Viewing By Entry / Main
Before the Holiday Megan initiated a discussion about the Single Serve Moratorium that generated some lively debate. I wanted to re-ignite that dialog as businesses will be applying for exemptions over the next couple of months so it's important to flush out are positions on the subject.
Many lobbied the council to pass this Single Serve Moratorium in Wards 2 & 6 as it has been an effective tool in Ward 4 and other cities for reducing trash, public drunkenness, public urination and loitering.
The legislation allows licensee's to apply to the ABC board for an exemption to the ban. The ABC Board is given several criteria by which they must make their decision, including considering: * great weight to the position of the ANC * impact of an exemption to the effectiveness of the overall ban * one year track record on violations of the licensee * licensee community participation * clear and convincing evidence that there has been no negative impact of single sales in the community
A question many who believe exemptions undermine the moratorium ask is: What is the justification for the average neighborhood resident to buy singles rather than 6 packs of beer? Presumably all our residents have refrigerators. It's the loiterers and vagrants that don't.
Two arguments I've recently heard for singles are: * Local workers stop by the liquor store after work to get one 24oz of beer. The store owner claims these workers do not pound the beers in front of the store. Where are they drinking the beers then? In their cars? On the metrobus? * Buying a single beer is a way of self moderation. The store owner made analogy using ice cream. While grocery shopping you may see a buy one get one free special on half gallons of ice cream. It's a great value but you fear you may each too much ice cream if you buy that much. There is some validity to this point and I often employ the same buy small approach with my ice cream purchases. However if ice cream was linked with trash, public urination and loitering I would adapt my habits to a pint ban for the good of the community.
Comments
The formatting on this post didn't come out the way I thought it would. A preview function or edit post feature would be helpful.
Posted By Paul / At 12/1/08 10:32 PM
Posted By Paul / At 12/1/08 10:32 PM
If an exemption is made on 5th Street, how do we keep single serves banned at Subway Liquor where we have a vagrancy, public drinking and public urination problem? This is a bad idea and harms the folks on the other side of the ANC border. If MVSNA truly represents the Triangle like they say then they will keep the single serve ban intact for all parts of the neighborhood.
Posted By JRG / At 12/2/08 4:57 AM
Posted By JRG / At 12/2/08 4:57 AM
Its certainly not that simple. The ban is a patchwork nightmare down to the single member district, so we find out. So one store has to pull singles now, another store 2 blocks away will have to pull them sometime next year, and another a few blocks over can keep on selling to their hearts content. and guess which store is the most responsible?
The law provides for those certain criteria which can be taken into consideration, the history & relationship with the community. Some stores meet those tests, some dont. Voluntary agreements can and should be put into place because you dont know what the future will bring. But brands & prices cant be dictated. Ultimately it comes down to trust.
Posted By Si Kailian / At 12/2/08 8:20 AM
The law provides for those certain criteria which can be taken into consideration, the history & relationship with the community. Some stores meet those tests, some dont. Voluntary agreements can and should be put into place because you dont know what the future will bring. But brands & prices cant be dictated. Ultimately it comes down to trust.
Posted By Si Kailian / At 12/2/08 8:20 AM
It is the store's ANC that gives their approval or disapproval to ABRA on the single sales exemption - not the neighborhood association like MVSNA, DNA, or CCCA. And even the ANC's decision is not the only determining factor, the ANC's opionion is given "great weight" in ABRA's decision process but it is only one of five (5) decision criteria ABRA will use per the legislation. ABRA, like any other DC department, can decide to override the ANC's opinion and grant the exemption.
All any neighborhood association can do is to provide their opinion/input to the ANC and ABRA on the issue.
Posted By RobA / At 12/2/08 9:47 AM
All any neighborhood association can do is to provide their opinion/input to the ANC and ABRA on the issue.
Posted By RobA / At 12/2/08 9:47 AM
I still think it is a slippery slope. And neighborhood associations are given great weight. The Subway single serve ban was tied to the Chinatown Market ban. If a store up the street from Subway is given an exemption, then Subway has a better shot at an exemption and then Chinatown Market. Everything unravels. I think the neighborhoods should hold firm. The problems caused by single serves is much greater than the inconvenience of buying beers one at a time.
Posted By JRG / At 12/2/08 9:56 AM
Posted By JRG / At 12/2/08 9:56 AM
JRG, unfortunately, the legislation makes no mention of neighborhood associations at all in the process - just the ANC. We can recommend to the ANC and ABRA, but they don't have to do anything with our opinion. If you need a copy of the legislation, I have a copy loaded here: http://www.box.net/shared/b7l20m5syj
Posted By RobA / At 12/2/08 10:11 AM
Posted By RobA / At 12/2/08 10:11 AM
It is true that in an area like ours which is divided into two Wards (2&6) and adjacent to another Ward (5) that is not enacting the ban that there are additional challenges and perceived fairness issues. The Ward 2 vs Ward 6 issues will be resolved in a matter of months. The Ward 5 issue isn't going away. However I do not think we should compromise our resolve within our Wards simply because Ward 5 isn't on board. Catering to the lowest common denominator in the name of what's "fair" is poor policy. If we do our ban right and it's effective I think Bloomingdale and Eckington residents will eventually begin to push their Ward for a ban.
Shifting gears, I'm hoping to have the discussion about why residents in the community buy single serves. The core customer base of these stores is the community. Why is it presumed that residents will spend less money at a place like Good Libations if they could no longer sold single beers? Would community residents rather walk 5 blocks to N Capitol St to buy a 24 oz three times a week than buy a six pack at Good Libations once a week? I can imagine circumstances when a single is more convenient. But is that convenience worth undermining a ban that will improve quality of life in the neighborhood?
I don't doubt that Homeless/Vagrants/Loiterers will make the journey to Big Ben's to buy a 24oz. All they have is spare change and time so the extra walk is no big deal for them. I'm not particularly concerned if any business loses the revenue stream from vagrants. But I don't think the community residents, the core customer, will mass exodus from a well run clean local liquor store because they stop selling singles to a dirty store that does. If many people disagree with this notion feel free to debate it in this thread.
As for the comments about what role and weight the MVSNA has in supporting an exemption I believe RobA is correct that *directly* it's little to none. That direct influence on ABRA lies with the ANC. But I would think it's very dubious of an ANC commissioner to unilaterally decide to oppose a mandate from the community (via the neighborhood association). Every ANC meeting I have gone to the commissioners have a monologue about how the Mayor's office or DDOT isn't giving them the great weight they should be afforded. Well, to me, it would be hypocritical if the ANC commisioner did not give the word of the community great weight.
Posted By Paul / At 12/2/08 10:28 AM
Shifting gears, I'm hoping to have the discussion about why residents in the community buy single serves. The core customer base of these stores is the community. Why is it presumed that residents will spend less money at a place like Good Libations if they could no longer sold single beers? Would community residents rather walk 5 blocks to N Capitol St to buy a 24 oz three times a week than buy a six pack at Good Libations once a week? I can imagine circumstances when a single is more convenient. But is that convenience worth undermining a ban that will improve quality of life in the neighborhood?
I don't doubt that Homeless/Vagrants/Loiterers will make the journey to Big Ben's to buy a 24oz. All they have is spare change and time so the extra walk is no big deal for them. I'm not particularly concerned if any business loses the revenue stream from vagrants. But I don't think the community residents, the core customer, will mass exodus from a well run clean local liquor store because they stop selling singles to a dirty store that does. If many people disagree with this notion feel free to debate it in this thread.
As for the comments about what role and weight the MVSNA has in supporting an exemption I believe RobA is correct that *directly* it's little to none. That direct influence on ABRA lies with the ANC. But I would think it's very dubious of an ANC commissioner to unilaterally decide to oppose a mandate from the community (via the neighborhood association). Every ANC meeting I have gone to the commissioners have a monologue about how the Mayor's office or DDOT isn't giving them the great weight they should be afforded. Well, to me, it would be hypocritical if the ANC commisioner did not give the word of the community great weight.
Posted By Paul / At 12/2/08 10:28 AM
Footnote to my last comment - I attend ANC6C meetings not 2C.
Posted By Paul / At 12/2/08 10:35 AM
Posted By Paul / At 12/2/08 10:35 AM
The only instance I can think of why an ANC Commissioner might ignore a mandate from a neighborhood association is if the neighborhood association crosses two Wards or multiple SMDs and the mandate was not from the constituents in his Ward/SMD but rather from the other Ward/SMDs. If his SMD supports that particular issue, then those are the people he is representing and not those of the other Ward/SMD. Hopefully, the neighborhood association is representing multiple areas and the mandate is truly a mandate across all Wards/SMDs of the association and not just those members of the association from one side of the street that happened to attend the meeting that night to vote on the issue.
But you are right - if it is a true mandate and the Commissioner ignores the will of his constituents, then yes, the hypocrisy of the decision should be brought out (and I know several attendees of the ANC6C meetings that would have no problem doing that to a Commissioner)
Posted By RobA / At 12/2/08 12:59 PM
But you are right - if it is a true mandate and the Commissioner ignores the will of his constituents, then yes, the hypocrisy of the decision should be brought out (and I know several attendees of the ANC6C meetings that would have no problem doing that to a Commissioner)
Posted By RobA / At 12/2/08 12:59 PM
While the ban may be a patchwork nightmare, it's because we enable it to be that way. If we fail to oppose a neighborhood agreement with a store 2 blocks away because another won't have to pull them until sometime next year, then we have basically thrown the entire ban out the window. And I don't have to guess about the responsibility of the particular establishments in question - I deal with their trash and loiterers daily. As someone who lives less than a block away, I will venture to say I have a lot of experience on this. Instead of supporting agreements because of the staggered timing of enforcement, let's support the ban, even if it is enforced on this staggered timeline.
I still assert that this is a slippery slope - we should enfore the ban for all establishments. Having to sell 6 packs is not that much of a hardship unless a majority of the business is based on single sales, and if that's the case, the probability is that the business contributes to the issues that the ban is trying to solve.
The weakness of the arguments that Paul recounted for single sales show the desperation of these businesses. I could counter the ice cream theory by arguing that moving to 6 packs is better because it teaches people how to budget more effectively.
I believe that the ANC takes the stance of the MVSNA seriously and I welcome the Association's support on full enforcement of the ban before the ANC, but I realize that this is predicated on the position of a majority of neighbors. I just don't see why a majority wouldn't support the ban of single sales since we've all been repeated victims of its impact.
Posted By Megan / At 12/2/08 9:04 PM
I still assert that this is a slippery slope - we should enfore the ban for all establishments. Having to sell 6 packs is not that much of a hardship unless a majority of the business is based on single sales, and if that's the case, the probability is that the business contributes to the issues that the ban is trying to solve.
The weakness of the arguments that Paul recounted for single sales show the desperation of these businesses. I could counter the ice cream theory by arguing that moving to 6 packs is better because it teaches people how to budget more effectively.
I believe that the ANC takes the stance of the MVSNA seriously and I welcome the Association's support on full enforcement of the ban before the ANC, but I realize that this is predicated on the position of a majority of neighbors. I just don't see why a majority wouldn't support the ban of single sales since we've all been repeated victims of its impact.
Posted By Megan / At 12/2/08 9:04 PM
Let me make an analogy. Obama won DC in a landslide. So I assume most MVSNA readers support him and his policies. Well, Barack's taxation plan isn't "fair" to everyone but it's what the country needs right now. Right now this Single Sales Moratorium is what the downtown and Mount Vernon Square neighborhoods NEED. Let's not guilt trip ourselves into forfeiting this away via exemptions.
Posted By Jason / At 12/3/08 5:34 AM
Posted By Jason / At 12/3/08 5:34 AM
I'd suggest we starting talking more about actual facts and not multiple different stories pretending to be factual.
Here's a fact:
From my conversations with Ron who owns Good Libations, if the ban goes through, he will loose enough income that he will most likely go out of business.
Another fact:
He does not sell Malt Liquor. No one loiters or litters around the store.
Posted By Sam Farmer / At 12/3/08 7:45 AM
Here's a fact:
From my conversations with Ron who owns Good Libations, if the ban goes through, he will loose enough income that he will most likely go out of business.
Another fact:
He does not sell Malt Liquor. No one loiters or litters around the store.
Posted By Sam Farmer / At 12/3/08 7:45 AM
How many people who are commenting have ever been in Ron's store at 5th and M? How many are his customers? I for one appreciate the changes he has made in his store, including the expanding wine selection, periodic wine tastings, and other events he holds. Now not only does he have to deal with increased competition from Safeway, whose wine and beer selection is larger than Ron's entire store, but he has to deal with a ban that has been instituted to deal with a problem that he doesn't contribute to? Ron is moving his store in the direction that the community supports. He is offering more high-end products and expanding his selection. Maybe if more folks in the neighborhood shopped at his store for the higher-end products, then he could phase out the singles.
Also - don't forget, this single-sales moritorium isn't going to be a saving grace. The "drunks on the corner" can still pick up a pint or small container of hard liquor for their bag just as easy as a single.
Posted By JohnD / At 12/3/08 8:53 AM
Also - don't forget, this single-sales moritorium isn't going to be a saving grace. The "drunks on the corner" can still pick up a pint or small container of hard liquor for their bag just as easy as a single.
Posted By JohnD / At 12/3/08 8:53 AM
I was at a meeting Monday night with Ron and we chatted with him for 40+ minutes. He never once said he would go out of business. He does feel the single sales are an important revenue stream for him to compete but he never uttered the words "I'll go out of business". For what it's worth, he did say he would have no issue with the ban if it covered DC in it's entirety and had no exemptions...
From everything I've heard Ron runs a good business. His production selection does not cater to the vagrants. But I believe in the concept of the wide reaching and strong ban. Sam, you like facts and there will be a slippery slope if we further endorse exemptions. That is fact. Cary also said at Monday's meeting that not a single Ward 4 (Mount Pleasant) liquor store went out of business after they enacted the singles sales ban. We all questioned the validity of that stat (how it was recorded, etc...) but it's out there...
If after deliberating the issue fully the community disagrees and wants to support an exemption for Good Libations I can accept that and will hold no grudges. But I will vehemently argue against the corner groceries and carryout places that ask for an exemption. On some level you can understand a boutique liquor store's business model relying on sale of single sales alcohol. If a convenience store that sells toilet paper, food, etc claims they need to sell single beers for their business to survive that's not acceptable. Running a business is about adapting.
Posted By Paul / At 12/3/08 9:04 AM
From everything I've heard Ron runs a good business. His production selection does not cater to the vagrants. But I believe in the concept of the wide reaching and strong ban. Sam, you like facts and there will be a slippery slope if we further endorse exemptions. That is fact. Cary also said at Monday's meeting that not a single Ward 4 (Mount Pleasant) liquor store went out of business after they enacted the singles sales ban. We all questioned the validity of that stat (how it was recorded, etc...) but it's out there...
If after deliberating the issue fully the community disagrees and wants to support an exemption for Good Libations I can accept that and will hold no grudges. But I will vehemently argue against the corner groceries and carryout places that ask for an exemption. On some level you can understand a boutique liquor store's business model relying on sale of single sales alcohol. If a convenience store that sells toilet paper, food, etc claims they need to sell single beers for their business to survive that's not acceptable. Running a business is about adapting.
Posted By Paul / At 12/3/08 9:04 AM
Ok I am going to be probably way to honest and rambling about this whole thing. I think this single ban stinks. Its mean, classist, unfair and discriminitory. Yes I get irritated by all of the negative impacts of the easy procurement of hobo brews just like all of my other neighbors but penalizing a store owner who 1. does NOT sell hobo brew 2. does everything right with the community 3. has the support of the police 4. has no history of violations/problems and 5. is a contributing member of this community 6. has a continuously adapting business 7. does NOT have a trash or loitering issue. This problem is about vagrants and this problem is about enforcement. It is illegal to drink in public, urinate in public and defacate in public..and now at long last, to litter. DC is trying to provide the homeless with housing and comprehensive services, something better than an AA meeting next door to a liquor store or a methadone program next to an open air drug market. In my humble opinion I would argue that we should lend our considerably chatty voices to getting adequate funding for Housing First and enforcement of quality of life crimes. Get out there and get the vacant property secured so its not a haven for ilicit activity. Use this single sales moratorium to work with and support the responsible local businesses that are good to the community. Everyone and their mother supported Modern Liquors without batting an eyelash. Personally I think Good Libations isn't much different and I trust Ron based on his history and how he runs his business well. He is very good to this neighborhood. And as far as the slippery slope argument, follow the law and say no if an establishment does not meet the criteria set forth. But if they do, it is not fair to penalize them. btw in my previous comment i was referring to Good libations, Subway II, and Big Ben in that order. And its a good thing we are hashing this out now because a vote is coming.
Posted By Si Kailian / At 12/3/08 10:41 AM
Posted By Si Kailian / At 12/3/08 10:41 AM
I did not support the Modern Liquors exemption. I simply did not vote or object. I now wish I had if that lack of objection is now going to be "used against" single sales proponents. I simply was not prepared at that meeting to make a cogent counter argument. Going into the meeting I saw it was a line item but it was not accompanied by supporting information. I did not know what the nature of the discussion would be nor did I anticipate the MVSNA was going to merely serve up a glowing testimonial for Modern Liquors without any counter argument regarding how exemptions undermine the ban. We never discussed the ABRA criteria. Heck, Ron told us at Monday night's discussion that Modern Liquors does sell the "hobo brews". Frankly we should have had this discussion prior to the meeting because hearing a testimonial and voting 3 minutes later was not ideal. Modern Liquors was a rushed decision and already contributing to the slippery slope. I'm glad we are now having these discussions. I'm sorry if you disagree with the whole idea of the moratorium. The time for that discussion was when the bill was being proposed - right?
I apologize for being unprepared at that MVSNA meeting to make the counter arguments to Modern Liquors. As I mentioned above I was just caught off guard on the nature of the discussion because CaryforCouncil.org constantly pushed for banning Single Serves - so I assumed the MVSNA held similar convictions.
http://caryforcouncil.org/campaign/index.php?blog=9&title=lfont_color_996600_gwho_fights_for_ward_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<I>The Council passed a ban on the sale of single alcoholic beverages for Wards 4, 7, and 8, with Council Member Wells pledging to add the entirety of Ward 6, which already has a partial ban, at the next meeting. Council Member Evans, spurred by the action of his colleagues, has after 17 years of complaints from neighborhoods residents, committed to proposing a similar ban for Ward 2. But his proposed ban, yet to be introduced, will cover only two Advisory Neighborhood Commission areas, Logan Circle (ANC 2F) and Shaw/Mt. Vernon/Penn/Chinatown Quarter (ANC 2C). Residents of Dupont Circle, Foggy Bottom/West End, Georgetown, and downtown should prepare to see more public intoxication, public urination, aggressive panhandling and trash, as those who cannot get a cheap drink in more than half of the rest of the city (Ward 1 already has a partial ban) find your corner and liquor stores.</I>
http://caryforcouncil.org/campaign/index.php?blog=9&title=singlesreversal&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<I>Folks, this is getting a bit ridiculous. First, it's odd to begin with that the Council is legislating on a ward-by-ward basis. (Mayor Fenty did it for Ward 4 as a Ward Council Member only after he tried for a citywide ban and could not obtain sufficient support-now we are talking about roughly half the city.) Now, the incumbent suggests legislating on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Would the Council ban single sales in Logan Circle sending the alcoholism, public drunkenness, trash, panhandlers, and public urination to Dupont Circle and Shaw? What kind of way is that to govern? It's time for some leadership. In addition, a neighborhood ban places stores in that area at a competitive disadvantage with those that may be a block or two away.
True, residents and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners can seek bans on single sales applicable to an individual store by either protesting its license and seeking a voluntary agreement, or it can request a moratorium for a particular area from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. If you've been through those processes, you know neither is ideal. The first pits residents against businesses, requiring both to go through lengthy hearings, and possibly lawyers. Historically, the ABC Board has not been receptive. The second option requires a rulemaking proceeding, which then must be approved by the Council.
The best option is a citywide ban on the practice. If that is not politically feasible for some reason, then a full Ward 2-wide ban is the next best thing.</I>
Posted By Paul / At 12/3/08 11:31 AM
I apologize for being unprepared at that MVSNA meeting to make the counter arguments to Modern Liquors. As I mentioned above I was just caught off guard on the nature of the discussion because CaryforCouncil.org constantly pushed for banning Single Serves - so I assumed the MVSNA held similar convictions.
http://caryforcouncil.org/campaign/index.php?blog=9&title=lfont_color_996600_gwho_fights_for_ward_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<I>The Council passed a ban on the sale of single alcoholic beverages for Wards 4, 7, and 8, with Council Member Wells pledging to add the entirety of Ward 6, which already has a partial ban, at the next meeting. Council Member Evans, spurred by the action of his colleagues, has after 17 years of complaints from neighborhoods residents, committed to proposing a similar ban for Ward 2. But his proposed ban, yet to be introduced, will cover only two Advisory Neighborhood Commission areas, Logan Circle (ANC 2F) and Shaw/Mt. Vernon/Penn/Chinatown Quarter (ANC 2C). Residents of Dupont Circle, Foggy Bottom/West End, Georgetown, and downtown should prepare to see more public intoxication, public urination, aggressive panhandling and trash, as those who cannot get a cheap drink in more than half of the rest of the city (Ward 1 already has a partial ban) find your corner and liquor stores.</I>
http://caryforcouncil.org/campaign/index.php?blog=9&title=singlesreversal&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<I>Folks, this is getting a bit ridiculous. First, it's odd to begin with that the Council is legislating on a ward-by-ward basis. (Mayor Fenty did it for Ward 4 as a Ward Council Member only after he tried for a citywide ban and could not obtain sufficient support-now we are talking about roughly half the city.) Now, the incumbent suggests legislating on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Would the Council ban single sales in Logan Circle sending the alcoholism, public drunkenness, trash, panhandlers, and public urination to Dupont Circle and Shaw? What kind of way is that to govern? It's time for some leadership. In addition, a neighborhood ban places stores in that area at a competitive disadvantage with those that may be a block or two away.
True, residents and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners can seek bans on single sales applicable to an individual store by either protesting its license and seeking a voluntary agreement, or it can request a moratorium for a particular area from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. If you've been through those processes, you know neither is ideal. The first pits residents against businesses, requiring both to go through lengthy hearings, and possibly lawyers. Historically, the ABC Board has not been receptive. The second option requires a rulemaking proceeding, which then must be approved by the Council.
The best option is a citywide ban on the practice. If that is not politically feasible for some reason, then a full Ward 2-wide ban is the next best thing.</I>
Posted By Paul / At 12/3/08 11:31 AM
I love democracy and going on record. I stand by what I said as a candidate and to the degree I can take credit for the single ban in Ward 2, I'm proud to do so. The new law is not perfect. It should have been citywide. It should not have exempted supermarkets. I was torn on supporting the procedure to obtain an exemption. There are businesses for which selling a single bottle of imported beer is no different than selling a single bottle of wine and, if there is no adverse impact on the neighborhood, I don't object. The new exemption procedure will be a headache for community associations and ANC's, but let's look at it in the positive light. Before the new law, we (neighborhood groups) would have to battle for years in hearings with lawyers to get nothing but require problem licensees to sell cheap singles in clear plastic bags. Now, we are in the much, much better position of working with good businesses to keep them moving forward and ensuring that problem businesses are problems no more.
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 12/3/08 7:53 PM
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 12/3/08 7:53 PM
I also meant to mention in my last comment that my positions are, of course, not necessarily the position of the MVSNA. Ultimately, our decision on Good Libations, and any other future applicant, will be an individual decision put to a vote after notice to the membership.
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 12/3/08 7:58 PM
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 12/3/08 7:58 PM
Isn't the bill called the Singles Sales Moratorium? Did I miss the memo that renamed it the Singles Sales Selective Ban? It seems some are attempting to pervert the bill into something different.
I hope ABRA makes the tough decisions and cites the "impact of an exemption to the effectiveness of the overall ban" from their outlined criteria to deny many of these community endorsed exemption applications.
Posted By Sara / At 12/4/08 5:37 AM
I hope ABRA makes the tough decisions and cites the "impact of an exemption to the effectiveness of the overall ban" from their outlined criteria to deny many of these community endorsed exemption applications.
Posted By Sara / At 12/4/08 5:37 AM
With all due respect Cary -- I believe that you are being overly political. You can't be for something and then fundamentally undermine it. But the fact is that the MVSNA cannot say it represents a border area (Wards 2 and 6) and then not take into consideration the needs and issues of the other area. We folks in the Triangle will be severely undermined by an exemption so close by. The "parks" in our area already serve as open air bars. This exemption will only continue that practice. They won't be hanging out by you Cary because they will be loitering by us on the other side of New York Avenue. And I don't buy the argument that a business will close due to the lack of single serve sales. Tunnel Liquor has done fine and it is in a truly lousy location. I don't go to Subway (even though it is by my condo) because of their business practices. I have bought at Good Libations but will cease to so if they get this exemption.
Posted By JRG / At 12/4/08 7:00 AM
Posted By JRG / At 12/4/08 7:00 AM
Cary, how does diminishing the strength of the Ward 2 and Ward 6 ban via a community referendum on which businesses are "good" help push the District closer to your ideal of a citywide ban?
Posted By Paul / At 12/4/08 7:46 AM
Posted By Paul / At 12/4/08 7:46 AM
The single sales ban is apparently aimed at reducing "quality of life" crimes, ie, public drunkeness, urinating in public, etc. If it is able to do that then great. But what has proven to reduce "quality of life" crime (and more serious crime) is Broken Windows policing. We already have laws against vagrancy and public intoxication (see http://www.inshaw.com/blog/2008/08/fun-with-dc-code-disturbing-peace.html and http://www.mtpleasantdc.org/alcoholpolicy.pdf) Search for public intoxication in http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000
25-1001. Drinking of alcoholic beverage in public place prohibited; intoxication prohibited. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, no person in the District shall drink an alcoholic beverage or possess in an open container an alcoholic beverage in or upon any of the following places: (1) A street, alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area...
Unfortunately, it cannot be enforced because the geniuses on the city council have mooted it with another law
24-604 (b)(1) Any person who is taken into custody for violating § 25-1001 shall be brought to a detoxification center where he shall either be admitted as a patient or transported by the Mayor to another appropriate medical facility for treatment. The police officer who took such person into custody for violating such section shall leave a violation notice for such person with the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center. After such person is sober and no longer incapacitated, the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center shall detain him as long as is reasonably necessary to conduct a diagnosis for alcoholism. If such person is diagnosed as a chronic alcoholic the medical officer shall, after a review of such person's record, recommend to the Corporation Counsel whether a criminal charge should be filed against such person for violating such section in order to institute civil commitment proceedings under § 24-607. If such a criminal charge is not filed, no entry relating to such person's arrest for violating such section shall be made on any arrest or other criminal record. If the Corporation Counsel concludes that a criminal charge should be filed, the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center shall deliver to such person the violation notice that had been left with him. If such person is not diagnosed as a chronic alcoholic the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center shall deliver to him the violation notice that had been left with the medical officer and such person shall, after he is released by the center, be handled as in any other criminal case.
Let Phil Mendelson know this law is unenforcable.
Posted By ed / At 12/4/08 9:18 AM
25-1001. Drinking of alcoholic beverage in public place prohibited; intoxication prohibited. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, no person in the District shall drink an alcoholic beverage or possess in an open container an alcoholic beverage in or upon any of the following places: (1) A street, alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area...
Unfortunately, it cannot be enforced because the geniuses on the city council have mooted it with another law
24-604 (b)(1) Any person who is taken into custody for violating § 25-1001 shall be brought to a detoxification center where he shall either be admitted as a patient or transported by the Mayor to another appropriate medical facility for treatment. The police officer who took such person into custody for violating such section shall leave a violation notice for such person with the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center. After such person is sober and no longer incapacitated, the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center shall detain him as long as is reasonably necessary to conduct a diagnosis for alcoholism. If such person is diagnosed as a chronic alcoholic the medical officer shall, after a review of such person's record, recommend to the Corporation Counsel whether a criminal charge should be filed against such person for violating such section in order to institute civil commitment proceedings under § 24-607. If such a criminal charge is not filed, no entry relating to such person's arrest for violating such section shall be made on any arrest or other criminal record. If the Corporation Counsel concludes that a criminal charge should be filed, the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center shall deliver to such person the violation notice that had been left with him. If such person is not diagnosed as a chronic alcoholic the medical officer in charge of the detoxification center shall deliver to him the violation notice that had been left with the medical officer and such person shall, after he is released by the center, be handled as in any other criminal case.
Let Phil Mendelson know this law is unenforcable.
Posted By ed / At 12/4/08 9:18 AM
Cary - I take exception to your comment. You indicate that this is an improvement since, under the old system, activists had to fight for voluntary agreements and the enforecement thereof. Under the new, improved system, people are having to go to neighborhood meetings and before the ANC to fight the exemptions of a number of businesses. This will likely be an ongoing issue. How have things changed? I'm with Sara - just enforce the ban so that we can enjoy it without having to dedicate time to fighting the exemptions one by one. I will be surprised if the exemption doesn't become the rule rather than the exception.
And as for the microbrew/specialty singles - are people going to stop drinking them because they have to buy a 6-pack rather than a single? No way - as long as they cannot get it elsewhere, they will buy the 6-pack. The trouble is that this is a cyclical argument - we don't want to enforce the ban on Store A because Store A will then be at a disadvantage since Store B has an exemption and can sell them. This wouldn't even be an issue if we hadn't supported the exemption for Store B to protect it from yet another competitor.
Posted By Megan / At 12/4/08 3:40 PM
And as for the microbrew/specialty singles - are people going to stop drinking them because they have to buy a 6-pack rather than a single? No way - as long as they cannot get it elsewhere, they will buy the 6-pack. The trouble is that this is a cyclical argument - we don't want to enforce the ban on Store A because Store A will then be at a disadvantage since Store B has an exemption and can sell them. This wouldn't even be an issue if we hadn't supported the exemption for Store B to protect it from yet another competitor.
Posted By Megan / At 12/4/08 3:40 PM
Since I support these bans Si, do you consider me mean, classist, unfair and discriminatory? I think these labels are very unfair. I lived in a community that is larger than DC that had this ban and it worked like a charm and people of all economic levels and races still were able to drink. By the way, I'm a member of a minority group who was raised by two folks who grew up dirt poor. But my parents taught me about setting firm boundaries which this city clearly has a difficult time with.
Posted By JRG / At 12/5/08 5:58 AM
Posted By JRG / At 12/5/08 5:58 AM
I'm reading some attitudes hear that concern me. Why is holding a business to a new law considered to be penalizing the business? The merit of the law is not for us to decide at this point. We can't apply our agendas to the law.
Framing the argument that not endorsing an exemption is the same as making a conscious decision to penalize the business is a play on emotions. No one is entitled to a law to be bent for them. Not bending a law it is not an act of penalization.
I'll end with this. Virginia ABC stores are not permitted to sell grain alcohol. Is that considered penalizing ABC franchise owners? I've never heard anyone make that argument.
Posted By CityVistaLResident / At 12/5/08 9:31 AM
Framing the argument that not endorsing an exemption is the same as making a conscious decision to penalize the business is a play on emotions. No one is entitled to a law to be bent for them. Not bending a law it is not an act of penalization.
I'll end with this. Virginia ABC stores are not permitted to sell grain alcohol. Is that considered penalizing ABC franchise owners? I've never heard anyone make that argument.
Posted By CityVistaLResident / At 12/5/08 9:31 AM
The original voluntary agreement with Whole Foods and ANC2F forbid single sales. Last year the agreement was amended to include single sales. Whole Foods wanted to sell "high end" Belgian beers in singles. Granting single sales of "high end" beers does seems classist and it weakens the ban. ANCs will be tempted to grant exemptions because it gives them influence. But that's how DC works. Make laws to satisfy the voters but then grant exemptions to special interests in exchange for power and influence. They seem to have forgotten that we were founded as a government of laws and not of men.
Posted By ed / At 12/5/08 9:43 AM
Posted By ed / At 12/5/08 9:43 AM
A few comments/responses. Starting from the most recent comments and working my way up.
CityVistaResident: "Why is holding a business to a new law considered to be penalizing the business?" The new law includes a procedure to obtain an exemption and specific criteria for what businesses qualify for it. Businesses that meet the criteria have the understandable expectation that they may seek an exemption.
Megan: "How have things changed?" They've changed because the burden of proof is now on the business owner to show that they have had no violations, have supported the community, have not had problems with the police, etc. if they want to even have a chance at selling singles, and, in the process, the community can also place other limits/responsiblities on the business (i.e no sales of singles under x ozs., malt liquor, etc.). Before, we'd have nothing, like we do now, or we'd fight for years to get next to nothing.
Paul: "how does diminishing the strength of the Ward 2 and Ward 6 ban via a community referendum on which businesses are 'good' help push the District closer to your ideal of a citywide ban?" You're right, it doesn't. But the law provides an exemption procedure and businesses are going to apply for it.
JRG: "They won't be hanging out by you Cary because they will be loitering by us on the other side of New York Avenue." JRG, your comment gave me a chuckle, because you may not realize where I live at 5th and N. I am one of 3 houses on a block between two corners, with a grocery store on one and a liquor store on the other, that sold singles. I live, literally, next door to the corner store. I have a police crime camera hanging above my window due to loitering issues (which are gang and drug related, not alcohol).
Look, there is a very strong argument for placing a high bar for the circumstances under which MVSNA will support a request for an exemption, and it should. The ABC law itself provides criteria, and we discussed additional criteria at the last MVSNA meeting. Should MVSNA adopt a blanket policy against any exemptions whatsoever - well, that sentiment was not expressed by anyone at the November meeting, at which 25 people were in attendance, at least to my recollection.
Let's refocus on the individual business/request at issue: We are considering entering a voluntary agreement that bans singles under 24 oz., for a business that does not sell any of the cheap, high-alcohol content beers that are known for problems, keeps its area clean and free of loitering, has made significant improvements to its facility and inventory over the 3 years its been in business, is active in the community, has an owner that lives in the community (just a few blocks away), has had no ABC violations or issues with police in its history as far as I know. Perhaps we can include a clause in the voluntary agreement that the partial exemption is valid only for a 3-year period (the term of its upcoming license renewal) and then would need to be reconsidered. I'd need to check with ABRA on that.
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 12/5/08 10:15 AM
CityVistaResident: "Why is holding a business to a new law considered to be penalizing the business?" The new law includes a procedure to obtain an exemption and specific criteria for what businesses qualify for it. Businesses that meet the criteria have the understandable expectation that they may seek an exemption.
Megan: "How have things changed?" They've changed because the burden of proof is now on the business owner to show that they have had no violations, have supported the community, have not had problems with the police, etc. if they want to even have a chance at selling singles, and, in the process, the community can also place other limits/responsiblities on the business (i.e no sales of singles under x ozs., malt liquor, etc.). Before, we'd have nothing, like we do now, or we'd fight for years to get next to nothing.
Paul: "how does diminishing the strength of the Ward 2 and Ward 6 ban via a community referendum on which businesses are 'good' help push the District closer to your ideal of a citywide ban?" You're right, it doesn't. But the law provides an exemption procedure and businesses are going to apply for it.
JRG: "They won't be hanging out by you Cary because they will be loitering by us on the other side of New York Avenue." JRG, your comment gave me a chuckle, because you may not realize where I live at 5th and N. I am one of 3 houses on a block between two corners, with a grocery store on one and a liquor store on the other, that sold singles. I live, literally, next door to the corner store. I have a police crime camera hanging above my window due to loitering issues (which are gang and drug related, not alcohol).
Look, there is a very strong argument for placing a high bar for the circumstances under which MVSNA will support a request for an exemption, and it should. The ABC law itself provides criteria, and we discussed additional criteria at the last MVSNA meeting. Should MVSNA adopt a blanket policy against any exemptions whatsoever - well, that sentiment was not expressed by anyone at the November meeting, at which 25 people were in attendance, at least to my recollection.
Let's refocus on the individual business/request at issue: We are considering entering a voluntary agreement that bans singles under 24 oz., for a business that does not sell any of the cheap, high-alcohol content beers that are known for problems, keeps its area clean and free of loitering, has made significant improvements to its facility and inventory over the 3 years its been in business, is active in the community, has an owner that lives in the community (just a few blocks away), has had no ABC violations or issues with police in its history as far as I know. Perhaps we can include a clause in the voluntary agreement that the partial exemption is valid only for a 3-year period (the term of its upcoming license renewal) and then would need to be reconsidered. I'd need to check with ABRA on that.
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 12/5/08 10:15 AM
Cary: "Should MVSNA adopt a blanket policy against any exemptions whatsoever - well, that sentiment was not expressed by anyone at the November meeting, at which 25 people were in attendance, at least to my recollection."
I've addressed this already. The advance notice of the Modern Liquors exemption discussion in November was minimal and included no detail. Many in attendance were focused on the main agenda item - Douglas Development. The testimonials you read for Modern Liquors the meeting were one sided and glowing. There was no mention that Modern does indeed do sell "hobo brews" as Ron Green disclosed in our discussion Monday night meeting with Good Libations.
I've also mentioned that I was caught off guard that the exemption request was presented in such a glowing light given your campaign platform for Council championed a wide Single Sales Ban. I can accept that your positions are not necessarily the positions of MVSNA. But to not even hold a forum on whether the community should have a blanket policy against all exemptions is such a 180 in the other direction I'm flabbergasted.
Posted By Paul / At 12/5/08 10:52 AM
I've addressed this already. The advance notice of the Modern Liquors exemption discussion in November was minimal and included no detail. Many in attendance were focused on the main agenda item - Douglas Development. The testimonials you read for Modern Liquors the meeting were one sided and glowing. There was no mention that Modern does indeed do sell "hobo brews" as Ron Green disclosed in our discussion Monday night meeting with Good Libations.
I've also mentioned that I was caught off guard that the exemption request was presented in such a glowing light given your campaign platform for Council championed a wide Single Sales Ban. I can accept that your positions are not necessarily the positions of MVSNA. But to not even hold a forum on whether the community should have a blanket policy against all exemptions is such a 180 in the other direction I'm flabbergasted.
Posted By Paul / At 12/5/08 10:52 AM
I'm sorry it was never my intention to imply anything negative personally about any neighbor. I apologize if my statements were misconstrued, i'm not the worlds best debater but i'm giving it a shot. This is an issue I have mixed feelings about and I do see the validity in all sides of the argument. Its been a long while since we had an issue this contentious so its most important to discuss it in full and try and have as much participation as possible. Maybe through this process an end result will emerge that satisfies the community. No one is dictating anything, except ABRA. Ultimately it is their decision. We, as a neighborhood can vote on individual cases and so can the ANC. Any resident can appeal to the ANC & ABRA individually and we will provide that info in the newsletter.
Cary did note, and I dont think this was previously mentioned - (correct me if I'm wrong) the proposed exemption for Good Libations would be for 24oz beer. Not malt liquor, and not regular beer that comes in a six-pack. Isn't a bottle of wine 25.4 oz.? I dont know if that makes a difference with any staunch opponents, but I thought it important to note.
Posted By Si Kailian / At 12/5/08 10:58 AM
Cary did note, and I dont think this was previously mentioned - (correct me if I'm wrong) the proposed exemption for Good Libations would be for 24oz beer. Not malt liquor, and not regular beer that comes in a six-pack. Isn't a bottle of wine 25.4 oz.? I dont know if that makes a difference with any staunch opponents, but I thought it important to note.
Posted By Si Kailian / At 12/5/08 10:58 AM
Not to beat a dead horse on Cary's support of the Single Sales ban during his camapaign, but this testimonial letter is very well written:
http://caryforcouncil.org/campaign/media/blogs/leadership/SingleSalesTestimony.pdf
Posted By Paul / At 12/5/08 12:41 PM
http://caryforcouncil.org/campaign/media/blogs/leadership/SingleSalesTestimony.pdf
Posted By Paul / At 12/5/08 12:41 PM
i fully support the ban on the singles in ward 2 with no exemmtions for any sellers. there's garbage from the customers that they dump on the curb and they dash in to purchase their products.
our neighborhood is evolving in a good way and i view an exemption for this store a set back. we need a full ban without favoritism for a particular vendor.
i will write a letter supporting the complete ban in ward 2. there's no reason why we should have to deal with the trash and disrespect from these "singles" consumers. sorry for being conservative about this but i want the best for this neighborhood not cherry picking those we like and those we dont. i like every business and laws should be applied evenly.
Posted By richard r / At 12/17/08 11:21 AM
our neighborhood is evolving in a good way and i view an exemption for this store a set back. we need a full ban without favoritism for a particular vendor.
i will write a letter supporting the complete ban in ward 2. there's no reason why we should have to deal with the trash and disrespect from these "singles" consumers. sorry for being conservative about this but i want the best for this neighborhood not cherry picking those we like and those we dont. i like every business and laws should be applied evenly.
Posted By richard r / At 12/17/08 11:21 AM
Richard - I wish both you and Megan could have attended. The "con" side needed more advocates at last night's meeting.
Posted By Paul / At 12/17/08 12:44 PM
Posted By Paul / At 12/17/08 12:44 PM
sorry paul, i was at former congressman's harold ford's mother's house up on unicorn lane for a holidiay party and couldnt get away
Posted By richard r / At 12/18/08 5:25 PM
Posted By richard r / At 12/18/08 5:25 PM
