But this is likely much more descriptive ...
"Applications within Saturated Areas."
I like "Applications within Woooooooo! Areas." But that is likely too large an area.
Here's a list of those areas via the CB3 website:
Community Board 3 has listed the following areas where oversaturation of licensed business has negatively affected the quality of life of residents. CB 3 believes these areas are problem areas because of oversaturation, and we have a policy to not approve new licenses or expansions in these areas unless the applicants show public benefit or strong support from residents living in the immediate area (adjoining, above, across the street from and behind the business).
An exception to this policy is applications for beer wine licenses for businesses that will close by midnight, agree to never apply for full liquor licenses and meet other requirements.
1. [ 99 - 192 ] Ludlow Street between Houston Street and Delancey Street.
2. [ 85 - 138 ] St. Marks Place between First Avenue and Avenue A.
3. 12 St. Marks Place, for which there have been persistent community complaints throughout its history as a licensed establishment.
4. [ 1 - 73 ] Clinton Street between Houston Street and Rivington Street.
5. [ 500 - 599 ] Sixth Street between Avenue A and Avenue B.
6. Avenue A between Houston Street and Fourteenth Street.
7. [ 85 - 130 ] Rivington Street between Norfolk Street and Orchard Street.
8. Avenue B between Houston Street and Fourteenth Street.
9. Avenue C between Houston Street and Fourteenth Street.
10. [ 10 - 31 ] First Avenue between First Street and Second Street.
11. [ 144 - 202 ] Orchard Street between Houston Street and Rivington Street.
12. [ 1 - 37 ] St. Mark’s Place between Second Avenue and Third Avenue.
13. [ 183 - 242 ] Fourth Street between Avenue A and Avenue B.
14. [ 27 - 74 ] First Street between First Avenue and Second Avenue.
H/T Shawn Chittle
5 comments:
They need to be more specific than "All of Avenues A, B & C"
Also, I like how 12 St. Marks Place gets its own callout here. You have now given any new responsible operator a free trip to the SLA with that, because there's no way the SLA can deny a license when the reason would be "the previous tenants were trouble". I understand that continuing problems would make the board familiar with, and wary of, that space... but there needs to be a different way to approach that problem.
Also, the "agree to never apply for full liquor licenses" part of the policy exception... well, if the place is open for a couple years and wants a bump from beer to full... why would the board be vehemently against that, permanently? That's a strict policy that doesn't seem to make sense unless you think that hard liquor creates more WOOOOOOOOOOOO!. Hate to say it but most of those guys are drinking beer, & would gargle mouthwash if it got them drunk.
HEAR HEAR!
it's pretty obvious that hard liquor creates more Wooo.
I mean.
Duh.
They should reduce the hours of all the places operating currently in these areas to midnight as well
it's everywhere. isnt that a bit unfair?
Post a Comment