Jump to content
This sign is truly moronic. I wonder if the kid came up with it, or his dumb parents.
Why are tax-payer funded school buses being used to display partisan campaign slogans?
"Tears rushed over us."
For a campaign stop?
Ok, Frank Moe, settle down. He's a politician, not the savior.
He probably heard about Colorado's annual kick-off to summer and couldn't resist.
yampafamily - while I share your desire to see the community get healthier... I don't feel like the solution is more sidewalks or trails. That is an urban city problem. You have an abundance of options available in Craig - you already listed the two tracks, you've got Loudy Simpson to the south, the sand rocks to the North, Ridgeview to the West, Cedar Mountain is a quick drive away... Moreover, I think the town is already ideal for leisurely strolls - traffic isn't bad, there are plenty of sidewalks and the city keeps everything pretty well maintained relative to their big city counterparts.
I feel like there are a lot of valid complaints about Craig, but access to outdoor exercise is the least of the problems. If you aren't accessing it, that is on you.
I think the process worked in this instance. The council didn't rush to judgement, they attempted to give Tarango the benefit of the doubt, and he proved himself unworthy of a second chance. Now it's game over for Tarango.
I was in favor of letting him re-apply after some sort of cooling off period as I thought there was at least some possibility that it was an oversight or misunderstanding. Our governmental process ought to allow for those possibilities - and I'm glad they did. But then it became clear that this man is either unwilling or unable to play by the rules, in which case the council came to the appropriate decision.
I wanted to give Tarango the benefit of the doubt a few weeks ago... But he is clearly incompetent at best and dishonest at worst, so I will no longer defend him.
ranger520 - does that apply until the end of time? Because he failed to disclose a couple of misdemeanors he should never be considered for a liquor license?
I'm not even sure I agree with background checking people to obtain a liquor license. As someone else stated, all licenses are subject to revocation if they are misused, so his background is almost a moot point.
David, you actually raise some valid concerns regarding the location, but the comment about amigos peeing on things because they don't agree with our government is straight up racism and detracts from an otherwise sound argument that you present. Don't be ignorant.
The idea to make him wait a year is sort of an arbitrary time frame, I will give you that. I am in agreement that there ought to be some sort of repercussion of lying on the application - he shouldn't be allowed to simply turn around and resubmit it.
But I also don't feel like it's such an egregious violation that he should be banned from ever applying for a liquor license. So it seems like some sort of waiting period is in order. I just threw out one year as a suggestion.
I guess my main point here is that he is not a convicted sex offender, or a felon, nor is he applying for a job as a teacher or a public servant... So the standard for obtaining a liquor license should be lower than in other walks of life where background checks are necessary.
There ought to be some negative impact of him lying on the application, but I don't think it should preclude him all together.
As for the opinion that "Craig has enough liquor establishments," I don't think we ought to be pushing our own morality on other business owners. I think they deserve the same opportunities as any other liquor establishment, until they prove themselves unfit. (I acknowledge that lying on an application does not do much to generate good will with the community.)
Last login: Friday, October 14, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.