Mixed results at CB3's Liquor Licensing committee

Overall, the Committee respected community opposition to licenses:

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 liquor

13 St. Mark's (applicant didn't show up)
90 Eldridge (community opposition)

DENIED -- beer/wine

441 E 12 (community opposition)
171 Ave A (oversaturated area)
40 Ave B (oversaturated & community opposition)

WITHDREW under threat of denial

46 Ave B (oversaturated area & community opposition)
60 3rd Ave (only 3 months in this location)
58 3rd Ave (community opposition & no signatures of support)

APPROVED

151 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 APPROVED

191 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
Bowery Hotel,
Katra (217 Bowery),
Spur Tree (76 Orchard),
Compas (86 Orchard),
Samburger (33 St. Mark's)

To fight a liquor license...

...requires more than getting a denial from the Community Board.

The State Liquor Authority awards licenses, not the Community Board. The Community Board's decision is merely advisory to the SLA.

Effectively opposing a license requires taking a Tuesday off, going up to the SLA on 125th Street -- preferably with letters from local elected officials -- and testifying in opposition to the license. (You can find the exact date of a hearing on the SLA website here.)

It takes a couple of hours. That's one more reason to organize block associations: not everyone can spare a Tuesday to testify.

We're putting together a database for block associations. If you have a block association contact, please send it to me or to
quinnraymond@gmail.com
along with the location of the block association (include the cross streets, e.g., "6th Street Block Association, from A to 1st Ave").

Let's have a voice.

Thanks to those who have already sent BA contact information.

Hope for the LES?

Last night at CB3's SLA committee, 20 bars and restaurants applied for licenses. Residents showed up to protest four. All four of those license applicants were rejected by the committee. Two more were sent back to consult with the residents on their block. All the rest of the unopposed applicants were approved.

Moral:

100% of successfully opposing a liquor license at the CB is --

-- just showing up.

At least half of those residents who showed up were brought by block associations. They can be effective, those block associations. Maybe it's time to organize EV/LES block associations. A neighborhood friend is creating a website where block associations can share information with residents on their block and with other block associations, view community news alerts and, with virtually no effort, even create and manage their own webpage. All he needs are block association contacts.

Anyone want to contribute a block association contact?

(Could be the start of something big: community voice and network throughout the EV/LES.)

Watch the SLA

Change may be swift there. Governor Paterson recently vetoed a bill that would have excluded some new bars from opening. Currently, bars cannot open within 200 feet of a school or church, measured from door to door. Marty Connor, who just lost re-election for State Senate and who regularly helped residents prevent new bars from opening, sponsored a bill that would have redefined the measurement as property line to property line, effectively eliminating many potential liquor licenses. Paterson didn't like it.

Tourism/nightlife and Wall Street are the big revenue generators in New York, and the former is going to sustain the state through the troubles of the latter. Only problem is, once bars have transformed your neighborhood into a vapid tourist trap, you can't get rid of them even when the state doesn't need them anymore. Tourist traps never seem to die. Maybe because they're already dead, sucking the blood out of their victim city.

Coming up at the Community Board

Extra Place is back on the agenda at the Housing and Land Use Committee, Tuesday, October 7, 6:30pm, 333 Bowery (btwn E 2nd & 3rd Sts).

As always, lots of bars and restaurants are requesting Community Board support for their liquor license application to the State Liquor Authority. Take a look at the list below to see if there's one near you.

Don't forget that the Community Board is just the first step in the process. It's the State Liquor Authority that decides whether to grant a license. Even if the CB rejects the bar, you still have to go up to the SLA hearing (preferably with letters from local electeds-- councilmember, State Senator and State Assemblymember) if you want to ensure denial. The SLA was responsive to community demands last year, but the economy has changed, and the SLA will change with it.

Here's the list of liquor license applicants on the agenda of the CB3 SLA committee Monday, October 20, 6:30pm, 200 East 5th Street (corner of the Bowery)
rw/tw=beer&wine license;
op=hard liquor license

1. FY'2010 Capital & Expense Priorities
Renewal with Complaint History
2. The Box, 189 Chrystie St (op)
3. Sidewalk Bar & Restaurant, 94 Ave A (sidewalk café)
4. Dallas BBQ, 132 2nd Ave (sidewalk café)
5. Supper, 156 E 2nd St (sidewalk café)
Sidewalk Café Renewal/ULURP
6. Sugar Café, 200 Allen St (sidewalk café)
7. Zerza, 304 E 6th St (sidewalk café)
Applications within Resolution Areas
8. Tuck Shop, 68 E 1st St (rw)
9. Caffe Pepe Rosso, 127 Ave C (up/op)
10. 146 Orchard Rest, 146 Orchard St (add/op)
11. 6AB Restaurant, 507 E 6th St (bw)
12. Café Partners, 72 E 1st St (tw)
Alterations/Transfers/Upgrades
13. Jing Star (currently Sunrise 27), 27-29 Division St (trans/rw)
14. Vicky's Gourmet (currently Yummy House), 76 3rd Ave (trans/op)
15. Xunta, 174 1st Ave (up/op)
16. Bourgeois Pig, 122 E 7th St (alt)
17. Sushi Park, 77 E 7th St (up/op)
18. Mornir Stojnovic (currently Kush Lounge), 191 Chrystie St (trans/op)
19. Corp to be Formed (currently Mo Pitkins), 34 Ave A (trans/op)
20. SJD Entertainment (currently Summers Bar), 49 Clinton St (trans/op)
21. A&S Organic (currently Russo's), 40 Ave B (trans/rw)
New Liquor License Applications
22. Betty Café, 256 E 3rd St (tw)
23. Fifty Fathoms, 86 Allen St (op)
24. 384 Grand St (op)
25. Tanaghrisson, 90 E 10th St (op)
26. 1 Essex LLC, 1 Essex St (op)
27. Compas Group, 86 Orchard St (op)
28. Fritz, 417 E 9th St (rw)
29. Stanton Restaurant, 82 Stanton St (op)
30. Spice Thai Hot & Cool, 77 E 10th St (op)
31. 144 Division LLC, 144 Division St (op)
32. Persimmon LLC, 277 E 10th St (rw)
33. Rivington Sushi, 151 Rivington St (rw)
34. Porchetta, 110 E 7th St (rw)

More bars!

The Community Board 3 committee that reviews liquor licenses will hold its first meeting of the season on September 15, 6:30pm at 200 E 5th St., corner of Bowery.

Among the 40 applications, there are no fewer than 10 new applications for full liquor licenses (called "op" for "on premises" -- scroll down to item 21).

They're everywhere: one on Grand; another just around the corner from it on Eldridge Street; Chrystie is getting hit; around the corner on Rivington too; Allen off Stanton (right next to Epstein's Bar); 2 on 10th Street. Some are restaurants, some are bars; all add to the "nightlife destination" mania, the rising commercial rents, the selling off of the LES to Generation Bloomberg.

Mitchell-Banchik (114-6 3rd Avenue) is back on the agenda because your community board thinks bars are preferable to chain stores.

Take a look at the agenda to see if there's a license near you. You could be a lucky winner!
NB: rw=restaurant wine; tw=tavern wine.

SLA & DCA Licensing Committee

Monday, September 15 - 6:30pm -- JASA/Green Residence - 200 East 5th Street at Bowery

Renewal with Complaint History

1. The Box, 189 Chrystie St (op)

2. Mercadito, 179 Ave B (op)

3. Pour House, 64 3rd Ave (op)

4. Carthage Palace, 46 Ave B (op)

Applications within Resolution Areas

5. Pan Asian Bistro, 172 Orchard St (rw)

6. Caffe Pepe Rosso, 127 Ave C (up/op)

7. Mary O'Halloran, 220 Ave B (op)

8. I Foods Restaurant, 171 Ave A (op)

9. 102 Ave C Restaurant, 102 Ave C (rw)

10. European Union, 235 E 4th St (alt/extend license)

Alterations/Transfers/Upgrades

11. Drom, 85 Ave A (trans/op)

12. Falai Panetterie, 79 Clinton St (up/op)

13. Mo Pitkins, 34 Ave A (trans/op)

14. Kampuchea Noodle Bar, 78-84 Rivington St (alt/expansion/op)

15. Kush Lounge, 191 Chrystie St (trans/op)

16. Maradona, 188 Allen St (up/op)

17. Isabella's Oven, 365 Grand St (up/op)

18. Seymour Burton, 511 E 5th St (alt)

19a. Thompson Lower East Side Hotel, 190 Allen St (alt/remove restaurant from hotel license)

19b. Orchard St Restaurant, 190 Allen St (new separate op for restaurant in hotel)

New Liquor License Applications

20. Philly's Cheese Steak, 191 E Houston St (rw)

21. Mitchell Banchik, 114-116 3rd Ave (op)

22. 8 Rivington Restaurant, 8 Rivington St (op)

23. Sinead Duell, 90 E 10th St (op)

24. Café Partners, 520 2nd Ave (op)

25. Chikalicious Puddin, 204 E 10th St (op)

26. Old Lao San Snack, 2-6 E B'way (rw)

27. New Waloy Snacks, 67B E B'way (eb)

28. Rice Village, 81 Chrystie St (rw)

29. Neway KTV, 90 Eldridge St (op)

30. 417 East 9th St LLC, 417 E 9th St (rw)

31. Paul O'Sullivan, 200 Allen St (op)

32. Mercury Dime, 246 E 5th St (tw)

33. Sarita's Macaroni & Cheese, 345 E 12th St (rw)

34. Famous Sichuan, 10 Pell St (rw)

35. E 10th St LLC, 441 E 12th St (rw)

36. Emperor Japanese Tapas, 96 Bowery (op)

37. Suimon, 412-414 E 9th St (rw)

38. Cookout Grill, 214 1st Ave (rw)

39. Dixon Place, 161 Chrystie St (op)

40. Gesundheit, 290 Grand St (op)

41. Persimmon LLC, 277 E 10th St (rw)

Personally, I don't object to 3rd Ave becoming a trendy campus nightlife destination, if that's what people living there want. What troubles me are CB members who voted to approve this bar despite community opposition and without actually hearing from the community; despite the position taken by its own SLA committee and without allowing the committee to negotiate stipulations on the bar's method of operation; CB members who voted to approve a bar solely because someone claims bars are better than chain stores. Chain stores are unattractive -- not conducive to a nightlife destination; and the entry below shows it's all about conducting successful nightlife, not successful community life...

CB3's answer to chain stores

CB3's new plan for our neighborhood:
prevent the spread of chain stores by installing bars in every storefront!! Brilliant, no?

We all hate chain stores, right? They attract rowdy, noisy crowds at all hours of night, play loud music and create a nightlife scene with mobs loitering in the street yapping into cell phones, and they give our once radical and cutting-edge arts neighborhood that attracted artists, activists and intellectuals from all over the world -- give it a frat party reputation, a scene that everyone but the partiers and their playmates assiduously avoid.

Wait a minute. I'm confused. Chain stores, non local and offensive as they are, serve working people's and residents' basic needs quietly during the day. It's the non local upscale bars that pushed up commercial rents and pushed out local businesses, decimating and ruining the culture of the East Village and LES.

And Starbucks is actually closing stores.

CB3 appears to have lost all reason, following like sheep this chain-stores-oh-my-goodness-no! argument put to them by -- a bar owner, of course!

It was a meeting to remember. The SLA committee presented a reasonable and well-deliberated recommendation to deny a license to a new bar opening in a location on 3rd Avenue near the NYU, New School and SVA dorms, an area fast becoming a crowded nightlife destination.

The committee had all the right reasons against the bar:

1. the location had no previous license, so this bar would actually be adding to the numbers of licenses in the area
2. the bar had no community support -- the owners presented no petitions of community support (the committee standardly requires this evidence of public benefit and community interest),
3. the community had complained to the committee about the required community notification
4. the community had complained to the committee about the proposed hours of operation
5. the bar would be within 500 feet of six other liquor-licensed establishments

in other words, the community plainly didn't want the bar and the owners had made no effort to appease the community's concerns or engage the community or even properly notify the community as required under the law, displaying unprofessional disregard for both law and community. The owners of the bar didn't even show up last night to argue their case.

Yet a well-known bar owner and Board member stood up and announced that a bar would be better than a Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts.

Magic words. No one wants to be caught defending chain stores. Can't go wrong invoking chain stores. Chain stores suck. And what's more, they're politically incorrect, they're unhip: they're not chic or trendy or cool. Comparing bars to chain stores is an easy win for bars -- IF the people you are talking to don't think for themselves, but just follow like sheep whatever sounds good.

He also argued that the bar would provide economic benefit to the community (more so than Dunkin' Donuts?) and this particular owner owns many successful bars throughout the city (so aren't they non local, just like a chain store?) and have a proven track record -- a less successful bar would have to bring in promoters to sustain itself and promoters cause disruption (but if the committee denied this bar, why would they ever approve a less viable bar?).

None of these gaping holes in his transparently meritless "argument" were even so much as questioned.

The CB voted to override the SLA committee's recommendation to deny.

...even though the bar owners didn't attend the meeting to present their case or answer questions, even though chain stores don't make noise, don't stay open til 4am, don't attract crowds of rowdy students, don't contribute to the nightlife destination that has completely undermined that character and reputation of the East Village and LES.

Chain stores are not worse than non local bars, unless you happen to be in the nightlife business, in which case more bars add to the destination value. Bars do not provide any greater economic benefit to the community than any other business, unless you happen to be in the nightlife business, in which case more bars draw more crowds into nightlife establishments in the neighborhood-turned-destination.

Bar destinations drive up commercial rents that drive out local businesses. They toss the neighborhood upside down into a daytime wasteland and a nighttime warzone.

But they provide revenue for the city.

That's what you and your neighborhood are serving -- the city coffers.

We always had bars here, but they were local and drew funky, low-income, edgy real folk. That's not the current scene. New York's historically avant-garde community, radical ghetto, hotbed of the arts, was destroyed by this new, culture-impoverished, upscale nightlife industry, plain and simple. I don't like chain stores, but they didn't destroy the neighborhood.

The city views this destruction as "saving" the neighborhood from its poverty. That's 'cause the city sees only revenue, not people or culture.

After the CB voted down the denial, 15 CB members actually voted to approve this bar without any stipulations or negotiations with the owners, to give it carte blanche on the basis of second-hand assurances from -- a bar owner.

Fortunately, 17 voted to send it back to committee, a narrow margin.

Those 15 benefited the nightlife industry at the expense of the community. Surely the CB has got to adhere at least to basic responsibilities of community, process and review.

CB votes are roll-call and public record. Go find out who has a brain and who's braindead.

And people criticize me for being skeptical of the CB...