Tupelo approves Sunday liquor, awaits state's OK
by Emily Le Coz/NEMS Daily Journal
9 months ago | 1919 views | 35 35 comments | 23 23 recommendations | email to a friend | print
TUPELO - City Council members voted 4-3 Tuesday in favor of allowing wine and liquor sales on Sundays in a move that opponents called "sneaky."

The Mississippi State Tax Commission, which controls strong alcoholic beverages, has final say on the matter. It typically takes about two weeks for that agency to make a decision after getting the request.

If it's approved, Tupelo will become the third Northeast Mississippi city this year to allow Sunday liquor sales after Starkville and Columbus. All three cities also permit beer and wine cooler sales seven days a week.

And though this week's measure passed quietly, it wasn't without controversy. Opponents of Sunday alcohol sales criticized the council for voting without first seeking public comment.

"I hadn't even heard about it until Sunday night, and then two days later there's a vote," said Forrest Sheffield, pastor at Harrisburg Baptist Church and an outspoken teetotaler. "People are upset the council has not given the citizens of the community an opportunity to have the spoken word."

He went on to say it had the impression of "sneaky, hidden back-room politics" and that it was forced upon the public.

West Jackson Street Baptist Church Pastor Bert Harper asked the council to postpone a decision until more residents can comment.

Neither pastor was scheduled to speak, but the council voted to allowed them five minutes each.

Council President Fred Pitts, however, disagreed the measure was sprung upon the public without notice. He told the Daily Journal that the group's earlier decision to permit Sunday beer sales clearly signaled its intention to get liquor sales, too.

The beer vote, he said, was just the first step of a two-step process. Unlike the beer vote, though, the liquor vote doesn't require a public hearing because the municipal ordinance won't change. And, in that case, there was no need to alert the public or seek comments, said city attorney Guy Mitchell.

"This is all by the book," Pitts said. "There's nothing sneaky about it."

Ward 6 Councilman Mike Bryan disagreed. He said no one had mentioned hard liquor when the council debated Sunday sales in September. Had it come up, Bryan said, even residents in favor of Sunday beer would have opposed Sunday liquor.

He also said the council could have held a public hearing on the matter even though it wasn't legally required.

Bryan, who himself didn't know about the measure until Friday, had tried to table it but failed to get enough votes.

Also opposing Sunday liquor sales were Ward 5 Councilman Jonny Davis and Ward 7 Councilman Willie Jennings.

Contact Emily Le Coz at (662) 678-1588 or emily.lecoz@djournal.com.

At a glance

Sunday alcohol sales in other Northeast Mississippi cities:

* Columbus - Beer, wine and liquor from 10 a.m. to midnight

* Oxford - No Sunday alcohol sales except for establishments with resort status

* Starkville - Beer, wine and liquor from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.

* Corinth - No Sunday alcohol sales

Vote tally

For Sunday liquor sales

* Ward 1 Councilman Markel Whittington

* Ward 2 Councilman Fred Pitts

* Ward 3 Councilman Jim Newell

* Ward 4 Councilwoman Nettie Davis

Against Sunday liquor sales

* Ward 5 Councilman Jonny Davis

* Ward 6 Councilman Mike Bryan

* Ward 7 Councilman Willie Jennings
comments (35)
« abetterUSA wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 05:37 PM »
Tupelosupporter,

Thanks for your post. What I fail to understand about this entire issue is if the selling of hard liquor was the ultimate aim and goal, why didn't the council present the entirety of their plans to the city during the September vote? Why veil it as "just beer and light wine" in the September debate? Why two separate votes, if they knew the entire time that hard liquor would be included? Why not just one vote? Forgive me if I don't respond before Sunday. . .I will be out of town for the weekend.
report abuse
« tupelosupporter wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 05:24 PM »
abetterUSA,

I am trying to understand why you are so upset about this issue? I read you are not against Sunday sales. (Is this correct?)

The city attorney stated there did not have to be a public hearing on this issue. There are also plenty of issues that public does not know about until the council votes on them. There are a few issues that are released to the public before the council discusses them. The liquor issue was released before the Tuesday’s vote.

report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 04:11 PM »
I do not fail to understand the situation. What I fail to understand, however, is if the selling of hard liquor was the ultimate aim and goal of this entire issue, why didn't the council present the entirety of their plans to the city during the September vote? Why veil it as "just beer and lite wine?" Why two separate votes, if they knew the entire time that hard liquor would be included? Why not just one vote? I do not believe that I suggested that the council is required to notify city pastors of their plans so that pastors may attend council meetings. Contrary to what you may believe, my media intake does consist of more sources that just FOX News. In fact, I find all news sources to be not just a little biased in their reporting of the facts. My mention of those names was in response to the typical names liberals dispense in their talking points. If you say you are not a liberal, then I have no choice but to take you at your word. However, I do find it offensive and insulting that you would posit that backwoods Baptists are ruining this city, and by necessary inference, this country.
report abuse
« aletce40 wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 03:29 PM »
Touche`, but I'm not a liberal. If anything, I'm more conservative than most Republicans. If your source of education and news are the one you listed, then you are the one that's truly intolerant.

As I explained earlier, the vote was not underhanded, backroom politics. The council isn't required to have a public forum. They are not required to tell Dr. Sheffield what they're going to vote on so he can make a speech. They let him speak out of courtesy the other night.

My point about Mike Bryan is simple. He's not smart enough to know what's going on at the council meetings or study agendas or any other meetings for that matter. His vote was going to be negative no matter when it was taken. I don't have anything against you, did not use profane language at you and don't mean to offend, but your failure to see that the council did exactly what they intended to do from the onset, and the fact that they did it legally and by the letter of the law, leaves me suspect as to whether you fully understand the situation.
report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 03:14 PM »
Spoken like a true liberal. You claim to be tolerant of everyone's ideas, but in reality, you are tolerant of only those ideas with which you agree. I'm not arguing; I'm debating and disagreeing with you on this issue, but you seem not to be able to handle the conversation without resorting to insults. You're trying to make me look like the idiot. Your passive-aggressive manipulations are pathetically sophmoric, but if that's how you roll, then fine. If you revisit our conversation, I think you will find that I have not "hung my hat" on Mike Bryan. Nowhere do I mention my unwavering support of Mike Bryan, who is, by the way, not even my councilman. "And yes, I do feel like our elected officials are fighting backwoods, hayseed, unintelligent, unenlightened baptists...as well as feel like I'm arguing with one right now. Your type of thinking is exactly what has us where were are economically and socially, as well as our perception elsewhere." Can you not see how intolerant and hypocritical you are??? Yes, I am a Christian, but I am not ignorant, despite your blatant attempts to depict me as such. As I said earlier, which somehow you seem to forget, I am not necessarily against all alcohol sales. . .alcohol sales on Sunday is NOT the issue for me!!! I am NOT a prohibitionist!!! I am concerned, however, with the shady manner in which all of this was done. Please elaborate on "our perception elsewhere." I'm assuming, though I may be incorrect, that your statement is a veiled insult at conversatism on the national scene. . .probably ultimately aimed at George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and others. Then again, I could be wrong. The last time I checked the constitution, EVERYONE! has the right to their opinions and votes, not matter how much you, or any other person, may disagree with them. As you attempt to belittle and censor these backwoods Baptists (which is, no doubt, your ultimate goal), you are simultaneously infringing upon their God-given (oops can I say that?) 1st Amendment rights, which you probably claim to cherish. And yes, my last analogy was intended to be sarcastic, yet I hoped it contained a nugget of truth for you. . .Just because another city passes a particular measure is not sufficient grounds for Tupelo to pass the same measure. The analogy was quite appropriate, but I see logic will not work on someone who refuses to debate in a mature manner (i.e. Your unfortunate resort to foul language. . .very impressive!) Will and have alcholol sales on Sunday improved business revenue? The answer is a most resounding yes. The quarrel I maintian, as I have previously stated ad nauseum, is regarding the dubious manner in which this measure recently passed. If arguing with me is a complete waste of time, why do you continue to do it???
report abuse
« aletce40 wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 02:37 PM »
Arguing with you is a complete waste of time. I hope our business leaders did put pressure on the council, but I know they didn't because I took the time to talk to the councilpersons. They voted they way they did because it's economically correct and they have the foresight to make decisions that help the community.

If you don't believe wikipedia in this regard, do a little research of your own...I think you'll understand how lame your argument it going to be. If you won't to hang your hat on Mike Bryan, have at it. Kennedy-Western University is a diploma mill for people that can't earn a degree from a university. I've known him for 30 years, and I can assure I am absolutely correct. And yes, I do feel like I our elected officials are fighting backwoods, hayseed, unintelligent, unenlightened baptists...as well as feel like I'm arguing with one right now. Your type of thinking is exactly what has us where were are economically and socially, as well as our perception elsewhere. Wake up, this isn't Mayberry and now that we have some leadership on the council and in the mayor's office, things will improve. Finally, your last analogy reeks of someone trying to be sarcastically belittling, but comes off just as it is...just a dumb analogy.

The fact of the matter is that alcohol sales (beer, wine and liquor) is now legal on Sunday in Tupelo and we will never go back to the way it was before our enlightened council passed it. You can bitch and moan all you won't, but it's not going to change. How's that taste?
report abuse
« tupelosupporter wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 02:23 PM »
The sale of liquor and wine, on Sundays, was eventually going to take place in the city of Tupelo. The September vote allowed Sunday alcohol sales in Tupelo and the Tuesday vote was to allow an application to be processed to ask the ABC for liquor and wine sales in Tupelo on Sundays. Starkville officials decided to vote on everything at once and Tupelo decided to take steps in allowing everything to be sold on Sundays. Council members should have known once beer and light wine were allowed then liquor and wine were eventually going to be allowed. All they had to do was look at other cities and realized this was the process. Also if this went to a vote it would be approved by a large vote. I am glad it did not because it would have cost the city of Tupelo money by having an election.

Also both of the preachers had every right to voice their opinions in opposition of Sunday sales. They believe it is wrong to have Sunday sales, but I have to disagree with them on this issue. I do not see this as a moral issue, but as an economic issue. My pastor has yet to mention Sunday sales during his sermons and I do not plan on him doing that anytime soon.

report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 01:41 PM »
Ah yes, wikipedia, the ultimate, reliable research website. "We finally have people in office that are willing to make decisions based on what's right for the city and not what will get them re-elected or make them look better to their peers in church." Your statement rests upon a faulty presupposition, namely that the ONLY peer pressure our elected officials faced in this decision came from church members. I would be willing to bet that many business leaders in this community exerted extreme amounts of peer pressure in the form of dollars. You speak as though our elected officials were fighting only against the backwoods, hayseed, unintelligent, and unenlightened Baptists, desperately clinging to their Bibles! Peer pressure comes in many forms, my friend, and it would be an understatement to say that numerous business leaders probably doled out their fair share of pressure. "You obviously haven't paid attention to what's going on around other parts of the state." To be frank, I really could care less about what is going on around other states. I want to do what is right for Tupelo, independent of what other states or cities are doing. You sound like the third grader whose parents would not let him go to the playground after dark. The third grader's argument, "But Mommy, other parents let their kids go after dark."
report abuse
« aletce40 wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 11:42 AM »
As I said, I'm stating the obvious. He is an idiot, as well as somewhat dubious. He "graduated" from this fine unaccredited institution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_National_University, according to his profile.

The citizens of Tupelo elect people to make these decisions and that's what they did. This vote has been a long time coming and we finally have people in office that are willing to make decisions based on what's right for the city and not what will get them re-elected or make them look better to their peers in church. These people did their job...just like the ministers.

Once again, a public hearing is NOT part of the process and is NOT required. Just because you can't don't like the process, does not make it underhanded. As to the September vote, the same people voted affirmatively then as did the other night, so what makes you think the outcome would have been any different? Newsflash - IT WOULDN'T.

Finally, if you didn't realize that liquor sales would be the next step in this process, then you obviously haven't paid attention to what's going on around other parts of the state.
report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 10:25 AM »
"I'm not 'casting aspersions' on any one." "On the other hand, Mike Bryan is an idiot." Sounds like an aspersion to me. My feelings about a hypothetical outcome bear no influence in my belief that a public hearing should have been part of this process. Yes, I might have been disappointed, but at least, I would have felt much better that the citizens of Tupelo had a voice in this matter. I'm almost positive that if the citizens of Tupelo unequivocally new in September new liquor sales WOULD include hard liquor, the September outcome would have been much different. I'm not necessarily against alcohol sales; I'm personally offended by the manner in which this last vote was forced down the throats of Tupelo residents.
report abuse
« aletce40 wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 10:08 AM »
I didn't say anything about the ministers godliness or lack of it. They have an obligation as baptist preachers to speak up against alcohol sales...they're just doing their jobs. I'm not "casting aspersions" on any one, I'm just stating the obvious.

On the other hand, Mike Bryan is an idiot. I can't believe he got re-elected. I'm not at all surprised he didn't know what was going on around him. Anybody that pays attention knew that the vote for liquor sales would come up eventually. I didn't know it would come up so soon, but it's an obvious next step in the process. The councilpersons that voted positively saw no reason to table for further discussion. They had the votes to pass the resolution, there was no requirement for a public hearing, so why table an issue that's settled.

Finally, I stand by my comment that if this were put to a public vote, I feel confident you would be sadly disappointed in the outcome.
report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 09:46 AM »
What is disconcerting about your recent post is the statement that you, and everyone you know, "assumed that when the ordinance was changed in September that this was the next logical step in the process." May I emphasize the word "assumed." I would like to point out that one of the selling points of the September ordinance was the fact that new liquor sales would include ONLY beer and lite wine. Opponents of allowing new liquor sales were patronizingly pacified by the councilmen, who tried to garnish on the fence votes with the statement, "it's just beer and lite wine. . not hard liquor." If it was indeed a two step process, and everyone knew that it was going to be two set process as you claim, then why didn't they just make it a one step process? Why the two separate votes? You know as well as I do that the reason this issue was not tabled for discussion, despite the fact that the airport issue WAS tabled for discussion, was because the councilmen at large wanted a speedy, conflict-free vote. They knew that if they did table this issue they would have a riot on their hands! As for the two baptist preachers who spoke, one of them happens to be my pastor, and he is one of the godliest men I have ever known. You would do well not to cast aspersions. And I would reiterate there were two councilmen who didn't even know this vould be on the agenda! So much for having the ear of your constituency!
report abuse
« aletce40 wrote on Friday, Nov 20 at 08:28 AM »
What was underhanded about it? Guy Mitchell said that a public hearing was not needed because this was not a change in the city ordinance. I, and everyone I know, assumed that when the ordinance was changed in September that this was the next logical step in the process. The level of indignation by the two baptist preachers and Mike Bryan was comical to say the least. If this was actually put to vote by the public, it would be a landslide in approval. One of the councilpersons put in on the agenda and a vote was taken...just like everything else that's put on the agenda. Whether Mike Bryan knew about it 4 days before or 4 years before wouldn't change his vote.
report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Thursday, Nov 19 at 09:29 PM »
My concern about this vote is not necessarily the moral and ethical implications of selling alcohol on Sundays, or any day of the week for that matter. My criticsm is leveled against the underhanded and covert manner in which this vote was put on the docket. This issue was put on the docket on Friday of last week (As of Friday, a couple of councilpersons were completely unaware that this issue would even be discussed and brought to a vote). Also, the Journal didn't get wind of this until Tuesday morning. Why were the councilpersons afraid to publize this highly divise topic? Why was this issue not tabled to allow for public debate? Of what are our councilmembers so afraid?
report abuse
« sandlot1959 wrote on Thursday, Nov 19 at 06:23 PM »
LOL creep...and 5 cents is about what its worth...uh..make it TWO cents....:)
report abuse
« abetterUSA wrote on Thursday, Nov 19 at 05:59 PM »
report abuse
« anonymous wrote on Thursday, Nov 19 at 08:11 AM »
If it was so bad for the cities, then why haven't we heard national news on all these cities serving alcohol on Sundays turning into DEATH TRAP cities. Why hasn't FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS been down to all the Mississippi cities serving alcohol on Sunday to show everyone all the destruction (deaths, crime, drugs)that is contributed because of aSunday alcohol sales? Because it's no different than any of the other 6 days here or anywhere else in the nation.

If you drink, then you are going to get it where its available. That person is going to be drinking in his city whether it's dry or wet.

Come on, Tupelo and all cities will be the same because people have been drinking on Sundays long before it was legal. Tupelo is not going to turn into some sinister, devil's island.

But, if it spooks you, then dont get out.
report abuse
« ultracreep wrote on Thursday, Nov 19 at 05:42 AM »
This is kinda off topic, but Sandlot your "shadetree psychiatrist" line conjured up images of you with a little stand with a sign that says "Psychiatric Help 5 cents" like Lucy from Peanuts. Good for a laugh.
report abuse
« sandlot1959 wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 11:40 PM »
bulldog are you implying you've checked the statistics for these cities pre and post Sunday sales? I mean, does a city have to go up in a puff of smoke to convince you there is detrimental effects? As I told Snoop earlier, I have been on YOUR side of the issue during my lifetime and my experience has changed my mind about any loosening of laws governing alchohol sales...Of course some people might say that having an opposing perspective means 'having issues'...:)
report abuse
« bulldawg225 wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 11:10 PM »
Gulfport, Biloxi, Pass Christian, Meridian, Olive Branch, Columbus, West Point, Jackson, Natchez, Oxford, Starkville, Aberdeen, Hattiesburg....and many more Mississippi cities serve alcohol on Sundays. Last time I checked, these cities didn't burn and are still on the map. Many of them host our state's universities. They all seem to be doing just fine. It all comes down to living the way you see fit. Personally, I haven't bought alcohol on Sunday, but it's not my business to tell others not to. We can all live together in the same cities with or without alcohol. It won't change a thing for me and it shouldn't for you.
report abuse