Alabama Legislature Debates Bill

[bushwacked]

 

 

[polksalet]

I had no idea homebrewing was illegal anywhere in the US.

[slambo]

quoting another huddler all I can say is:

 

wow, just wow

 

Its scary to think that those shmoes are elected political officials

[evil_gop_liars]

[Savage Beatings]

We're just producing a bunch of Winos up here in Minnesota with our unregulated home brewing. I'm so ashamed.

[Yukon Cornelius]

sconny may be going there next as they went after and put the smack down on the micro-breweries.

[SEC=UGA]

Those people live waaaay too close to me.

[delusions of grandeur]

sconny may be going there next as they went after and put the smack down on the micro-breweries.

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless you mean the 6% ABV cap that Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas have had up until the last 10 years, when it was raised to 14-18%. Alabama was definitely the last one to do so, but I can say for sure that one of my employers (who markets craft beer in the Southeast) is actively working with places there to expand their craft beer selection. It is undoubtedly way far behind the other Southern states as far as acceptance and interest, but apparently there are some great places and breweries popping up there now.

 

As for the video, that's extremely sad that they think making your own alcoholic beverages (which at least for beer is now actually more expensive in many cases than buying it from the store) will encourage the wineo's to drink more... Ummm, news flash, you can get alot drunker for alot cheaper with a $2 pint of cheap booze, than you can from something you made at home (unless we're talking moonshine, but that's not what the debate is here).

 

YC, is there something I'm missing here, because this is the first I've heard of anything but slow progress for craft beer in Alabama.

[detlef]

They're just pulling arguments out of their asses! It's freaking pathetic. Literally, making things up.

 

We recently, narrowly, passed a city ordinance allowing people to keep chickens in Durham city limits. Listening to those yahoos debate that one was about as lame. "I remember when I was a kid and my parents made me clean up the chicken crap. I hated it, and I wouldn't want chickens now." Seriously, that was one council member's argument against allowing people to keep chickens. Because he hated picking up chicken poop as a kid and doesn't want them now. Did I miss something? Is this an law requiring that every citizen keep chickens? Would someone please take away his mic?

 

What the hell is wrong with these people?

[Yukon Cornelius]

YC, is there something I'm missing here, because this is the first I've heard of anything but slow progress for craft beer in Alabama.

in Wisconsin they( meaning walker, miller etal. ) are going after the micro brew industry

[Azazello1313]

typikal.

 

What the hell is wrong with these people?

 

I think I read recently that you can't even serve a mid-rare hamburger in NC, so, you know, physician, heal the speck in thine own eye.

[bushwacked]

(which at least for beer is now actually more expensive in many cases than buying it from the store)

 

The gist of what you are saying is accurate as I have a fair amount of money invested in home-brewing equipment and it takes a fair amount of time to brew a batch, so it's not necessarily a quick and easy drunk. But, I purchase hops and grains though group buys and generally get yeast for free from one of the local breweries. For the quality of beer I'm making, it's far cheaper than buying the commercial equivalents. Close to a dollar a six-pack for some recipes.

[chester]

sconny may be going there next as they went after and put the smack down on the micro-breweries.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless you mean the 6% ABV cap that Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas have had up until the last 10 years, when it was raised to 14-18%. Alabama was definitely the last one to do so, but I can say for sure that one of my employers (who markets craft beer in the Southeast) is actively working with places there to expand their craft beer selection. It is undoubtedly way far behind the other Southern states as far as acceptance and interest, but apparently there are some great places and breweries popping up there now.

 

YC, is there something I'm missing here, because this is the first I've heard of anything but slow progress for craft beer in Alabama.

 

 

in Wisconsin they( meaning walker, miller etal. ) are going after the micro brew industry

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the beer itself, it's something about the way it's distributed and who controls it. I'm not up on the facts. The big guys are trying to make it more difficult for the little guys.

[Azazello1313]

interesting article/video on beer regulation Edited June 13, 2011 by Azazello1313

[SeductiveNun]

I don't think it has anything to do with the beer itself, it's something about the way it's distributed and who controls it. I'm not up on the facts. The big guys are trying to make it more difficult for the little guys.

I wonder if it's similar to what just passed in MN. If I recall, the new law states that smaller breweries who produce under a certain amount of beer (in barrels) per year would be allowed to sell their beer in their own establishment (i.e. restaraunt that only provides beer that is brewed on the premises). It was called the Surly Law - after Surly Brewery who was looking to build a dining establishment and sell their beer at that establishment as well. The initial pushback was from distributors saying that would put them (the distrubutors) out of business if all breweries could do that, and the compromise that passed was that it allowed breweries of only a certain size to sell their product without having to use a distributor, as long as it was sold only at their establishment.

 

Or something like that anyways. The compromise was satisfactory for all parties so far as I understand from reading the paper.

[Savage Beatings]

Or something like that anyways. The compromise was satisfactory for all parties so far as I understand from reading the paper.

 

There's NO WAY that you can expect us to believe that you read a newspaper.

[delusions of grandeur]

I wonder if it's similar to what just passed in MN. If I recall, the new law states that smaller breweries who produce under a certain amount of beer (in barrels) per year would be allowed to sell their beer in their own establishment (i.e. restaraunt that only provides beer that is brewed on the premises). It was called the Surly Law - after Surly Brewery who was looking to build a dining establishment and sell their beer at that establishment as well. The initial pushback was from distributors saying that would put them (the distrubutors) out of business if all breweries could do that, and the compromise that passed was that it allowed breweries of only a certain size to sell their product without having to use a distributor, as long as it was sold only at their establishment.

 

Or something like that anyways. The compromise was satisfactory for all parties so far as I understand from reading the paper.

Yeah, I was going to post what I'd found out about it with regard to Wisconsin and Alabama, but it's an extremely complex and confusing situation. It appears that a ton of this revolves around the 3-tiered distribution system (brewer/importer>distributor>retailer). I believe there are several states down here (if not all of them), where the same law exists to either choose between being a brewpub and having your beer distributed.

 

It gets even crazier at the festivals I've worked in GA, where even representatives for breweries are strictly prohibited from pouring a sample directly to the consumer. Makes my job a ton easier, but just silly when you're not even selling the beers, just sampling them with people to buy from the distributor>retailer later.

 

I never realized that these were anything more than silly bible-belt/post-prohibition laws, but pretty clear that there's far more politics involved in the beer industry than one might realize.

[delusions of grandeur]

The gist of what you are saying is accurate as I have a fair amount of money invested in home-brewing equipment and it takes a fair amount of time to brew a batch, so it's not necessarily a quick and easy drunk. But, I purchase hops and grains though group buys and generally get yeast for free from one of the local breweries. For the quality of beer I'm making, it's far cheaper than buying the commercial equivalents. Close to a dollar a six-pack for some recipes.

Interesting. That may be good enough for me to get some new brewing equipment (previous roommate took his when he left). I'd heard that with the rise in costs for ingredients, it was no longer a very economical option, but maybe that's just if you take into account the setup costs and time, or if you want to do something special with a belgian-bret yeast strain or something like that.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I don't think it has anything to do with the beer itself, it's something about the way it's distributed and who controls it. I'm not up on the facts. The big guys are trying to make it more difficult for the little guys.

correct .. republicans support small business until they don't!

[SEC=UGA]

correct .. republicans support small business until they don't!

 

Just an FYI, these laws have been in place for DECADES and in GA that means that it was Democrats who initiated these laws. Now, the distributors have plied the Republicans with so much money that they too are taking the same stance.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Just an FYI, these laws have been in place for DECADES and in GA that means that it was Democrats who initiated these laws. Now, the distributors have plied the Republicans with so much money that they too are taking the same stance.

well an old dem in GA is a republican anyway , its the republicans that migrated from the south to sconny that are doing it up here.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

They're just pulling arguments out of their asses! It's freaking pathetic. Literally, making things up.

 

We recently, narrowly, passed a city ordinance allowing people to keep chickens in Durham city limits. Listening to those yahoos debate that one was about as lame. "I remember when I was a kid and my parents made me clean up the chicken crap. I hated it, and I wouldn't want chickens now." Seriously, that was one council member's argument against allowing people to keep chickens. Because he hated picking up chicken poop as a kid and doesn't want them now. Did I miss something? Is this an law requiring that every citizen keep chickens? Would someone please take away his mic?

 

What the hell is wrong with these people?

 

 

Chickens are filthy. Their feces stinks and they throw of feathers faster than a drunk sororiety girl sheds her cloths. They have to be fed which means their will be spillage of feed attracting desease carrying rodents. These in turn will attact desease carrying small predators into neighborhoods like skunks, weasels, foxes, and racoons. Inevitably some eggs will break and not be thoroughly cleaned up leaving a nice rotton egg smell permeating neighborhoods. It will be like living next to my house when I have the farts, which is always. Many owners will build coops which are substandard, not to code, are eyesores, will provide cover for snakes, are fire traps, and which will remain problematic long after the home egg production craze is long passed as lazy people will not remove these eyesores. When avian flu comes around again, as it inevitably will, this will cause hysteria in the citizenry. This is also the beginning of a slippery slope as many will point to this and ask why not goats or pigs if chickens are allowed.

 

Zoning laws evolved precisely because rural uses are incompatible with more urban living and the two needed to be seperated. We have forgotten the lessons of history.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[Azazello1313]

well an old dem in GA is a republican anyway

 

hardly. an old dem in GA is the worst of both worlds....the idiotic economics of the democrats, and the reactionary backwardness of the repubs.

[detlef]

Chickens are filthy. Their feces stinks and they throw of feathers faster than a drunk sororiety girl sheds her cloths. They have to be fed which means their will be spillage of feed attracting desease carrying rodents. These in turn will attact desease carrying small predators into neighborhoods like skunks, weasels, foxes, and racoons. Inevitably some eggs will break and not be thoroughly cleaned up leaving a nice rotton egg smell permeating neighborhoods. It will be like living next to my house when I have the farts, which is always. Many owners will build coops which are substandard, not to code, are eyesores, will provide cover for snakes, are fire traps, and which will remain problematic long after the home egg production craze is long passed as lazy people will not remove these eyesores. When avian flu comes around again, as it inevitably will, this will cause hysteria in the citizenry. This is also the beginning of a slippery slope as many will point to this and ask why not goats or pigs if chickens are allowed.

 

Zoning laws evolved precisely because rural uses are incompatible with more urban living and the two needed to be seperated. We have forgotten the lessons of history.

I was not saying that there is no valid argument against allowing chickens in city limits, rather that many of the ones they were bringing up were stupid.

 

As for your argument itself. One could easily justify outlawing dogs in city limits by following your logic. They're louder than hens (the new law allowing chickens does not allow roosters in city limits). Like chickens, they crap. Unlike chickens, they can actually attack you. Yet, any idiot can get a dog, regardless of whether or not he has an appropriate yard or is prepared to take care of it.

 

To get chickens, I had to submit a drawing of my coop and pen, follow specific guidelines set forth by the building department (including setting the coop back 15 feet from the property line). Provide a minimum sq ft per bird (with a max of 10 birds (we got 4)). Bury the fence a foot deep, pay a permit fee, and a dude from the city came out to have a look at it.

 

And, again, they are far less messy or work than our dogs.

Edited June 14, 2011 by detlef

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I was not saying that there is no valid argument against allowing chickens in city limits, rather that many of the ones they were bringing up were stupid.

 

As for your argument itself. One could easily justify outlawing dogs in city limits by following your logic. They're louder than hens (the new law allowing chickens does not allow roosters in city limits). Like chickens, they crap. Unlike chickens, they can actually attack you. Yet, any idiot can get a dog, regardless of whether or not he has an appropriate yard or is prepared to take care of it.

 

To get chickens, I had to submit a drawing of my coop and pen, follow specific guidelines set forth by the building department (including setting the coop back 15 feet from the property line). Provide a minimum sq ft per bird (with a max of 10 birds (we got 4)). Bury the fence a foot deep, pay a permit fee, and a dude from the city came out to have a look at it.

 

And, again, they are far less messy or work than our dogs.

 

 

Just noting that my argument itself did not include arguments about noise.

 

As for responsible owners, and I suppose there may be some, I don't worry about them. I worry about the irresponsible who may potentially move in next to me. They will have some excuse as to why they are exceeding the bird limit. They will not keep their feed well stored nor their poorly built coop clean. They will bring a trashy element to my neighborhood substantially driving down my property values. Eventually, and the eventuality is not too distant, they will abandon the hobby as it is foul, dirty, and ultimately unsatisfying, no matter the current fad. (Fads always fade) I will be left with a decaying, abandoned coop, vermin who have gathered for the spilled feed which now are looking for other sources of feed, and predators which had previously abandoned the neighborhood will now be back and hungry and looking to the pets in the neighborhood.

 

I am currently watching this debate in Denver and in my City. Denver is already pushing for more goats, higher limits on numbers of birds, and for the ability to slaughter chickens in residential neighborhoods. The slippery slope is getting snow packed even as we debate this here.

 

There is a time and place for everything. The place for rural uses is in rural areas. And least you think I know not of what I speak I am a midwestern farm boy who has done a stint as a planning attorney.

 

BTW, good luck to you in getting back to your agrarian roots. Though I left the farm I have contemplated at least a partial return to that lifestyle. If I choose to do so it will entail a move to an area accomodating of that lifestyle, and that will be a place where my neighbors home and my own is not set back a scant 15 or 20 feet from my property line. It will be a rural or semi-rural area.

 

History just needs to repeat itself. No big deal, it always does, such is our doom.

 

What kind of hens do you have? Have you heard the joke with the punchline "Here, just hold my cock and pullet while I scratch my ass."?

 

 

 

Oh,.... I meant to type throw off feathers in my first post, not throw of feathers