18 Aug 09 Two about liquor licenses: § Brendan Wehrung has given VersagiVoice permission to use his post, slightly revised, from The Daily Tribune The problem is that a liquor license is treated as personal property under Michigan law. I can understand how it is necessary to hold onto the license to sell an operation, but rather than a permission to dispense alcohol a license is treated in Royal Oak as an article of profit. Briefly, when the Commission allows an import in, it in effect gives the new owner a grant of $250,000 (the minimum resale price in our town) if the license is moved to another downtown location rather than figuring in the sale of the business in situ. The only ones who can purchase such a license are those who will recoup this cost by selling a highly profitable product--beer, wine and spirits, in great quantity: a mega-bar. There is anther way. Let's look at the Emagine theater complex that wants to import a Berkley license to the NW corner of 11 Mile and Troy Streets. What if they signed a covenant allowing the license only for that location, and binding on any succeeding owners to sell it out of town (it costs $50,000, not $300,000) if and when movies and bowling are not offered there? This is the heart of the "bistro concept" passed recently; that approval is purpose-specific, and is voided at the time the purpose changes. We can have development, new ideas, and no new giant bars. It will take some creativity and understanding on the part of the Commission, and not just a "yes" or "no" about what is only a temporary fix called for by the referendum. " I don't know if this is up to the standards of your commentary, but I think you ought to form an opinion on the matter, which will probably be a distracting election issue, especially if Emagine is approved.  And why shouldn't it be?  $10 million of construction with parking in a private parking structure (see http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/clerk/lcc/20090820-04.pdf) is going to be mighty appealing to a tax-hungry administration. -- Brendan Wehrung § Hi Frank, Thanks for being such an astute reporter. I thought my more compelling comments were . . .  “If we continue to open more establishments whose primary source of profit is the sale of liquor, what message are we sending to our children?” Or . . . “Anyone who is willing to fund a police officer is doing so because he knows his business will contribute to police activity.” -- Peggy Goodwin Bar Owners Protection Act? I would like the supporters of the proposal to end the ability to transfer a liquor license into RO from other communities to explain a couple things: 1.) Why is a new establishment opened with an escrowed liquor license any less of a burden on the police force than one opened with a transfer? 2.) Same question for all the issues with parking, so called effects on kids, etc. If you think the downtown has enough bars per the master plan and don't want to open additional ones, that is one issue. The proposal on the table, which I would title the Bar Owners Protection Act of 2009, is nothing but a political payoff disguised as a public safety issue. -- Rick Karlowski

24 Aug 09 Responses to Wehrung and Goodwin § I have reviewed Mr. Brendan Wehrung's comments posted on your website, specifically wherein he notes "What if they (Emagine) signed a covenant allowing the license only for that location, and binding on any succeeding owners to sell it out of town (it costs $50,000, not $300,000) if and when movies and bowling are not offered there? This is the heart of the "bistro concept" passed recently; that approval is purpose-specific, and is voided at the time the purpose changes."  As the Founder/Chairman of Emagine Entertainment, please be advised that Emagine would whole-heartedly accept imposition of such a restriction on its license.  I would appreciate it if you would share our sentiments with your constituents.  -- Paul A. Glantz [See] § Frank, If the Royal Oak CC would have as much fire in the belly regarding tackling the city employee legacy costs as it does with regard to the number of bars downtown, we would not have to worry about a police officer shortage. With regard to the comments about what the message is to our kids of having more bars in the downtown and the offer to fund additional police officers - The message is 1.) you don't have to get drunk when drinking and 2.) if you stay in school, get an education, you increase the probability of getting a good job so that you too can come to downtown Royal Oak and have fun with others like yourself.  Compare that to the message sent by the flop houses in Royal Oak which says you can become an alcoholic and dope addict and someone will be there to take care of you. As for the additional police, the offer was made in an attempt to address a concern raised by some members of CITCOM.  The conclusion that they were offered because they would be needed has no basis of fact. A venue's size and the inclusion of a dance floor does not mean the place will be a problem.  Ownership and the cliental they allow in do. I think the owner of Blackfinn has proved their ability to maintain order. -- Rick Karlowski: 21 Aug 09 More comments on the booze debate § Frank, If the Royal Oak CC would have as much fire in the belly regarding tackling the city employee legacy costs as it does with regard to the number of bars downtown, we would not have to worry about a police officer shortage. With regard to the comments about what the message is to our kids of having more bars in the downtown and the offer to fund additional police officers: The message is 1.) you don't have to get drunk when drinking and 2.) if you stay in school, get an education, you increase the probability of getting a good job so that you too can come to downtown Royal Oak and have fun with others like yourself.  Compare that to the message sent by the flop houses in Royal Oak which says you can become an alcoholic and dope addict and someone will be there to take care of you. As for the additional police, the offer was made in an attempt to address a concern raised by some members of CITCOM.  The conclusion that they were offered because they would be needed has no basis of fact. A venue's size and the inclusion of a dance floor does not mean the place will be a problem.  Ownership and the cliental they allow in do. I think the owner of Blackfinn has proved their ability to maintain order. -- Rick Karlowski 24 Aug 09

Liquor Control Committee Meeting: 20 Aug 09
Brendan Wehrung has provided his impressions of the LCC meeting.

It's coming on September 9th, the Battle of Booze!

Thursday's LCC meeting resulted in, well, not much, to the disappointment of Mr. Paul Glantz and the representative of Joseph Freed LLC who wanted to be granted a liquor license for his Emagine theater. At public comment, I did my song and dance, the first about how things might go in the normal pace of things (turning the bowling alley portion to a mega-mega bar, moving the license who-knows-where and so forth) and said I'd be back for the hearing. On the way from the podium I was handed the attached (notice he signed it), which I carefully determined afterwards is now a public document I can give to you.  Essentially it promises exactly what I proposed on your site. [See} I wonder if he read it?

Most speaking at the hearing were nearby residents, who complained about skateboarding teenagers, ones who climb light poles at midnight, lights and noise from the parking structure and so forth.  Mr. Glantz answered those with grace and aplomb.  He was less able to speak to a possible too-low number of parking spaces which was eventually why the hearing was suspended and postponed to September 9th, when Planning would report on further study.

Glantz explained that expensive movie tickets and even more expensive popcorn just isn't enough any more, that to run a quality place you need an economic sweetener, which is beer, wine and spirits to enjoy with your movie or bowling.  Not to mention the party room upstairs, which he specifically said would used for birthday parties (pt to 6 at a time) and other private gatherings.  He downplayed how alcohol would be important, and promised never, never, ever to turn that area into a dance club.

I've got to say he appears to be a class act.  The biggest question is what happens when somebody comes early for a meal, and then a movie, or catches an early show and then wanders off down Main St., leaving no place for the next round.

AND how many will come to Bar Louie's.  This is in the "now it can be told" category, since the place was mentioned several times (see http://www.restaurants-america.com/barlouie/ for description).  Apparently it's a chain, will take up 6700 sq Ft and seat about 200, with 50 outside.  That seems awfully low a count for that much space.

Let's see, if the deck parks 410, and there's 200 in Bar Louie's with a max of 1,700 movie seats, that equals....   Anyway, Semchena was real eager to put the Emagine issue over until Bar Louie's was on the same menu (ahem!, agenda), so the 9th looks to be decider day, in advance of the first Commission meeting of the month, which is on the 14th.

Everybody is in favor of the taxes the place would generate, and the police chief remains unconvinced that juveniles can be handled, but he wrote a curiously subdued denial in the report.  I'd say there is a 70% chance of recommendation and approval by the Commission even with the political thunder clouds on the horizon.

Also possibly on the agenda for the 9th, moving the Small Plates license to 212 W. 5th (Mezzo-something, not a big place I'm told, so how are they going to justify $3-400,000 for an in-town license?  And up to 3 in-the-works bistro requests.

Stay tuned, or, since you can't see it on TV, come! -- Brendan

* *