Post 5: A lesson on legislation and how ignorance rules

As always, with the exception of public figures, I use altered names to protect the individuals in this history.

One of the means by which the new commissioner increased the flow of bars was a piece of legislation he drafted

and gave to the State Senate and State Assembly. In it, the Community board was given a list of issues which it could consider in its deliberations on license approval or disapproval. This list was no different from the issues that the community boards had been considering for years, but by stating them in the legislation, it gave the CB’s the appearance of authority, though, of course, as anyone knows who knows the first thing about community boards, community boards have no legislative or legal authority. They are advisory only. At best they can negotiate a contract with a bar owner and hope that the courts will uphold such a contract. 

The list included in the legislation was promoted to the CB3 District Manager, who viewed these useless and empty words as a victory for the community boards, a recognition that the boards could consider these issues. Not mentioned was the simple deletion of one word in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. That word was “community”. With this one word deletion, the SLA commissioner effectively eliminated the power of the local community to prevent a bar through the courts. I’ll explain. 

Previously, the ABC law required that every bar show “community benefit”. This meant that if a community already had a bar, it was possible for that community (the actual community, not the Community Board) to sue the SLA or the bar on the grounds that since there was already a bar in the community, this additional bar did not provide any “community benefit”. By deleting this word “community” from “community benefit” the commissioner allowed that the benefit of the bar could be anything beyond the local environment. For example, if the bar hired a bartender, that job was a social or economic benefit, even if it didn’t benefit the local community at all. If the bar served out-of-towners, that too was a benefit.

The deletion of “community” was an impactful alteration of the ABC Law itself, not a meaningless alteration of CB concerns. In other words, this deletion was statutory, unlike the list of issues for the CB which gave no one any standing. The deletion deprived the public of standing in court. The CB list was mere window dressing. The deletion of "community" was the true substance and underlying purpose of the legislation. 

When the new State Senator Daniel was elected, this legislation became his first crusade, presumably thinking that the list, supported by the District Manager was some kind of curtailment of licenses and would be popular among the local residents who were still concerned about the spread of liquor licenses. He did not know that the legislation had been drafted by the SLA commissioner and did not know about or recognize the importance of the deletion. He was new in office and was given bad advice from someone who should have known better.

Hearing about this new legislative proposal, I looked into it and read the text. The deletion of “community” raised my curiosity and after a few moments it became clear what was up. I called the office of the State Assembly sponsor of the bill and asked for more details. It was a functionary in his office who told me that the sponsor did not write the bill, but that it came to him from the SLA commissioner. At that moment the picture came into focus for me. I contacted Daniel who by then knew me from questions I’d asked in various campaign forums and such. His response was quite simple and straightforward: the CB3 District Manager supported this legislation; I should address my concerns to her, and she might explain what was good about the bill. 

I contacted Susan immediately. Her response was exactly as the commissioner had planned. She supported the bill because of the inclusion of the list of concerns. I mentioned the deletion of “community”. She ignored and dismissed me once again. 

I learnt from this course of events that community boards, at least in my district, neither read nor understand legislation nor understand how legislation is drafted and for what purpose. Even the elected officials rely on hearsay rather than close reading and careful analysis. Accurate information is available, but inaccurate and manipulated disinformation prevails. 

It was an ironic twist that the District Manager, after being turned around to learn that activism could do what she believed was impossible – to curtail liquor licenses, for example – then in climbing on the wagon of anti-licensing made public resistance in fact impossible by supporting this new law. This is not the only case in which functionaries fail by failing to read the law. The general ignorance of the zoning text is another such example. That story will be recounted in the next section. 

Meanwhile, I cannot recommend more strongly reading the law itself and reading it with a critical eye. This does not imply a conspiratorial view of the law, but an understanding that there are many interests reflected in legislation, and the appearance of a benefit to the ordinary people may hide other interests more obscure to the ready view.