Could Hank's Be Driven Out of Dupont?

Whenever the discussion on this blog turns from snow and graffiti removal towards neighborhood business issues--in particular, restaurants and bars--the conversation inevitably turns towards the role that the ANC and other neighborhood groups play in neighborhood business affairs. It's an argument I can honestly say has two sides.

For example, the ANC can provide a valuable service to the neighborhood and its residents by serving as a sort of "buffer" between the operators and managers of bars and restaurants in the neighborhood, and the citizens who live nearby. We have to live near these places seven days a week, the neighbors say, and thus our voice must carry great weight with those in the city tasked with granting liquor licenses and other applications. And so it is.

The tool used by the ANCs to accomplish this is, of course, the "voluntary agreement." The voluntary agreement, or VA, is somewhat misnamed, as there is little "voluntary" about it, at least from the proprietor's point of view. Restaurant and bar owners forsake the VA process at their own peril; without one in place, the ANC will almost assuredly carry their liquor license protest all the way to an ABRA hearing, where the applicant risks losing the opportunity to obtain a license entirely, likely dooming the business. And although my experience has been that applicants are generally able to negotiate an agreement that works for both the establishment and the neighborhood, there have also been occasions when the process has become unnecessarily adversarial.

Why am I bringing this up now, you ask? After all, the issue is pervasive, affecting every liquor license holder within the boundaries of the neighborhood--in other words, it's nothing new. And I would agree. But every once in awhile, an issue arises that highlights the problems when a handful of individuals in a position of authority behave in a manner that is clearly at odds with the best interests of the neighborhood. In this particular instance, the issue surrounds a popular neighborhood establishment and the process by which a VA was negotiated.

The most recent issue of Metro Weekly contains an interview with local chef/restaurateur Jamie Leeds, of Hank's Oyster Bar in Dupont and CommonWealth in Columbia Heights. Hank's, as you may know, has been one of the few new establishments to open with a liquor license on 17th Street in recent years, due to the liquor license moratorium currently in place there. A beacon of culinary indulgence amongst a sea of mediocrity, Hank's immediately established itself as a neighborhood favorite since opening in 2005. An award-winning establishment, Hank's is one of the few reasons (the other's being Trio's milkshakes and Pasha Bistro's gyros) to dine out along 17th Street these days.

In the interview, Leeds discusses her budding restaurant empire, as well as her future plans--among them, an expansion of Hank's in Dupont. And while there is near unanimous consent amongst patrons and neighbors alike that Hank's has been a positive addition to the neighborhoods, Leeds does not have fond memories of the negotiation process for the voluntary agreement that she engaged in with the Dupont ANC a group of neighborhood protesters. Here's Leeds, discussing the possible expansion of Hank's as well as her anticipation on dealing with the process again:

"...an expansion would be great. Everybody's been so positive in wanting it, in pushing me to do it. But, you know, if I come across any more resistance, it's going to be an issue. We have to amend that [D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration] "voluntary [neighborhood] agreement," and they have to agree for me to expand. It's kind of like I'm back in the same position. If we get any resistance, it'll just leave a very bad taste in my mouth. If it doesn’t enable me to expand, maybe I'll have to move Hank's altogether."

Now, let's be clear: there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts there. There's no indication that Leeds has any intention of moving Hank's from its Dupont location. But it is nothing short of ridiculous that she should even consider doing so. The purpose of the voluntary agreement is to work out an arrangement for the proprietor to operate his or her establishment according to his or her own desires, in a manner that does not disrupt the lives of the people and businesses nearby. It is NOT a tool to extract every possible concession from the proprietor, and it is being abused if individuals such as Leeds consider the process so daunting and adversative that she leaves open the possibility of relocating the restaurant entirely if things go in that direction again.

Sadly, this is but a singular example in an ever-increasing list of instances where individuals operating within a group that has a degree of neighborhood authority has showed themselves to be out of sync with the direction of the neighborhood and its citizens. Last week, a story ran in the Current about a group of Foggy Bottom citizens--led by a Foggy Bottom ANC commissioner--who were rebuffed in their attempt to halt construction of the George Washington University project at 2400 Pennsylvania Avenue, on the grounds that the building--located in a dense commercial zone and across the street from one of the District's busiest metro stations--was somehow out of proportion for the neighborhood. Last spring, a dispute with Cafe Saint-Ex nearly led to the ANC going to court to protest a change in status for the popular 14th Street restaurant. And we know all too well the ongoing saga of the Wisconsin Avenue Giant project in Cleveland Park, which was delayed for nearly a decade by the actions of the neighborhood's ANC.

Some may read this and respond that the time has come to reform the ANC system in order to diminish the possibility that such situations could arise in the future. However, I think that is premature. As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I do believe that the ANC can play a productive role in the process of vetting new businesses for a neighborhood. In instances where a business is behaving as a nuisance and disturbing the neighborhood, the ANC--through the voluntary agreement--has the ability to step in and engage in efforts to force the business to behave responsibly, or risk forfeiture of their license. Such a process shouldn't be marginalized.

However, I would urge residents to play a more active role in the process. ANCs and others do not act in a vacuum; rather, they are comprised of elected officials beholden to the interests of their constituents. When a commissioner is shirking that responsibility, nothing prevents neighborhood residents from making their voices heard and working to ensure that their interests--rather than those of individual commissioners--are heard.

As far as the situation at Hank's goes, it will be interesting to watch the scene unfold. Leeds is currently in negotiations with the ANC on a voluntary agreement, which must be ratified by all parties and ABRA before going into effect. Hopefully, the process goes much more smoothly for all parties than it did five years ago. After all, there is no reason why it shouldn't.