Liquor Licenses

[kcjak]

I don't think everyone expects a 3am license, just prevent limitations from a single landowner (or small number of landowners) that put one business at a disadvantage from another.

[taxi]

the law "as written" allows a 3am bar anywhere in the city that isn't trumped by the density restrictions (don't ask, but these density restrictions that limit the number of licenses were removed from downtown and crossroads while no one was looking)

There is a great irony in this, given the folks that were involved. Makes me wanna open a 3AM hip-hop bar called Karma.

[brewcrew1000]

Wonder what the residents would be in favor of. 20 more restaurants and bars open till 3am or 1 Twenty story high rise section 8/low income Housing Projects smack dab in the middle of the crossroads.

[scooterj]

Aren't 3am licenses restricted to entertainment districts or within x miles of a convention hotel? Is my mind making that up?

The rules for 3am licenses are here, though the language is pretty confusing:

http://atc.dps.mo.gov/licensing/seconda ... endedhours


Essentially, for our part of Missouri, it appears all of Kansas City proper, all of North Kansas City, and all of Jackson County seems to be considered a qualified convention trade area. I could swear that there are income and food percentage requirements too, but I don't see them here. And I also remember the same thing you do about within X miles of a convention center or convention hotel, but I don't see that here either.

(Mostly useless trivia from a quick search on the same site: Kansas City has 239 active 3am licenses, North Kansas City has 6, and Grain Valley has 2. No other cities in Jackson County have any. For KMCO's, 2 are in Clay, 11 are in Platte, the rest in Jackson.)

[TheBigChuckbowski]

If the problem is that licenses get passed on to the next bar that moves into a space, why not make it a part of the deal that the license doesn't pass on? That seems a lot more logical than preventing any bars from moving in or telling them exactly what they can and can't serve.

[DaveKCMO]

If the problem is that licenses get passed on to the next bar that moves into a space, why not make it a part of the deal that the license doesn't pass on? That seems a lot more logical than preventing any bars from moving in or telling them exactly what they can and can't serve.

ideally, a change in ownership should require seeking new consents. that would solve a lot of the hand-wringing on this, and not just in the crossroads.

[KCPowercat]

I'd agree with that.

[KCPowercat]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 46032.html

Hopefully they don't get their final 400 signatures.

[grovester]

I hope they do, they need to take a broader look at licensing.

[DaveKCMO]

I hope they do, they need to take a broader look at licensing.

yes, no one really wants a public vote on this narrow issue. everyone does want a broader look at the existing laws.

[WinchesterMysteryHouse]

[quote="PumpkinStalker"

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.

My money bets that its Monty, owner of the haunted houses and various second-hand shop bldgs, is the 'sole denier.' Ha still playing president down there in the WB.

[swid]

Did the petition deadline get extended? I just got an email from my building (asking me to sign) that noted that the deadline was the 24th.

[loftguy]

If the problem is that licenses get passed on to the next bar that moves into a space, why not make it a part of the deal that the license doesn't pass on? That seems a lot more logical than preventing any bars from moving in or telling them exactly what they can and can't serve.

ideally, a change in ownership should require seeking new consents. that would solve a lot of the hand-wringing on this, and not just in the crossroads.

I agree on this. I understand that significant liquor industry people are working the room against requiring consent upon ownership change.

[pash]

.

[grovester]

It doesn't seem unreasonable that liquor licenses be granted to individuals, not entities or property and be non-transferable. Otherwise it becomes a commodity that disincentivizes the full range of options for a particular property, i.e. it would be highly unlikely that a property that was once a bar would ever become anything else. Let them stand on their own merits.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

The license should be assigned to the specific business. Tie it to the business license. Not the owner of the property or a person or the corporation running the business.

This way the license transfers with a sale but not if the place shuts down and reopens as a new concept. Which would be much easier to argue is allowed as a personal right.

You're into a messy legal territory if we give someone the individual right to sell alcohol and take it away because we don't like what they're doing with it. The government doesn't get to tell me how I can make money if I have a license to do it. It would be like licensing a taxi driver. The person becomes qualified and now they can drive anywhere driving is designated for the purpose. In practice this alcohol licensed person could open a popup bar in any commercial property.

[grovester]

I'll buy that, though it seems that might be easy to skirt. Keep the same name, but change absolutely everything else.

[grovester]

We talk about making it easier for businesses to open, but I'm thinking drinking establishments might be an exceptions. Harder to open is probably better.

[pash]

.