Security mandate on Hot Shots appears more influenced by a single objection than by public safety data.

The Midland City Council imposed stricter—and significantly more costly—restrictions on one downtown bar, Hot Shots, than its competitors. Not because it had the most police calls, but because a single objection from a neighboring oil company appeared to tip the scale. The city’s decision effectively inserted local government into what had primarily been a disagreement between two neighboring businesses.

On April 22, the downtown bar Hot Shots appeared before the council to renew its long-expired Specific Use Designation (SUD) zoning requirement for bars. The bar had unknowingly operated without a valid SUD since 2017, an oversight that went unnoticed by both the owner and the city until recently.

Only one formal objection was submitted from BTA Oil Producers, whose downtown office borders Hot Shots. BTA cited concerns over employee safety, vandalism, and loitering in its parking lot. They said fencing their property was cost-prohibitive due to overhead power lines and alley access. Because so few properties surround the bar, that single objection represented over 32% of nearby ownership and triggered a supermajority vote requirement by the council for approval of Hot Shot’s SUD.

During the meeting, Police Chief Greg Snow confirmed that since 2020, Hot Shots had 186 calls for service, fewer than Double Bar Saloon (340) and Fair to Midland (367), and slightly more than The Bar (152). (City staff considered Hot Shots, The Bar, and Double Bar due to their proximity. Fair to Midland was mentioned as an example of a bar with a high number of calls.) Still, the city initially considered requiring two certified peace officers on site from 9 p.m. to close every night. Something, to our knowledge, no other bar in Midland is required to do.

Councilman Jack Ladd pushed back. “It doesn’t seem fair to require this bar to pay for peace officers when other nearby bars have had more police calls and aren’t held to the same standard.”

Despite the numbers, Councilmembers Robin Poole, Amy Burkes, and John Burkholder pressed for a peace officer requirement. Poole pushed for daily police officer presence, while Burkes supported at least weekend coverage. Mayor Lori Blong proposed a compromise by allowing for certified security guards instead of sworn peace officers, which are significantly more expensive to hire. However, Burkholder insisted they hire peace officers.

Ultimately, the council found a compromise to get the necessary votes to allow Hot Shots to open back up. Hot Shots must hire two peace officers on Friday and Saturday nights, with a re-evaluation in seven months.

At the May 27 meeting, the council reviewed the SUD for Double Bar Saloon. Owner Carlin Smith said her bar had never received a warning or citation from the city or TABC. The council imposed a lower-cost requirement on the bar to hire two Level Two security officers on weekends. Smith acknowledged she was already meeting this requirement at a cost of about $14,000 a year. By contrast, Hot Shots estimates the peace officer restrictions will cost the bar more than $72,000 annually.

Ladd objected again. “I don’t think the numbers back up what we’re doing with Hot Shots versus… Double Bar versus… The Bar. I want it to be fair and equal across the board.” Councilman Stubbs agreed: “We probably need to go back and look at what Hot Shots is incurring and make sure we get that right next time.”

During the meetings, staff acknowledged that notice procedures had lapsed under prior city administrations and pledged to do better. Good. Regardless of where legal responsibility falls, the city should prioritize notifying businesses, just as your electricity company does before your plan expires. When SUDs are mandatory city permits, proactive notice by the city should be non-negotiable.

The larger issue is the city stepping into what looks like a private business dispute. Based on the incident data presented, there’s no clear public safety justification for singling out Hot Shots. The bar’s police call numbers aren’t the worst, and no pattern of violent or egregious behavior was discussed. Council members may have access to additional information not disclosed publicly, but based on what was publicly discussed during the meeting, no serious safety violations were raised.

It seems fair to ask whether BTA’s objection triggered city staff to review the bar’s long-expired SUD. If BTA’s complaint is what prompted the city to uncover the expired SUD, and if the resulting conditions primarily addressed concerns raised by BTA rather than documented public safety issues, that raises important questions about consistency in enforcement. Zoning enforcement should reflect clear, citywide standards and not serve as a vehicle for resolving isolated business disputes.

To give the council the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this was part of a broader effort to tighten bar regulations and improve safety. That could be a valid goal, but only if applied equitably. Without formal criteria, enforcement decisions may appear inconsistent and overly dependent on individual complaints.

If the city plans to use SUDs to regulate security, it must adopt a transparent rubric. For example, the city could require bars with x number of serious incidents per year to employ Level Two security on weekends. If problems persist or escalate, the mandate could increase to peace officers. A third level could apply daily coverage, but only after demonstrating clear public safety risks.

In other words, rules first, punishments second, and not the other way around. Right now, the council’s approach appears reactive rather than rule-based. The disparity in security costs highlights the need for a consistent framework to ensure fair treatment.

Lastly, Double Bar didn’t deserve any restrictions either. However, the council’s precedent with Hot Shots bar restrictions left them little choice. Without fairness as a guiding principle, similar cases will continue to produce dissimilar outcomes.

Editor’s Note: At the time of publication, Councilwoman Poole’s husband is an employee of BTA Oil Producers.