Is Proposed Lone Tree Hooters on the Skids with City Council?

Some Council Members may have allowed personal opinion to get in the way of a vote

(LONE TREE, CO)–Last night Councilwoman, Kim Monson, made the motion to approve a routine request for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License by the proposed Lone Tree Hooters Restaurant.  None of her fellow council members seconded the motion, so it died. Despite Hooter’s readiness for approval, some Council members expressed a personal bias against having the establishment and its' waitresses, in their signature uniforms, serving in the City.

During Hooter’s hearing before the Council, some council members fired off a battery of questions and comments implying personal disdain for Hooters, including advice from one member that Hooters change the name of their business.

Councilwoman Monson asserts, “I am concerned about many of the cultural messages our children are ingesting through pop culture, yet our job as City Council members is not to pick and choose which businesses we approve based on our own personal preferences.  We are here to protect the rights of businesses to compete within the free market, while working within City code and zoning parameters.  As for personal dining preferences, we exercise those when we decide where to eat out."

Monson continues,  “I’m quite certain my fellow Council members are aware that we are not to act arbitrarily or capriciously, or use our role to deny a license for speculative reasons alone.”
 
Hooters jumped through the required hoops to bring their request before Lone Tree City Council.  They paid necessary fees, obtained a license and completed required documentation, including the results of a third party opinion poll conducted in the area, which was favorable.  Hooters is also in compliance with the zoning parameters where they are seeking to establish their Lone Tree business location.

Monson received a voicemail this morning from Mayor Gunning mentioning that the matter of Hooter’s application for a liquor license will likely be brought before the Council again in two weeks.

# # #