Minutes 06/22/1965 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 22nd, 1965 Beer contains less than 5% alcohol by volume, I have not seen or heard of any renorts by the JU. S. Food and Drug administration classifying beer detrimental to anyones health or contributing to any great extent of individuals becoming alcholics. Beer is just as American as the soda pop or hot dog and should not be classified anyother way. I have seen lots of changes made in Portsmouth, and I hate to think that the citizens of Portsmouth will not join forces on stores, organized efforts to attract tourist and eommercial investors and negociations for annexation pending. Portsmouth may not continue to be the third largest city in Virginia, if she continues to cut short the number one business of the American Economy. The 1965 U. S. Commerce re~orts that 95 Billion Dollars was spent on food, tobacco and alcohol alone, and 25 Billion dollars on va~ations; a total of 120 Billion, or one third of the 363 billion dollars s~ent by Americans for g°°dSsenhowersEi and services during 1964. Out flow of gold was a national issue during the last months of President administration. Under the present administration silver and the dollar has been added with grave concern and all efforts or methods are being applied to discourage spending abroad. Portsmouth has an outflow of capital, simply because available facilities can not be used. Portsmouth had a wholesale Tobacco Distributor from 1900 to 1963; now we make purchases out of town because the distributor was not in a comDetive position. Ninety percent of merchandise used ih-taverns are purchased out of town and it will take more than Sunday beer to change the situation, however, I feel confident that the question of Sunday beer would not have returned if the opposti~n had made recomendations to the council or promoted other means of making Portsmouth a first class city for the citizens and visitors that can not afford or obtain membership or admittance to ~rivate clubs on Sundays, and I'm behold to wonder how so many cities in this country can be so morally wrong and not realize it." The following communication from the Attorney General was Mead: 'This will acknowledge your letter of June 10, 1965, in which you request my opinion as to the propriety of the City Council for the City of Portsmouth considering a petition presented to it *calling for a referendum on or the ~assage of an ordinance for the sale of beer and wine on Sundays between the hours of six A. M. and midnight? In this connection you point out the following facts: 'In this instance, ~ursuant to a petition, an election was held on ~ril 20, 1965, at which time an ordinance ~ermitting the sale of beer and wine on Sundays between ~he hours of one o'clock and midnight was defeate.-'d'7---~- new petition has now been nresented containing a sufficient number of qualified voters requesting that an ordinance be adonted or a referendum be held for the sale of beer and wine on Sundays ~.~tween the hours of six A. M. and mid~ig~t..' You also enclosed photostatic copy of sections 1, 2, and 3 of Chapter~X of the Charter of the City of Portsmouth, which sections nrovide for the passage or repeal of ordinances~' by initiative and referendum. The following language appears in Section 1 of Chapter X: . and if it (the petition) be signed by electors equal in number to at least fifteen per centum of electors voting for governor in the last preceding gubernatorial election ?r and contains a request that the said ordinance be submitted to a vote of the people, the council shall either (a) pass such proposed ordinance without alteration, or repeal such existing ordinance within ten days after determining the sufficiency of the petition, or (b) within said ten days call a special election (unless a general election is to ~e held at least thirty and within ninety days thereafter, and at such special or succeeding general election such proposed ordinance~ or the repeal of such existing ordinance shall be submitted without alteration to the vote of the electors within two years thereafter. If the majority of the qualified electors voting on the repeal of an existing ordinance shall vote in favor of its repeal, it shall thereupon become of no force and effect... ' It is noted that had the proposed ordinance voted on at the election held on April 20, 1965, been adopted, the Council would have b~en prohibited from amending or repealing it within fa two year period. The three sections of Chapter X do not appear to contain any prohibition, however, as to the capacity of the Council to enact an ordinance similar to the one rejected at such an e~ection;:nor does there appear to be any express prohibition or limitatioh uQon the use of a petition for initiative or referendum - whether or not the petition deals with the subject matter of a similar petition upon which an election has been held. As I am not aware of any other provision of the law to the contrary, I am of the opinion that the Council may legally wither adopt the proposed ordinance or call a special election according to law on the petition presented." The following resolution was read: "WHEREAS, a petition h~s been presented to this Council asking that an ordinance premitting the sale of beer and wine on Sunday be submitted to the people; and ~tEREAS, it is the opinion of this Council that this is a proper issue for determination by the voters of this City. ' NOW, TH~R~FOR~E, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia: 1. That there be submitted to a vote of the electors of the City of Portsmouth at a special election to be held on the Slst day of August, 1965, the fpllowing question: Shall an ordinance be enacted to amend Section 19-10 of the Code of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, 1961, to allow