tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post5315184498340798048..comments2023-10-22T10:53:07.976-04:00Comments on 14th & You: Saloon Owner Threatens to Leave U Street Due to Liquor License Dispute14th & Youhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10401615764637283832noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-18134362789447840602010-10-07T15:51:00.062-04:002010-10-07T15:51:00.062-04:00@Mr. 14th and You What it boils down to is this: ...@Mr. 14th and You <i>What it boils down to is this: a few select residents in this neighborhood have shown, time and again, a propensity for being completely unreasonable in matters related to liquor license protests and related activities.</i><br /><br />That's why I wish the ANC would take the lead in resolving such issues as an honest broker. At least if ANC commissioners act unreasonably, they can be replaced in elections ... IF the majority think their actions are unreasonable. <br /><br />I remember a lot of folks in that corner of the neighborhood at the last election wanting to unseat commissioner Estrada. They didn't. Maybe that should be taken as an insight into that his views may have more acceptance by the majority of the folks out there than any of us would otherwise think possible. I hear there's another election coming soon ...Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-84232939994108955912010-10-07T14:46:00.004-04:002010-10-07T14:46:00.004-04:00"@Mr. 14th and You, First you say the change ...<i>"@Mr. 14th and You, First you say the change that was requested was waiving the food limit requirement, and now you're saying it is changing the hours that a chef be working. Is it both?<br /><br />...<br /><br />To me that is a substantial change. It's the difference between folks showing up between 7 and 10 and sitting down and having dinner, and showing up between 9 and midnight and standing around listening to music."</i><br /><br />Lance, I really have to question how knowledgeable you are with regards to the city's license class requirements, as you've continually misrepresented the facts regarding them in this discussion and elsewhere. The "food limit requirement" which you mentioned goes hand-in-hand with the requirement to keep a chef on the premises until a particular time. This would all be part of the CR class definition of a "restaurant" which Saint Ex was attempting to remove themselves from.<br /><br />What John Snellgrove (Saint Ex owner) said at the time--and which has proven true in the subsequent 14 months--is that Saint Ex had no intention whatsoever of changing its operations from what it had been doing for years.<br /><br />As far as the difference between someone showing up for dinner and someone showing up to listen to music--what difference does that make? It was already happening, and was completely permissable under their license classification. Saint Ex continues do derive approximately 60% of its revenues from food sales, which is what it was doing before the class change. A small handful (and I do mean small--it was three people) did not want to accept that, and thus unnecessarily drew out the protest. Hence the community frustration.<br /><br />What it boils down to is this: a few select residents in this neighborhood have shown, time and again, a propensity for being completely unreasonable in matters related to liquor license protests and related activities. It's not a great mystery why someone such as Jahanbein would not want to subject himself or his establishment to that process. I promise you the moment he applies to change his license from a CR to a CT, those individuals will tell all of us how such a move means the end of U Street as we know it.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-40556433011866361632010-10-07T14:10:38.040-04:002010-10-07T14:10:38.040-04:00@Mr. 14th and You, First you say the change that w...@Mr. 14th and You, First you say the change that was requested was waiving the food limit requirement, and now you're saying it is changing the hours that a chef be working. Is it both? Even if so, waiving the food limit requirement permits them to operate more like a nightclub and less like a restaurant if that's what they want? And that's most likely what the neighbors opposed.<br /><br />Call it what you will, the end result is that the place can now legally serve more alcohol without serving more food ... Do you agree?<br /><br />To me that is a substantial change. It's the difference between folks showing up between 7 and 10 and sitting down and having dinner, and showing up between 9 and midnight and standing around listening to music.<br /><br />Am I wrong is assuming that St Ex's <i>can</i> do that now if it wants to?Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-80987309920702440152010-10-07T13:57:56.615-04:002010-10-07T13:57:56.615-04:00Actually, to my knowledge they haven't changed...Actually, to my knowledge they haven't changed their operations at all. The "substantial change" was in respect to their license classification, not their operations. My understanding was that the most significant factor in their decision to request a license change stemmed from the hours the CR license required them to keep a chef on premises.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-46656209970314012010-10-07T13:55:25.977-04:002010-10-07T13:55:25.977-04:00Please note that neither 'qualification' i...Please note that neither 'qualification' is relevant to the law and the obligations of the license classification -- as the activity is not prohibited by the (at the time) CR (restaurant) license class and the fact that the legal determination of compliance with the (then) food sales requirement is evaluated strictly as a percentage of total sales (with the additional proviso that food be served until a time related to the closing time -- in fact, the very onerous obligation that motivated the licensee to seek relief from in the first place!).<br /><br />What keeps getting lost with you, Lance, is that these criteria are not the subjective items you make them out to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-68943062577596026062010-10-07T13:17:14.348-04:002010-10-07T13:17:14.348-04:00@Mr. 14th and You Saint Ex was never in violation ...@Mr. 14th and You <i>Saint Ex was never in violation of their license, they came forward on their own with the request to change it.</i><br /><br />I will take your word on it. I.e., that the 'events' were relatively few and that the main business was still selling dinners. And that the change they requested was a 'going forward change' of a substantial nature.Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-30434573654437854762010-10-07T12:59:13.050-04:002010-10-07T12:59:13.050-04:00Amen.Amen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-10179912078676959322010-10-07T12:31:25.161-04:002010-10-07T12:31:25.161-04:00Lance, you do realize that Saint Ex was MEETING it...Lance, you do realize that Saint Ex was MEETING its food sales requirements, right? That their request for a change had nothing to do with any violations, right?<br /><br />This is what I'm talking about. You're accusing them of being in violation absent any basis in fact for it. Saint Ex was never in violation of their license, they came forward on their own with the request to change it.<br /><br />This kind of behavior is why establishments like the Saloon are reticent to request a change to their license class.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-35735836106067656962010-10-07T11:18:17.851-04:002010-10-07T11:18:17.851-04:00@Mr. 14 and You, please offer up evidence as proof...@Mr. 14 and You, <i>please offer up evidence as proof that Saint Ex was violating its license via its downstairs lounge</i><br /><br />Didn't <b>you</b> already do that?:<br /><i>it has operated exactly as it had been operating for years prior to its license change.</i><br /><br />If the way it has been operating 'for years' didn't require a waiver of the food requirement in the first place, why would they be asking for the food requirement waiver? ... And only after the neighbors pointed out there was a problem there.Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-4565698704486496782010-10-07T10:03:56.823-04:002010-10-07T10:03:56.823-04:00"Given that the nightclub scene I witnessed o..."Given that the nightclub scene I witnessed occured before the ABC request you're detailing, then it follows that a request to relax the food requirement was being made because the restaurant was already operating outside the requirements of its license"<br /><br />No it wasn't Lance, and your miscontruations of Saint Ex's situation serves to highlight the problem with this entire system. Nothing about the "nightclub" you describe was in violation of its license. But I'm not going to go back-and-forth with you on this--please offer up evidence as proof that Saint Ex was violating its license via its downstairs lounge other than your mere shock at finding such things going on.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-35840656368195058412010-10-07T09:30:39.887-04:002010-10-07T09:30:39.887-04:00But, Lance, as pointed out by another, a CR (resta...But, Lance, as pointed out by another, a CR (restaurant) license specifically does not prohibit the bar/lounge activity you reference. The venue was well within the law in this regard under its previous license classification at the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-6035817192093951812010-10-07T09:07:29.471-04:002010-10-07T09:07:29.471-04:00Given that the nightclub scene I witnessed occured...Given that the nightclub scene I witnessed occured before the ABC request you're detailing, then it follows that a request to relax the food requirement was being made because the restaurant was already operating outside the requirements of its license ... as you seem to support: <i>all to prevent Saint Ex from changing its license. Which they eventually did well over a year ago, and it has operated exactly as it had been operating <b>for years </b>prior to its license change.</i>... <br /><br />I can't think of a more inappropriate place to hold the kind of event I witnessed there. There are residences just a few feet down the sidewalk on the T Street side of the building.Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-24373029528831796582010-10-07T07:46:02.935-04:002010-10-07T07:46:02.935-04:00Lance, you are simply wrong on this. Saint Ex was...Lance, you are simply wrong on this. Saint Ex was not advocating for any change in its operations by switching to a tavern license, they simply wanted to rid themselves of the food service requirement. I know this, as I was quite aware of the negotiations that were ongoing, and I remember all of the desperate behind-the-scenes maneuvering on the part of several of the protesters, to the point where they were chastised by ABRA for their actions--all to prevent Saint Ex from changing its license. Which they eventually did well over a year ago, and it has operated exactly as it had been operating for years prior to its license change. So what was gained by their actions? A lot of lost time, a lot of lost money, and absolutely no benefit to either the establishment or the community. It is a poster child of protestant overreach, and a great example of why so many residents are suspicious or downright hostile to the concept of residents protesting liquor licenses.<br /><br />So, yes, the negotiations undertaken by a handful of protestants against Saint Ex were in fact deplorable. The protestants were not seeking a compromise, they were simply opposed. It's no wonder that other establishments are wary of embarking on what would likely be a months-long, costly battle to enact a change. All it takes is a few neighborhood residents with time on their hands and an axe to grind, and you're out a lot of time and money. But you'll get your license change anyway.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-78232225126796649792010-10-07T07:26:45.245-04:002010-10-07T07:26:45.245-04:00Lance, YOU don't get to decide what a "ni...Lance, YOU don't get to decide what a "nightclub" is, what a "bar" is, and what a "restaurant" is -- the LAW does. This is the fallacy of the whole subjective process of single-minded narrow-interest protesting of liquor licenses by small groups who don't even know the regulations that determine license classifications and adherence to the rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-68121434266856240562010-10-06T23:51:12.080-04:002010-10-06T23:51:12.080-04:00okay, okay, I agree YOU saw what you thought was a...okay, okay, I agree YOU saw what you thought was a "nightclub", but there was no zoning change, and if you bother to just take a look at the ABRA website, you will see there is little difference among the classes of licenses. As long as the place meets its food minimums, it is allowed to have the activity you describe. I suspect your calling them lawbreakers is probably libelous. Further, the fact that you would suggest this great business pioneer in our neighborhood is somehow troublesome, such that they deserve having to deal with estrada and/or his lover filming the establishment and protesting their license, shows your true colors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-3531070611790925932010-10-06T23:22:04.623-04:002010-10-06T23:22:04.623-04:00@Anon Once again, you have your facts wrong. St. E...@Anon <i>Once again, you have your facts wrong. St. Ex is not, and has never been, a nightclub and never asked for or received a zoning change.</i><br /><br />Please ... I've been at that nightclub ... after a dinner out at the restaurant. We were having a late night dinner and started noticing dozens of younger folks entering the restaurant and heading for the back. (The time was maybe 9:30 or 10:00.) After we finished dinner we walked to the back ... and down the stairs ... to check it out. It was a nightclub pure and simple. Dozens of people standing around with drinks in their hands while a deejay blared out music. PLEASE don't try to say there wasn't a nightclub there ... And by the way this was maybe a month or two before I read in the paper that they'd been caught having a nightclub there without the correct licensing for it.Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-45588293092415340922010-10-06T23:13:41.019-04:002010-10-06T23:13:41.019-04:00"Didn't St. Ex's put a jammed nightcl..."Didn't St. Ex's put a jammed nightclub into their basement before even bothering to ask for the change in zoning?"<br /><br />Lance,<br />Once again, you have your facts wrong. St. Ex is not, and has never been, a nightclub and never asked for or received a zoning change. Although St. Ex has great food for which they are well known, since the days of and after Barton Seaver, they were harassed by ABRA because they did not keep their kitchen open until 2 hours before closing, which is the law for restaurants. There was little demand for food at that hour, so rather than paying kitchen staff to preside over an inactive kitchen, St Ex sought to convert to a tavern. Even though the operators are well respected business leaders with a long track record in the neighborhood, and even though they pledged that there would be no change in operation, Estrada, Raia, and the usual gang worked them over for a VA, costing Ex. money, time and aggravation. The result has been the conversion was approved, the business has a C/T, the sky didn't fall, the business didn't change, and people like you repeat the falsehoods that probably originated with Estrada or Raia when they were seeking support for their "protest".<br />Yea, great system, this voluntary agreement system. Leave us to be governed by the loudest crazies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-79421125806564928792010-10-06T22:34:55.638-04:002010-10-06T22:34:55.638-04:00sorry, hit anom accidentally. 10:33 was mine.sorry, hit anom accidentally. 10:33 was mine.Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-82476912124969966252010-10-06T22:33:46.727-04:002010-10-06T22:33:46.727-04:00One need only go back to the deplorable negotiatio...<i>One need only go back to the deplorable negotiations that surrounded Saint Ex's request to do the same back in 2009 to understand why a business owner would not want to subject his or her establishment to that process.</i><br /><br />Didn't St. Ex's put a jammed nightclub into their basement <i>before</i> even bothering to ask for the change in zoning? Given that there are residences a few feet down that same street, it would be hard to justify a nightclub being permitted there. But also given the fact that they put one in there without bothering to request the change in zoning first, I have a hard time understanding how any could negotiate with with in the first place ... never mind negotiate 'deplorably'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-79196764573484954962010-10-06T20:05:22.707-04:002010-10-06T20:05:22.707-04:00Anon - my comment wasn't meant to imply that A...Anon - my comment wasn't meant to imply that ABRA is moving away from VAs, just that they're now placing them under greater scrutiny. One of my biggest problems with the VA process, aside from the fact that it is hardly "voluntary," is the seeming arbitrary nature that certain restrictions are imposed. One venue may have a mandated closing of 1AM on Saturday, whereas one down the street may have 2AM or even 3AM. That type of inconsistency is not only frustrating, but patently unfair.<br /><br />As to Saloon, I completely understand the reticence to apply for a change to a tavern license. One need only go back to the deplorable negotiations that surrounded Saint Ex's request to do the same back in 2009 to understand why a business owner would not want to subject his or her establishment to that process.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-42682475474388176202010-10-06T19:14:44.767-04:002010-10-06T19:14:44.767-04:00Re "The alternative is a 'yes' / '...Re "The alternative is a 'yes' / 'no' situation whereby we all lose" . . .<br /><br />No, Lance, the only ones subject to losing in this game are the small bands of auto-protestors who have for so long abused the system through the manipulation of the "Voluntary" Agreement process -- using it as a sledgehammer to impose their limited preferences for the rest of us.<br /><br />The winners are establishments who abide by applicable D.C. law and liquor license regulations and not subjective "Voluntary" Agreements which attempt to arbitrarily alter the legal obligations and privileges of an ABC license.<br /><br />And, of course, the vast majority of neighborhood residents pleased to welcome new community establishments expanding the amenities of a vibrant and engaging urban environment and contributing to the city's core revenue source!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-48232812092676850832010-10-06T18:45:43.554-04:002010-10-06T18:45:43.554-04:00Re: Thai Tanic
For over eight years, Thai Tanic h...Re: Thai Tanic<br /><br />For over eight years, Thai Tanic has had a Voluntary Agreement, with ANC 2F and other community signatories. This VA has helped establish Thai Tanic as as a good neighbor with true community support. And obviously, the VA has not kept Thai Tanic from running a successful restaurant business. In fact, it is expanding: Thai Tanic recently renegotiated VA terms with ANC 2F to allow for longer hours and greatly increased seating capacity.<br /><br />It is true that the ABC Board initially rejected some specific terms of the amended agreement. However, ANC 2F and Thai Tanic worked to refine those terms, so that the amended agreement would be acceptable to the ABC Board. Thai Tanic's new, more liberal VA was approved back in July.<br /><br />So in the end, this year's Thai Tanic case was actually a good example of a VA done right: meaningful compromise between a restaurant, its neighbors, the local ANC, and the ABC Board. Each group had a different perspective on the proposal for extended hours and increased capacity, but I think everyone is satisfied with how things turned out.<br /><br />It is true that VA negotiation can be contentious and ugly, but it is not always so bad. Readers, please keep in mind: if your only source of information about these issues is blogs, then you are only hearing the facts that make for juicy gossip.<br /><br />Look for Thai Tanic's new second-floor sushi bar to open next month. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-76651864731313990832010-10-06T18:22:28.733-04:002010-10-06T18:22:28.733-04:00@Anom First of all, Lance, a reminder that so-call...@Anom <i>First of all, Lance, a reminder that so-called "Voluntary" Agreements are not required to get a liquor license, which you seem to continue to presume (or, at a minimum, advocate) in your remarks.</i><br /><br />No, they're not required. The Board can rule without a VA in place. In most cases it actually does. And I don't advocate for VAs specifically. What I advocate for is some mechanism whereby there's a means of addressing the likely externalities that go hand in hand with the granting of a liquor license. <br /><br />The alternative is a 'yes' / 'no' situation whereby we all lose. I.e., While some may view it as the applicant not 'having to appease' affected neighbors, I suspect it's really more along the lines of the applicant not getting the 'opportunity' to appease affected neighbors, and thereby get a license to operate/expand. The bar the applicant must jumpt over automatically gets set higher where there is no mechanism for the neighbors to say 'okay I won't protest ... but you'll have to x, y, z to give me assurance that I won't be hurt by your getting a license/expanding ... ' . <br /><br />So, without a VA or some other means for the parties to come to agreement, what we'll end up with is a much more stringent application of the law ... And that is because when all is said and done, the ABRA Board, and the politicians who appoint them, are still subject to the 'politics' that come with having unhappy neighbors. If they don't have a means to keep the neighbors happy by including them in the process, they'll just be less apt to approve any application that is even the slightest questionable in terms of externalities on the neighbors ... <i>even if the applicant and the neighbors could have worked it out between them</i> if so encouraged 'by the system.Lancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-89005789933036387962010-10-06T15:10:39.814-04:002010-10-06T15:10:39.814-04:00ABRA seems to be moving towards increased skeptici...ABRA seems to be moving towards increased skepticism of the VA process, at least the seeming arbitrary nature of certain aspects of them. That is why the ThaiTanic VA was rejected.Mr. Other Upper NWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536367497290075887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2095284393772305956.post-34068833193173693552010-10-06T14:57:47.139-04:002010-10-06T14:57:47.139-04:00First of all, Lance, a reminder that so-called &qu...First of all, Lance, a reminder that so-called "Voluntary" Agreements are not required to get a liquor license, which you seem to continue to presume (or, at a minimum, advocate) in your remarks.<br /><br />This fact of the law is evidenced by more and more applicants refusing to kowtow to the attempt to impose one -- as well as the ABC Board's welcome stance (finally) in clarifying this legal reality and reminding applicants and protest groups (whether or not ANCs) and actually adjudicating matters without one.<br /><br />And, of note, more instances of ANCs declining to attempt the imposition of such a license agreement, I would argue, is additional evidence that the sun is beginning to set on this license extortion as public disgust with the process is beginning to cause ANCs to think twice before riding that horse into the dirt!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com