Craig City Council reacts to Victor Tarango

Craig City Council members react to more dishonesty in their unanimous denial of Victor Tarango’s application for liquor and retail gaming licenses.

Stories this video appears in:

Tease photo

Council again denies proposed nightclub owner

More than 20 residents attended Tuesday’s Craig City Council meeting to participate in a public hearing on a proposed night club in Craig. The audience was split between those in support of Steamboat Springs resident Victor Tarango and those against Tarango’s Night Club, which was slated to be located at 535 Green St. Tarango appeared before the council in late March seeking approval for tavern liquor and retail gaming licenses, but was denied because of false information contained in his application. Most notably, Tarango failed to declare that between 2000 and 2010 his driver’s license had been suspended on four different occasions — once in 2000 for a driving while ability impaired conviction and three times for failure to pay child support.

Comments

Becky Plummer 2 years, 6 months ago

It would have made a better conversation piece had you left in the part where he said he would not now vote for Victor to get a liquor license nor would he ever in the future......

0

craignative 2 years, 6 months ago

I really hope that some of the supporters to this night club after the denial of the first application can now clearly see that honesty means everything. I've said this before, what else is this guy going to be dishonest about in the future? Sure enough, it happened again this past Tuesday night. So the question remains, can this person be trusted ever again? I truly hope in 2 years Mr. Tarrango has moved on with his life and the community need not worry about him applying for a liquor license again!

0

Jason Phillips 2 years, 6 months ago

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.

0

onewhocares 2 years, 6 months ago

First of all, I'm against all the nightclubs to begin with because I don't see one positive thing about any of them, except to encourage alcoholism & wasting money that could go for much healthier activities.

With that said, isn't there another nightclub owner who recently made the paper for failing to pay approx $11,000 in taxes and was also charged with hit & run?

Is this about Tarango's dishonesty or about the other night club owner's not wanting competition? Just wondering.

*** (If you're honest & admit you defrauded the federal government of $11,000.00 of taxes, or charged with hit and run into someone, but admit to it, it's okay? Am I missing something here? Seems, neither owner should qualify for a liquor license. Both seem to have ethical & honesty issues)

0

myopinion1 2 years, 6 months ago

start a new church, It is so amazing to me that you can all through stones in a glass house, or is it you without sin cast the first stone, either way, judge not lest you be judged. have you never missunderstood a gov. document as an american speaking person? You all amaze me and not in a good way

0

craignative 2 years, 6 months ago

onewhocares:

Actually, if you read the paper last fall, the person you are referring to paid their taxes. It may have been late but hardly considered "defrauding" the government. Defrauding would be not paying at all and avoiding the government at all costs. Defrauding could also mean they are hiding something from the government for a gain. Since property taxes are determined by the Assessors office, that's the amount owed. So it doesn't appear the person you are referring to is avoiding the amount owed. They may have an issue with how much is owed, but they paid it.

Was the person charged with hit and run? Did the person admit to the crime to law enforcement? Was it disclosed on their application? Was there an application for renewal? I know when liquor license renewals come up law enforcement has to conduct a background check for the past year they had their license.

But, I don't believe we know the answers to the majority of these questions to make a qualified judgement for the truth of the matter.

0

craignative 2 years, 6 months ago

myopinion1:

This is not about misunderstanding a government document. This is clearly someone avoiding answering truthfully on the document. Tarango had the opportunity to correct any misleading information after the first hearing. He knew what he had to disclose on the application. I'm sure the application didn't change its wording in a months time. So this clearly becomes an issue of dishonesty.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.