Viewing By Entry / Main
Hide
Single Beer Sales
In the meeting notes from Tuesday's MVSNA meeting, there was mention of Brenda's and Andy's Carry Out already having agreements in place to sell singles. Given all of the people hanging out over there drinking and littering and the fact that the ban was so recently enacted, I'm surprised that any neighbors would have agreed to this. These are just the types of places that people don't want singles sold from. I'm a direct neighbor and haven't heard anything about or seen an agreement regarding single sales from either establishment. Does anyone know how to obtain a copy of the agreements? Also, is there a way to fight them?
Comments
This has got me scratching my head a bit too. I didn't think exceptions to the moratorium were going to be handed out that freely. Selling single serve containers often produces unwanted results such as increased trash, public drunkenness, public urination and loitering, all of which contribute to neighborhoods deteriorating.
I had thought exemptions would be limited to places that specialize in selling micro or exotic brews that vagrant drunks have no interest in because of the price. Places whose business model is based on selling these types of brews. If you exempt convenience stores that are selling cheap 12oz cans of Bud won't the vagrants eventually figure out what the places sell what they want and migrate there?
Brenda's place may not NOW have any of the problems the single serve moratorium was intended to address. But drunks will migrate and find the places to get their fix if their usual spots no longer sell singles. If such a shift does occur and her exemption begins to bring nuisances to the community would she do the right thing and voluntarily stop selling singles at that point? Or would she hide behind the exemption the community gave her and continue the practice? My guess is if nuisance does migrate Mark Dixon would strongly encourage her to do what is right for the community but what do others think?
Posted By FourthandEye / At 11/21/08 6:35 AM
I had thought exemptions would be limited to places that specialize in selling micro or exotic brews that vagrant drunks have no interest in because of the price. Places whose business model is based on selling these types of brews. If you exempt convenience stores that are selling cheap 12oz cans of Bud won't the vagrants eventually figure out what the places sell what they want and migrate there?
Brenda's place may not NOW have any of the problems the single serve moratorium was intended to address. But drunks will migrate and find the places to get their fix if their usual spots no longer sell singles. If such a shift does occur and her exemption begins to bring nuisances to the community would she do the right thing and voluntarily stop selling singles at that point? Or would she hide behind the exemption the community gave her and continue the practice? My guess is if nuisance does migrate Mark Dixon would strongly encourage her to do what is right for the community but what do others think?
Posted By FourthandEye / At 11/21/08 6:35 AM
"Brenda's place may not NOW have any of the problems the single serve moratorium was intended to address." I beg to differ. I am always cleaning up 24 oz cans from my yard and the median and I do have to kick people off my steps who are enjoying 24 oz beverages and are often intoxicated and belligerent.
If I live on the same block and never heard a peep, I am curious about who the agreement is with. Are they truly neighbors? And why do two stores next to each other both get exemptions.
Posted By Scott NJ Ave / At 11/21/08 6:57 AM
If I live on the same block and never heard a peep, I am curious about who the agreement is with. Are they truly neighbors? And why do two stores next to each other both get exemptions.
Posted By Scott NJ Ave / At 11/21/08 6:57 AM
Good Libations (5th and M) has requested an exemption from the single sale prohibition. We (MVSNA) have tentatively scheduled a meeting to discuss the proposal, and possibly develop a voluntary agreement, on Monday, December 1, at 7pm. If interested in attending, please contact me (carysilverman a.t. comcast dot net).
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 11/21/08 7:56 AM
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 11/21/08 7:56 AM
The voluntary agreements for the two locations in questions were enacted with the ANC6C *prior* to the single-sell exemption being passed. This is nothing that was "freely given" as an exception. Brenda's store has been a good neighbor to the community and I would think that she is willing to work with us on our issues.
ABRA notices for their renewals have been posted as required and they will be presenting their case to the ANC on Wednesday December 10. If you have issues with the voluntary agreements or wish to protest the licenses, I suggest that you: 1) Call Mark Dixon at 202.438.2228 to register your issues with the voluntary agreement(s), 2) show up at ANC meeting to express your concerns with one or both license renewals, and 3) appear at the ABRA hearing to protest the license(s).
I will try to get copies of the voluntary agreements in place so we can review them prior to the meetings/hearings.
Posted By RobA / At 11/21/08 8:14 AM
ABRA notices for their renewals have been posted as required and they will be presenting their case to the ANC on Wednesday December 10. If you have issues with the voluntary agreements or wish to protest the licenses, I suggest that you: 1) Call Mark Dixon at 202.438.2228 to register your issues with the voluntary agreement(s), 2) show up at ANC meeting to express your concerns with one or both license renewals, and 3) appear at the ABRA hearing to protest the license(s).
I will try to get copies of the voluntary agreements in place so we can review them prior to the meetings/hearings.
Posted By RobA / At 11/21/08 8:14 AM
I would also appreciate it if you would contact me with any isssues/concerns you might have with the two licenses as well. Please feel free to email me at robamos]at[yahoo]dot[com or by phone at 202.494.5839. I have already started the process of getting copies of the voluntary agreements and would be glad to send a copy to anyone who would like a copy (just contact me). I will also make sure your feedback gets to Mark Dixon and other ANC6C Commissioners as well.
Posted By RobA / At 11/21/08 8:36 AM
Posted By RobA / At 11/21/08 8:36 AM
More information on the 2 ABRA renewals. The two establishments up for renewal are:
Andy's Carryout
No Jun Choon and Myong A (owners)
209 New York Avenue NW
License: ABRA-021721
Class B Retailer
ANC6C02
Posting Date: 11/7/2008
Petition Date: 12/22/2008
Hearing Date: 01/05/2009
B&M Food Store
Brenda Keys (owner)
215 New York Avenue NW
License: ABRA-001213
Class B Retailer
ANC6C02
Posting Date: 11/7/2008
Petition Date: 12/22/2008
Hearing Date: 01/05/2009
Letters of Protest or Support should be sent to Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA Fax: 202-442-9563) as well as to your ANC6C02 Commissioner, Mark Dixon. I would recommend appearing at the December 10, ANC6C meeting as well.
ABRA Hearings on the renewals begin at 10:00 am on teh day specified at 941 North Capitol Street NE 7th Floor, Room 7200 Hearing Room.
Posted By RobA / At 11/21/08 10:59 AM
Andy's Carryout
No Jun Choon and Myong A (owners)
209 New York Avenue NW
License: ABRA-021721
Class B Retailer
ANC6C02
Posting Date: 11/7/2008
Petition Date: 12/22/2008
Hearing Date: 01/05/2009
B&M Food Store
Brenda Keys (owner)
215 New York Avenue NW
License: ABRA-001213
Class B Retailer
ANC6C02
Posting Date: 11/7/2008
Petition Date: 12/22/2008
Hearing Date: 01/05/2009
Letters of Protest or Support should be sent to Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA Fax: 202-442-9563) as well as to your ANC6C02 Commissioner, Mark Dixon. I would recommend appearing at the December 10, ANC6C meeting as well.
ABRA Hearings on the renewals begin at 10:00 am on teh day specified at 941 North Capitol Street NE 7th Floor, Room 7200 Hearing Room.
Posted By RobA / At 11/21/08 10:59 AM
Slippery slope. Bad idea. The stores up the street at 5th and K have to abide by the single serve ban. Supporting this request just perpetuates the open air bar that is Mt. Vernon Triangle. Don't do this to us neighbors to the north!!
Posted By JRG / At 11/22/08 9:16 AM
Posted By JRG / At 11/22/08 9:16 AM
This is the kind of thing that irritates me most about DC laws and their enforcement. The law should be set through a representative process (ie, the City Council) and then apply equally to everyone at all times. It is not a starting point for negotiations. No exclusions from the single sales ban, no negotiating with neighbors (or neighboring churches full of non-residents) before you can serve beer and wine at your restaurant, and no special parking privileges for churchgoers. These behaviors feed the presumption that the law only applies to some of the people some of the time, but others should get special treatment.
Posted By jescowa / At 11/22/08 9:48 AM
Posted By jescowa / At 11/22/08 9:48 AM
Selling single beers attracts troubles. If there is a ban then it should be a complete ban and not a pick & choose who can sell single beers. Just say NO.
Posted By Libby / At 11/22/08 9:41 PM
Posted By Libby / At 11/22/08 9:41 PM
The trouble is that a blanket ban as passed by the council includes beers such as Saporo and Heineken when sold in big bottles or cans.
I'm pretty sure those are not causing any trouble!
Posted By Sam Farmer / At 11/23/08 12:46 PM
I'm pretty sure those are not causing any trouble!
Posted By Sam Farmer / At 11/23/08 12:46 PM
Yes Sam. It's a pandora's box. My bf's flavor is Ballantine Ale; when will it be on the target list?
Posted By Libby / At 11/23/08 3:05 PM
Posted By Libby / At 11/23/08 3:05 PM
The more I think about it the more I believe we just shouldn't make any exceptions. It's true that bottles of Saporo may not now or ever be one of the favorites of the vagrants. But it's just too subjective. We should just stick to the 70oz cut off point written into the moratorium.
Posted By FourthandEye / At 11/24/08 8:55 AM
Posted By FourthandEye / At 11/24/08 8:55 AM
According to the latest guidelines I received today from ABRA, you can't dictate what brands they can or cannot sell.
Posted By RobA / At 11/24/08 11:37 AM
Posted By RobA / At 11/24/08 11:37 AM
My concern is that Modern Liquors sells the type of 'singles' I'd otherwise buy at Whole Foods, which (I believe) is fully exempted from the restriction. 750-ml microbrews and specialty beers from Dogfish, Belgian producers, etc. Would ABRA accept a price-based restriction (rather than brand-based) given that precedent?
From 14thandyou.blogspot.com: "This concern stems from the fact that the P St. Whole Foods was able to successfully stave off enforcement of the ban in their store, claiming that the type of single sales that they engage in are, in effect, too pricey to be consumed in mass quantities in public. Its doubtful the local corner market could make a similar argument."
Posted By MaryP / At 11/24/08 12:08 PM
From 14thandyou.blogspot.com: "This concern stems from the fact that the P St. Whole Foods was able to successfully stave off enforcement of the ban in their store, claiming that the type of single sales that they engage in are, in effect, too pricey to be consumed in mass quantities in public. Its doubtful the local corner market could make a similar argument."
Posted By MaryP / At 11/24/08 12:08 PM
MaryP,
Unfortunately you can't discriminate based upon price either. Here's the statement in the guidelines:
"Brands and Pricing – Specific brands of alcohol may not be prohibited. The price to be charged by the establishment for specific alcoholic beverages, including a floor price for single sales of beer, also may not be included. "
Posted By RobA / At 11/24/08 12:39 PM
Unfortunately you can't discriminate based upon price either. Here's the statement in the guidelines:
"Brands and Pricing – Specific brands of alcohol may not be prohibited. The price to be charged by the establishment for specific alcoholic beverages, including a floor price for single sales of beer, also may not be included. "
Posted By RobA / At 11/24/08 12:39 PM
I agree that the Whole Food exemption muddies the waters. But if we get fixated on the fairness issues around that and become highly sympathetic to the corner stores then the moratorium could fall apart. The objectives of the ban can't be achieved if there are still places scattered through the 'hood for loitering drunks to get singles.
Posted By FourthandEye / At 11/24/08 1:23 PM
Posted By FourthandEye / At 11/24/08 1:23 PM
Question - Can brands or pricing be specified in a voluntary agreement with a neighborhood entity and/or the ANC?
Posted By Si Kailian / At 11/24/08 1:28 PM
Posted By Si Kailian / At 11/24/08 1:28 PM
Si, no they can't. The blurb I quoted is from the ABRA Guidelines for Voluntary Agreements that was provided to me today from one of the ABRA Attorneys.
Posted By RobA / At 11/24/08 2:16 PM
Posted By RobA / At 11/24/08 2:16 PM
I agree on the slippery slope comment. A ban is a ban and the city-wide law was enacted for a reason - after many years of neighborhood activists fighting for pocket bans. To agree to allow people to sell higher-end singles is definitely subjective. I agree with others who have stated that the allowance of exceptions will lead to sympathetic tendancies towards long time corner stores.
I saw the city-wide ban as one of the few victories for DC citizens, who have no anti-loitering laws or other avenues for protecting ourselves from neighborhood nuisances. To see that the ban can be so easily sidestepped is frustrating to say the least.
If Big Ben and all of the places on North Capitol St. stop selling singles because of the ban (since nobody in their right mind would approve voluntary agreements with those establishments), the clientele will migrate to stores that have managed to obtain the agreements, and I certainly don't want the Big Ben customer base migrating to my doorstep.
Posted By Megan / At 11/24/08 7:53 PM
I saw the city-wide ban as one of the few victories for DC citizens, who have no anti-loitering laws or other avenues for protecting ourselves from neighborhood nuisances. To see that the ban can be so easily sidestepped is frustrating to say the least.
If Big Ben and all of the places on North Capitol St. stop selling singles because of the ban (since nobody in their right mind would approve voluntary agreements with those establishments), the clientele will migrate to stores that have managed to obtain the agreements, and I certainly don't want the Big Ben customer base migrating to my doorstep.
Posted By Megan / At 11/24/08 7:53 PM
people will say that the gathering in front of Big Ben is historic culture. but the truth is the drug at N and NY ave is the draw to the area. all the junkies come in to get their free fix and turn the Big Ben into a family reunion spot. Big Ben is in Ward 5.
Posted By richard r / At 11/25/08 5:40 AM
Posted By richard r / At 11/25/08 5:40 AM
isnt the singles ban in wards 2 & 6 only?
Posted By Si Kailian / At 11/25/08 8:12 AM
Posted By Si Kailian / At 11/25/08 8:12 AM
More information on the two upcoming renewals. In looking over the existing voluntary agreements for both B&M Food Store and Andy's Carryout, I see:
1) The voluntary agreements were executed in 2002 before any single-sale bans were enacted in any Ward in DC.
2) Separate orders (one for each establishment) were agreed upon by the owners of the establishment and ANC5C. (Yes, at that time it was ANC5C and not ANC6C)
3) There are no explicit restrictions on what can or cannot be sold other than what is allowed by their ABRA retailer's Class B license.
4) The agreements primarily discuss keeping the area clean, addressing loitering in and around the establishment, signage, what non-alcoholic items cannot be sold (single cigarettes, rolling papers, small plastic baggies, etc).
Posted By RobA / At 11/25/08 9:32 AM
1) The voluntary agreements were executed in 2002 before any single-sale bans were enacted in any Ward in DC.
2) Separate orders (one for each establishment) were agreed upon by the owners of the establishment and ANC5C. (Yes, at that time it was ANC5C and not ANC6C)
3) There are no explicit restrictions on what can or cannot be sold other than what is allowed by their ABRA retailer's Class B license.
4) The agreements primarily discuss keeping the area clean, addressing loitering in and around the establishment, signage, what non-alcoholic items cannot be sold (single cigarettes, rolling papers, small plastic baggies, etc).
Posted By RobA / At 11/25/08 9:32 AM
I have never understood the thought process that leads to laws that punish or restrict law abiding citizens in an attempt to curb illegal behavior by others.
There are many benefits to the larger sizes.
1. A 12oz beer is gone in a few minutes for me and sometimes it's a long way back to the cooler or fridge
2. You can't cap a can or a poptop bottle to prevent spillage or loss of fizz.
3. You don't waste as much beer by having a bunch of cans w/ warm dregs left.
4. You CAN limit your drinking by purchasing a smaller amount of beer and forcing yourself to go back to the store every time.
5. Less waste of packaging material. i.e larger bags, many smaller cans or bottles, plastic six or four pack rings also resulting in less trash.
6. It's far cheaper. 3 24's= $5.25 6 12's = $6.59 or so.
7. It looks cooler.
8. A 32 or 40oz bottle make a much better defensive weapon than a 12oz can.
Now. If I walked down 9th St w/ an open beer in my hand, I have no doubt that I would immediately be ticketed or arrested for "Drinking in Public". While there is NO "Drunk in Public" law in DC there is a law against consumption of alchoholic beverages on public space. Yet everywhere in these neighborhoods, there are groups of people having sidewalk parties with liquor and beer plainly visible. Why can't we enforce the laws already on the books that were designed to target these infractions, without having to give up our own personal freedoms? Even if it is only the freedom to drink your preferred beverage out of larger container. I fought for a long time to have the police enforce this law at a very well known hangout/drugstop and met resistance the entire way. Finally I have seen some limited success. There is a slippery slope here and it's plain to me that law abiding citizens are at the bottom of it.
Posted By Daniel / At 12/5/08 10:10 AM
There are many benefits to the larger sizes.
1. A 12oz beer is gone in a few minutes for me and sometimes it's a long way back to the cooler or fridge
2. You can't cap a can or a poptop bottle to prevent spillage or loss of fizz.
3. You don't waste as much beer by having a bunch of cans w/ warm dregs left.
4. You CAN limit your drinking by purchasing a smaller amount of beer and forcing yourself to go back to the store every time.
5. Less waste of packaging material. i.e larger bags, many smaller cans or bottles, plastic six or four pack rings also resulting in less trash.
6. It's far cheaper. 3 24's= $5.25 6 12's = $6.59 or so.
7. It looks cooler.
8. A 32 or 40oz bottle make a much better defensive weapon than a 12oz can.
Now. If I walked down 9th St w/ an open beer in my hand, I have no doubt that I would immediately be ticketed or arrested for "Drinking in Public". While there is NO "Drunk in Public" law in DC there is a law against consumption of alchoholic beverages on public space. Yet everywhere in these neighborhoods, there are groups of people having sidewalk parties with liquor and beer plainly visible. Why can't we enforce the laws already on the books that were designed to target these infractions, without having to give up our own personal freedoms? Even if it is only the freedom to drink your preferred beverage out of larger container. I fought for a long time to have the police enforce this law at a very well known hangout/drugstop and met resistance the entire way. Finally I have seen some limited success. There is a slippery slope here and it's plain to me that law abiding citizens are at the bottom of it.
Posted By Daniel / At 12/5/08 10:10 AM
There is a difference between convenience and freedom. You are using the concept of freedom quite liberally. It's tough to swallow that my neighbors won't subject themselves to mild inconvenience to give the neighborhood/police a new tool to limit vagrancy.
Posted By Paul / At 12/5/08 10:56 AM
Posted By Paul / At 12/5/08 10:56 AM
Are you people serious?
Banning singles is not the most pressing concern this neighborhood/area has. That's just silly. Plus, do you really think it's going to do anything? Get real people.
Sure, Cary Silverman supported it. He also lost. And do you know why he didn't get my vote? Because he thought a bunch of stunts like this were how we were going to make the area safe, clean, accessible, and hospitable. That would be fantastic ... if it actually worked.
Use you energy to do something worthwhile.
Posted By Kevin / At 12/5/08 1:45 PM
Banning singles is not the most pressing concern this neighborhood/area has. That's just silly. Plus, do you really think it's going to do anything? Get real people.
Sure, Cary Silverman supported it. He also lost. And do you know why he didn't get my vote? Because he thought a bunch of stunts like this were how we were going to make the area safe, clean, accessible, and hospitable. That would be fantastic ... if it actually worked.
Use you energy to do something worthwhile.
Posted By Kevin / At 12/5/08 1:45 PM
