Why after four months of intense discussion and a countywide campaign for full service restaurants did the Effingham Herald on March 6 reference a commissioner as asking what exactly constituted a full-service restaurant and what could be called a restaurant?
We can assume the commissioners might not have understood just what the campaign for full service restaurants was all about and what it involved. Why did they not accept the Community Progress Council of Effingham offer to aid in drafting an ordinance that balanced family friendly and marketability? These were the two major elements in the CPCE campaign for full service restaurants which the voters overwhelmingly endorsed.
If marketability is our objective, why wouldn’t the commissioners set the requirement at the state law of 50 percent to achieve that goal?
Why are the commissioners requiring us to produce a restaurant stating they will not come at the 55 percent requirement before they will actually lower the requirement on food sales to 50 percent?
Why would the commissioners think it’s better to double the state requirements on the distance between churches and family friendly full service restaurants?
If marketability is our objective, why would you increase the state requirements, making it harder to qualify a location for a full service restaurant?
Why do commissioners think the 40 percent who voted “no alcohol” can ever be represented in an ordinance that allows alcohol? Why isn’t the focus on the 60 percent of the “yes” voters? Why are the commissioners making the ordinance reflect more of the will of the “no” voters and discouraging restaurants by their insistence of a higher food percentage and by doubling the state minimum distance between full service restaurants and churches?
Why don’t you call the commissioners and tell them to change the ordinance to make it more attractive to full service restaurants?
Myra Lewis 728-3164
Reggie Loper 754-6286
Jeffery Utley 754-4295
Verna Phillips 826-4931
Hubert Sapp 748-4066