago area have had beer and champaign (as well as valet car service) for over a decade. Denying the license is a nice way for the council to reward someone investing so heavily to bring us a theature of this scale, which will benefit us all by the climate change of competition. "

Digs Deeper wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:36 AM:

" I have plenty of money since I stopped eating out, going to the bars, buying my ciggs in Illinois, and I quit buy gasoline, I changed all of my light bulbs to CF L'S, installed a fireplace and an open pit wood burning oven/grill. All because you passed a smoking ban and are supporting killing millions of Innocent Iraqi's, raised taxes to pay for that purpose and restricting Freedoms in the name of safety, yet the dangers that effect everyone on our land everyone chooses to ignore and try and pass dangerous legislation that truly has a direct impact on my safety as well as others, as this would have certainly raise DUI'S if it had passed ,but we won.... Thank You for protecting us with sensible legislation on the local level. "

Not necessary. wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:23 AM:

" To: To Not necessary, I do drink alcohol but I do not see why it needs served at a movie theatre. My line of thinking about restaurants serving alcohol....I think it is great! (and I am not a rich twin citian). "

Illinois Traveler wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:14 AM:

" I have been lucky enough to live in Europe where beer is available in theaters. It can be pleasant to choose to drink a beer instead of carbonated high fructose corn syrup while watching a movie, as pleasant as making the same choice over dinner can be. The assumptions that people support the liquor license because they "need" a beer, and that more DUIs will result, are just silly. "

To ITS ALL ABOUT CHOICE wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:13 AM:

" With that line of thinking, why not serve beer at BroMenn Hospital, Holy Trinity Church, Fairview Waterpark, the DMV, Miller Park Zoo, Golds Gym, and Home Depot? And those who claim that businesses won't come to b/n or are going to move out are obviously BLIND to the business boom on Veterans Parkway. Get a clue folks. "

To NAWP: wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:13 AM:

" Thank God, you're staying home. Get over yourself, they don't need your money to make it. Poor Baby!! "

3% of sales wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:05 AM:

" Movie theaters get nearly nothing from their ticket sales, almost all of that goes back to the film producers. That's why they sell popcorn & soda at ridiculous markups. I would have hoped our city councilmen would know that no matter how big a business looks, many of them operate on razor thin profit margins. Limits could have easily been set to guard against abuse but thanks to conservative Bloomington we're once again stuck behind the rest of the country. "

John Becker.... wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:04 AM:

" ......wants to say something! "Once again, the comments that some of you are posting, proves that Darwin was right!!!!!!!" I do not understand why someone would need a designated driver to go to the movies! Do you realize how many drinks it takes to get to the legal limit of alcohol in your system to be considered legally drunk? I am glad I am not an alcoholic. Heck, I don't even drink and you know what, don't need it! "

To:UMMMM wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:53 AM:

" Right on! along with my MCDonalds... "

Question... wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:43 AM:

" Does Mr. Hanson offer any services at his dry cleaning business that only makes up a small percent of his total sales, yet still offers them? "

To NAWP wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:41 AM:

" I would wager you're the same guy who swears he'll never go out and eat again in B-N because he can't smoke. Wow, you should have lots of money by now! "

I guess wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:38 AM:

" I'll just have to keep bringing my own "

Digs Deeper wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:25 AM:

" Ha Ha we won, no beer in the theaters...... Ha ha ha No Beer in the movie, no beer in the movies ha ha ha. We won you lost no beer in the movies. You lost ha ha ha............ Now to ban alcohol in public, just to get back at you for passing smoking laws, yet Alcohol poses 100 times more danger to a non-user than does a smoker... ha ha we won.......... You Lose...... Ha Ha Ha "

To Not Necessary wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:25 AM:

" Your comment is ridiculous. I really doubt anybody was goign to be getting loaded at the movie. I guess you could really apply your Puritan idea elsewhere. Given your logic, resaturants really dont need to serve alcohol either, after all dinner is shorter than a movie. I for one see absolutely nothing wrong with a beer to go with some nachos. "

To NAWP a.k.a. Alcoholic wrote on Sep 25, 2007 7:10 AM:

" If you don't go to the movie theater just because they don't serve beer, it's about time you start going to AA. I'm not saying that a theater shouldn't be able to serve beer. I feel that if a business wants to start selling alcohol then go for it but to say that you won't go to a movie theater just because you can't live without beer for a couple hours is ridiculous. "

To NAWP wrote on Sep 25, 2007 6:59 AM:

" I'm sure that an $8 beer was really going to entice you into the theaters. Please. "

I'm no conservative but... wrote on Sep 25, 2007 6:58 AM:

" I'm glad to hear this. "

Agree With Bad Move wrote on Sep 25, 2007 6:48 AM:

" I wouldn't be surprised if this movie complex doesn't move on. They aren't setting up a bar for outside patrons - believe me at $7.00 a beer - it won't attract the slime. This city will never grow to meet the financial burdens they have caused. "

TO: Not necessary wrote on Sep 25, 2007 6:23 AM:

" Who are you to decide whether or not I can enjoy a beer with a movie? If you don't like it, don't go there. "

Go to the Palace! wrote on Sep 25, 2007 6:09 AM:

" I can't wait to see the condition of this movie theater in December 2008. Alcohol will probably be the least of its concerns!! "

I'll drink to that wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:59 AM:

" Who cares? I won't miss the opportunity to pay $8 for a beer after the $8 ticket. "

To Not Necessary: wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:46 AM:

" With that line of thinking, do you believe people should be able to endure two hours at a nice dinner in a fancy restaurant that caters to rich twin citians without the need to have a glass of wine or beer? "

Welcome to freedom of choice. wrote on Sep 25, 2007 5:44 AM:

" Once again, conservative government decides what's best for the little people. If I were President of the theater chain, I'd decide not to open. Unfortunately, they have already invested millions. I hope that the city will now ban alcohol sales at the Coliseum and other restaurants. Obviously serving alcohol in public is a danger. It sends a clear message to any restauranteur or entertainment business that Bloomington is not a place to do business. Shame on you, city council! "

Todd the Bod wrote on Sep 25, 2007 4:29 AM:

" To Not necessary: I believe patrons should be able to endure a two hour movie without needing to have popcorn. And yet no one is stopping you. Not a big surprise here. The uptight minority once again gets their way. I don't know why anyone would choose to do business in this town. And the skate park? Give me a break. Why does the town need to be involved in this? $2 million short for the 2008 budget and we're adding something that's not necessary and will only require more money to maintain in the future. "

makes sense to me wrote on Sep 25, 2007 4:06 AM:

" why in the world do you need a beer to watch a movie? go get it afer it's over if you want one "

If you can't watch~~ wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:50 AM:

" a movie without a beer in your hand, you have a problem!! If you want to drink and watch a movie, stay home, get sloshed, and crawl to bed. I just don't get it, why do people have to have that beer (besides being an alcoholic)? I drink occasionally but not on a daily basis and I survive between beers. I don't know why people drink every day anyway other than being an alcoholic. Nothing wrong with an occasional beer, but stay home if you want to drink that much. Our society is overwhelmed with drinking and drunks as it is and so is Hollywood. People say they NEED a drink to unwind or relax; a quick nap will work just as good. Big difference between wanting or needing a beer. "

UMMMM. wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:21 AM:

" ...Who needs to buy it at the movies? Just take in a half-pint like I do. "

To: NAWP - what is.... wrote on Sep 25, 2007 2:17 AM:

" the big deal about going for a couple of hours without drinking alcohol? Usually, that means someone has a BIG problem. I think this is GREAT! At least, people can know when they leave the theatre to go home that MAYBE they won't be killed by a drunk driver who they sat in front of, next to, or behind in the theatre. I'm all for LESS drunk drivers on the road. Did you NOT see the prison time that the fella from LeRoy might get due to DRINKING and DRUGS? DUH!!!! "

ITS ALL ABOUT A CHOICE wrote on Sep 25, 2007 1:58 AM:

" WHY NOT? "

NAWP wrote on Sep 25, 2007 12:21 AM:

" So the right-wing conservative aldermen have made their decision. Apparently serving alcohol in a theatre will darken and dirty up their tidy little white collar bible thumping town. That's too bad because I would have started going to the movies but instead will continue to download and rent. I'll keep my money to myself. "

Here we go.... wrote on Sep 25, 2007 12:19 AM:

" Let's put the kids on hold or shut them out. It's bad enough that the proposed skate park was slated for a park on the WEST side but to now consider cutting it all together is a slap in the face to these bright, enthusiastic, non-violent teens. As a Skate mom (instead of soccer mom) I want a place for my child to ride his board without having to worry about traffic or pedestrians. I will tell him and his friends not to hold their breaths. "

bad move wrote on Sep 25, 2007 12:16 AM:

" wow, Bloomington if you want more industry and business to move here you must get with the times! Very bad move, not just talking about the liquor sales either, it a business "

Not necessary. wrote on Sep 24, 2007 11:52 PM:

" I believe patrons should be able to endure a two hour movie without needing to have alcohol. Have a beer before and after the movie if you have to. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Learn Forex Trading

Allheartchefs Discount Chef/Cooks Pants

2008 Diet Of The Year: