9 posts tagged “booze”
Question: When someone’s property rights and entrepreneurial desires will obviously lead to a higher tax burden for the city, should those rights and desires be curtailed?
Case in point; Virginia Rahn, a cute little blond in Lisa Loeb glasses, wants to open a package store on River Street down near Spanky’s.
City Council said yes even though the store is guaranteed to create open container violations which will require increased policing along River Street as well as increased problems with litter.
Will Ms. Rahn’s city taxes cover the increased police response and other city services? Shouldn’t there be a cost benefit analysis and shouldn’t businesses that use a higher level of services pay for the overage?
In my mind, this is just a bad idea. The last thing we need on River Street, where “to go” cups are plentiful, is a source for those tiny little one shot bottles. The teenager in me is thinking how easy it will be to buy a coke in a “to go” cup and then get an older friend to buy me a shot bottle of Jack from Ms. Rahn.
Shut Up Dean Kicklighter!
Despite Ms. Conn’s article to the contrary, Chatham County Commissioner Dean Kicklighter did not stick to his guns claiming fewer than 10 parking spaces will be enough for 300 customers at the latest Tompkin’s Dynasty Bar.
He did exactly as I suggested a couple of weeks ago and came with a promise of substantially more parking for the proposed Lizard Lounge at Indian and Bay Streets.
For the most part he kept his mouth shut as council discussed the proposed alcohol license for the club this week. Perhaps he will learn that keeping it shut will help him to keep his foot clear of the gaping orifice in the future.
City leaders approved the change with their now standard “we’ll be watching you” warning about keeping a law abiding, albeit drunk, clientele.
One interesting point on the proposal, it turns out the landlord there at the Lizard Lounge was one of the loudest complainants against Club Oz when patrons of that club were parking wherever they could in the area around his property. Now it seems, since he will be renting to a nightclub, he has no problem with the party people parking up his lots.
Okay, I recognize that this is a small thing. I understand that in the great expanse of our vast universe this is a historically small thing but still… it bugged me and I will address it.
“Approved a financial plan to sell or refinance about $78 million in municipal bonds. About $35 million would pay for road improvements around Savannah River Landing and for major water and sewer projects.”
Ms. Conn is writing about the “other action” at City Council this week and as is typical buries the biggest, most expensive and most far reaching news at the very bottom. But that is not what is bugging me.
No, what bugs me in this is the characterization of the newly funded projects as being “around Savannah River Landing”.
First, there is no Savannah River Landing. There is nothing there. There is not likely to be anything there by the time these improvements are finished.
No one is likely to say “oh take that road out by Savannah River Landing” or “I got stuck in traffic at Savannah River Landing” because there is no Savannah River Landing.
City Council is spending our bond money on road improvements along President Street and General McIntosh. The only role Savannah River Landing has in that would be to pay for it with an increase in tax revenue if they ever built anything which seems highly unlikely in the near term.
Ms. Conn seemed far more fascinated with the request for an alcohol license by Mr. Seaborne Tompkins. Actually Mr. Tompkins did not make the request at Council he brought a mouthpiece in the form of Chatham County Commissioner Dean Kicklighter.
Looking at my list of people I want speaking on my behalf here…. Yeah Kicklighter is way down there, after that guy who walks around town with the “abortion is murder ask me how” sign and a poo flinging capuchin monkey.
Kicklighter made a classic mistake when trying to win the good graces of City Council. He kept going on about what the rules would let them get away. In this case, he was convinced that the rules would let them get away with having only 7 parking spaces for a business hoping to attract up to 300 people at a time.
That is not what this council wants to hear.
This council wants to hear about how you plan to provide 10 times the number of spaces required and how you will personally pick up every piece of trash in a 4 block radius and the one hundred and one other ways you will go above and beyond to make sure that your establishment will be a model business, beloved by the neighbors and forgotten by police because hey, nothing ever happens out there.
As much fun as it was to watch Diminutive Dean prance about, it is kind of sad that Mr. Seaborne has sunk his inheritance into a space that doesn’t meet zoning requirements for what he wants to do and is in an area that has caused nothing but trouble for the other bar trying to make a go of it there. It seems to me if he had looked at the rules in advance and done a bit of research into earlier council rulings instead of just trying to figure out what he could get away with, he would be in much better shape right now.
Sooooooo, Savannah River Landing, what’s up with that?
As they promised Ant Hill Estates launched their new website and it is very pretty… but… well I hesitate to say anything, but … the site seems to be suffering some kind of delusional disorder.
“Finally! Enjoy historic Savannah from a newly-contstructed apartment home! There's no better spot than the famous waterfront where you're never more than a few steps from your favorite downtown attractions. We offer 1, 2, and 3-bedroom options. Each beautiful unit comes with competitive lease rates that include parking.”
Are they pitching tents out there? 1, 2, and 3-bedroom tents? I know they have the parking, that’s pretty much all they have is parking.
“Metropolitan convenience with all the comforts of a hand-crafted home. Open floor plans include two-story lofts, chic city flats, and rooftop garden penthouses. The well-appointed building features a grilling patio, media room and a terrace pool deck. Each residence comes with its own parking, laundry, storage, balcony and stunning view!”
Ummm and we’re looking, we’re looking and no I can’t find it. What “well-appointed building” would that be?
“Come and sidewalk shop in breezy coastal splendor. Finally a kid-friendly downtown where finding a parking spot is nothing short of simple. Once here you'll choose from classic brands or Savannah's variety of chic boutiques. Grab a cappuccino and a park bench for the complete European experience.”
Again, no trouble finding parking but I don’t know where they are hiding those “chic boutiques”. Maybe they’re under the sand?
The City of Savannah seems to be going along with the delusion that there is something out there other than dirt. Leaders are being asked to issue $20 million dollars in bonds backed by the taxes generated by Savannah River Landing. Officially it will be backed by all development in the President Street Corridor Tax Allocation District.
Of course you don’t get much tax revenue off an ant hill so if nothing gets built there we the taxpayers will be on the hook for the bonds. That being said, the improvements the money will pay for will be nice, President Street will be wider, General McIntosh will drain better and the whole area will be prettier so it’s not for naught.
Question: Should folks that are asking the City Council for a liquor license insult the city on their myspace page?
This caught my eye for several reasons, mostly because of the name of the company:
“Seaborne Tompkins for Saule Goode, LLC d/b/a The Iguana Room "Live Entertainment Hall", requesting a liquor, beer, and wine (drink) license at 103-105 N. Fahm Street, which is located between River and Indian Streets in District 1.”
Get it? “Saule Goode LLC” or “It’s All Good LLC”. Yeah we gots ourselves a brain trust here folks.
The other thing that grabbed me is that this appears to be the Tompkins Dynasty attempting to start another enterprise.
The family that brought you Malones, Deja Groove and Sorry
Charlies seems to be attempting to resurrect the Iguana Room.
The Lizard Lounge, as I used to call it, was above Malone’s in City Market now they want to set up shop at Jarrells Gym on Fahm St.
A quick google search turned up Mr. Tomkins’ myspace page on which he posted the following:
“city sucks
you know i really think we just need to take over this state. just do it an be done with it. i can really say with out a doubt that this place sucks the city will take everything they can from u an when u say anything about it the blacklist u from every doing anything again. ive live here for forty years an i have never seen it this bad”
All I can say is good luck with that.
I am ashamed of Savannah City Council.
Well, I’m ashamed of half of them.
How do I get the same treatment that bar owners in this town enjoy?
They get the Liquor License for the bar, they make huge profits from the bar but when the bar gets in trouble it’s not their fault and they avoid actual punishment.
Wild Wing Café got caught breaking liquor laws almost every time police checked in 2007 and 2008 and yet this is all they got.
One year probation? (there is no definition of what probation will entail)
$250 fine?
A 10 day liquor license suspension deferred until after St. Patrick’s Day?
During today’s Addams Family Reunion that passed for a Show Cause Hearing, the bar owner and the mysteries of science he employs admitted that the bar served booze to undercover underage agents 3 times in less than three years.
The State of Georgia found them guilty, the City of Savannah found them guilty but thanks to the council’s apparent predilection for not enforcing laws on business owners, they will not be punished until after their big Money Making St. Patrick’s Week!
Uh guys… ummmm Wild Wing actually violated the law, exceeding capacity and violating safety regulations during St. Patrick’s Day.
”…the establishment has constituted a nuisance requiring an unusual amount of police and enforcement activity due to repeated sales to underage persons resulting in convictions in Recorders Court, repeated violations of the Occupancy Ordinances by exceeding the number of allowed persons on the premises, and multiple citations for violating the State Alcoholic Beverage regulations resulting in suspensions and penalties.”
During today’s marathon meeting, council came up with what I thought was a fair punishment.
Tony Thomas moved for “One year probation, one week suspension beginning tomorrow and a $250 fine.”
He had the four votes necessary to pass it until Mr. Van “Hold Loco’s feet to the fire” Johnson had a change of heart.
Maybe he was moved by an impassioned plea from the bar owner. “The people who are being punished have not done one thing wrong!” he whined. He says his business would lose $300 thousand during the next week if they could not serve booze during St. Pat's.
Johnson introduced a substitute motion deferring the license suspension until April 1 when the owner said he could go without selling booze for 10 days and only lose $100 thousand.
In other words he changed it so the punishment would not actually punish the bar owner.
Thomas and others vehemently rejected Johnson's 11th hour wimp out, Tony Thomas, Jeff Felser and Mary Osborne voted “NO” opting instead for the tougher penalties.
The Mayor wasn’t there and the rest voted “Yes” passing Johnson's kiss-it-and-make-it-all-better non-punishment solution.
Here are the Aldermen who wimped out and why it seemed to me they voted the way they did.
Larry Stuber – Profit over Precept
Edna Jackson – Afraid to be the deciding vote
Clifton Jones – Claims no one is to blame
Van Johnson – I have no idea what he was thinking
Woo Hoo!
I just watched Savannah City Council pass the completely unnecessary Loco’s Liberation Act on the bestest reality show on Channel 8.
Restaurants can now apply for a license that will let them legally stop serving food and start boozing it up at an hour of their choosing.
Currently, as this process has exposed, many Savannah restaurants are simply doing that whenever they please, illegally.
The new law makes it legal and finally everyone can shut their frakkin' pieholes about bars and bands and who can go where and do what.
Hands up those of you who think this is really over.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
If nothing else, this attempt to bend the rules has taught all involved how few people actually understand what the 2006 underage drinking ordinance actually does, since apparently owning a restaurant/bar doesn’t require that you first read and understand the law that governs its operation.
I can explain it in four words:
no food = no kids
or
only booze = no babies
And yet, even though it has been the law for two years, restaurant owners got up in front of council and the cameras today and again expressed their ignorance of this simple concept.
This new Hybrid thing is a little more complicated, not only does it require food service to qualify for underage patronage the normal operation of a restaurant under the new license is also determined by occupancy and the arrangement of the tables and chairs.
To use a word that the City Manager seems fond of, if you shift the furniture and pack a bunch more people in there for a “hootenanny” then you’ve stopped being a restaurant and all the kiddies have to be gone.
I say good luck to the city in its attempt to enforce this law or perhaps they are simply going to do what they did this time, if someone violates the law they’ll simply write a new law to accommodate the law breakers.
Beware the enticing headline that promises a serious subject because once again, I’ve been tricked into reading a Bill Dawers article.
I’m sure there are people who appreciate his ramblings; I am not one of them so I avoid him. Today, however, the headline promised information about property assessments; of course it turned out to be about Dawers personal property assessment and offered nothing more on the subject but his speculation.
In the same article he graces us with his take on the new Loco’s Liberation Act. You might remember that Dawers was one of the so called journalists who reported on the issue of restaurants turning into bars using the outdated, pre 2006, ordinance as source material. Knowing that, I shouldn’t be surprised that he gets it wrong again.
“In a sense, the ordinance will close a loophole that City Council created more than two years ago when 18- to 20-year-olds were banned from drinking establishments with live entertainment but were still allowed into restaurants that quit serving food and became indistinguishable from bars late at night.”
“In a sense”?!?! In a sixth sense maybe, you would have to be seeing a bunch of stuff that isn’t there for that to be an accurate description of the situation.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment; kids were never banned from entertainment.
In 2006 people under the legal drinking age were banned from bars, nightclubs, taverns and the like they were allowed to continue to enter “Full Service Restaurants” that also serve alcohol incidental to the meal service.
It doesn’t matter if those restaurants offer a three ring circus for entertainment; all ages are allowed in as long as it is a “Full Service Restaurant”.
The law is quite clear that businesses classified as “Full Service Restaurants” should never be in operation unless their kitchen is open and serving.
See, most sane people would look at that in the law and go “Oh yeah, common sense! In order to be a Full Service Restaurant you would have to be serving food all the time.”
If such a business where alcohol is supposed to be incidental closes its kitchen and continues to serve alcohol then they are no longer a “Full Service Restaurant” they are primarily selling alcohol.
Establishments that primarily sell alcohol are bars or nightclubs or taverns and people under the legal drinking age are no longer allowed in.
It was never about the music. It was about the behavior.
Closing the kitchen and keeping the bar open, under our laws restaurants can't do that.
Advertising mainly drinks specials and entertainment, under our laws restaurants can't do that.
Loco’s still does both, therefore, they are not a restaurant under our laws and therefore are not allowed to ever let anyone under the age of 21 through their doors.
But Dawers and others from the fringe screamed bloody murder when the city tried to enforce the law and punish those who were in violation so the City backed down and is now changing the law to make what was illegal legal.
So Dawers and his misinformed minions get what they want and yet he continues to complain and continues to print false information in regards to the law.
Is there no editorial oversight at all at the Savannah Morning News?
I shouldn’t be but I am constantly amazed by the ability of people in this town to continue to function without frontal lobes.
Perhaps it is a glitch of evolution. Looking around here it seems the next phase of mankind will be Homo Bardus.
A few examples from today’s Vox Populi:
"If the city decides to require business licenses on rental property we will sell all our property and our business and move out of the greedy city, Savannah."
Your threat is meaningless.
If you do sell your property, how exactly does that hurt the
city?
Whomever you sell it to will continue to pay taxes, chances are you will have made a profit off the sale and that will be taxed, the property value will probably go up due to the sale and that will be taxed.
I see this as a win/win/win for the city. We get rid of a whiny baby who can’t be a responsible property owner. We get a big windfall of taxes in the short term and higher overall property values in the long term.
I say don’t let the door hit you where the good lord split you.
If you are making money renting your place you are not going to balk at a nominal fee to register it as a business. If you are not making money renting your place I say you are a really bad business person and should cut your losses and get out now.
If you are a responsible landlord you are not going to balk at a registry that allows the city to know which houses are yours. If you are not a responsible landlord I say good riddance.
"Music at Loco's and licensing landlords? The city is wasting their time. When are they going to come up with a crime initiative and address the real problems in Savannah?"
Both of the points you mention are anti-crime initiatives.
The issue at Loco’s is not about music. The issue at Loco’s is about keeping those under 21 out of bars. Underage drinking, actually drinking at all ages, is associated with poor judgment.
Our law is based on the belief, true or not, that those under a certain age exhibit even poorer judgment when impaired by alcoholic beverages and are more prone to hurt themselves, hurt others or to engage in criminal activity.
The under 21 ban was suggested by the Mayor’s Public Safety Task Force(page 13 of this PDF) with the stated goal of making the police force more effective.
Keeping those under 21 out of bars is supposed to give police fewer things to deal with in the entertainment district. It should take fewer officers to deal with downtown so that other parts of the city don’t suffer by their absence.
It is unclear if it is working out that way. Since we have places like Loco’s and Wild Wing Cafe crossing the line and allowing underage people into what is clearly a nightclub environment we haven’t been able to see what a true ban would look like.
BLIGHT = CRIME
I have written extensively on the direct link between rundown, dilapidated, neglected properties and neighborhood crime rates.
I suggest you read my earlier posts and the related source material if you have any doubts.
The landlord business license will allow those charged with enforcing property maintenance laws easier access to the real person responsible for rental blight.
My understanding is the fee will be small since the stated goal is not to increase revenue but to force landlords to face up to the damage they do to good neighborhoods.
Did anyone actually watch the Loco’s thing on the City Channel?
Loco’s “owners” looked for all the world like a couple of teenagers trying to explain to daddy how they were real sorry they wrecked the Beemer and promised if they can just have the keys to the Jag just this one time they promise they’ll be real careful and will obey the speed limit and won’t park it on the street or anything.
How do prepubescents get a liquor license in the first place?
Okay, I’m just jealous because these aging frat boys still have their looks and make something like $4,000,000 a year selling chicken wings and beer to other aging frat boys.
I’m a little disappointed with council.
I wish I could link you to the minutes but they don’t post those until three weeks after the meeting. The show cause hearing was a farce. The owners did their meager mea culpa, council talked tough to score some political points and no one talked about the reason Loco’s got in trouble to begin with.
Tad and Chad or whatever their names are kept saying over and over they just didn’t understand how all the rules and regulations they had in place about alcohol failed them. It’s clear to me that the reason all their carefully laid plans and policy’s failed is because at some point they stopped acting like a restaurant and started acting like party central.
If you advertise yourself with “$10 Buckets of Beer All Day Every Day” and “$1 PBR Tallboys and $4 Jager Bombs” you are going to attract people looking to party. Add to that the fact that you are one of only a handful of places serving booze that those under 21 can enter and you invite trouble through the front door.
I still don’t get it, according to the owners, most of their money comes from food sales. So, why on God's Green would you jeopardize a thriving restaurant business by breaking the law to boost your bottom line two nights a week? Would making $3,990,000 a year and not violating the law be so bad?
In the midst of their political preening and posturing, the folks on council did say they were going to come up with new rules to deal with the hybrid nature of Loco’s , Wild Wing and other Restauranightclubs.
Again, the rules they have now are perfectly clear in intent to me. Loco's broke the law by pretending to be a restaurant but acting in a way that legally defines it as a nightclub.
If they are serious about the law they passed in '06 whatever council members do will have to make it clear that those under 21 are not allowed inside. If they are going to allow them inside these hybrids, they might as well allow them inside all the real nightclubs too.
When did this become such a big deal?
If it advertises like a nightclub, looks like a nightclub and dances like a nightclub, under Savannah law it’s a nightclub.
I read with interest Mr. Larson’s article about city council’s attempt to crack down on restaurants that think they can somehow get around the prohibition on allowing underage people into a nightclub.
I had already seen the somewhat surreal account of what led to Alderman Van Johnson’s discovery of the behavior at one such restauranightclub. It is good for a laugh; of course if the roles had been reversed, and Tony Thomas was the reporting Alderman, it would have been front page news as were Thomas’ past downtown exploits. I digress.
Mr. Larson made light of the police report and I got that, but now he carries that “what’s the big deal” attitude into what is supposed to be journalism and that’s bad um-k.
His piece begins with a faulty premise.
“Despite breaking no city ordinance…” The poor beleaguered restauranightclub is being unfairly punished because of one unfortunate incident with an alderman.
Several paragraphs later, Mr. Larson reports that the restauranightclub is indeed violating the ordinance.
“Loco's promotes bands and "emphasizes" alcoholic beverages in its advertising, something restaurants aren't allowed to do.”
In fact, according to this story, by doing those things it is living up to what our law defines as one of the differences between a nightclub and a restaurant.
Savannah Code Sec. 6-1223
A full-service restaurant as herein defined will have in operation at all times while open a fully-equipped commercial kitchen to prepare and serve food items selected by the customer from a printed menu.
Bar areas, consisting of bars with barstools and prominent displays of package alcohol and alcoholic beverage preparation and dispensing equipment, must be in an area separate and distinct from dining areas and persons under the age of 21 shall not be permitted in such bar areas.
Such businesses will derive no less than 51 percent of their gross receipts from the sale of prepared meals and are classified for business tax purposes under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classification as dominantly a food service business.
Bars, lounges, taverns, nightclubs, and businesses who use similar descriptions in their trade names, who emphasize alcoholic beverages in their advertising, and feature bands, disc jockeys, comedians, dancers, or other forms of entertainment as a focus of their business advertising and activity, will not be classified as full-service restaurants for the purpose of this section.
In my mind what we have going on downtown is a clear violation of a city ordinance, forget what the restauranightclub’s attorney might say, remember lawyers as a rule are paid to confuse the issue. Use your common sense and set aside your knee jerk reaction that you won't get to hear that Nerfherders cover band that you love so much, any sane person will see the truth.
To say that the restauranightclub in question “devised their business plan based on live music…” has nothing to do with the current situation, this place and several others downtown also built their businesses around making money off people under 21. The law took that audience away from them and now they are trying to weasel around it in order to continue to cash in on that young money.
They want us to focus on how much food they serve. If that were the only requirement, then all a club owner would have to do is serve breakfast lunch and dinner then shut down and party all night long with all ages allowed through the door.
Club Oz are you listening? Frozen Paradise did you get that? You can double your money by serving weakas wings and poorly constructed sandwiches.
To clear up another misunderstanding that Mr. Larson fosters and has been burning up the blogs of late. This is not going to end music in restaurants. It is perfectly legal to have performers while people are eating. However, if you close your kitchen and strike up the band you have morphed into a nightclub under our law.
If you advertise yourself by promoting your drink specials and the band/comedian/dancers or whatever, you don’t get to be considered a full service restaurant. You then must comply with nightclub rules and that means no one under 21 is allowed.
Speaking of the younger crowd, the restauranightclub in question also faces criminal charges of serving underage people alcohol a fact that is buried and then dismissed as “selective enforcement” in Mr. Larson’s article.
How does that segue with “Despite breaking no city ordinance…”?
These restauranightclub owners want it both ways. They want to avoid the deep scrutiny that our revenue department is supposed to apply to nightclubs while at the same time profiting off the very same activities that restrict the competition who honestly portray themselves as nightclubs.
