SB 10 passed the Senate by a vote of 32-22. 5 Democrats voted against it: Brown (Macon), Fort (Atlanta), Davenport (Jonesboro), Davis (Augusta) and Jackson (Savannah). 1 Democrat abstained, Harbison (Columbus). Interestingly, with the exception of Davenport, all represent urban centers, where a local referendum would likely pass.

I’ve already emailed my State Rep and asked for her support, have you?

 

13 Responses to Sunday Sales

  1. sara says:

    Vincent Fort can suck it. Being open on Sundays won’t bring more liquor stores…they’re already there and open the other 6 days a week. Something else was at work there…opposition to whatever the Chamber of Commerce wants? I wish his primary challenger had beaten him last year.

  2. Jen B. says:

    Well, that’s what Vincent Fort said (the former). He represents Bankhead and Bankhead doesn’t need any more problems. Look, Sunday liquor sales are NOT the problem in Bankhead. Sheesh.

    • Jen B. says:

      Related. Rep. Jones (Vinings to Bankhead) says this, “As the bill is currently written, I will vote yes.”

    • Raquel Morris says:

      Yeah, Sen. Fort has jumped the shark on this one. It’s about time for him to move along.

      • Steve Golden says:

        I don’t think he’s jumped the shark. I disagree with him, sure, but if anyone jumped the shark, it would have been Robert Brown’s liquor bottle.

        • Jen B. says:

          Oh yeah, Robert Brown was – by far – the most ridiculous. I wish I could find the text of his speech, but at one point, he said that the people should vote on the cuts to HOPE, but the people rely on their representatives to make the hard decisions like alcohol sales. Really, dude?

        • Raquel Morris says:

          Yeah, Robert Brown’s vote makes no sense at all.

          I just think Fort comes off looking really bad (and petty) here because he’s given 3-4 varying explanations for his vote, none of which line up with the reality of his district. Bankhead’s biggest problem is not the EXISTENCE of liquor stores, but the non-existence of code enforcement. Greater revenue could possibly, just maybe, lead to better code enforcement.

          More than likely, he’s just being contrary to the Chamber, which is usually good, just not in this case.

          • Jen B. says:

            Yeah, he also that it would increase DUIs. Uhm. What? Right now, you have to go to a bar / restaurant in order to buy alcohol on Sunday (and eventually drive home after consuming it). The logic makes no sense.

            • Steve Golden says:

              They were relying on an incredibly flawed study, which I tried to replay to a number of Senators, but I don’t know if they ever got the message.

              I usually agree with Sen. Fort. This time, I didn’t. But I still think he’s generally a great politician.

              • Jen B. says:

                On Fort’s site, he lists the following accomplishment:

                **Keeping Our Kids in School: Senator Fort increased the mandatory attendance from 16 to 17, making sure kids stay in school longer and receive a well-rounded education.**

                This is incorrect. First of all, SB413, which he cosponsored and was signed into law in 2006, didn’t even try to raise the age from 16 to 17.

                Second, he wasn’t even a co-sponsor of SB 49 (died yesterday) which would have raised the age to 16 and a half. It wasn’t even 17.

                It could just be poor editing by a webmaster, but then again, Fort often likes to take credit for things he didn’t actually achieve.

  3. Ed says:

    Theory I heard last night is that they represent minority districts where liquor shops are a source of problems.

    I say they represent places with alot of liquor stores and they just don’t want to stay open