Versagi Voice

Contact us     Home Page      Ongoing Discussions

Alcohol

How much alcohol is too much alcohol?

VersagiVoice has several times chided Commissioner Mike Andrzejak for what I term an alcohol phobia, because of the consistent stand he takes each time a liquor license issue arises. Recently, a news report quoted him as contending that " there could be another 1,554 bar seats in town." It bothered me that Mike seemed to be exaggerating the alcohol-impact of developments, and I wrote him: 

"Isn't it a bit unrealistic, even unfair, to label all those eating seats "bar seats"?  Doesn't that give a misleading impression? In next week's VersagiVoice, I'll be making my pro-drinking pitch! and I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand the article. When you have a moment, let me have a paragraph or two on what specific objections there can be to, say, 1,000 restaurant seats, in which perhaps half will have a wine or a beer with their meal." Andrzejak readily offered the context for his stance, much of which he repeated during the 05 June 2006 city commission meeting. 

Also see: Two More liquor licenses . . . Another Moratorium?

Andrzejak's Reply 

Hi Frank-

My statement at the LCC meeting was "restaurant/bar seats." I do not feel every seat in a restaurant/tavern is occupied by someone consuming alcohol.

It is true that there are several entities trying to open new restaurants with a liquor license. With quick addition, that number is over 1500 addition seats within a compact area of town. 1450 would be located on Main Street between the Freed Project and the Skylofts Project. If all were approved, that would be akin to adding the capacity of another Royal Oak Music Theater. The Police Department is understaffed and objecting to the additions. The City Manager is objecting because all other departments are stressed and have a hard time doing the add'l inspections (preliminary and annual), such as Fire and Code Enforcement.

Furthermore, there are Royal Oak licenses on the market, but many of these entities want to transfer licenses from outside the community. As you know, Royal Oak already is over their State quota of licenses. One can acquire an outside license for cheaper than the existing Royal Oak licenses. Some of the requests do not involve any "multi-use" development.

The licenses assigned to the community are meant to serve the entire 12 square miles of the City, not just the CBD. One request that is on the horizon involves transferring a current license from Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak. Invariably, someone will want to replace that transferred license from Woodward with a transferred one from outside the community, further pushing us over quota. I call this "backfilling" the license with one from outside.

One only has to look at the way Birmingham handles their licenses. They are not over quota, and when one wants to acquire one, they pay the market price of an existing Birmingham license. When a developer there wants to build a multi use development, it isn't contingent upon receiving a couple of liquor licenses with the approval, like commonly happens in Royal Oak. Clearly, owning a liquor license in Royal Oak is lucrative. But many of those that want to come in want to do it on the cheap, even when a Royal Oak license is available. I haven't been able to substantiate it, but I was told that a recent license in Birmingham sold/transferred for $800K (Outback Steakhouse) license.
The Royal Oak Bowl license was sold for about $215K. The one that Doc Green's (Freed Project) was acquired for $60K. Incidentally, as far as we can ascertain, Birmingham has never allowed a license to be transferred from outside the community.

For background purposes, it was strongly suggested by administration and elected officials to acquire their first license from within the City, they did not do this and passed up opportunities to do so.

Hope this helps you understand my perspective.

Mike

Random Thoughts & Impressions
about statements made by all commentators including the local press, not just Commissioner Andrzejak.

Current restaurant owners are opposed to more licensees.

  • Surprise!

  • Some of those opposed came in over the opposition of their current colleagues. No one wants more competition, but the ups and downs of prices and services are none of the city government's business.

The Police Department is concerned.

  • Understandable, but talk to patrol officers and they are only half-joking when they call occasional bar brawls "our job security."

  • To compare restaurant seats to the Royal Oak Music Theater . . . geez.

Other city departments, currently understaffed, will have to supply services re permits, inspections, and the like.

  • Such city services must be supplied to (and paid for by) businesses, whether boutiques or bars. 

Buying out-of-town licenses "on the cheap"

  • What business is it of the City how much license owners are willing to sell for or purchasers are willing to pay?

"Look at Birmingham," "Look at Ferndale"

  • Why?

  •  Each city has its own culture. Birmingham, for instance, is just learning to catch up after being essentially dry for too long. Ferndale is so far out there that there is no comparison.

Royal Oak is over quota.

  • Is the quota a law or a guideline?

  • There's nothing sacred about the 1 license-for-every-1,500 residents. Somebody once drew that figure out of a hat.

  • In either case, the entire concept of alcohol control is a carryover from Prohibition, now admittedly wrong-headed, and it is time to consider re-writing or rescinding whatever guidelines or rules or laws that exist.

Anticipated problems from alcohol consumption seldom develop. Examples:

  • Pronto! has for years been the next door neighbor to the First Methodist Church, breaking the tradition (law?) that no alcohol-serving establishment can be within 500 feet of a church. There have been neither chronic nor severe problems for the church.

  • A stated reason for the recent passage of an ordinance forbidding retailers from occasionally serving free alcoholic beverages to clients was that the Police Department was unaware of such events. The police were unaware of this decades-long practice because there were no problems

Government should protect us from harmful behavior. 

  • Call the police if a fight breaks out or if someone behaves indecently in the streets, whether or not she been drinking.

  • Very few of those who have a wine or a beer with dinner are likely to misbehave. To insist otherwise is to be unthinkingly Puritanical.

"Social drinkers of the world, Unite!"

It's almost never black & white
Alcohol-and-cops, especially downtown, is one of those issues about which the polar positions prove unhelpful.

Pole 1: Bars present an insurmountable problem for our police force. That was true even before we started losing cops because of a lack of funds. Pole 2: Come off it. A restaurant-bar is just another business. You take action against any business which causes problems for other businesses or residents. Otherwise, leave them alone.

A recent coincidental cluster of conversations and emails reflects some of the thoughts and feelings which fall between those extremes.

►"During Public Comment at CITCOM meetings, we hear occasional bad behavior downtown described as a crime spree. But week after week, the Police Department reports, what?, a dozen to maybe 20 arrests citywide. That's piddling."

►"I haven't read of any crime waves in the neighborhoods. Police aren't' ignoring residents. No one at CITCOM challenged Jim Rasor* when he said that 70%  of police runs are to neighborhoods, not downtown."

►[From a downtown resident who acknowledges that those who choose to live downtown realize that ambient sounds and smells and activity won't be the same as in residential areas} "We can't pretend, though, that downtown isn't a party corridor with considerable rowdiness on weekends."

►That resident joins those neighborhood spokeswomen who thank and praise Chuck Semchena* for his consistent attempts to limit more drinking establishments.

►"Let's not forget that the eating and drinking places didn't drive retailers out of  town. Restaurants and bars filled the empty spaces after the shopping malls attracted retailers' customers and after several family businesses closed for family reasons."

►Several Versagi Voice readers report having heard cops say such things as, "Overall, it's nothing we can't handle" and, only half-jokingly, "Hey, those bars provide us job security!"

*After all of the above was written, the Thursday, March 3, Daily Tribune published a piece which reveals that Rasor and Semchena differently interpret raw data provided by Police Department records. -- 07 Mar 2011

Who cares?
Two more liquor licenses to be discussed
The Liquor Control Committee has scheduled two public hearings for its 11 July 2007 meeting. Both hearings deal with a request for transfer of a liquor license currently in escrow.

Perhaps because it took so long for the BlackFinn request to make it through the City Commission, more than a handful of VersagiVoice readers have commented on the visible drop-off in resident participation in these debates. People show up neither at CITCOM nor at Liquor Control Committee meetings; there are almost no letters to the editor or anonymous telephone calls to local newspapers.

Guesses range widely about why this is so : (a) The issue is old and repetitive; unless someone loves or hates a specific franchise or business owner or developer, voters don't care. (b) Any angst which exists on CITCOM reflects the personalities of the elected officials, not the attitudes of the public. (c) Budget problems have become the center of attention, so concern about this or that liquor license doesn't register on voters' radar. (d) Not so. voters are so disappointed with this CITCOM's performance that they, the voters, have just given up paying attention to city hall.

Which has led to a corollary discussion about whether there are so many "regulars" who comment about city affairs that when they burn out, there's no one left to comment. That  suggestion led to a further corollary: Elected officials, tired of hearing repeatedly from the same perennial complainers, have stopped listening.

(Over the years, elected state and federal legislators have told me that it is hard to give more than cursory attention to missives "from people who are forever writing us, no matter what the issue." Hence, the attention paid to occasional massive grass roots reactions, which obviously include input from newcomers to civic/political dialogue.)

VersagiVoice's ongoing discussions with people reveal ups and downs about whether Royal Oak, especially downtown, has "peaked" economically, but I encounter overall weariness and cynicism about civic/political matters. Bright spots aside -- mostly about voluntarism -- the answer to "Who cares?" seems to be "Nobody, neither voters nor city officials."

Back to BlackFinn
Last week's very brief comparison between BlackFinn's problems getting a conditional dance permit attached to its request for a liquor license and the relative ease with which the new Town Tavern made it through the official procedures generated two replies (actually multiple replies reflecting two positions):

Another Moratorium?

August 4th, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONTACTS:  ANDREW PRENTICE   #248-979-2035
                     LAURA HARRISON     #248-549-0750 OR 248-545-3200


Former Royal Oak Mayor Pro Tem Andy Prentice, and former Royal Oak City Commissioner Laura Harrison, are leading a group of Royal Oak citizens to amend the City's Liquor ordinance. Both Prentice and Harrison served on the City Commission when Royal Oak initially adopted a liquor license transfer moratorium in the late 1990's. Both supported the previous moratorium in an effort to calm the Downtown, which had increasingly become the focus of negative behavior from alcohol fueled patrons. 

On Monday, August 3rd, 2009, the Commission failed to pass a 2 year moratorium on newly proposed liquor license transfers from outside the city, that was proposed by Commissioner Semchena. It failed on a 3 - 3 vote, with Mayor Ellison, and Commissioners Ginotti and Lelito
voting against this important measure.

"If a majority of the city commission doesn't address this issue satisfactorily, and quickly, we are prepared to gather enough qualified signatures to place this on the ballot, before the citizenry, to make this important community decision", said Andy Prentice. 

"In addition to the unacceptable behavior of some Downtown patrons which included public drunkenness, public urination, defecation, vomiting, and hooliganism, the "out of control" atmosphere put a heavy strain on our Police Department, for additional attention from calls for police service", stated Prentice. "We can't afford to go back to those days and that atmosphere", he added.

"There were times, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, past midnight until closing, that most, if not all, of our police units were tied up in the Downtown on calls addressing the actions of drunken patrons. Neighborhood calls were delayed because of this overburden. This was unacceptable then, and we can't backslide back to that situation now", said Laura Harrison.

Royal Oak has more liquor serving establishments in a compacted area, its Central Business District, than anywhere else in Michigan. Royal Oak is already several licenses over its State mandated quota (by population), of 40. Royal Oak will be further over quota once the 2010 census is completed, since Royal Oak has lost nearly 10% of its population since 2000. The State suggests 1 license per 1500 citizens.

"Some on the Commission don't accept that we keep losing families, and residents, but continue to want to add liquor licenses to an already oversaturated alcohol based Downtown", said Laura Harrison, who also owns a retail business in the Downtown. "We need 
a diversified mix of retail, office, and service based businesses, too!"  

"Collecting signatures supporting a liquor license transfer moratorium will be a simple task. The overwhelming majority of Royal Oak'ers already think we have enough liquor serving establishments. There aren't many citizens crying out that we need more.", added Laura Harrison. "We'll have our qualifying signatures by the end of the week."

Royal Oak recently adopted a Bistro Ordinance that allows establishments of 75 seats or less, to be considered for a Bistro license. These types of operations, generally, do not require a Bouncer, or additional security, nor do they place any additional burden on our Police Department.
  
For more information, or to sign a petition, please contact Laura at #248-549-0750, or Andy at #248-979-2035.

                                                                           #                #                 # 

17 August CITCOM meeting
No actual vote, but still a 3-3 tie
Six heartfelt mini-speeches made it clear there was no need to revisit the controversial issue of a moratorium on liquor license transfers. Over-simplifying, one side -- Semchena, Andrzejak, Drinkwine -- repeatedly pointed to past and feared future public safety problems to demonstrate the need for the moratorium, and the other side -- Ellison, Ginotti, and Lelito -- countered that elected officials have in the past and can in the future take public safety into consideration as they make case-by-case decisions. CITCOM'S decision not to act means that Semchena's proposed amendment to the city's liquor control ordinance will be placed on the November ballot. [See]

Twelve of the 14 persons who spoke during Public Comment addressed the moratorium. Of those 12, five support and seven oppose. It is clear that liquor control will become a significant issue in the 2009 campaign. [More]

October 2009
Drinkin' and Dancin' -- on city-owned property, yet!
Over 400 carousing residents and visitors aged 3 to 88 attended the Oktoberfest held in the Royal Oak Farmers Market. No fights broke out, but who issued that permit? Talk about a mega-bar. And, there were minors in that room.

Sorry, couldn't resist that.
That community event was so outstandingly successful that some attendees were suggesting the Market schedule a series of ethnic celebrations, a la Hart Plaza in Detroit. One discussion included concern that the Italian Fiesta couldn't be held on Columbus Day, because that's in October, too.

Seniors, tots, teenagers, singles, couples, parents with kids did the Chicken Dance and the Polka or just listened to the Germanic oompah-pah music played by the Good Times Orchestra. Sitting or table-hopping; drinking beer or coffee or pop or water; eating anything from a hot dog to shrimp und spaetzle (German potato dumplings) excellently prepared and served by Lily's Seafood Grill & Brewery; bidding on donated items in a silent auction from which the benefits go to the Boys & Girls Club . . . what an enjoyable three hours.

There were some civic/political mini-conversations, of course, about everything from the proposed liquor moratorium, to the Emagine theater/bowling alley,  to the coming election. Three of the four candidates for commissioner were seen ( Capello, Poulton, Rasor). And  there were obviously a lot of out-of-towners present, especially families who appeared old-fashioned nice.

An observation: Less amplification or no amplification of the music would enhance these affairs. Conversation -- from personal to political -- provides the greatest enjoyment of these community gatherings. In that building, unamplified music would satisfy the dancers and still be heard by everyone making it unnecessary to shout or cup your ear.