A City Council debate this week over tattoo parlors and one last week over a liquor license were examples of why Ed Symbol will be missed as a city councilor.

Symbol recently resigned as a city councilor to return to the School Board, where he served two four-year terms before being elected to the City Council. In his time on the council he found himself on the losing end of more than few debates. Despite that, he frequently made valid points.

At a City Council meeting last week, he was the only councilor to speak out in defense of the owners of the Skybox Bar and Grill, who lost a vote to renew their liquor license. Despite giving up his seat behind the dais, he spoke from the public podium this week in defense of the owner of a tattoo parlor, who would be the only business owner to face scrutiny for his likeliness to “cause a breach of peace” under new license restrictions city councilors are considering.

The City Council’s denial of Skybox’s liquor license and its willingness to entertain unnecessary restrictions on tattoo parlors are at best puzzling and at worst needlessly besmirch the reputations of local business owners.

In the case of the Skybox Bar and Grill, the city didn’t seem to have the evidence necessary to justify denying the liquor license. The denial was ostensibly based on the 13 calls for service made to police in connection with the bar. That’s apparently the most for any bar in the city, but it’s only four more than Profenno’s Pizzeria and Pub, a popular restaurant on Main Street.

It wasn’t clear what situations had led to the calls or what the owners had done to stop any persistent problems. Bill Dale, city solicitor, recommended that councilors do a more careful examination of each of the calls before denying the license, and Symbol argued councilors better be prepared to deny Profenno’s a license if the restaurant and bar has as many calls next year.

Both are valid points that failed to sway other municipal officers – the title for the mayor and city councilors when they’re voting on license renewals – who voted 6-2 to deny the license, with Symbol and Councilor Suzanne Joyce opposed.

In the case of the tattoo parlor, it’s equally unclear why these businesses deserve extra scrutiny. What would cause City Councilor John O’Hara to ask rhetorically, “Do you want your children in and around this type of establishment?”

What type of establishment would that be? Is there something inherently immoral or criminal about tattoos? That’s the implication. Has the city had problems with the one tattoo parlor that’s here now? There’s nothing to suggest that, but, once again, that’s what’s implied.

Or, is this, as Symbol put it, a solution looking for a problem.

When it comes to people’s livelihoods and reputations, the city needs to have a good reason for questioning them. As a business owner himself, Symbol seems to understand betterh than any city councilor.

While his desire to return to the School Board is admirable and respectable, the City Council will be losing a voice that could be contrary, but often reasonable and correct.

Brendan Moran, editor