« Report: Investment Sales Mostly Hanging In There Should We Feel Sorry For Novo Contract Holders? »
June 3, 2008
'Liquor License Loophole' in Albany's Crosshairs
One of the concerns some Carroll Gardens residents had about the controversial Hoyt Street oyster bar, whose application for a liquor license was hotly debated at Community Board 6 this Spring, is that it's near both a school and a church. Opponents of the business said the bar shouldn't be granted a liquor license because by some measures it's within 200 feet of a church, which would mean the State Liquor Authority couldn't give it the green light. The brouhaha no doubt influenced bills that've been introduced in both the Senate and Assembly to close a "liquor license loophole" under which bar owners move the door of their establishments so the entrance isn't within 200 feet of a house of worship or a school. Assemblywoman Joan Millman, who represents the district that includes Carroll Gardens, intro'd the bill in the State Assembly. “This change would not cost the state a dime, but it certainly would benefit our neighborhoods immensely,” said Millman in a statement (copy on jump). “I have introduced this bill largely in response to community input that we close this loophole.” Paul Nelson, Millman's spokesperson, said that problems with business owners exploiting the loophole aren't particular to Carroll Gardens, but it's become a bigger concern for residents as the neighborhood transforms into "more of a destination area for bars."
Shucks! Oyster Bar Dredges Up Controversy [Brownstoner]
Photo by 'Mr. History.
Assemblywoman Joan Millman has introduced legislation to close a loophole which allows establishments applying for liquor licenses that are located within 200 feet of a school, church, synagogue or other place of worship to evade the 200 foot rule by moving the entrance of their establishment. The 200 foot rule prevents an establishment from receiving a liquor license from the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) if the entrance to the establishment lies within 200 feet of a school, church, synagogue or other places of worship.
In response to this growing problem, as well as numerous complaints by residents of quiet, residential streets, Assemblywoman Millman has introduced Assembly Bill 11364. This bill would amend the SLA’s standards in relation to the 200 foot rule between a liquor establishment and a school, church, synagogue or place of worship from measuring between entryways to measuring between the closest property line of the liquor establishment and the entryway of the school, church, synagogue or other place of worship. Too often, a bar simply moves its entryway so that it is compliant with the letter of the law; however, the spirit of this law is to prevent bars from being too close to a school, church, synagogue or other place of worship.
“This change would not cost the state a dime, but it certainly would benefit our neighborhoods immensely,” Millman stated. “I have introduced this bill largely in response to community input that we close this loophole.”
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5078
Comments
Are we Puritans? Need we protect church goers from the mere sight of a bar? Is the lure of demon rum too much temptation for good Christian folk? Really...what a stupid regulation and shame on our electeds for wasting time on this....
Schools? Ok - I can see that you might not want kids to bear witness too closely to the lush life. Or even sneak a pint during recess. But come on! Schools: happen during the day. Bars and drinking: happen at night (for the most part...)
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 10:28 AM
Ask all those kids who Cardinal Law has ruined for life about "house's of worship"
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 10:29 AM
In 10 years, you won't be able to open a candy store near a school.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 10:31 AM
What's the big deal? These people need to take the stick out of their a**. How much noise will an oyster bar make? I could see if it were a nightclub, but this will be a yuppie hangout patronized by people who are just as anal-retentive about neighborhood noise as those seeking to prevent this establishment from opening.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 10:39 AM
Bar patrons should have veto power over the holding of religious services within 200 feet of their revelry. Will we ever leave these absurd superstitions behind?
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 10:54 AM
We could use an oyster bar over in Bed Stuy...especially now that Solomon's Porch is closed...come on over, grab the lease, turn the key and open up
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Of course Millman is all against this. Oh my god, a bar, in NYC. I suggest we all call Millman's office and state we want the bar to open and oppose her position. Tell her you live in the neighborhood:
Millman's
DISTRICT OFFICE
341 Smith Street
Brooklyn, NY 11231
718-246-4889 ALBANY OFFICE
510 Capitol
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-5426
Posted by: Brooklynnative at June 3, 2008 11:04 AM
The church I go to uses wine as part of its liturgical ritual. Ironic that no wine store can open nearby. Americans are so retarded sometimes.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 11:05 AM
Once they have a liquor license - the 'theme' or demographic they appeal to can change at whim.
Yes, they are using this anitiquated rule about schools and churches but there does not seem to be much other protection against the over proliferation of these places in our neighborhoods.
The commercial 'overlays' in residential areas (which is what Smith st , 5th avenue, and the corner of Hoyt/Union are) - are to provide retail services for the residents primarily. Unfortunately, they have recently developed as night life zones servicing the broader city.
And yes, quality of life issues then are affected whether you want to admit or not.
Businesses that are open past a certain hour,
and that conduct their business on sidewalks, courtyards and backyards are a disturbance to nearby residents.
Also, sanitation (greasy sidewalks, curbs - spilled garbage and rat problems become worse with the over-saturation of restaurants.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 11:07 AM
11:07 = John Crow
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 3, 2008 11:10 AM
11:07 move to the burbs.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 11:15 AM
If any of you personally knew the block in question, Hoyt between Union & Sackett, you would know that it is a a relatively short block with a very narrow street with very narrow sidewalks...not at all a wide street like Smith or Court. Any noise (and there WILL be noise) emanating from the oyster bar, especially late at night, would be way too loud for such a small residential block. And I'm sure you all know that the more people drink, the louder they get...witness the Gowanus Yacht Club (I live on President, so I've experienced it). I'm no prude...you may all be night owls, but other people have to get to work early in the morning. Be honest, it's really not an appropriate location for a bar. There's plenty of room on Smith & Court with frequent turnover of restaurants and other retail establishments.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 11:21 AM
P.S. - Once an area become the nightlife zone - other businesses that cater to day-to-day life of residents (including of many of the 'mom and pops' many here seem so enamared of ) get squeezed out by higher rents alcohol serving establishments can pay.
So neighborhood conveniences also decline.
And I'm not about to move to the suburbs - it is the bar flies that evenutally do - once they 'settle down', grow up a bit, and move back to their roots.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 11:41 AM
Yeah, but 11:21, that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a church down the street. Maybe a hard look at the regulations is needed rather than this kind of silly tweaking. In the meantime, I suggest a few of us go over to Millman's office with *urp* one of those new Heineken mini-kegs and chat up the Assemblywoman. I'm sure, deep down, she's a super-freak.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 12:12 PM
"The church I go to uses wine as part of its liturgical ritual. Ironic that no wine store can open nearby. Americans are so retarded sometimes."
This is in no way an American phenomenon. Have you tried to buy anything in Europe or many other places in the world on a Sunday? Everything shuts down.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 12:17 PM
12:12, good insight. I've seen the assemblywoman in the community and I'm sure she could shotgun a few beers with the best of 'em!
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 12:47 PM
On the face of it, some people might think changing this to avoid a "loophole" is a good idea. However if you change it so "any part of the bar" being within 200 feet would be very bad. What if the back of your bar was now within 200 feet of a church on the other side of the block. The point is that the entrance should be far enough away to keep the undesireable element from children/places of worship. Who cares if the inside is close to a school.
Posted by: Juggler314 at June 3, 2008 2:14 PM
I want a law that says no Church or School can be withing 200 feet of my house. Chruches and Schools are noisey and I don't want those noisey things any where near me.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 2:32 PM
2:32 is right...all that signing on Sunday morning nearby after you've had a late night out at Union Hall. And what's with all the double parking in front of these churches?
Posted by: Bold type guest at June 3, 2008 2:44 PM
singing...didn't mean to offend anyone who uses AMSLAN in that last post.
Posted by: Bold type guest at June 3, 2008 2:45 PM
Everyone already said this, but I just must chime in and express my disgust with these idiotic laws about bars near schools and churches. Instead of wasting their time on these loopholes Millman and others should concentrate on repealing these ancient laws. I often stop by for a beer on Smith St. after I pick up my kid from school; he sips a coke or a juice and plays video games and I have a bit of a rest. Many other parents do the same. It's civilized and it teaches my kids that there's nothing wrong with an afternoon cocktail. I'm sure that these silly restrictions and stigmata are one of the major causes of teenage binge drinking and alcoholism. And don't get me going about the churches, they have nothing to do with this, period. My second home is in Madrid and there we have no such laws and it's actually customary to stop in for a caña or a sherry after church, so there're usually several tavernas very close to a church. I can't wait to do some shucking on Hoyt Street.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 3:14 PM
Separation of church and state is what this country was founded upon. It seems that a large portion of the electorate from the very top down , including ALL of the presidential candidates, need to relearn this principle.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 3, 2008 3:30 PM
hello, this area is a few short blocks away from a housing project. i can remember looking at a brownstone right there on union in '96 and thinking, it's just too close to the ghetto and once you go west on union, the street sucks. both of those things are still true today, over 10 years later.
these people should thank their lucky stars that an upscale establishment like an oyster bar wants to open there!
it will only make their investment in their property become more valuable.
Posted by: guest at June 3, 2008 4:56 PM
If any one of the above commenters actually owned a house on Hoyt Street between Union and Sackett Streets, they too would be opposed to the so-called oyster bar. Whatever a family paid for their brownstone, that investment does not become "more valuable" with the honking of a car service at 1 o'clock in the morning, with groups of people standing on the extremely narrow sidewalks smoking and talking, pacing the street while chatting on cell phones, or with a garden full of people talking and drinking, or with the sound of dumpsters being lifted in the early morning hours. One buys a piece of property on a street such as Hoyt because one appreciates and desires the serenity. And it is that which is valuable. If one buys a house on a street where a bar already exists, then one has accepted that reality. But it does not seem right that a bar should be foisted onto a residential street. It's too profound of a change. Bars make noise. They belong on a commercial strip. But I'm certain that because the rents on Smith Street are $8,500 a month now, the proposed bar owner in question is anxious to lock in the much lower rent on Hoyt Street.
Posted by: guest at June 6, 2008 9:50 PM
OOOoooo, be careful, davinbedstuy! Your racism is showing!
So if African-American schoolchildren from the projects you despise are influenced to use alcohol by 2 prosperous yuppie bars they have to walk by to and fron school, that's OK? And there's no guarantee these bars will stay yuppie and attractive once the owner flips them (and he will, ASAP).
Yes, this group should spend their money opeing bars in your neighborhood, all very near you. Right across the street, or under you, I hope. The closer the better! Enjoy.
Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 9:42 PM
Not to worry, Juggler314. Such businesses are almost always "grandfathered" and allowed to carry on even if regulations or circumstances change. This means that if a CHURCH suddenly gets built within 200 feet of a BAR, the older bar doesn't have to shut down. There's little chance a new regulation would kill anybody's existing business.
But how many bars does this neighbohood need, anyway? Neither Smith nor Hoyt are Times Square, with its numerous sources of alternate entertainment. Here, after you have a drink, all you can do for fun is drink some more. That's how the hanging out, noise, and rowdiness spin out of control. Right now at least it's mostly confined to Smith. Let's leave it at that and encourage other kinds of shops on the small streets.
Posted by: guest at June 10, 2008 11:15 AM
Surrounding residents did not make a stink when Black Mountain opened. We were not NIMBYs concerning this first bar. I even went in there once, but their choice of music (Foreigner) played really loud and an uninspired and expensive wine list did not call me back. We residents do have an issue with a SECOND bar opening on our small, residential block. And yes you don't need a kitchen to serve oysters, but then it really isn't a restaurant - it's just a bar that serves appetizers (unless people just eat oysters for dinner, making those cocktails a lot more potent). And there couldn't be much worse garbage than shellfish.
And finally, no our "investment property" (aka our homes) will not increase in value with the level of noise and smoke outside our bedrooms. We enjoy our street and neighbors (many of whom have been here for decades). We have to fight within the rules of the games, therefore the church/school distance seems our best shot as logic holds no sway with the CB6. We're not prudes or cranks, we are simply reacting to the circumstances.
Posted by: guest at June 10, 2008 9:37 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.