Liquor Licenses

[loftguy]

Mark this as rumor, but this morning I was told a few minutes ago that significant changes to liquor licensing process are flying through city hall.

I'm told that it is in fact to the point of approved ordinance.

Can anyone provide information about such changes?

And if true, how has this happened with zero community notification or input?

[kboish]

http://kansascity.granicus.com/MediaPla ... ip_id=9581

You are probably referring to this. You can click Ord. 160281 below the video to skip ahead to the discussion or click the ordinance on the right to see the language.

[PumpkinStalker]

I saw an explanation on FB from someone I can't remember (not friends with them but someone I am friends with commented on it causing it to show up in my feed). From what I understand, and I could very well have this wrong, it is supposed to prevent a majority owner of land in an area from unfairly using his/her ownership to have more than a 10% share of vote on a new liquor license. It seems that there was a concern - real or not - that someone could basically hold a monopoly on an area of town and be the only licensed liquor establishment due to the amount of land they own around the business. Or they could force a new licensee to only carry varieties of wine/liquor that the other establishment didn't want to carry.

That's the way I understand it. And Jolie Justus' name was mentioned as a proponent. That's all I know!

[mykn]

I saw an explanation on FB from someone I can't remember (not friends with them but someone I am friends with commented on it causing it to show up in my feed). From what I understand, and I could very well have this wrong, it is supposed to prevent a majority owner of land in an area from unfairly using his/her ownership to have more than a 10% share of vote on a new liquor license. It seems that there was a concern - real or not - that someone could basically hold a monopoly on an area of town and be the only licensed liquor establishment due to the amount of land they own around the business. Or they could force a new licensee to only carry varieties of wine/liquor that the other establishment didn't want to carry.

That's the way I understand it. And Jolie Justus' name was mentioned as a proponent. That's all I know!

I believe Toms Town was hit by this (I can't remember where I read it, pitch or star). Basically, they had to agree to (something like) only serve 1 red wine, 1 white wine, 1 draft beer and 1 canned beer in order to get their license. Something insane like that.

[loftguy]

Thanks kboish.

To paraphrase what I was told and what I seem to read in the link, this ordinance will limit property owner ability to react to proposed liquor license activity adjoining their properties.
Specifically larger property owners, who stand to have more at risk and reasonable need for full consideration.

Does anyone on the this forum know the explanation as to why this was needed?

[KCPowercat]

I saw an explanation on FB from someone I can't remember (not friends with them but someone I am friends with commented on it causing it to show up in my feed). From what I understand, and I could very well have this wrong, it is supposed to prevent a majority owner of land in an area from unfairly using his/her ownership to have more than a 10% share of vote on a new liquor license. It seems that there was a concern - real or not - that someone could basically hold a monopoly on an area of town and be the only licensed liquor establishment due to the amount of land they own around the business. Or they could force a new licensee to only carry varieties of wine/liquor that the other establishment didn't want to carry.

That's the way I understand it. And Jolie Justus' name was mentioned as a proponent. That's all I know!

I believe Toms Town was hit by this (I can't remember where I read it, pitch or star). Basically, they had to agree to (something like) only serve 1 red wine, 1 white wine, 1 draft beer and 1 canned beer in order to get their license. Something insane like that.

We were told that was because they were a distillery

[TheBigChuckbowski]

https://www.facebook.com/quinton.lucas/ ... 9777714964

[mykn]

I saw an explanation on FB from someone I can't remember (not friends with them but someone I am friends with commented on it causing it to show up in my feed). From what I understand, and I could very well have this wrong, it is supposed to prevent a majority owner of land in an area from unfairly using his/her ownership to have more than a 10% share of vote on a new liquor license. It seems that there was a concern - real or not - that someone could basically hold a monopoly on an area of town and be the only licensed liquor establishment due to the amount of land they own around the business. Or they could force a new licensee to only carry varieties of wine/liquor that the other establishment didn't want to carry.

That's the way I understand it. And Jolie Justus' name was mentioned as a proponent. That's all I know!

I believe Toms Town was hit by this (I can't remember where I read it, pitch or star). Basically, they had to agree to (something like) only serve 1 red wine, 1 white wine, 1 draft beer and 1 canned beer in order to get their license. Something insane like that.

We were told that was because they were a distillery

I must have mis-read the article then. I thought they got pressure from others so that they could get the license. Either way, that's dumb, I want more beer at my distilleries.

[kboish]

I saw an explanation on FB from someone I can't remember (not friends with them but someone I am friends with commented on it causing it to show up in my feed). From what I understand, and I could very well have this wrong, it is supposed to prevent a majority owner of land in an area from unfairly using his/her ownership to have more than a 10% share of vote on a new liquor license. It seems that there was a concern - real or not - that someone could basically hold a monopoly on an area of town and be the only licensed liquor establishment due to the amount of land they own around the business. Or they could force a new licensee to only carry varieties of wine/liquor that the other establishment didn't want to carry.

That's the way I understand it. And Jolie Justus' name was mentioned as a proponent. That's all I know!

I believe Toms Town was hit by this (I can't remember where I read it, pitch or star). Basically, they had to agree to (something like) only serve 1 red wine, 1 white wine, 1 draft beer and 1 canned beer in order to get their license. Something insane like that.

Both of these are the examples used in the discussion when the ordinance was passed. The West Bottoms was identified as an area where a majority owner was the sole denier of new licensees coming online. Tom's Town was discussed regarding the "negotiated" number of beers they could serve. There was also some discussion as to the restriction on the ability of vendors to obtain temporary licenses that this somehow solved. They "advanced" this quickly because they wanted to remove this kink in the temporary licensing process prior to the streetcar opening (as there were apparently a great many businesses attempting to get vendor permits i guess).

Regarding Tom's Town, I initially also had heard it was some distillery law preventing them from serving more than one type of beer, but it appears it is adjacent bar owners who are putting this arbitrary restriction on them (it should no longer apply though).

[loftguy]

I don't think any of us know the full story of Toms Town, ( I heard it was building purchase terms they agreed to) but those specifics don't matter in considering a blanket ordinance change.

What does matter is that the council has for some reason chosen to limit property owners rights to protect their investments.

The use of the term 'unfairly' related to property owner input is conjecture.

How is it 'unfair' for a person with a great deal invested to act to protect those investments?

Maybe this is best, but it is a restriction of existing property owner rights that merits transparent and vigorous public input.

[droopy]

I listened to a good chunk of the video and what has been said is the jist of it (thanks for linking kboish, was interesting).

The issue relates to the voting process and restrictions that can be built into "conditional liquor licenses." To get a conditional license there is a vote by the owners of surrounding properties. There is 1 vote per property (not owner) so some owners have large influence in approving a new conditional license since they own a large number of properties within the radius (enough to individually determine the outcome of the license issuance). Apparently you can also be pretty creative in what those conditions are, basically giving the controlling property owner authority over what is or is not allowed for him/her to vote yes. The West Bottons example (Ship?? or maybe something new, unclear to me) the property owner was willing to vote yes if they agreed to no hip hop music and using the majority property owner's own security company. The Crossroads example was pretty clearly Tom's Town, they can only serve 1 wine, 1 beer, etc and have to close at midnight as previously mentioned.

They also talked about the number of meetings/presentations that have been held on the issue over the last month. I didn't listen to that whole bit though, but they didn't seem to sympathetic to the majority owners lack of notice in the council. I didnt get the feeling that they were ignoring their rights as a whole, more that the intention of conditional licenses did not include things like security companies allowed, etc.

[pash]

.

[loftguy]

How is it 'unfair' for a person with a great deal invested to act to protect those investments?

Maybe this is best, but it is a restriction of existing property owner rights that merits transparent and vigorous public input.

To be clear, you are talking about the "rights" of the owner of one property to dictate what the owner of a different property can do with that property.

If that doesn't clear up the fairness angle, I will be happy to expound further.

Based on that argument, then why should any property owner have input?

[pash]

.

[DaveKCMO]

should be noted that the change was brought to committee on a tuesday, then forced through full council two days later. no neighborhoods were present at the 'neighborhood and public safety' committee where it was discussed.

[kcjak]

I'm friends with one of the guys who opened Tom's Town. They had (and continue to have) issues related to the liquor laws and the burdens placed on some businesses who need approval from neighboring landowners before obtaining liquor licenses. I saw something about that mentioned on one of these boards, but can't seem to locate today. Anyway, the link below offers some great examples of the limitations placed on new businesses, particularly in the Crossroads, and gives a sense of how one of the owners of many of the surface lots in the area sees as his right to protect the area.

Additional information is available on the Facebook page referenced in the article - you can do a search for NICE (Neighborhood Inclusion & Consent Expansion Ordinance), which explains the amendments that Jolie Justus has helped shepherd through, and that the surface lot owner, Brad Nicholson, is trying to block via petition.

http://www.startlandnews.com/2016/05/sh ... iquor-law/

[DaveKCMO]

I'm friends with one of the guys who opened Tom's Town. They had (and continue to have) issues related to the liquor laws and the burdens placed on some businesses who need approval from neighboring landowners before obtaining liquor licenses. I saw something about that mentioned on one of these boards, but can't seem to locate today. Anyway, the link below offers some great examples of the limitations placed on new businesses, particularly in the Crossroads, and gives a sense of how one of the owners of many of the surface lots in the area sees as his right to protect the area.

Additional information is available on the Facebook page referenced in the article - you can do a search for NICE (Neighborhood Inclusion & Consent Expansion Ordinance), which explains the amendments that Jolie Justus has helped shepherd through, and that the surface lot owner, Brad Nicholson, is trying to block via petition.

http://www.startlandnews.com/2016/05/sh ... iquor-law/

just so you know, this is WAY more complicated than anyone is telling you or the media. outside of a mixed use neighborhood like the crossroads, those 'landowners' who get consent are most often homeowners. also, there are ZERO restrictions being placed on businesses that don't sell liquor -- which is regulated for a host of very good reasons, most importantly is public safety.

so, thanks for the 'surface lot' rhetoric, which doesn't have shit to do with what's going on.

[kcjak]

I'm friends with one of the guys who opened Tom's Town. They had (and continue to have) issues related to the liquor laws and the burdens placed on some businesses who need approval from neighboring landowners before obtaining liquor licenses. I saw something about that mentioned on one of these boards, but can't seem to locate today. Anyway, the link below offers some great examples of the limitations placed on new businesses, particularly in the Crossroads, and gives a sense of how one of the owners of many of the surface lots in the area sees as his right to protect the area.

Additional information is available on the Facebook page referenced in the article - you can do a search for NICE (Neighborhood Inclusion & Consent Expansion Ordinance), which explains the amendments that Jolie Justus has helped shepherd through, and that the surface lot owner, Brad Nicholson, is trying to block via petition.

http://www.startlandnews.com/2016/05/sh ... iquor-law/

so, thanks for the 'surface lot' rhetoric, which doesn't have shit to do with what's going on.

True, only mentioned the surface lot because the owner was referenced in another thread about potential Hampton Inn at 16th/Main. Made sense at the time to try and make the connection, but not on top of my game this morning.

[KCPowercat]

Petition!

[grovester]

I'm friends with one of the guys who opened Tom's Town. They had (and continue to have) issues related to the liquor laws and the burdens placed on some businesses who need approval from neighboring landowners before obtaining liquor licenses. I saw something about that mentioned on one of these boards, but can't seem to locate today. Anyway, the link below offers some great examples of the limitations placed on new businesses, particularly in the Crossroads, and gives a sense of how one of the owners of many of the surface lots in the area sees as his right to protect the area.

Additional information is available on the Facebook page referenced in the article - you can do a search for NICE (Neighborhood Inclusion & Consent Expansion Ordinance), which explains the amendments that Jolie Justus has helped shepherd through, and that the surface lot owner, Brad Nicholson, is trying to block via petition.

http://www.startlandnews.com/2016/05/sh ... iquor-law/

just so you know, this is WAY more complicated than anyone is telling you or the media. outside of a mixed use neighborhood like the crossroads, those 'landowners' who get consent are most often homeowners. also, there are ZERO restrictions being placed on businesses that don't sell liquor -- which is regulated for a host of very good reasons, most importantly is public safety.

so, thanks for the 'surface lot' rhetoric, which doesn't have shit to do with what's going on.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding things correctly, the homeowners rights aren't being reduced are they? Seems only owners of multiple properties are being reduced to 10%.