In This Section
Protect Highland Park Voter Rights!
VOTE YES to amend our outdated laws and allow voters to choose their elected officials!
VOTE YES!
Allow Liquor License Holders to Serve on City Council
- It’s time to update our city’s antiquated Prohibition Era law that singles out liquor license holders by effectively preventing them from serving on the City Council.
- Highland Park voters deserve the right to choose our elected officials
- Highland Parkers have the intelligence to decide who is fit to serve on the City Council
- No citizen should be prevented from running for public office based on the business they own.
Who are we?
HP Forward is a grassroots group of Highland Park citizens working to promote transparency in government and a thriving local business community. We want to create a more vibrant Highland Park, making it a preferred destination on the North Shore.
What can YOU do to help?
VOTE YES on the Highland Park referendum, which will be on the back of the ballot in November. Be sure you flip over the ballot.
ENCOURAGE the City Council to amend the current law to allow liquor license holders to serve on the City Council.
GET INVOLVED: Request a yard sign, add your name to our list of supporters and look for updates!
Let’s move Highland Park Forward. VOTE YES in November!
PAST POSTS:
What’s Up?
Over the past few weeks, several Highland Park residents have been working diligently to encourage our City Council to amend local ordinances to allow liquor licensees and owners of other lawful businesses to run for, and hold, a seat on the City Council. The question of the Liquor Amendment in Highland Park will NOT be on the City Council’s agenda on July 29. This will be the last meeting to change the local ordinance before the deadline to go to referendum on the November ballot.
Councilmembers Andrés Tapia and Annette Lidawer have worked tirelessly to advocate for this amendment, which was drafted by Corporate Counsel Elrod. Despite their efforts, and many letters from concerned citizens, the Mayor and the rest of the council have refused to consider the amendment or explain their objections.
Passing this amendment does not guarantee anyone a seat on the City Council. It does allow voters to select the most deserving and qualified candidates for Highland Park. Some have raised false concerns about potential conflicts of interest, but there are state ethics rules in place to address these issues. Elected officials with direct interests in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of alcoholic liquor are already prohibited from participating in related decisions.
No other valid reasons have been suggested to prevent an otherwise qualified citizen from running and serving as an elected official if chosen by the voters.
The Mayor claimed that no one cared about this issue. In a very short time we collected over 2,500 signatures from registered voters who do care and want their voice respected!
If you have any questions, please email me at 60035info@gmail.com.
Hoobler ran for office last year on a pledge to bring independence and fresh ideas to the Council, along with his business experience as the owner of a restaurant with a liquor license. Although Mayor Rotering pointedly endorsed every candidate other than Hoobler, he earned more votes than all other candidates. While Hoobler served in his first term, Mayor Rotering renewed his liquor license.
A few weeks later, someone noticed a Prohibition Era local law prohibiting renewal of a Council member’s liquor license; until then, no one at City Hall knew this law existed – including the Mayor, city attorney, city staff, the local liquor commissioners and Hoobler himself.
The logical solution was to update the law. The voters of Highland Park already decided they want someone with a liquor license to be able to serve on the Council. Community members have written hundreds of letters and filled Council chambers and overflow rooms – pleading for an update to a law they consider outdated and harmful to the public interest. Local restaurant owners even created a petition demanding an end to arbitrary discrimination against them. The state restaurant association submitted its own letter strongly objecting to the current law. And no one seemed to believe that a law no one knew existed suddenly represented vital public policy.
However, unfortunately, Mayor Rotering and her two Council allies – Tony Blumberg and Kim Stone – blocked the amendment, knowing that would force Hoobler to resign or lose his business. Three other Council members supported the amendment – Annette Lidawer, Andrew Tapia and Yumi Ross. Hoobler recused himself from the discussion and vote.
What are the arguments for change?
These arguments may be summarized as follows:
The current law harms Highland Park by effectively overturning the outcome of the last election, and by limiting participation in elected government. It is undemocratic because it takes decisions out of the hands of voters, who are capable of deciding for themselves whether a liquor license – like any other business or property interest – may impact a candidate’s ability to serve. Independent research into the purpose of the current law shows it is outdated – just like the laws that limit the speed of horses, regulate the length of swimsuit coverups, etc. Council members have a duty to enact laws that align with contemporary norms and the wishes of the voters. We expect them to model inclusivity and work to expand – not arbitrarily limit — civic engagement. We also expect our leaders to bring the community together, put aside political agendas, model openness and civility, and show the voters that their voices mean something.
Mayor Rotering says she opposes change because the Council shouldn’t act to benefit one of its own. That red herring misses the larger point that change is required to benefit the community, put choices in the hands of voters, and respect their voices. It also ignores the fact that Mayor Rotering never considered Hoobler to be one of her own.
Council member Stone says she opposes change because someone with a liquor license may face conflicts of interest. But ethics experts agree that any business or property owner may face conflicts, especially in small city governance. State liquor laws recognize that when these specific types of conflicts occur, the public is protected by recusal — and in any event the City’s ethics procedures are being updated to address any uncertainties.
Council member Blumberg argued that ONLY JEFF HOOBLER was responsible for digging up a law that no one else at City Hall knew existed, including the very people responsible for implementing the law.
Where do we go from here?
We started these mailings for two reasons:
- To support an update of local liquor licensing laws in order to empower voters, respect the outcome of a free and fair election, and expand the pool of potential candidates for the Council.
- To prepare for the possibility of a grassroots, community-wide referendum to (again) clarify the wishes of the voters.
What needs to be done now:
1. We must continue to let these council members know we want the liquor licensing law amended. They recently expanded access to liquor licensing, and this makes even more citizens ineligible to run for office. The owner of a grocery store would be ineligible to serve but the owner of a cannabis dispensary is currently fine. Does that make sense? Contact the council at council@cityhpil.com and demand a change.
2. Mayor Rotering is required by law to select Jeff’s replacement. We must reach out to Mayor Rotering and tell her know we expect her to respect the wishes of the HP voters and select a younger local restaurant owner that will be able to provide insight similar to that Jeff offered the council. Let her know by sending emails to nrotering@cityhpil.com
3. Don’t give up. The battle was lost, but the fight to change our laws and move HP forward must continue!
4. Share this information with your friends and watch our website, www.HPforward.org, for further information and ideas for moving Highland Park forward!