A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Partial Liquor License Ban on Bladensburg
And former ANC Kathy Henderson's proposed ban on liquor licenses for non-chain restaurants gets coverage from We Love DC. I'll see about getting more info on her reported opposition to a diner opening on the same street.
Even if she had 100% good ideas and a demeanor that didn't harm more than it hurts, Kathy Henderson's blatant nepotism would undermine her authority entirely. Seriously, it's distasteful to see her push her daughter out like that.
Am I missing something here? At first glance this is a stunningly stupid idea. Are we really suggesting we want to make sure local businesses aren't allowed to open? That's really the proposed language?
What's really going on here? Is this aimed at a particular business that someone out there doesn't like?
I'm no lawyer, but this would seem to be one of those proposals that simply can't pass basic muster, as it seeks to limit businesses based solely on how much $$ the businessman has (it usually takes a great deal of $$ to open a chain restaurant).
I agree with Hillman. This is an awful idea. Why would a chain restaurant be a better member of the community or a more responsible owner than anyone else?
This really sounds like it is aimed at banning a specific restaurant.
I think it's because the Hendersons have some sort of beef with Jimmy Valentine's.
For the record, I think that this is an idiotic proposal. Who in their right mind would drop the kind of money to open a chain restaurant on Bladensburg. The only people brave enough to do this are small entrepreneurs.
Why stop there? Why not ban liquor altogether? Reinstate the prohibition! And while we're at it we can throw in cigarettes, sugary foods, caffeine, violent movies, video games, pornography and contraversial music lyrics. Force men to grow beards and women to wear coverings over their body and then rewrite the rest of the laws to a higher "moral" standard.
Is there any way we can get Denis Leary to move to DC and run for mayor?
I'll be interested to hear additional information on this. I would've suspected that this was a push to reign in the proliferation of liquor stores on Bladensburg Rd., but if there's an angle where they're trying to elbow out the diner and Jimmy V's, then I'm immediately more suspicious. My guess is that they're either overreaching, or trying to push back against perceived gentrification.
Having read the article I have to agree with the *intent* of curbing "single sales" of alcoholic bevarages - namely trying to cut back on "litter, public drunkenness, and loitering". Of course, as the article mentions that type of prohibition negatively impacts poorer segments of the population - and I am wholly against taking away the ability of a hard working, economically disadvantaged, law-abiding citizen from buying a beer on the way home to relax. More importantly, if that's the intent of this type of ordinance - it's a wholesale cop-out (pun intended) from the very real and obvious mismanagment of the police force in this city. The answer to curtailing public drunkeness and loitering is a police force actively doing it's job, not restricting the rights of citizens - as far as litter... keeping your neighborhood and your property clean is the responsibilty of the inhabitants.
I can't begin to fathom the restriction's on "non-chain" restaurants - unless someone is concerned with Bladensburg and H Street turning into the next Adams Morgan (sure, gunshots and gangs are alright - but god forbid there might be some loud music or the like from weekenders?). The only other reasoning I can possibly fathom short of a huge corporate kickback conspiracy of some sort is that some jackass thinks chain restaurants and stripmalls turn shitty parts of urban city into suburban utopia.
"and I am wholly against taking away the ability of a hard working, economically disadvantaged, law-abiding citizen from buying a beer on the way home to relax."
Singles bans don't do that. You can still buy all the cheap beer you want. It just has to be more than one.
Singles bans do not mean poor people can't drink. It's just means people have to purchase the beer in container forms that are clearly meant more for home consumption (six packs, etc.) than the singles that are clearly meant for immediate consumption, usually right outside the store.
Those that have lived in a before-singles-ban and after-singles-ban neighborhood are strongly in favor of the bans. No, it won't make your neighborhood uber safe or clean, but it goes a good step toward stopping some of the most annoying littering and public drinking.
Hillman wrote: "[The singles ban] just means people have to purchase the beer in container forms that are clearly meant more for home consumption (six packs, etc.)"
Unless you go to the 1101 Convenience store (SE corner of 11th and H), which now advertises two-packs of 40s. That's 80 oz, which by my non-expert reading complies with the letter - if perhaps not the intent - of the ban, which only requires that the sale be greater than 70 oz (http://www.anc6a.org/SingleSaleABRAbeginenforce.pdf).
Tally Ban! wrote: The answer to curtailing public drunkeness and loitering is a police force actively doing it's job
Public drunkenness, yes; but how can you see a failure to crack down on loitering as an example of a police force not doing its job, since loitering isn't illegal? There is no anti-loitering law in DC.
I admit I haven't lived through such a ban, and it doesn't restrict poor people from purchasing alcohol - but it's still a restriction of personal rights as well as consumer rights (which, to put it lightly opens up a whole can of worms in regards to the greater second and third order effects economically when one considers the legal "justification" for such a ban) As far as the annoying littering and public drinking I reiterate that these are issues that will not be solved - or even minimized by banning single sales. There as an equal amount of litter that consists of snack foods, fast food containers, and other such material - are we going to ban single sales of those products as well? There are just as many people who are publicly intoxicated that have purchased more than one beverage at a time so that goes out the window as well, unless of course we're talking about public intoxication of homeless individuals, but again that's a whole different issue.
In regards to crumudgeon's remark, you are aboslutely correct - but that in itself is ANOTHER example of the wanton disregard for legislation that would ACTUALLY work towards the STATED goal. If they decided instead to pass a loitering law it would do more to resolve the issues being cited than this half-hearted attempt at dealing with the issues at hand.
"As far as the annoying littering and public drinking I reiterate that these are issues that will not be solved - or even minimized by banning single sales."
I've talked to a number of NW residents in areas where singles bans have gone into effect, and they say it cut down considerably on public drinking and littering.
No, it won't stop it all. But they all universally said the decline was dramatic. And permanent.
As far as the annoying littering and public drinking I reiterate that these are issues that will not be solved - or even minimized by banning single sales.
Right you are: it will just tend to move it to a jurisdiction where there is no such ban.
These are the types of reaction that continually drag out these types of problems and issues.
I ask a few questions... how does banning the sale of single beverages prevent someone from deciding to sit on a corner and drink alcohol?
If public drunkeness, loitering and littering are the typical behaviors of persons that generally consume alcohol by purchasing "singles", how does not allowing them to purchase said alcohol in said manner change that behavior? It's as if to say people honestly believe that the root of the problem is the sale of single alcoholic beverages. That a ban on them will have people standing at a counter of a liquor store and after having been told they are no longer able to purchase a single beverage will have an epiphany of sorts that will have them suddenly becoming upstanding citizens. This is a ridiculous premise. More likely they'll just have to save for a few days and buy themselves a six pack.
The answer that "well, at least it will work somewhat" or "it won't hurt" is the exact problem with the way the Council and many people view these problems. These half-assed attempts at bettering the community and our city are wastes of effort. How much money will be spent alone on printing out the legislation of such a ridiculous ban? I wonder what the cost benefit analysis of that would show.
To say nothing of the restriction on liquor licenses to "chain restaurants".
The answer that "well, at least it will work somewhat" or "it won't hurt" is the exact problem with the way the Council and many people view these problems.
No need to mischaracterize the opposition. The answer (given up-thread) was
I've talked to a number of NW residents in areas where singles bans have gone into effect, and they say it cut down considerably on public drinking and littering. No, it won't stop it all. But they all universally said the decline was dramatic. And permanent.
Clearly there are folks out there who *want* singles. There's a huge market for them. So you ban them. Those folks who want singles go elsewhere to buy (and drink) them.
In my experience, many of the folks who I see laying around littering, pissing in the bushes, and generally getting belligerent aren't even from the neighborhood.
So let them get (and drink, and piss out) their singles elsewhere. While I'd prefer it if they "suddenly became upstanding citizens", the next best thing would be for them to fuck off and go somewhere else. Which is what a singles ban will accomplish...
"If public drunkeness, loitering and littering are the typical behaviors of persons that generally consume alcohol by purchasing "singles", how does not allowing them to purchase said alcohol in said manner change that behavior?"
It's pretty simple. If you have to purchase more than one, then when you are nabbed by the PoPo then you have much more $$ at stake,as they usually pour out any un-drunk beer.
And it's not as portable. It's a nuisance to have to lug around the other beers. They get warm, they aren't easy to hide, etc.
I still think this is a case of ignoring the larger issue for the sake of expediency and ability to "check the block" in the sense of accomplishment.
Right, but where do you stop? This law costs nearly nothing to implement, is a trivial infringement on "liberty", and is reportedly effective.
You could pretty much divide everything into "big strategies" that will never be implemented because they're too costly and unwieldy, and "small strategies" that are beneath bothering with because they ignore "the larger issue".
What's the alternative strategy to address the "larger issue"? Why not work all along the spectrum?
This is true - but I think there is a definite trend of quick solutions that act as feel-good responses in lieu of addressing things that are real concerns.
Why not work on a loitering law that addresses what we all are really seeking? A push for better management and deployment of the police force to deter public intoxication (harsher punishments, more presence) for one. Littering? Again, what's the "next step" to combating the problem of discarded trash in public spaces if the first step is banning single sales of alcoholic beverages? Banning individual bags of chips? Soft drinks? Candy bars?
I understand I'm relatively new to the city, and the counterpoints brought up are very legitimate and verifiable in their own right - but then again I would argue, so are mine.
"Why not work on a loitering law that addresses what we all are really seeking? A push for better management and deployment of the police force to deter public intoxication (harsher punishments, more presence) for one. Littering? Again, what's the "next step" to combating the problem of discarded trash in public spaces if the first step is banning single sales of alcoholic beverages? Banning individual bags of chips? Soft drinks? Candy bars?"
DC Council is opposed to loitering laws. Individual citizens have lobbied for them for years.
Police - again, citizens have been hounding police to take these issues seriously for decades. Literally decades.
Banning other items - not really practical, and that does impose a real burden. Single bags of chips and candy bars are designed to be legally eaten while you walk down the street, in your car, etc. Single containers of beer are not.
And I don't think the 'slippery slope' argument applies here. I very seriously doubt many people would ever actually argue for a ban on bags of chips, etc.
Also, singles bans are an effective way to better control the behavior of beer sellers. Often the corner stores that are selling to underage kids, don't police their sidewalks, etc., are also more willing to violate the singles bans. As a practical matter, that violation is easier to use as a tool to convince the city to not renew the licenses of corner stores that have no problem with being a nuisance to the entire community.
Both the alcoholic beverage and bottling industries lobby hard against singles bans, as they do against bottle bills that mandate a deposit/return. Similar deal whenever there's a snack tax to try and deal with the litter: the snack food industry steps in, spreads a lot of money around, and nothing happens. Come election time, everyone on the council trumps how strong they are on the environment and public nuisance laws, etc. Stick around and watch it happen the next election cycle.
I imagine loitering laws would seem to target too many "constituents" and impede re-election bids.
Again, I've heard plenty of good arguments for the single sales ban here, and many of which were well-thought, eleoquent and verifiable counterpoints to my opposition to it. My main argument is simple though - why continue throwing good money after bad? If we are already spending money on existing systems which ignore major problems and organizations which are being mismanaged, why spend more money to compound the problem?
All of these "feel good" measures are great for immediate gratification but it's the legislative equivelent of sweeping dust under rugs and pushing the junk into a closet. It's still there and the reason for it is unaddressed - simply hidden, ignored, and reloated.
My main argument is simple though - why continue throwing good money after bad? If we are already spending money on existing systems which ignore major problems and organizations which are being mismanaged, why spend more money to compound the problem?
This isn't meant to be snarky, but what are you talking about? Are we still talking about the singles ban? Or something completely different?
poo poo what you afraid of made you get outta line for you bottle? nobody gonna do nothin at you, people just makin noise, you a wee man or yalla or somethin? you can drink you can live it boy
30 comments:
Wait, how can someone who isnt a ANC rep even propose anything... oh wait, her 18 year old daughter is on the council.
Seriously, people in ward 5 need to vote the Henderson's out. They had their 15 minutes.
Hastings for Commissioner!
Even if she had 100% good ideas and a demeanor that didn't harm more than it hurts, Kathy Henderson's blatant nepotism would undermine her authority entirely. Seriously, it's distasteful to see her push her daughter out like that.
--Border of Wards 5 and 6.
Am I missing something here? At first glance this is a stunningly stupid idea. Are we really suggesting we want to make sure local businesses aren't allowed to open? That's really the proposed language?
What's really going on here? Is this aimed at a particular business that someone out there doesn't like?
I'm no lawyer, but this would seem to be one of those proposals that simply can't pass basic muster, as it seeks to limit businesses based solely on how much $$ the businessman has (it usually takes a great deal of $$ to open a chain restaurant).
Really. This just seems so stupid.
I agree with Hillman. This is an awful idea. Why would a chain restaurant be a better member of the community or a more responsible owner than anyone else?
This really sounds like it is aimed at banning a specific restaurant.
I think it's because the Hendersons have some sort of beef with Jimmy Valentine's.
For the record, I think that this is an idiotic proposal. Who in their right mind would drop the kind of money to open a chain restaurant on Bladensburg. The only people brave enough to do this are small entrepreneurs.
Why stop there? Why not ban liquor altogether? Reinstate the prohibition! And while we're at it we can throw in cigarettes, sugary foods, caffeine, violent movies, video games, pornography and contraversial music lyrics. Force men to grow beards and women to wear coverings over their body and then rewrite the rest of the laws to a higher "moral" standard.
Is there any way we can get Denis Leary to move to DC and run for mayor?
I'll be interested to hear additional information on this. I would've suspected that this was a push to reign in the proliferation of liquor stores on Bladensburg Rd., but if there's an angle where they're trying to elbow out the diner and Jimmy V's, then I'm immediately more suspicious. My guess is that they're either overreaching, or trying to push back against perceived gentrification.
Having read the article I have to agree with the *intent* of curbing "single sales" of alcoholic bevarages - namely trying to cut back on "litter, public drunkenness, and loitering". Of course, as the article mentions that type of prohibition negatively impacts poorer segments of the population - and I am wholly against taking away the ability of a hard working, economically disadvantaged, law-abiding citizen from buying a beer on the way home to relax.
More importantly, if that's the intent of this type of ordinance - it's a wholesale cop-out (pun intended) from the very real and obvious mismanagment of the police force in this city. The answer to curtailing public drunkeness and loitering is a police force actively doing it's job, not restricting the rights of citizens - as far as litter... keeping your neighborhood and your property clean is the responsibilty of the inhabitants.
I can't begin to fathom the restriction's on "non-chain" restaurants - unless someone is concerned with Bladensburg and H Street turning into the next Adams Morgan (sure, gunshots and gangs are alright - but god forbid there might be some loud music or the like from weekenders?). The only other reasoning I can possibly fathom short of a huge corporate kickback conspiracy of some sort is that some jackass thinks chain restaurants and stripmalls turn shitty parts of urban city into suburban utopia.
"and I am wholly against taking away the ability of a hard working, economically disadvantaged, law-abiding citizen from buying a beer on the way home to relax."
Singles bans don't do that. You can still buy all the cheap beer you want. It just has to be more than one.
Singles bans do not mean poor people can't drink. It's just means people have to purchase the beer in container forms that are clearly meant more for home consumption (six packs, etc.) than the singles that are clearly meant for immediate consumption, usually right outside the store.
Those that have lived in a before-singles-ban and after-singles-ban neighborhood are strongly in favor of the bans. No, it won't make your neighborhood uber safe or clean, but it goes a good step toward stopping some of the most annoying littering and public drinking.
Hillman wrote: "[The singles ban] just means people have to purchase the beer in container forms that are clearly meant more for home consumption (six packs, etc.)"
Unless you go to the 1101 Convenience store (SE corner of 11th and H), which now advertises two-packs of 40s. That's 80 oz, which by my non-expert reading complies with the letter - if perhaps not the intent - of the ban, which only requires that the sale be greater than 70 oz (http://www.anc6a.org/SingleSaleABRAbeginenforce.pdf).
Tally Ban! wrote: The answer to curtailing public drunkeness and loitering is a police force actively doing it's job
Public drunkenness, yes; but how can you see a failure to crack down on loitering as an example of a police force not doing its job, since loitering isn't illegal? There is no anti-loitering law in DC.
I admit I haven't lived through such a ban, and it doesn't restrict poor people from purchasing alcohol - but it's still a restriction of personal rights as well as consumer rights (which, to put it lightly opens up a whole can of worms in regards to the greater second and third order effects economically when one considers the legal "justification" for such a ban)
As far as the annoying littering and public drinking I reiterate that these are issues that will not be solved - or even minimized by banning single sales. There as an equal amount of litter that consists of snack foods, fast food containers, and other such material - are we going to ban single sales of those products as well? There are just as many people who are publicly intoxicated that have purchased more than one beverage at a time so that goes out the window as well, unless of course we're talking about public intoxication of homeless individuals, but again that's a whole different issue.
In regards to crumudgeon's remark, you are aboslutely correct - but that in itself is ANOTHER example of the wanton disregard for legislation that would ACTUALLY work towards the STATED goal. If they decided instead to pass a loitering law it would do more to resolve the issues being cited than this half-hearted attempt at dealing with the issues at hand.
"As far as the annoying littering and public drinking I reiterate that these are issues that will not be solved - or even minimized by banning single sales."
I've talked to a number of NW residents in areas where singles bans have gone into effect, and they say it cut down considerably on public drinking and littering.
No, it won't stop it all. But they all universally said the decline was dramatic. And permanent.
As far as the annoying littering and public drinking I reiterate that these are issues that will not be solved - or even minimized by banning single sales.
Right you are: it will just tend to move it to a jurisdiction where there is no such ban.
Which is fine by me.
These are the types of reaction that continually drag out these types of problems and issues.
I ask a few questions... how does banning the sale of single beverages prevent someone from deciding to sit on a corner and drink alcohol?
If public drunkeness, loitering and littering are the typical behaviors of persons that generally consume alcohol by purchasing "singles", how does not allowing them to purchase said alcohol in said manner change that behavior? It's as if to say people honestly believe that the root of the problem is the sale of single alcoholic beverages. That a ban on them will have people standing at a counter of a liquor store and after having been told they are no longer able to purchase a single beverage will have an epiphany of sorts that will have them suddenly becoming upstanding citizens. This is a ridiculous premise. More likely they'll just have to save for a few days and buy themselves a six pack.
The answer that "well, at least it will work somewhat" or "it won't hurt" is the exact problem with the way the Council and many people view these problems. These half-assed attempts at bettering the community and our city are wastes of effort. How much money will be spent alone on printing out the legislation of such a ridiculous ban? I wonder what the cost benefit analysis of that would show.
To say nothing of the restriction on liquor licenses to "chain restaurants".
The answer that "well, at least it will work somewhat" or "it won't hurt" is the exact problem with the way the Council and many people view these problems.
No need to mischaracterize the opposition. The answer (given up-thread) was
I've talked to a number of NW residents in areas where singles bans have gone into effect, and they say it cut down considerably on public drinking and littering.
No, it won't stop it all. But they all universally said the decline was dramatic. And permanent.
Clearly there are folks out there who *want* singles. There's a huge market for them. So you ban them. Those folks who want singles go elsewhere to buy (and drink) them.
In my experience, many of the folks who I see laying around littering, pissing in the bushes, and generally getting belligerent aren't even from the neighborhood.
So let them get (and drink, and piss out) their singles elsewhere. While I'd prefer it if they "suddenly became upstanding citizens", the next best thing would be for them to fuck off and go somewhere else. Which is what a singles ban will accomplish...
"If public drunkeness, loitering and littering are the typical behaviors of persons that generally consume alcohol by purchasing "singles", how does not allowing them to purchase said alcohol in said manner change that behavior?"
It's pretty simple. If you have to purchase more than one, then when you are nabbed by the PoPo then you have much more $$ at stake,as they usually pour out any un-drunk beer.
And it's not as portable. It's a nuisance to have to lug around the other beers. They get warm, they aren't easy to hide, etc.
Again, they have a track record of success.
I concede that the apparent views of the majority here are in opposition to mine and with due cause.
I still think this is a case of ignoring the larger issue for the sake of expediency and ability to "check the block" in the sense of accomplishment.
I still think this is a case of ignoring the larger issue for the sake of expediency and ability to "check the block" in the sense of accomplishment.
Right, but where do you stop? This law costs nearly nothing to implement, is a trivial infringement on "liberty", and is reportedly effective.
You could pretty much divide everything into "big strategies" that will never be implemented because they're too costly and unwieldy, and "small strategies" that are beneath bothering with because they ignore "the larger issue".
What's the alternative strategy to address the "larger issue"? Why not work all along the spectrum?
OT:
The ever venerable NY Post names
a bunch of H St. establishments in its "to do in Washington" list.
Some blogger at NBC Washington thinks this is the craziest sh*t she's ever heard.
This is true - but I think there is a definite trend of quick solutions that act as feel-good responses in lieu of addressing things that are real concerns.
Why not work on a loitering law that addresses what we all are really seeking? A push for better management and deployment of the police force to deter public intoxication (harsher punishments, more presence) for one. Littering? Again, what's the "next step" to combating the problem of discarded trash in public spaces if the first step is banning single sales of alcoholic beverages? Banning individual bags of chips? Soft drinks? Candy bars?
I understand I'm relatively new to the city, and the counterpoints brought up are very legitimate and verifiable in their own right - but then again I would argue, so are mine.
"Why not work on a loitering law that addresses what we all are really seeking? A push for better management and deployment of the police force to deter public intoxication (harsher punishments, more presence) for one. Littering? Again, what's the "next step" to combating the problem of discarded trash in public spaces if the first step is banning single sales of alcoholic beverages? Banning individual bags of chips? Soft drinks? Candy bars?"
DC Council is opposed to loitering laws. Individual citizens have lobbied for them for years.
Police - again, citizens have been hounding police to take these issues seriously for decades. Literally decades.
Banning other items - not really practical, and that does impose a real burden. Single bags of chips and candy bars are designed to be legally eaten while you walk down the street, in your car, etc. Single containers of beer are not.
And I don't think the 'slippery slope' argument applies here. I very seriously doubt many people would ever actually argue for a ban on bags of chips, etc.
Also, singles bans are an effective way to better control the behavior of beer sellers. Often the corner stores that are selling to underage kids, don't police their sidewalks, etc., are also more willing to violate the singles bans. As a practical matter, that violation is easier to use as a tool to convince the city to not renew the licenses of corner stores that have no problem with being a nuisance to the entire community.
Both the alcoholic beverage and bottling industries lobby hard against singles bans, as they do against bottle bills that mandate a deposit/return. Similar deal whenever there's a snack tax to try and deal with the litter: the snack food industry steps in, spreads a lot of money around, and nothing happens. Come election time, everyone on the council trumps how strong they are on the environment and public nuisance laws, etc. Stick around and watch it happen the next election cycle.
Has anyone received a reasonable explanation of why the City Council is so opposed to loitering laws?
I imagine loitering laws would seem to target too many "constituents" and impede re-election bids.
Again, I've heard plenty of good arguments for the single sales ban here, and many of which were well-thought, eleoquent and verifiable counterpoints to my opposition to it. My main argument is simple though - why continue throwing good money after bad? If we are already spending money on existing systems which ignore major problems and organizations which are being mismanaged, why spend more money to compound the problem?
All of these "feel good" measures are great for immediate gratification but it's the legislative equivelent of sweeping dust under rugs and pushing the junk into a closet. It's still there and the reason for it is unaddressed - simply hidden, ignored, and reloated.
My main argument is simple though - why continue throwing good money after bad? If we are already spending money on existing systems which ignore major problems and organizations which are being mismanaged, why spend more money to compound the problem?
This isn't meant to be snarky, but what are you talking about? Are we still talking about the singles ban? Or something completely different?
Well, yes and no. I was getting off topic a bit - I feel that the singles ban is a symptom of a much larger problem.
funny. i stop at 3rd and H for a bottle or two, every other week or so. actually, i should say i 'DID".
no longer.
crackheads, ignorant-drunk arseholes line up for their fix.
i'm white.
they actually say that.
to my face.
ummmmm. what's wrong with that?
"hey white motherf+cker, give me 3 dollars!"
"NO"
I will f+ck your arse up if you don't....... MOTHAFUCKAH!
i was second in line.
i left.
and the rest of the "customers" cheered.
W.T.F. ?
poo poo what you afraid of made you get outta line for you bottle? nobody gonna do nothin at you, people just makin noise, you a wee man or yalla or somethin? you can drink you can live it boy
Post a Comment