Proposal for small restaurants in Riverside/Avondale to serve liquor

[Josh]

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.

[Sentient]

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.

[Steve]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Know Growth]

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?   

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?.........

[Sentient]

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?   

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.

[mtraininjax]

Currently 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.

[Sentient]

Currently 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.

[Steve]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

Currently 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.

[simonsays]

Sentient deserves some kind of civic award.  Seriously. Bang on the money.

[Know Growth]

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.

[Sentient]

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.

[Steve]

Answer me this though....how does lowering the existing requirement of 150 to 100 hurt?

[MEGATRON]

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.