There was community opposition to 8 applications.
The committee unconditionally denied 4 of these.
Under pressure from the committee, another 2 withdrew,
and the committee approved 2 (both transfers of existing licenses to new owners).
The 2 that were approved had only one resident speaking in opposition.
(As it happened, one of the approved licenses is owned and being sold by a member of the committee, but this was not the reason for their approval -- it's a bar on an avenue, it's had a license since the 1930's, and this was merely a transfer from one owner to another. The other approval went to an applicant opposed by the District Manager herself who lives across the street from it. So the Committee wasn't doing any favors for their District Manager.)
The committee even denied two applicants without any community opposition: one for being in a saturated area, the other for asking to upgrade with only a three month track record in the location.
All in all, responsible committee work, with the exception of Cake Shop:
The Committee approved a license for the street-level of Cake Shop, 152 Ludlow, which has been operating successfully for four years with its basement-only liquor license.
Cake Shop claims that they need the added revenue, but the Committee didn't ask for any evidence of their need. It's a troubling application. A fully active street-level bar transforms the character of the neighborhood far more than a basement bar, and this is in the heart of a seriously oversaturated nightlife destination area, Ludlow near Stanton. No residents showed up in opposition. The Committee did not even ask whether notices of their application had been properly posted.
You'd think the Committee would be more conscientious, especially since the applicant was a former employee of one of the Committee members. I don't think they showed favoritism here, just carelessness.
It may be that the applicant needs this license to stay open and continue running the artist space downstairs. But the Committee process didn't demonstrate that to this listener.
Here's the run down by address:
DENIED -- hard liquor13 St. Mark's (applicant didn't show up)
90 Eldridge (community opposition)
DENIED -- beer/wine441 E 12 (community opposition)
171 Ave A (oversaturated area)
40 Ave B (oversaturated & community opposition)
WITHDREW under threat of denial46 Ave B (oversaturated area & community opposition)
60 3rd Ave (only 3 months in this location)
58 3rd Ave (community opposition & no signatures of support)
APPROVED151 2nd Ave (no community opposition)
308 6th St (no community opposition)
152 Ludlow (no community opposition)
34 Ave A (despite one voice in opposition)
269 E Houston (despite one voice in opposition)
NEW LICENSES APPROVED191 Houston (no community opposition)
250 Broome (no community opposition)
144 Division (with a community agreement)
77 E 10th (with a community agreement)
35 E B'way (no community opposition)
I arrived late at the meeting, so I missed
Katra (217 Bowery),
Spur Tree (76 Orchard),
Compas (86 Orchard),
Samburger (33 St. Mark's)