Tuesday, November 2, 2010

'Making or breaking dreams' at Community Board 3


Here are excerpts from today's Wall Street Journal article on Community Board 2 and 3....

The owner of a new tea lounge in the East Village wanted a liquor license. After her community board denied the request, she started crying, "shocked by the backlash," according to one board member.

Welcome to Community Board 3. The restaurant and night-life industry may be buzzing downtown, but some of the biggest fireworks take place in dreary meeting rooms where tempers flare, tears are shed and the back and forth can stretch on for up to eight hoTrs. Confrontations have gotten so bad that some businesses have just given up and withdrawn applications.

Now, a group of high-profile restaurateurs are trying to form a trade association. One of their main gripes: Community boards are unfair.

"In a way, we're making or breaking dreams," said Ariel Palitz, who has straddled two roles, as nightclub owner and member of Community Board 3's committee. She said she was speaking as an individual, not for the committee.


And!

Some restaurateurs say community boards can be the biggest obstacle to doing business in the city. "They should call them communist boards instead of community boards," said Keith Masco, whose application for a liquor license for a proposed seafood restaurant and market in the Lower East Side was denied several months ago. "What they're doing is really unfair."


And!

Community Board 3 District Manager Susan Stetzer says a real concern of residents in her district is having a diversity of businesses, not just bars and restaurants. "It's about having services for people who live here," she said.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

These business owners have to realize that there needs to be a balance. People live in the East Village! There have long been bars here, but the number has gotten way out of control in the last few years. Let these business band together and form whatever council they want. The people who live here and love this neighborhood will continue to fight through our community boards, which aren't perfect but are the only outlet we have to make our opinions heard.

Brian Van said...

The entire fight over liquor licenses is about noise abatement. The demand for the business is there (it covers both bars and restaurants), no one else (other than bank branches) is taking those retail spaces, and historically these are the kind of businesses that set themselves up in a city neighborhood.

With all this considered, the fight to restrict business licenses in the downtown districts is completely absurd. You can't make the East Village noiseless. The community boards should be focused on taking a supportive, pro-business stance when addressing new business owners in the area... guiding them gently at first (then firmly if wayward) toward being good neighbors. The initial "guilty before proven innocent" attitude, and the unethical and hostile coercion tactics they use right now make me think they should all be disbanded.

Anonymous said...

It's not that we're against businesses. It's that these businesses are not doing right by the community. Mr. "Community Board are Communists" is a partner in Cienfuegos." a four part planned series of Cuban- themed bars and restaurants.

I don't know?! They didn't do so hot on their inspection from the New York City Department of Health (nyc.gov) restaurant inspection information........

Brian Van said...

Anonymous:

I don't know whether you can speak for the board or not (you seem to be attempting to do that) or residents in general, but your position doesn't make sense in the instances where the board has repeatedly, vehemently opposed licenses for both new and well-experienced operators. Remember what happened to EU? And what about the time when Frank Prisinzano tried to pursue a license for the (still empty) Graceland Deli space on 2nd & A? These decisions don't make sense, and their position doesn't serve the community well. It's a broken system run by aggressive, arrogant people. Not to mention the fact that they're fairly incompetent at preventing bad businesses from their bad behavior! (Sin-Sin, Le Souk, Superdive, etc.) The boards in the most contentious areas need to be fixed or disbanded.

EV Grieve said...

Thanks for the comments, Brian.

Good points... CB3 also rejected Michael Huynh for a license at DOB on St. Mark's back in April...

And I just don't understand how monstrosities like Diablo Royale Este, complete with a backyard space, and Billy Hurricane's get the OK... and a tiny space like Sigmund's Pretzel Shop, which closes at 8 pm, gets shot down for beer/wine.

Bowery Boy said...

So is this "trade association" really going to make the case that there are not enough bars & restaurants in the East Village? You've got to be kidding! All evidence to the contrary.

This summer CB3 gave liquor license approval to people who were going to be in the old Amato Opera space - they don't even have a lease and the space is still today For Rent today! How is this possible??? If anything, it's too easy to get CB3 approval for liquor.

The real problem is that there are too many liquor licenses, so that every time a new one is approved, it dilutes the other owners' business. Establishments share too much of the patronage available, so that only a rare few can stay open for more than 3 years. If we had fewer liquor licenses then the current establishments would have a better chance to succeed, and CB3 wouldn't have to keep giving these things out like candy. We need stronger businesses, not more businesses. And the revolving door of bars & restaurants in the area is just running CB3 ragged. Fewer licenses = stronger businesses = less work for our over burdened CB members.

I could see a way to approve more licenses, but owners must give up any ability to "transfer" or sell their licenses to new owners. It is an abuse of the law to buy & sell these things as a commodity. Old licenses must expire if you want more new licenses, or by that logic, eventually ever lot on the block will have a license.

Rocky Raccoon said...

C'mon Brian - with one sweep of his tail Rocky can hit a joint
serving martini's and steak, but when he needs his shoes repaired to
protect his back paws there isn't a cobbler left in town. Rocky
likes a drink like the next racoon and there are plenty of places to
saddle up and get one, but we also need places to buy the things we
need to live our lives 365 days a year because some of us Racoons
still live here and don't just slip in and slip out on the weekend
for some booze and grub. If every storefront serves booze and food
Rocky may as well abandon his den and move to mid-town where he can
get a Pop Tart at Pop Tart World or to the meatpacking district
where he can have shots with Paris or Lindsay look-alikes.

Anonymous said...

"Pro-business stance". They already take a Pro-business stance.
Its not that the Community Board is unfair to business
but rather that the Community Board has been unfair to the community.

The Community Board has been pro- business, established their own rules regarding the transfer of liquor licenses, granted liquor licenses to establishments that are in resolution areas and or within 500 ft. of other liquor establishments, etc..

This is from The Lo -Down the other day.
"CB3 Debates Proposed Changes in Liquor Licensing Policies"

"One member, bar owner David McWater, has passionately argued that the board should approve transfers from one owner to another almost automatically.  There’s a widespread perception that treating transfers in this way is CB3′s policy.  Last night, CB3 District Manager Susan Stetzer said, “we have created something that exists nowhere else. There is no precedent.” The report noted that every other community board (except one) treats transfers as  new license requests. CB3, it suggested, should also consider transfers to be new application

Here's an unfair example of how hard is for an establishment to acquire a liquor license and how unfair and unjust the system is to Restauranteurs, Lounge and Bar Owners.

This one block radius on Avenue A between 13th and 14th Street alone has: Destination, Phoenix, Drop Off Service, Percy's, Planet Rose, Horse Shoe Box and coming soon The Fat Buddha, formerly Forbidden City. This was a transfer.

If someone runs a bad business they should not be allowed to sell
their liquor license, but they are allowed.... and are supported..........

Kurt said...

@Bowery Boy, it's not that CB3 approves too many liquor licenses but as others have pointed out it's the inconsistent way they approve them. CB3 is responsible for the closing of Mercury Dime. When they refused to approve a beer and wine license it meant that the owners couldn't make enough money to stay open. No one that has any experience with Sasha Petraske's other establishments would believe that he would make for a bad neighbor but CB3 for reasons only known to them consistently refused to approve the license.

Anonymous said...

Is it at all possible that no one want to open up a shoe repair shop? It's not like you can't find one. I just don't expect to have one on my immediate block. We have tons of boutiques, delis, small groceries, a couple food co-ops, restaurants, bars, bookstores, record shops, tailors, etc. What is it that people really want/need other than shoe repair?

I actually thought a fish monger was a great idea, and people were so against that too. So really, this whole process confuses me and it seems abundantly clear that there is no way to please people.

blueglass said...

there have always been bars here, however, they were mostly patronized by older (mostly respectful) folks that knew the other folks that lived here (their neighbors). there were drunks, but they were quieter. patrons today mostly do not live here and have no interest in what goes on outside their small space. when the "youth" started to view this neighborhood as hip bar owners (and prospective owners) found a new clientele and bars and clubs proliferated.
even during the 60's psychedelic club explosion the clientele was more peaceful and quieter. the electric circus generated a lot of press but not the disturbance created by bars and clubs today.
if there were fewer bars and more considerate patrons there would be no problem.
unfortunately entrepreneurs see bars as a quick get rich plan and that's what we have the most of here. maybe because of the thousands of students and dorms.
let these hopeful bar owners open up where they live and let us get a good nights sleep for a change.
and let's not forget landlord greed - that has family businesses disappearing at a staggering rate, to be replaced by our only economic expansion - bars!
shoemakers, bodegas, cleaning stores, travel agents, fabric stores, all in one stores - i could go on forever about what we have lost in this neighborhood.
wouldn't mind a few bars and clubs being replaced

RyanAvenueA said...

@anon 3:47. Thank you for making me laugh with the possibility that no one wants to be a cobbler on Avenue A. I wonder if the SLA would approve a candlestick maker with a beer & wine. Perhaps that's my niche.

Anonymous said...

I'd say the community boards have a pro-business stance and so do the residents of the East Village. I think what these guys want is a pro-bar stance. We've got enough bars. The neighborhood could use other types of businesses. And I agree with the previous poster who talked about how there being so many bars makes it hard for any of them to survive more than a few years.

Jill said...

Warning: long post broken over 2 comments due to space.

There seems to be some confusion about the "power" that the community board has, which is not very much. Also, this article, and the commenters here, make it sound like the community board gets to approve every business that opens! Simply untrue. Anybody can open a restaurant, you don't need to go in front of the community board for that, only for the liquor license.

The community board doesn't approve or disapprove liquor licenses -- they make a recommendation to the state SLA about whether they thinks it's a state licensed vendor that they would like or not like to see approved in that particular location. The SLA makes the final decision, not the community board.

A fishmonger is indeed a great idea, but that isn't what the Community Board rejected. They rejected approving a bar and restaurant that also said they would sell fish. The owner said he couldn't make a living selling fish unless he also sold cocktails. Unfortunately, the location he had in mind has six other bars and nightclubs right on the same block, and at least a dozen more within 500 feet. And finally, it is a location that doesn't fall under the "transfer" status which is essentially a green light by the Community Board to approve. So if you are in a spot with a liquor license, you can "sell" your license for a ton of money to the next owner (and the landlord gets a cut). The fish guy's place is in an area with a moratorium on new licenses due to the high density of licensed establishments. He would have no problem if he found a spot that already was licensed. I am sure he wants this one because the rent is cheap because the landlord knows how hard it's going to be to get a license, and also because he doesn't have to pay the previous owner to "buy" the license.

Jill said...

There is a state law that there shouldn't be more than 3 liquor licenses within 500 feet (about 1 1/2 blocks radius). It is supposed to be that if there were to be more than this density then the owner has to show a community benefit. They never defined what that means, which is where it gets slippery. This rule is haphazardly enforced and is a mockery.

The state issues these licenses for the reason of controlling who can and can't sell liquor, and it is the responsibility of the community to decide what kind of density of these licenses they want.
It is true that it is unfair as to who gets the CB's greenlight for a license. It often depends on which board members show up for the meeting that month. I can't overstate how unfair it is.

A community has a right to try to determine its path. We live in a city with no enforcement of zoning. Technically we are zoned for retailers that serve the residents, not as an entertainment zone (ie like Times Square). The retailers in a neighborhood ultimately define the kind of place it is. It's weird if you think too hard about it, but it's true. Those people who don't want to live in Times Square think that there are enough bars already, and the quality of life has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years with this next wave of gentrification. The quality of life has improved for people who eat out every night and are pub crawling looking for a hookup, and ultimately a life partner. Two different demographics at a merging point.

This used to be a residential neighborhood before it was an NYU college campus, and the people who have lived here for a long time, and are raising their children here would like to live in a place that serves them and their families in addition to the college kids and the tourists. From what I've seen, the majority of the people who want more bars are those that are here for a year or two while they are in college or grad school. They will move on, so they have no interest in the character of the neighborhood or the services it provides to the residents for the long term. (There are of course exceptions to that overarching statement, and most of them are bar owners or bartenders.) If they do decide to stay, as they have kids and grow up, they too will wish for a wider variety of neighborhood services, fresh food at good prices and all the other things that residents like about the convenience of living in a city.

The idea that the community board isn't friendly to businesses is silly. Why is it that the only business defined here is a bar or licensed restaurant? Last I checked there were plenty of other types of businesses that don't need anybody's approval. But then you have to find a landlord who is willing to accept a reasonable rent for another kind of business. Apparently, people will pay ridiculous amounts for liquor, and the landlords have their hands all over that. They are the only winners in this game. They let their stores remain empty, hoping for a bar so they can get top dollar. They reject other offers at lower rents because they can get tax write-offs as a business loss when a store is empty.

For those lamenting the lack of bars in the East Village, you should come to the Community Board and speak your mind. If 20-30 bars within a 2 block radius isn't enough choice for you, then I would really like to understand why.

Jill said...

There is a state law that there shouldn't be more than 3 liquor licenses within 500 feet (about 1 1/2 blocks radius). It is supposed to be that if there were to be more than this density then the owner has to show a community benefit. They never defined what that means, which is where it gets slippery. This rule is haphazardly enforced and is a mockery.

The state issues these licenses for the reason of controlling who can and can't sell liquor, and it is the responsibility of the community to decide what kind of density of these licenses they want.
It is true that it is unfair as to who gets the CB's greenlight for a license. It often depends on which board members show up for the meeting that month. I can't overstate how unfair it is.

A community has a right to try to determine its path. We live in a city with no enforcement of zoning. Technically we are zoned for retailers that serve the residents, not as an entertainment zone (ie like Times Square). The retailers in a neighborhood ultimately define the kind of place it is. It's weird if you think too hard about it, but it's true. Those people who don't want to live in Times Square think that there are enough bars already, and the quality of life has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years with this next wave of gentrification. The quality of life has improved for people who eat out every night and are pub crawling looking for a hookup, and ultimately a life partner. Two different demographics at a merging point.

EV Grieve said...

Thanks for the background and thoughtful responses, Jill...

Also, the Community Board needs to approve these comments.