May 6 2004
Commissioner Guyot
described the reappearance of Smarta/Broadway for a
Temporary Stipulated license for a new nightclub (CN) located at 1919 9th Street. At our last meeting we approved a full
license for the applicant, but they are currently applying for a temporary
stipulated license, and ABRA asked that we vote specifically on the stipulated
license. Commissioner Guyot moved support for the temporary stipulated
license. A constituent asked who the
applicant was, and Commissioner Guyot indicated that
Mr. Smart was present. Mr. Smart was
asked about parking for the club, and he stated that he had parking behind the
building. Mr. Smart was asked if the
parking was sufficient for the capacity of the club, and Mr. Smart indicated
that the provided parking met ABRA standards.
Commissioner Spalding indicated that he had received letters from the
Westminster Neighborhood Association, and from Craig MacIvor with concerns about the new club. Commissioner Spalding made copies of the
letters available to each of the Commissioners, and asked the applicant to meet
with both the Westminster Neighborhood Association and the Cardozo Shaw
Neighborhood Association to address their concerns. Commissioner Spalding requested that the
applicant check to determine if their club would be within four hundred feet of
a school, notably Maya
Angelou Charter
School and Cleveland
Elementary, and if so to meet with the administrations of the schools and
address any concerns that they may have with a new nightclub. Commissioner Guyot
stated that he agreed that the applicant should meet with WNA and CSNA, but
that he had a serious problem of imposing a new condition on an applicant that
was here at our last meeting, and on whose application we’ve already voted in
favor. Chairperson Thomas asked if the
proximity to the schools was not a legitimate concern, and Commissioner Guyot responded that Chris Shaheen
was in charge of changing the zoning on this block. Commissioner Guyot
stated that Shaw Main Streets had met with Mr. Shaheen
and objected to any zoning changes that would affect the businesses already
operating on the block. This is another
attempt to go around the existing businesses like the Georgia Avenue zoning changes. Warren Flint has proposed a façade program for
the block, but I told him that he had to go and explain it to the
businesses. So, my concern is that if we
apply the school situation without ABRA applying it, let’s just close down
everything on Main Street. If ABRA forces them to do it that’s one thing,
but we should not be in that position.
Chairperson Thomas asked if Commissioner Spalding’s requests were a
friendly amendment, and Commissioner Spalding replied that though we voted on
this issue at our last meeting the discussion very short, it was curtailed too
quickly, and was not explored as thoroughly as it should have been
explored. I think it’s preferable that
the applicant check with the schools now rather than later. Commissioner Spalding said that the
suggestions need not be accepted as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Guyot
stated that he has had thorough discussions with applicant and forcibly
required that they comply with all ABRA laws.
Commissioner Skinner stated
that it is important that the applicant reach out to address the community
members concerns. We have to be careful
about the stress on black owned businesses, and if you think there are any
subtle racist attempts to make you do thinks that aren’t right I extend my
phone number to you. Issues
regarding policing, inadequate parking somehow become the responsibility of a
business owner. These buildings have
been here before your business, and you’re not responsible for the design of
the city. I think we’ve had a
constant real subtle attempt at trying to intimidate immigrant and black owned
businesses. We’ll do a lot more than
talk about it if that’s true. I hope
it’s a lot of ignorance not racism, and if those people are ignorant than we
should teach them. If there’s anything
out of the ordinary that’s tied to skin tone please let me know. Chairperson
Thomas responded that those may be Commissioner Skinner’s opinions, but she
felt that one because it insinuates something about her own character. Commissioner Guyot
stated that this applicant has been commendable, everything that I’ve asked him
to do he’s done. Previous question was
called by Commissioner Guyot, and it was approved on
a vote of (6-1-0).
August
5 2004
Commissioner Spalding introduced
the reconsideration of Tena Café’s application for a
CR license located at 1119 V
Street.
This has been before us twice before and at our June meeting we voted to
support the license, and at our July meeting we voted to reconsider and
additionally to take it up at our August meeting with an invitation to the
owners. Just prior to this meeting ABRA
held the initial hearing on this application, and there were seven protesters
of which four were allowed standing, and the other three were given time to
establish credentials for standing. Mr.
Pappas and the applicants are present.
Maurice Evans stated that he is representing the applicant, and agreed
that Commissioner Spalding’s review was correct with the exception that the
applicant was awarded a stipulated license by the ABRA Board. Due to the allowed protesters the stipulated
license has been suspended. The ABRA
Board has given time for the applicant to meet with protesters prior to the
next meeting on Wednesday, August 11th. Mr. Evans stated that he is still attempting
to identify all of the protestants, and also attempting
to work with the multiple scheduling difficulties presented. The notification from the Board stated that
the protest involves an adverse effect on peace, order and quiet of the
neighborhood, and that there is an adverse affect on residential parking,
pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the neighborhood, and finally an adverse
affect on real property values in the neighborhood. I am familiar with the neighborhood through
my service as an investigator with the ABCC.
This is a very simple restaurant that seats approximately fifteen
people. The average age of the patrons
of the restaurant is forty-five years old.
There is a little Bose stereo system that puts out a little classical
music, and it also puts out a little tiny amount into the summer garden area in
the rear. I just can’t see how this
little bitty restaurant is disruptive to a neighborhood. I ask that the ANC support the reinstatement
of the stipulated license, and ask that the protestors meet with me as soon as
possible. Commissioner Wright asked if
any of the protestors of the restaurant were present, and nineteen members of
the audience raised their hands.
Commissioner Guyot asked to move three things,
and stated that I am the man who made the motion to reconsider. I am the person who got a commitment at our
last meeting that he would close the yard.
This Commission has a chance to do justice and it should do so. Chairperson Thomas asked if it had not been agreed
that the single member district Commissioner offer the motion. Commissioner Guyot
stated that we’ve all heard Mr. Spalding, and Mr. Spalding led the
demonstration in protest and he has a right to do that. I think to balance this relationship I should
have some rights. Chairperson Thomas
stated that nobody was denying Commissioner Guyot’s
rights, but I would still like to hear from the SMD Commissioner, out of
respect if nothing else. Commissioner
Spalding indicated that he was under the impression that it was Commissioner
Wright who brought the motion for reconsideration at the July meeting, and
Commissioner Wright agreed. Commissioner
Guyot stated that he did not, I offered it, check the
minutes, and I offered the motion to reconsider. I know what I did you check the minutes. Commissioner Spalding stated that he has been
to visit the site, he has met with the residential
neighbors. I have looked at what the
composition of the immediate neighborhood is, and what is proposed for the
immediate neighborhood. This section of V St. is now a
residential street despite the underlying zoning of Arts Overlay which does
provide the opportunity to put in a restaurant.
Unfortunately for this applicant he’s applying to put a commercial use
into a solidly residential neighborhood.
I have talked to both the names on the multiple protest petitions and
other residential neighbors, and I have not found anyone who supports this
application as it has been submitted.
Half of the residents do not approve of a restaurant in this location,
nothing to do with the applicant, but they do not support a restaurant in this
residential context. The other half of
the residents would support a restaurant in this location, but only under the
terms of a very restrictive (hours, noise, parking) voluntary agreement. There will probably be six and possibly seven
protesters to this license, and I think it is in the best interest of this ANC
to participate in the process as one of the protesters rather than watch the
seven protesting groups attempt the negotiations. My motion is that ANC1B protest Tena Café’s application for a CR license as well as the
stipulated license. Chairperson Thomas
indicated that on page eight of the July minutes Commissioner Wright is
identified as offering the motion to reconsider. Commissioner Guyot
stated that the minutes are wrong, and I made the motion and I stand on
that. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Esters. Commissioner Guyot stated that this is a site that does not serve
twenty-five people, this is a site that this Commission voted to support, and
this is a site that did everything that we asked him to do. We said please close the yard and he did not
hesitate, he said yes. This is a site
that has had no violations by ABRA. Our
function is not to become an appendage of the police department. Our function is to deal with applicants pure
and simple and not as a group of based on any of their characteristics. Here’s an applicant who’s obeyed the
law. I move that we support the
stipulated license, and then I will move that we oppose as a Commission any and
all attacks on this license.
Commissioner Skinner asked the applicant how many people the restaurant
serves, and applicant responded fifteen.
Commissioner Skinner asked how long they have been in business, and
applicant responded six months. With all
due respect I think as a Commission we uphold laws. Somebody might not like somebody, somebody
might like somebody else, but I think based on what we’re charged to do is to
evaluate this guy based on the law not based how people feel about it. Some people might want to open up a gay club
next to me, and I might not like gay folks, but you know what they’ve got the
right to be there. Somebody might open
up a black club, and you might not like black folks, but that’s no reason…
People’s issues related to gender, race, sexual orientation, if a person’s an
immigrant or not, we shouldn’t be using that to decide. I think we’ve seen a lot more things thrown
in here than just is this person going to run a reputable and a law abiding establishment. Thank God it’s America. Chairperson Thomas asked if there could be
representative spokespeople for the protesters present and three were
identified. Sean Steffy, 1223 V St., stated that his
neighbors are here and represent different races, different orientations,
different genders, different occupations, but we’re all coming
together before our ANC and we want you to listen to our concerns. We’re very concerned about a liquor licensed
restaurant on our residential street being open till 2AM on weeknights and 3AM
on weekends. We’re very concerned about
the potential trash problem and how that will be met. We’re very concerned about the outside patio
in the back which abuts both V and 12th Streets. We have had an opportunity to meet with the
owner, and he is genuinely a nice person and I have no doubt he can run a good
business, and I would love to have him as my neighbor, and I would love to go
to his restaurant if it were on U Street or 14th Street, but V
Street is a residential street. It is a
small one way street where we all live, and where we all get our rest at night,
and even though this is a small establishment we’re all concerned with how this
is going to affect the character of V Street.
We also moved to this area to enjoy the diversity that is represented by
this neighborhood. We have gone out of
our way to patronize the Ben’s or Cravings instead of Quisnos. We avoid Starbucks and go over to Sparky’s
Café. We willingly patronize the
businesses located on U and 14th Streets, but we’re concerned with
this restaurant that’s located in an area that is becoming more
residential. Stewart Bunn stated that
this application has generated an overwhelming outcry from local residents, and they are speaking out against having this
license in a residential area. This has
nothing to do with race or gay issues; it’s simply a protest against having a
liquor licensed establishment in such a dense residential district. The new neighbors are attracted to this
community by the proximity of commercial choices on the commercial corridors. Issuance of a liquor license changes the
perception of the restaurant and its history, which has been without a liquor
license. I ask my Commissioner Ms.
Thomas to oppose this application, and Commissioner Spalding in whose district
the restaurant is located to oppose this application, and I ask the other
Commissioners to honor and respect the Commissioners who represent this
neighborhood and vote in opposition to this license request. Joyce
Day, 2107 12th St., and my property abuts
their property in the back yards. I
would concur that this owner has been more considerate than previous owners,
but I still have to get up in the morning, and there is a noise problem due to
the courtyard in the back. There’s just
five feet between my bedroom window and the courtyard behind their restaurant,
and music has been piped out there. The
requested 2AM and 3AM closing times are what have many of us very
concerned. We have to get up in the
morning and go to work. Another concern
is their trash disposal. The current
method of trash disposal is a lady who comes around and she takes the trash can
from out back, and she hauls it down by my house. She goes around the block to 11th
and W and she proceeds to dump the trash in the public receptacles. If there’s not enough room at this location
she takes it further down the block. I
have followed her and talked with her and asked if the applicant knows what
she’s doing with the trash, and she responds that yes they know, but I’m just
helping them out. There has never been a
trash removal contract for this business, and the present situation is just not
acceptable. Chairperson Thomas
indicated that there was a motion on the table to oppose the application. Commissioner Guyot
stated that it failed for not having a second.
Chairperson Thomas stated that it had received a second, and
Commissioner Guyot moved that we defeat it. Motion to oppose was called and failed on a
vote of (2-4-3). Commissioner Guyot
moved that we support the provisional license, the stipulated license, after
which I will offer a motion that we vote to oppose the opposition to the
license. A community member asked if
there could be a stipulated license in the context of the four to seven
protesters to the application, Commissioner Guyot
responded that yes there can be a stipulated license, but it can only be
determined by the ABRA Board, and what they will look at is how conciliatory
and whether or not there’s mutual reconciliation between the two groups. Motion to support the stipulated license for Tena Café passed on a vote of (6-1-2).
Commissioner Guyot moved that ANC1B vote to
officially oppose any and all challenges to this applicant, and it was
seconded. Commissioner Spalding stated
that this was an official opposition to his constituents airing their voice in
front of ABRA, and I just don’t think that such a motion is called for or shows
any consideration for my constituents.
You can vote for this motion, but my constituents should be allowed to
go to ABRA and make their voices heard.
This is certainly a controversial application for a licensed
establishment in a residential zone, and I can understand other Commissioners
deciding to listen to their own voices rather than the neighbors gathered here,
but why should the Commission vote to oppose my constituents? Commissioner Guyot
stated that the ABRA Board has never in its history given a single member
district power as it relates to how it analyzes an application, the only power
resides with the Commission. This
Commission will not interfere with the present protestants,
and this application is represented by a man who is experienced many years in
ABRA. He has committed himself to
negotiations, and all my motion says is that we’re not voting against anyone,
we’re voting for a principle that says we as a Commission feel that this
gentleman who has obeyed all the laws should not be challenged. Commissioner Skinner stated that he talks
about how people are treated differently on the basis of race, gender, sexual
orientation and all the rest we often have someone like the Congressional Club
who come in here who have a bunch of Congress people willing to say anything,
they could have all kinds of things but nobody follows them to the trash can. I don’t know how they dispose of their trash
because no one has taken the time to find out and that’s fine. It’s the prerogative of anybody to
investigate anybody’s trash, and if anybody’s breaking that law they should be
penalized. As a neighbor who’s trying to
provide an opportunity for his family he shouldn’t encroach on anybody else,
just as much as you working late at night and driving home late shouldn’t be
disturbing your neighbors within reason.
But it just seems like all the words like character of V Street, and
I know what euphemisms are and I’ve seen them used a lot of places, when people
start talking about those intangible keeping the characteristics. OK, so my point is looking at the real
substance of the issue is the trash disposal, 2AM, and the noise, and those seem like reasonable issues
that can be agreed upon without prohibiting this person who’s already operating
a restaurant to also be able to serve some beer and wine. It just seems like when you say you oppose
this person’s liquor license and oppose his restaurant you’re going beyond just
saying that I want a good neighbor, you’re saying that I should be able to
dictate what this person does with his livelihood. As long as they are abiding by the law, and
being a good neighbor which means not having some old lady dumping trash illegally,
they should be corrected and get an opportunity to work. And if you’ve got a noisy neighbor, that
neighbor should be addressed whether it’s a restaurant or just some with some
loud funkstead.
This all or nothing thing is not the direction that we’ve spent a lot of
time on U Street
building this harmony that’s not like Adams Morgan and being like a community
doing all kinds of ungodly things in our neighborhood, and I’m just saying
we’ve got to be able to manage all of this without trying to exclude
people. Chairperson Thomas stated that
people have the right, I don’t care where you live or where you come from, and
people have the right to voice their opinion.
They have a right to feel the way the way they do. I don’t feel that we should hinder anyone
from the chance to speak their minds or express their opinions. In that note I will be opposing your last
motion in opposing their protest. We now
have a motion to support the stipulated license, and I think the ABRA Board
should take it from there. We have an
obligation to our constituents to take a stand in favor or against, but let’s
make those votes and move forward. I’m
not willing to sit here for another hour listening to personal opinions. Commissioner Guyot
said that he would be the last person on earth to deny their right to protest,
and I’ve supported their right to protest.
This motion simply says that we as a Commission are doing what’s
responsible in saying that we oppose the protest. ABRA always asks what’s the
position of the ANC, and I’m respectfully submitting, without
interfering with anyone’s right to protest, but I support my motion. Motion for the Commission to oppose all
attacks on this license was seconded and adopted on a vote of (5-3-1).
April 1 2004
Commissioner Spalding initiated a
review of the current status of “Between Friends” nightclub. Following the murder this past month at the
club ABRA held a hearing to discuss the license. Commissioner Spalding
indicated that he did not know if the ruling had been finalized, however, the
result appears to be to allow the club to reopen with a long list of
restrictions regarding security, types of music, and leasing to other
people. Commissioner Guyot
stated that the decision is clear and final and included in a copy of a March
25 letter from ABRA that he had distributed.
Commissioner Guyot stated that the incident
occurred at an even called ‘Dance for Peace’ that the owners had put on to deal
with the pressures of violence amongst our young people. There were fifteen or twenty people on
security that night. The ABC Board to
its credit listened to extensive testimony lasting an entire day, and then
there was a 4-1 vote to reopen the establishment on April 10th along
with the conditions. A community member
stated that this past Saturday night was the first quiet Saturday night in some
time due to the temporary closure of the club.
Commissioner Guyot responded that how can the
residents know which club is responsible when there are so many licenses in the
same area. I understand that there will
be constant attack on all black owned liquor licenses on U Street; I understand that and I accept
it. Thank God for the ABRA Board, there
was one policeman in my life who received public acclamation by people standing
and clapping was Officer Gunther. My concern in this is that we have what we
have and thank God for ABRA; they have been fair in enforcing the liquor
licenses. It’s interesting that the
reason for the delay to April 10th is that the police asked that the
club be closed. Commissioner Glover
asked about the restriction on the type of music played, and Commissioner Guyot stated that he was part of that deal that the club
was afraid that if they contested the hearing and lose, and I think they would
have, or should they go with the regulations that stated no go-go music. This was not a popular position but it was
part of the agreement that will run with the liquor license. This position will be challenged by others,
but in this case it was the decision that the club thought it had to take. Commissioner Skinner stated that he is
outraged by the terms requiring that a club cannot play a certain genre of
music. It’s really like what happened to
jazz, and its like we take things out of context, when jazz was popular it
wasn’t the same love as today, it was one of those underground things. It seems that something that is such a part
of DC, and I note the Councilmember’s reference to a culture of violence, this
has to be either racism or ignorance. I
think for somebody to somehow think that we’re naïve enough to think that
playing go-go makes people kill folks, this is a false conclusion. This gives us a false sense of security, that
if we don’t have go-go in the room that people won’t get stabbed. This is an unfair attack on black people
who’re the ones who play the go-go music.
If I went to Idaho and they were playing hillbilly or country western
music and somebody gets in a fight or shoots somebody I’m not going to say that
it’s the country western music that made him shoot him. If we’re going to be serious about enhancing
the quality of life, and securing the safety of our young people then we can’t
allow hysteria, racism, or ignorance to be our guide and say things like a club
can’t have live or recorded go-go music.
Commissioner Jim Graham led this fight; he attempted to recruit Phil
Spalding and the president of the Cardozo Shaw Neighborhood Association to
intervene in this case, despite the fact that this was a hearing that was
simply dealing with the question of removing the license or restoring the
license. Now the concern for me is that
at the same time that Jim Graham would move to intervene, which was denied
thank God by the Board, he was also negotiating with Ms. Walker and her
attorney. So here we
had a situation where there was an attempt to nullify negotiations. So let’s be clear, I wish to God that we
could look at these on the merits, do them case by case, but if we don’t do
that than we’ll just do it illegally.
Commissioner Glover asked if anyone had any information that would lead
to the proposition that go-go music leads to violence. A
constituent who lives on 12th
Street near the club stated that he was offended
at being branded racist because he was concerned about the noise and the
quality of life in his own neighborhood.
I don’t care what kind of music anyone wants to play, just please keep
it in the building. I’m asking that at
three o’clock every morning people wouldn’t pee in my windows. The police are not responding to the issues
that are hurting the quality of life for residents, the clubs are not the
problem it’s the behavior of those who attend and leave the clubs. I like to sleep, I work and need my sleep,
and we should not be held hostages in our neighborhoods. Community
member Lou Nayman agreed with Commissioner Skinner that banning go-go music was
foolishness. The neighbors problems is
with the owners who fail to operate respectful premises. Mr. Nayman asked that the Commission exercise
a certain amount of discipline in regard to inflammatory and racist
comments. To throw such loaded and
divisive rhetoric in the context of a Commission like this only inflames the
angers. I’d ask that the Commission enforce
a certain amount of decorum on its members so that we don’t have loose and
inflammatory charges thrown around. Chairperson Thomas responded that she whished
that she had some control over what comes out of some people’s mouths, and that
she would like all of the participants to treat each other with respect, but
that appears to be asking for something that’s not realistic. I can only speak for myself; I can’t control
what others choose to say. Commissioner Guyot stated that he agreed with the community member about
the quality of life issues, however, it is that the absence of police services
simply adds to the racial polarization.
Let’s look at that club, the police didn’t respond, but they were
willing and able to testify to close it down.
If we deal with the question of police security of neighborhoods, then I
think we’ll go a long way towards calming the racial polarization that I see
rising. I’m a public official and I’ve
been recognized by this city as a recipient of the “Living the Dream” of Martin
Luther King award, I’m an integrationist by practice, by promulgation, and by
belief, but I believe that I have a responsibility to call it like I see
it. I’m glad you said what you said
about quality of life issues, but what we must understand is that when we don’t
have police services we look for other victims.
We have come close to criminalizing liquor licenses and it frightens
me. Would anyone close that restaurant
over there if someone was killed there if they didn’t have a liquor
license? Dealing with the question of
racism is not easy, but we’ve never really done that. Commissioner Skinner stated that if you’re
a racist, then everything I stated about racists applies to you, and if you’re
ignorant you’re ignorant, if you’re none of the two then you’re none of the
two. If you’re offended and you talk
about racist to me I’m not offended because I’m not a racist. I think I know what racism is. If you go into some of these areas where
there are homosexuals, and there are people who don’t like gay people, and who
beat gay folks up. And if a gay person
said to me that that was a homophobic remark, and I’m going to give him the
benefit that he might have a sensibility to that issue, and at least not be so
bold as to tell a homosexual what homophobia is. This is a difficult issue to deal with, and I
know that this neighborhood has got racists in it, so I’m not crazy. We should decide to deal with this in a real
way, but to go on and look at these issues and blame clubs for poor policing is
not right. For people who have been
living here for decades have been crying for better policing and now that we’ve
got more affluent people moving in we’re seeing changes. Now I could say that its demographic changes
and I think it is, but the same comments were made ten years ago when the neighborhood
was all black these concerns were just as important, and now the response time
is a half an hour instead of an hour, and it still isn’t good enough. When I look around this room I look like a
person who could get shot tonight. So,
if anyone should be concerned with getting shot, and it’s not attributable to
the clubs and the go-go, it’s me. My
roommate was killed in January and he looked like me. He was a victim and he’s gone. So I don’t think that this is somehow trying
to play the race card, but its saying let’s not allow false solutions to put a
band aid over something, because another young brother could get killed
tomorrow. Now if they start killing
older white males it might become a crisis and they’ll have the National Guard
out, but as long as it looks like Jo Jo or Ray Ray then it’s just a part of how it is. I want a future and I want a future for
anyone who looks like me. We have an
issue that’s related to race in this city, and where there’s a majority of
whites there’s lower crime, better police response. Look in Adams Morgan there’s nightlife there,
but there’s a cop everywhere and it’s diverse.
But if you look at where there are black clubs, you get police after
there’s gunshot, asking them to lay down. Now you got all the cops in the world, you go
to Georgetown
you can’t help but be told to move by a cop.
But if I’m on U Street it’s not till I get shot that I get told to move
back. We need a class to really speak
honestly about how this is. It’s just
like if I move into Dupont Circle or someplace
where there’s a predominance of homosexuals, I might not notice a thing. I might move in and miss the homosexuals, and
not understand something. And they might
correct me, and I’d not be offended and ‘my bad’ I didn’t know this was XYZ,
and I’m going to be respectful. But the
tendency on this side is that we don’t get the same respect. All I’m trying to say is that love the fact
that we’ve got a lot of rich white folks moving into this neighborhood, and I
love the fact that we’ve got a lot of wealthy black folks moving into this
neighborhood, but I just want us to be able to work together based on reality
not stereotyping on solving this problem.
We all have something to add to the solution, but we all have to avoid
using our stereotypes, and we all have to be good listeners. But if we allow politics or racial and social
economic drivers that have nothing to do with the problems to motivate us we’ll
never solve the problem, we’ll just push the problems further out and let PG County
deal with the problems. I just hope we
can all keep an open mind on these problems. A community member asked if this was not a
noise issue, and Chairperson Thomas responded that in her residential
neighborhood that is near some clubs it is a noise issue. Commissioner Skinner agreed that there is an
issue of noise in the residential neighborhoods when the clubs let out, but how
can we revitalize the entertainment and maintain the needs of the
residents. It shouldn’t be an issue
about what kind of music is played in the clubs, but we should care about the
businesses. If the businesses can’t make
money and they have to go out of business, then that might not be good
either. New people coming in with new
ideas are a good thing, but we need to have a dialogue that allows us to be
open to things. What we need to avoid is
saying shut things down, which might not be the answer. Scott Pomeroy added that the 14th
and U Main Streets Initiative has been working with community members and the
Responsible Hospitality Institute to address the quality of life issues
embodied in tonight’s debate. There are
always going to be issues when entertainment districts are so closely bounded
by residential districts, but there are other cities dealing with similar problems,
and solutions that we can adapt to our own neighborhoods. Commissioner Guyot
stated that Capt. Groomes came to our ANC meeting and
said ‘look we don’t do it this way in Georgetown,
we don’t have police dealing with traffic control in Georgetown, and we have traffic people
dealing with traffic.’ And when I
repeated this to the ABC Board, they said I must be mistaken, and I responded
that I was quoting Capt. Groomes. Now why can’t we understand the difference of
what comes out of the Police Department.
Capt. Groomes in testifying before the ABC
Board on the Between Friends case said ‘we have problems with that Coach and
IV’. This was not on the agenda. Officer Rember said
‘I’ve worked this area for seventeen years, and Coach and IV has cleaned up its
act substantially’, and the Chair of the ABC Board said ‘that’s correct.’ So please, when we try to move down this path
let’s understand that there’s some truths that reside inside the Police
Department that are not constant. If a
police officer of that rank can say in our ANC meeting, we don’t do it like
that in Georgetown,
but if you do it here it’s a problem.
And it’s a problem with those bad dastardly people who own those liquor
licenses, and I can’t intellectually accept that
November
6, 2003
Class B renewal for Sonya’s Market at 2833 11th Street was opposed
by Commissioner Skinner. Applicant was
not present, and Commissioner Skinner indicated that there was little or no
interaction between the applicant and community leaders or associations. The problems are the same as those with other
liquor licenses in his single member district, and the difficulties stem from
the owners lack of respect for the communities in which they are doing
business. Opposition was moved by
Commissioner Skinner, and it was seconded and adopted unanimously (7-0-0).
Class B renewal for Shop Express at 2400 14th
Street was introduced by Commissioner Butler who indicated that the owners of
the business were in attendance, as well as opposition by local residents and
also opposition from the South Columbia Heights Association. Erica Lindquist as a resident of 1417 Chapin Street
indicated that twenty-five local residents had drafted and signed a comment
letter that detailed their concerns with Shop Express. Their concerns are drinking and loitering
outside the business, public safety as exemplified by the shooting recently,
trash and health concerns associated with the trash, public urination, and
nighttime noise. They also proposed
possible changes that could help the business, and those were listed on the handout
provided. Ms. Lindquist also indicated
that the residents did appreciate the store and its location; however, unless
their concerns were addressed they would stand in opposition to renewing the
liquor license. A representative of the
South Columbia Heights Association also spoke in opposition to the renewal, and
also indicated that they were not interested in closing the store, but rather
in reaching a voluntary agreement with the store owners to address the same
issues that had been brought up in Ms. Lindquist’s testimony. She also indicated remedial steps that they
were recommending, and those suggestions were printed on a handout distributed
to the Commissioners. Commissioner
Thomas asked the Shop Express owners whether they had reviewed the handouts,
and they responded that they had just seen the complaints earlier in the
meeting. The owners indicated that they
have been operating for the past six years at this location, and that they had
made a significant investment in the store in a location that could only be
called a hazardous business location. The business is located in a small mall
area and the concerns of residents should be applied to all the businesses, not
singling out the Shop Express. The problems
with trash are indeed a problem, but they are not of Shop Expresses
making. The ownership pays double what
they do in other locations to attempt to deal with trash. The local residents use the dumpsters of the Shop
Express illegally, and it has been impossible to stop this use. Horning Brothers (landlord for the mall) has
not been responsive to Shop Express’ complaints about the misuse of their
dumpsters. Shop Express has installed a
substation for the police inside the store, and does actively attempt to get
loiterers to move from the area in front of the business. Commissioner Glover stated that the residents
were not opposing the business, but were expressing concerns with the ongoing
operation of the business. Commissioner
Thomas responded that the owner was responding to the concerns. The owner said that he felt ambushed by the
concerns appearing at the last minute before his appearance in regard to his
liquor license. The Shop Express owners
said that they are attempting to deal with doing business in a difficult
location, and that the majority of surrounding residents used and approved of
their business. Commissioner Butler
stated that the Shop Express has been an anchor business for the mall, and that
many of the concerns raised are beyond the scope of normal business. The collection of trash appears to be as much
a problem of the community availing itself of the businesses dumpsters than of
trash generated by the business itself.
Loitering is a problem that is exacerbated by the design of the mall,
and that police do attempt to move the loiterers on. Commissioner Butler stated that he is willing
to work with the residents and with Shop Express to address the concerns, and
possibly refine a voluntary agreement that everyone can work with. Commissioner Thomas stated that there
appeared to be a lack of concern with the owners of the mall, and that
concentrating opposition efforts entirely on the Shop Express might be
misplaced. Members of the SCHA stated
that they have been working with the ownership of Shop Express for the past
year, and that they had invited Horning Brothers to meetings to discuss the
concerns. A member of the resident group
indicated that it is indeed an area for hanging out, and that these nuisance
loiterers are not going to the mall to use the bank or the dry cleaners, but
that the business that is open and being patronized is the Shop Express. Shop Express may need help in moving this
crowd and a voluntary agreement could help ownership to do so. Commissioner Skinner stated that his
single member district has lingering problems with similar liquor
establishments, and as shown earlier in this meeting they had not even had the
decency to attend tonight’s meeting. The
owners of Shop Express appear to be attempting to address all of the concerns
listed in opposition tonight.
Commissioner Skinner stated that he’s in opposition to gentrification,
and that new residents need to understand the commitment of business owners who
fought to establish businesses in difficult locations and who continue to try
to do the right things for the community.
Concerns about the mall should be addressed to the owners of the mall
and not concentrated on one business owner.
The level of arrogance shown in the handouts is obvious, and your
efforts should be placed on getting the District government to deal with the
problems and not the business owner. Commissioner
Guyot stated that recently ANC1C and ANC1D had agreed
to do away with voluntary agreements not brokered by the ANC’s, and tonight’s
discussion is a perfect illustration of why this should be. These complaints are not going away, and
neither are the residents who have trouble with the activities surrounding your
place of business. You have to find a
way of working with this opposition, but do not give up those things that you
are not legally required to give up. You
should work to draw up a voluntary agreement, but any agreement should come
back to this ANC. Commissioner Guyot moved that ANC1B support a process that involves,
Commissioner Butler, the owners of Shop Express, and the various community
groups and Horning Brothers to craft a voluntary agreement that is brought back
to ANC1B for its consideration and endorsement, and that Commissioner Butler is
to be the arbiter of whether the parties have acted appropriately in response
to this charge. The motion was seconded
and adopted on a vote of (5-1-1).
May 1, 2003
Commissioner Skinner raised the difficulty with our new rule
that an applicant must be present to consider an ABC license request. This allows a license holder who has
opposition from the community to duck the ANC meeting, and the community
members opposing the license request are disenfranchised. Commissioner Guyot
stated that the intent of the rule was to encourage participation by the
license owners, but did not preclude the Commission from hearing a case where
there was community dissent accorded to an application. Commissioner Skinner stated that the
applicant had been properly notified and that their absence was (by our
interpretation of the new ANC1B rules) precluding participation by concerned
constituents. Commissioner Skinner
requested that ANC1B hear the liquor application of Harvard Liquors and it was
agreed to by a unanimous vote.
Liquor license application #2599 for
Harvard Liquors (A) at 2901
Sherman Avenue. Commissioner Skinner stated that there
have been ongoing problems with this license holder, and that they were also
not responsive to constituent complaints.
Community members echoed the sentiments expressed by Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Skinner moved to oppose the
license renewal, and it was seconded and adopted (6-0-0).