The Minneapolis City Council, in an 8-5 vote, refused to renew liquor licenses for two hotels accused of housing ICE agents, delaying action to seek greater ‘public input’ in the process. A public hearing for residents to complain about the hotels is scheduled for February 17.
Canopy by Hilton, credit: Hilton
The hotels have been targets of protests because federal immigration officers were believed to be staying there during the immigration enforcement surge that brought 3,000 federal agents to Minnesota, when an agent killed Renee Good.
Even the city’s attorney told the council that (1) the hotels complied with liquor licensing laws, (2) are eligible for renewal, and (3) deny the licenses on the basis of housing federal employees is impermissible and they’d need other grounds.
If there’s any plausible argument, it’s that protestors don’t like the hotels and that the protestors themselves create a dangerous situation where on-premises alcohol could become a problem. Protests broke windows and graffitied the Depot Renaissance, and forced their way into the Canopy through an alley entrance before leaving.
The five council members voting against the delay suggested license renewals shouldn’t be used as a proxy fight over who stays at a hotel, that it’s discriminatory, and creates legal liability. City licensing staff said the hotels can keep serving alcohol in the meantime – the current licenses effectively remain usable pending final council action.
- A (brief) delay seems legal, while the hotels suffer no harm because they can serve alcohol in the interim. If a delay became extended, that could create a cloud of uncertainty which undermines the market value of the properties.
- Punishing a hotel for doing business with the federal government or for who its guests are is clearly illegal. And council statements make clear that searching for liquor law violations and findings that could condition approval is pretextual.
Renaissance, credit: Marriott
It never ceases to amaze me that city councils say they’re doing illegal things, but the point isn’t to sustain any decision but to be performative for voters.
More From View from the Wing
Link da fonte
