OK, Tiffeny. THIS time follow the money. WHO did he buy? How much did he pay? What was their excuse for giving him a sole permit? How much is it worth to US the taxpayers? That's part of you job as a so-called journalist. DO IT THIS TIME!

PM... This has been covered in other articles. Anyone could apply to be a vendor at Ingalls pavillion. . the state ABC board set out the requirements, which included putting in lockable fridge units that met their specs to store alcohol in. (plus a few other requirements).

.

while I think it's bad that groups have only a single monopoly vendor to choose from, the other vendors who applied either.

a.) did not meet the licensing requirements

b.) did not meet the equipment requirements

c.) or they withdrew when they determined they were would not meet the above.

.

The other vendors made their own choices in whether they were going to continue their application or go to the efforts to have it passed.

.

Now... at the same time, I don't think this benefits the citizens of Decatur or anyone else that has events there. This will hurt pavilion rentals most likely because he can charge higher fees on monopoly basis.

If you think the drink prices are too high or that they are not good - don't buy them. In that case there is no monopoly. For there to truly be a monopoly, it has to be a need not a luxury. Contrary to most of our feelings - alcohol is not a need. There is no drink minimum to use the facility. Jimmy will either have to perform well or he won't last. Lets hope he performs well.

mo-nop-o-ly (1) : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action; (2): exclusive possession or control; (3) :a commodity controlled by one party.

According to the most commonly used dictionary in the United States, what the City of Decatur has approved for Sykes IS a MONOPOLY at the Pavillion - and the words "want" and/or "need" are not included. Most caterers can give a better price for food when the contract includes serving beer, wine or liquor as their profit on these beverages is better than on the food. The City's decision will cause consumers to pay a higher price for BOTH and may likely cause the Pavillion to lose potential business. Events at the Pavillion will cost consumers more as food prices will be increased by vendors who cannot make the profit from beverages AND the vendor with the beverage monopoly has no incentive to keep prices competitve. As such, some consumers who would have otherwise chosen the Pavillion for their event, will change venues in order to use the food/beverage vendor of their choice.

A better decision would have been for the City to give Sykes a contract to serve all events where the consumer did not have ample time to obtain proper permits. Everyone on the planet is used to paying a higher price for last minute anything and everything. Whether we didn't plan appropriately, or simply chose to have something done quickly, we all know there is a price for immediate service. Everyone on the planet also expects to obtain benefits from planning ahead and one of those expected benefits is financial.

Although I RARELY agree with Mr. Jackson, I am with him on this decision. Unfortunately, the Pavillion hasn't been open long enough for the City to make a comparison at the time of contract renewal AND Council members aren't likely to give complaints from the catering industry alot of merit. Unless the public uses their voice on this one, change isn't likely.

By the way - The City of Decatur could increase their own revenue as well as improve the total economic impact by changing their concessions policy at Wilson-Morgan Park. Presently, concessions is staffed by City employees for ALL events and ALL concessions profit goes to the City. Many people understand that the largest profit from a Baseball/Softball tournament comes from concessions. In order to pay umpires, scorekeepers, etc., and still make a profit, renters are forced to increase costs at the gate. If games are held on the two fields outside the fenced area, there is little (if any) profit from spectators of these games.

I understand that there is an issue with the concessions facility in terms of expensive equipment and with health inspections. As such, the City would need to require renters to pay a City employee to Supervise activities within the Concessions stand during events. At the very least, they could staff the stand with City employees and provide the renter with a set percentage of the profits from their event. I am willing to bet that if these changes were made, the park would be booked solid - particularly on the weekends.