http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-09-14/story/proposal-would-make-it-easier-small-restaurants-serve-liquor
QuoteRestaurants — whose kitchens stay open during business hours and earn the majority of their revenue from food sales — can sell hard alcohol without the expensive and tightly-controlled liquor licenses held by bars and package stores. But the 150-seat and 2,500 square-foot minimum requirements for the special licenses have excluded small local eateries.
The Riverside and Avondale Preservation organization and two city council members are pushing a plan to lower the requirements for restaurants in nine commercial areas in Riverside and Avondale to just 100 seats and 1,800 square feet.
This was covered in the New Club - Park & King post... so I'll just put what I said here as well:
"It's not easy finding space for 100 seats and 1,800 Sq ft, and it's not that economical. If you go to places in other cities (NY Chicago, LA SF), you see plenty of 25-60 seat places. 100 seats is a lot of seats. and the area they are talking about doesn't lend itself to too many more than the already scoped out Casbah and Biscotti's. This is just an end run around the interests that squelched the special legislation last session, it's not designed to actively encourage adaptive reuse of retail spaces, or spur restaurant entrepreneurship. Which is exactly what you would expect from Jim Love and RAP."
Ask yourself why 100 seats and not 99? Why 1,800 feet and not 1,700, or 1,600 or 1,400????
I was in Brew today, this is a typical size in most cities for a small restaurant. They have less than 50 seats and make good use of the space. Would they benefit from the huge mark up on liquor ($20 bottle, 25 oz = 16 1.5 oz cocktails at $8 a pop = $128 revenue or $1.25 cost and $6.75 gross profit a serving) over beer ($5 beer = $1.00 cost and $4 gross per serving)? How many other 1,000 foot storefront spaces could be good little 30 seat restaurants if they had the ability to make ends meet with some cocktails?
Places like this 21 seater in LA http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/no-tipping-no-reservations-no-phone-at-petit-trois-4880104
(https://lechatdodu.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/p1020647.jpg)
and the tiny bar area
(http://www.bunrab.com/dailyfeed/dailyfeed_images_15-06June/df15_06_07_bar%202.jpg)
You just don't have enough volume in jax with only food and beer to make much of a go otherwise.
Quote from: Sentient on September 15, 2015, 08:46:05 PM
You just don't have enough volume in jax with only food and beer to make much of a go otherwise.
Damn good point.
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 16, 2015, 09:37:18 AM
Sounds like a great idea to me.
It's a better result than before but it is hardly great. This is the typical Jacksonville Way that frankly actively discourages greatness.
First - try a secret self-deal among a couple of preferred business interests and cozy political relationships.
Second - have this anti competition plan blow up amidst much extra cost and recrimination.
Third - insiders hastily contrive a "compromise" that on the surface looks better than what we had before.
Fourth - proclaim victory and commence back slapping by the pols and RAP for doing the work to "help small business be more successful".
Now a GREAT result would probably start with a careful examination of why we have the existing restrictions to begin with, develop an understanding of why these restrictions impede business growth and then come out with a fully vetted proposal that involves input from the communities, landlords, banks (financing) and entrepreneurs.
Would THAT kind of dialogue and process result in something as arbitrary as 100 seats and 1,800 sq feet? This isn't Romania, we don't need half measures. Why are Jacksonvillians so happy to so often get so little?
Quote from: Sentient on September 16, 2015, 01:30:25 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 16, 2015, 09:37:18 AM
Sounds like a great idea to me.
It's a better result than before but it is hardly great. This is the typical Jacksonville Way that frankly actively discourages greatness.
First - try a secret self-deal among a couple of preferred business interests and cozy political relationships.
Second - have this anti competition plan blow up amidst much extra cost and recrimination.
Third - insiders hastily contrive a "compromise" that on the surface looks better than what we had before.
Fourth - proclaim victory and commence back slapping by the pols and RAP for doing the work to "help small business be more successful".
Now a GREAT result would probably start with a careful examination of why we have the existing restrictions to begin with, develop an understanding of why these restrictions impede business growth and then come out with a fully vetted proposal that involves input from the communities, landlords, banks (financing) and entrepreneurs.
Would THAT kind of dialogue and process result in something as arbitrary as 100 seats and 1,800 sq feet? This isn't Romania, we don't need half measures. Why are Jacksonvillians so happy to so often get so little?
You just pissed off a few lawyers/lobbyists that make millions off that 4 step plan. You just published the playbook!
The more you think about the time and money wasted the more unreal it seems... Nearly two years now to this point. What will the net effect be of all the lawyers, lobbyists, favors, political capital and dollars spent? Two shoe in establishments get what they want and maybe a couple of others. That's it.
Imagine if the same amount of money was spent over the last two years taking a look at something holistic for the entire area, a ground up re-examination of alcohol sales laws, public consumption laws etc. We might have set Jax up as a real restaurant and nightlife destination.. opened a dozen new places. Raised real estate values. Increased employment.
Jim Love and the council are weak tits... and RAP should be disbanded for chronic meddling and hypocrisy.
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
LOL
RAP knew of the "first one" and was completely silent.... hmmmm. Weren't silent on other alcohol projects with "intensifying" uses. and were against recent Park & King club. It's complete and utter bullshit that they can choose to be kingmaker or breaker depending on if they "like" the project.
and the seat minimum at 100... well let's just speculate that the other J Bills were simply modeled on the lowest seats approved in other counties with an idea of pointing to it and saying "well you approved them" no real thought went into whether 100 is the right number over say 90 or 110. And also be aware that the original downtown and Five Points sponsors all met the 100 seat requirement so the number for them was moot.
Funny that when the SUPERBOWL was coming and the council woke up and realized there were like no places to drink downtown in THE BOLD NEW CITY OF THE SOUTH they created a zone and approved a bunch of special licenses (BB's for one).
Don't you deserve better?
Quote from: Sentient on September 16, 2015, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
LOL
RAP knew of the "first one" and was completely silent.... hmmmm. for one).
Didn't say that ether. Actually, RAP was approached for the first J-Bill (they wanted RAP's backing), and RAP responded by saying, "We support J-Bills in all commercial character areas." The idea was exactly why it failed. They didn't want to support something that benefits just two businesses.
I'm pretty well versed on this one (and I have ZERO financial gain), so if you'd like to PM me, happy to chat about it with you.
Steve
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Sentient on September 16, 2015, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
LOL
RAP knew of the "first one" and was completely silent.... hmmmm. for one).
Didn't say that ether. Actually, RAP was approached for the first J-Bill (they wanted RAP's backing), and RAP responded by saying, "We support J-Bills in all commercial character areas." The idea was exactly why it failed. They didn't want to support something that benefits just two businesses.
I'm pretty well versed on this one (and I have ZERO financial gain), so if you'd like to PM me, happy to chat about it with you.
Steve
So RAP was aware (as I indicated), didn't actively support the carve out deal - but - and this is the Jax Way - did give the wink and NOT COME OUT AGAINST IT. Like you know - other projects with intensifying uses.
Like Casbah needs to add space to get to even 100 seats (which they have leased and not renovated) so it would very clearly be intensifying use, not just changing the menu, and while they put MM through the ringer and other places, here they sit on their hands when they COULD have
a) come out against a side deal they didn't philosophically support; and
b) ACTIVELY promoted a better/wider solutions which incorporated more opinions than their own and other insider's...
Hence we get another shitty half measure instead of something GREAT, and 2 year delay. These things don't happen by accident.
Keep it in the open, no need to PM.
Currently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
Biscottis likely good candidate- perhaps with a good snort of Joe Daniels the sewage stink would seem to dissipate.
I've got a great idea, plan- but it will entail five seat establishments. Why not? 8)
Shucks,let's be really amazing; Let private residences fill the role.Parked a block away from the Shoppes??......skip St Johns Avenue!....watch for the private resident signs,even,of course,special Avondale Residence Drink,Dine & More App! Welcome! Good drink,food,priced right and likely better than what is garnered a block away.Quality outside seating options,even fire pit.
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 08:16:50 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Sentient on September 16, 2015, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
LOL
RAP knew of the "first one" and was completely silent.... hmmmm. for one).
Didn't say that ether. Actually, RAP was approached for the first J-Bill (they wanted RAP's backing), and RAP responded by saying, "We support J-Bills in all commercial character areas." The idea was exactly why it failed. They didn't want to support something that benefits just two businesses.
I'm pretty well versed on this one (and I have ZERO financial gain), so if you'd like to PM me, happy to chat about it with you.
Steve
So RAP was aware (as I indicated), didn't actively support the carve out deal - but - and this is the Jax Way - did give the wink and NOT COME OUT AGAINST IT. Like you know - other projects with intensifying uses.
Like Casbah needs to add space to get to even 100 seats (which they have leased and not renovated) so it would very clearly be intensifying use, not just changing the menu, and while they put MM through the ringer and other places, here they sit on their hands when they COULD have
a) come out against a side deal they didn't philosophically support; and
b) ACTIVELY promoted a better/wider solutions which incorporated more opinions than their own and other insider's...
Hence we get another shitty half measure instead of something GREAT, and 2 year delay. These things don't happen by accident.
Keep it in the open, no need to PM.
Sentient: I agree transparency is important. Is Sentient your name? If not, does transparency include letting people know who the individual is behind the postings?
Quote from: Kay on September 17, 2015, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 08:16:50 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Sentient on September 16, 2015, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
LOL
RAP knew of the "first one" and was completely silent.... hmmmm. for one).
Didn't say that ether. Actually, RAP was approached for the first J-Bill (they wanted RAP's backing), and RAP responded by saying, "We support J-Bills in all commercial character areas." The idea was exactly why it failed. They didn't want to support something that benefits just two businesses.
I'm pretty well versed on this one (and I have ZERO financial gain), so if you'd like to PM me, happy to chat about it with you.
Steve
So RAP was aware (as I indicated), didn't actively support the carve out deal - but - and this is the Jax Way - did give the wink and NOT COME OUT AGAINST IT. Like you know - other projects with intensifying uses.
Like Casbah needs to add space to get to even 100 seats (which they have leased and not renovated) so it would very clearly be intensifying use, not just changing the menu, and while they put MM through the ringer and other places, here they sit on their hands when they COULD have
a) come out against a side deal they didn't philosophically support; and
b) ACTIVELY promoted a better/wider solutions which incorporated more opinions than their own and other insider's...
Hence we get another shitty half measure instead of something GREAT, and 2 year delay. These things don't happen by accident.
Keep it in the open, no need to PM.
Sentient: I agree transparency is important. Is Sentient your name? If not, does transparency include letting people know who the individual is behind the postings?
Kay (last name withheld) thinks transparency is important on anonymous message boards...
Duly noted :eyerolliest eyeroll emoji
Because you know it's not truth if you don't know who is saying it. Here's a tip - If you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation, please do feel free to just read (even slowly and with your lips moving!) and refrain from cluttering up the post with nonsense...
Quote from: Know Growth on September 17, 2015, 08:26:58 AM
Currently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
Biscottis likely good candidate- perhaps with a good snort of Joe Daniels the sewage stink would seem to dissipate.
I've got a great idea, plan- but it will entail five seat establishments. Why not? 8)
Shucks,let's be really amazing; Let private residences fill the role.Parked a block away from the Shoppes??......skip St Johns Avenue!....watch for the private resident signs,even,of course,special Avondale Residence Drink,Dine & More App! Welcome! Good drink,food,priced right and likely better than what is garnered a block away.Quality outside seating options,even fire pit.
speaking of nonsense - i refer you to the entirety of KnowGrowth's post. Look man, I know your schtick is to post outrageous half baked incoherent rants... so I know any kind of tempered, lucid response to you is just so much piss in the wind... but I will humor you for the later lolz today.
Please explain why it's OK for a business to serve the Duval Demon Hard Spirits (this will likely be the name of any distillery I start - come to think of it) if they have the magic 100 seats and 1,800 sq ft while it is WRONG WRONG WRONG for the building to the left with 90 seats and the building to the right with 1,700 sq ft to serve it?
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 09:24:21 AM
Kay (last name withheld) thinks transparency is important on anonymous message boards...
Duly noted :eyerolliest eyeroll emoji
Probably because everyone already knows who she is.
Quote from: Josh on September 17, 2015, 10:14:40 AM
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 09:24:21 AM
Kay (last name withheld) thinks transparency is important on anonymous message boards...
Duly noted :eyerolliest eyeroll emoji
Probably because everyone already knows who she is.
I figured some inside baseball brite spark would say something trivial and stupid like this. Feel free to post your full names and addresses if you wish, does not lend any authority to what you're NOT saying...
But this whole thrust of the conversation underscores the OP - Jax is an insider - wink wink - special favor - don't make waves town. That is if you know the 'right" people.
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 08:16:50 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Sentient on September 16, 2015, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
RAP wasn't involved with the first one. That was done by Biscotti's and Casbah.
As far as the 100 seats, that precedent was set by the downtown and five points version, which is 100 seats.
LOL
RAP knew of the "first one" and was completely silent.... hmmmm. for one).
Didn't say that ether. Actually, RAP was approached for the first J-Bill (they wanted RAP's backing), and RAP responded by saying, "We support J-Bills in all commercial character areas." The idea was exactly why it failed. They didn't want to support something that benefits just two businesses.
I'm pretty well versed on this one (and I have ZERO financial gain), so if you'd like to PM me, happy to chat about it with you.
Steve
So RAP was aware (as I indicated), didn't actively support the carve out deal - but - and this is the Jax Way - did give the wink and NOT COME OUT AGAINST IT. Like you know - other projects with intensifying uses.
Like Casbah needs to add space to get to even 100 seats (which they have leased and not renovated) so it would very clearly be intensifying use, not just changing the menu, and while they put MM through the ringer and other places, here they sit on their hands when they COULD have
a) come out against a side deal they didn't philosophically support; and
b) ACTIVELY promoted a better/wider solutions which incorporated more opinions than their own and other insider's...
Hence we get another shitty half measure instead of something GREAT, and 2 year delay. These things don't happen by accident.
Keep it in the open, no need to PM.
Okay.
I think this is a positive change, and should be passed, but with the caveat that it should apply to Riverside/Avondale as a whole and not to 2 specific restaurants. Dinner at places like 13 Gypsies and the new Pattaya would be better with cocktails instead of just beer and wine. Encouraging smaller places by leveling the playing field would also diversify options and diversify the geographic clustering, which eliminates some of the parking "problem" I don't think really exists but people still complain about.
Bottom line, if used right, this would be a net plus.
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 09:32:13 AM
Quote from: Know Growth on September 17, 2015, 08:26:58 AM
Currently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
Biscottis likely good candidate- perhaps with a good snort of Joe Daniels the sewage stink would seem to dissipate.
I've got a great idea, plan- but it will entail five seat establishments. Why not? 8)
Shucks,let's be really amazing; Let private residences fill the role.Parked a block away from the Shoppes??......skip St Johns Avenue!....watch for the private resident signs,even,of course,special Avondale Residence Drink,Dine & More App! Welcome! Good drink,food,priced right and likely better than what is garnered a block away.Quality outside seating options,even fire pit.
Please explain why it's OK for a business to serve the Duval Demon Hard Spirits (this will likely be the name of any distillery I start - come to think of it) if they have the magic 100 seats and 1,800 sq ft while it is WRONG WRONG WRONG for the building to the left with 90 seats and the building to the right with 1,700 sq ft to serve it?
In fact,no probem with it.Just pontificating on narcissism.
The possible intent is to reduce 'scale','need' for large seating capacity. Assuming we can in fact accommodate further bites out of the Community Commons. Why was the current Liquor Law threshold established in the first place? Why not a commercial establishment as small as "5"?
Why do we need more than five hard liquor locations within The Shoppes?? Six? Seven? Eight? Nine? Ten? Eleven?Twelve?.........
Quote from: Know Growth on September 21, 2015, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Sentient on September 17, 2015, 09:32:13 AM
Quote from: Know Growth on September 17, 2015, 08:26:58 AM
Currently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
Biscottis likely good candidate- perhaps with a good snort of Joe Daniels the sewage stink would seem to dissipate.
I've got a great idea, plan- but it will entail five seat establishments. Why not? 8)
Shucks,let's be really amazing; Let private residences fill the role.Parked a block away from the Shoppes??......skip St Johns Avenue!....watch for the private resident signs,even,of course,special Avondale Residence Drink,Dine & More App! Welcome! Good drink,food,priced right and likely better than what is garnered a block away.Quality outside seating options,even fire pit.
Please explain why it's OK for a business to serve the Duval Demon Hard Spirits (this will likely be the name of any distillery I start - come to think of it) if they have the magic 100 seats and 1,800 sq ft while it is WRONG WRONG WRONG for the building to the left with 90 seats and the building to the right with 1,700 sq ft to serve it?
In fact,no probem with it.Just pontificating on narcissism.
The possible intent is to reduce 'scale','need' for large seating capacity. Assuming we can in fact accommodate further bites out of the Community Commons. Why was the current Liquor Law threshold established in the first place? Why not a commercial establishment as small as "5"?
Why do we need more than five hard liquor locations within The Shoppes?? Six? Seven? Eight? Nine? Ten? Eleven?Twelve?.........
There is no Community Commons. It's all private property. None of your tax dollars are going towards Shoppes, or Kind St or 5 Points.
as to your other points - why indeed? Moral superiority and trade restriction.
QuoteCurrently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
The problem with the bill that it would extend the entirety of the district. So from Fishweir creek all the way through Riverside to Riverside Park, including the 5 points district, Park & King, John Gorrie condo area, Shoppes of Avondale, Orsay area, down to Herschel/St. Johns.
Throughout the entire area, are residents jumping up and down demanding more craft cocktails? I don't see the demand for this by the residents in the district, the only ones I see pushing this are (good people still) Ben Davis, Allen DeVault, and other restaurant/bar owners. If you can get a new business that caters to the 20 and 30 somethings coming out of King street and 5-points, heck yeah, you are going to setup more bars/er, restaurants and pretty soon, that is what you have, and no retail to speak of.
I am sure Lake or Simms can pull out examples of these kinds of places, but you need a balance in a neighborhood to have a good one with property values rising. Just as the previous bill only benefited a couple, this benefits a few more, look and see who this bill really benefits - the distributors and the restaurateurs.
I am ashamed that RAP and Jim Love have thrown their support behind this, without holding any meetings to discuss.
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 22, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
QuoteCurrently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
The problem with the bill that it would extend the entirety of the district. So from Fishweir creek all the way through Riverside to Riverside Park, including the 5 points district, Park & King, John Gorrie condo area, Shoppes of Avondale, Orsay area, down to Herschel/St. Johns.
Throughout the entire area, are residents jumping up and down demanding more craft cocktails? I don't see the demand for this by the residents in the district, the only ones I see pushing this are (good people still) Ben Davis, Allen DeVault, and other restaurant/bar owners. If you can get a new business that caters to the 20 and 30 somethings coming out of King street and 5-points, heck yeah, you are going to setup more bars/er, restaurants and pretty soon, that is what you have, and no retail to speak of.
I am sure Lake or Simms can pull out examples of these kinds of places, but you need a balance in a neighborhood to have a good one with property values rising. Just as the previous bill only benefited a couple, this benefits a few more, look and see who this bill really benefits - the distributors and the restaurateurs.
I am ashamed that RAP and Jim Love have thrown their support behind this, without holding any meetings to discuss.
The bill is a fake out. Yes it is more than Biscotti's and Casbah but it will only cover a few more places at 100 seats and 1,800 sq ft. It's designed to limit implementation on a broad scale but still "feel" progressive.
Think about it this way:
-Riverside and Avondale aren't a secret. This is overall a great thing.
-Independent restaurants are at a disadvantage currently. Many small places can't do 150 seats. Franchises and chains usually can with no problem.
-This proposal does nothing to harm those folks.
-More restaurants are coming. This is definitely not a bad thing, however I don't think it's a good thing for a historic district to have any regulation that favors larger restaurants over smaller ones.
-This proposal doesn't favor any restaurant. It helps anyone that wants to open in a commercial district in Riverside or Avondale (complaint of the one two years ago).
-The 100 number is from precedent. Downtown and five points have this already. Nothing that is being done prevents going back and saying that say, 75 or 50 is the right number. Or, maybe there should be no seating limit. Bottom line is that there's nothing preventing someone from going further.
Outside of concern that perhaps there should be no limit, or a smaller than 100 limit, I've yet to hear what any negative is from this.
Quote from: mtraininjax on September 22, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
QuoteCurrently we only have five liquor servers at the Shoppes Of Avondale. Silly ol' backward Jacksonville! Travesty!
The problem with the bill that it would extend the entirety of the district. So from Fishweir creek all the way through Riverside to Riverside Park, including the 5 points district, Park & King, John Gorrie condo area, Shoppes of Avondale, Orsay area, down to Herschel/St. Johns.
Throughout the entire area, are residents jumping up and down demanding more craft cocktails? I don't see the demand for this by the residents in the district, the only ones I see pushing this are (good people still) Ben Davis, Allen DeVault, and other restaurant/bar owners. If you can get a new business that caters to the 20 and 30 somethings coming out of King street and 5-points, heck yeah, you are going to setup more bars/er, restaurants and pretty soon, that is what you have, and no retail to speak of.
I am sure Lake or Simms can pull out examples of these kinds of places, but you need a balance in a neighborhood to have a good one with property values rising. Just as the previous bill only benefited a couple, this benefits a few more, look and see who this bill really benefits - the distributors and the restaurateurs.
I am ashamed that RAP and Jim Love have thrown their support behind this, without holding any meetings to discuss.
You know, the political reality of it is you have a guy with unlimited resources to throw at it, who's made it his pet project to see that the original version of this J bill, which benefitted exactly 2 restaurant owners and nobody else, doesn't get passed. I think at this point everybody needs to accept it and move forward with getting what they can get. While it's always nice to be able to successfully pull off competition-by-legislation, it would have slid through without anybody knowing about it before, but now it's been so well publicized (and public opinion isn't positive) that whatever happens will receive a lot of attention. I think the current proposal makes the most sense, and given the background, is all that's going to get passed anyway.
Sentient deserves some kind of civic award. Seriously. Bang on the money.
A host of 'players' that will not comment here, let alone even view.
And Avondale residents not only with the 'resources', but also harboring the propensity to engage with land use & zone matters.
Quote from: simonsays on September 23, 2015, 02:33:55 PM
Sentient deserves some kind of civic award. Seriously. Bang on the money.
I'd just like to see the potential for all businesses and the area realized. Why can't you get a Bloody Mary on saturday morning in The Fox, but now you can across the street at Mellow, or the Brick or Blufish and will soon at Biscotti's and Casbah?
Answer - because they have 80 seats? WTF sense does this all make?
And who appointed RAP an meddler in chief on these issues? RAP is just a strong arm private lobbying group.
Answer me this though....how does lowering the existing requirement of 150 to 100 hurt?
Quote from: Sentient on September 24, 2015, 07:27:33 AM
Quote from: simonsays on September 23, 2015, 02:33:55 PM
Sentient deserves some kind of civic award. Seriously. Bang on the money.
I'd just like to see the potential for all businesses and the area realized. Why can't you get a Bloody Mary on saturday morning in The Fox, but now you can across the street at Mellow, or the Brick or Blufish and will soon at Biscotti's and Casbah?
Answer - because they have 80 seats? WTF sense does this all make?
And who appointed RAP an meddler in chief on these issues? RAP is just a strong arm private lobbying group.
I will certainly not disagree with you. The arbitrary 150 seat/2500sf requirement for an SRX license is foolish. However, if you are a restaurant owner and spent a great deal of time and money identifying and renovating a space large enough to meet that requirement, you may be a little miffed that the rules are being changed.
Quote from: MEGATRON on September 24, 2015, 09:01:24 AM
Quote from: Sentient on September 24, 2015, 07:27:33 AM
Quote from: simonsays on September 23, 2015, 02:33:55 PM
Sentient deserves some kind of civic award. Seriously. Bang on the money.
I'd just like to see the potential for all businesses and the area realized. Why can't you get a Bloody Mary on saturday morning in The Fox, but now you can across the street at Mellow, or the Brick or Blufish and will soon at Biscotti's and Casbah?
Answer - because they have 80 seats? WTF sense does this all make?
And who appointed RAP an meddler in chief on these issues? RAP is just a strong arm private lobbying group.
I will certainly not disagree with you. The arbitrary 150 seat/2500sf requirement for an SRX license is foolish. However, if you are a restaurant owner and spent a great deal of time and money identifying and renovating a space large enough to meet that requirement, you may be a little miffed that the rules are being changed.
Yeah, that's called business. You don't get a fixed guarantee of your future conditions when you step up to the window and buy your ticket -- odds change. If you're someone who built out a big space and you're doing well, then more traffic is only going to help, not hurt. If you're someone who built out a big space and you're not doing well, then you need to look at what you're doing relative to the market -- it's not them, it's you. So long as the rules are applied to the entire market (and government, quasi-government and the various meddlers aren't involved in picking winners and giving preferences), then that's the way it goes.
One thing to remember is that an SRX (restaurant type) liquor license requires that the restaurant maintain at least a 51% food to alcohol sales ratio.
It must be a bona fide restaurant that has a menu available the entire time that alcohol sales are taking place. This will differentiate it from a stand alone bar (4COP) license which does not require any food sales.
The fewer the seats the less food will be sold. So the potential problem would be maintaining the 51/49% ratio. Not impossible to accomplish but maybe a reason why the state came up with the number of seats and square footage requirements.
And remember that alcohol is a very heavily regulated industry.
Quote from: marksjax on September 24, 2015, 09:23:26 AM
One thing to remember is that an SRX (restaurant type) liquor license requires that the restaurant maintain at least a 51% food to alcohol sales ratio.
It must be a bona fide restaurant that has a menu available the entire time that alcohol sales are taking place. This will differentiate it from a stand alone bar (4COP) license which does not require any food sales.
Just a question, but are wine sales figured differently? Is there a way to differentiate from bottle sales v/s BTG?
With an SRX license wine, beer and liquor sales are counted as one category and not broken down as such.
With a 2COP (beer and wine) license there is no 51/49 rule. With that license you can sell more alcohol than food (I believe it doesn't matter). And beer and wine licenses have a lower bar to pass as regards zoning, etc.
It is the liquor sales that seem to be the trigger for all of these laws and different classes of licenses.
Remember alcohol in general and liquor in particular are still viewed as a negative in many communities. Thus all the zoning laws in place to restrict their location and by doing that limiting the sheer number of places that sell hooch. That is the real motivation.
Quote from: Steve on September 24, 2015, 07:53:06 AM
Answer me this though....how does lowering the existing requirement of 150 to 100 hurt?
Are you asking me? Lowering the requirement is Ok... but it is still anti-competition and all the players know it. So "lowering" it to a bar (heh) only a few can pass by design is wrong. And doubly wrong to claim this is some boon to small business, it's a boon to only a few.
The entire requirement should be scrapped.
I have to say that I'm in agreement with Sentient 1,000% on this. Does lowering an arbitrary number of required seats help some? Sure, but that's trying to fix the results of an ongoing problem rather than fixing the problem itself, if one exists.
Since the SRX licenses are based around a food to alcohol sales ratio, why not focus the attention on the actual kitchen rather than the number of people who can be seated.
You want to open a full service restaurant with alcohol sales that only seats 20 people? Great. Here's a list of the basic minimums your kitchen is going to require. Exhaust fans, grease traps, walk-ins, etc... You can still fit into existing building stock, but the upfront costs will prohibit the scammers looking to sell $4 shots of Jack Daniels and $20 ham & cheese sandwiches on paper plates.
At the risk of stating the obvious I will say that the reason behind wanting to upgrade to full liquor service is primarily financial.
The profit margins of restaurants are typically very low. In many cases the old industry adage of 'break even on the food and make your profit on the alcohol sales' is never more true than today.
I have worked for and know other examples of high profile restaurants that originally started with beer and wine only and didn't sell liquor as it was not something they wanted to do. But they finally switched that train of thought when the reality hits that while they were busy places there just wasn't hardly any profit at the end of the year. That changed when they did finally make the switch to an SRX license that allowed liquor sales. In many cases it is the only way to remain open.
The food business is brutal.
Quote from: Ming The Merciless on September 24, 2015, 09:11:57 AM
Yeah, that's called business. You don't get a fixed guarantee of your future conditions when you step up to the window and buy your ticket -- odds change. If you're someone who built out a big space and you're doing well, then more traffic is only going to help, not hurt. If you're someone who built out a big space and you're not doing well, then you need to look at what you're doing relative to the market -- it's not them, it's you. So long as the rules are applied to the entire market (and government, quasi-government and the various meddlers aren't involved in picking winners and giving preferences), then that's the way it goes.
+ 1 This stuff should be obvious, America.....
RAP is involved in hopes of reducing future large scale proposals.
But it appears not much more insight will appear on a Forum. We rarely, if ever see here posts from Dr. Wood, RAP directors, board members and countless Rappers who are ready to respond, check book in hand, in the event Land Use & Zone decision Appeal is in order.
Quote from: Know Growth on September 25, 2015, 09:19:43 PM
RAP is involved in hopes of reducing future large scale proposals.
But it appears not much more insight will appear on a Forum. We rarely, if ever see here posts from Dr. Wood, RAP directors, board members and countless Rappers who are ready to respond, check book in hand, in the event Land Use & Zone decision Appeal is in order.
Damn, KG, that was.... coherent and to the point.
I'm gonna take a wild guess, but you must already be at about.... 8 fingers? ;)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 25, 2015, 10:24:16 PM
Quote from: Know Growth on September 25, 2015, 09:19:43 PM
RAP is involved in hopes of reducing future large scale proposals.
But it appears not much more insight will appear on a Forum. We rarely, if ever see here posts from Dr. Wood, RAP directors, board members and countless Rappers who are ready to respond, check book in hand, in the event Land Use & Zone decision Appeal is in order.
Damn, KG, that was.... coherent and to the point.
I'm gonna take a wild guess, but you must already be at about.... 8 fingers? ;)
No hard stuff, only one (middle) finger ;)
I was going to utilize the word "propensity" but opted out,no doubt some would stumble, assume the poster was "In Coherant".