These arguments may be summarized as follows: 

The current law harms Highland Park by effectively overturning the outcome of the 2023 election, and by continuing to limit participation in elected government. The current law 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 Independent research into the purpose of the current law shows it is outdated – just like the laws that limit the speed of horses, regulate the length of swimsuit coverups, etc.  Councilmembers 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.

Councilmember Stone said 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 have been updated to address any uncertainties.  

Councilmember 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.