Liquor Licenses

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 4306
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by smh »

DaveKCMO wrote:
kcjak wrote: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.
Doesn't the surface lot kind of apply though? He owns these surface lot parcels (among several others). For every parcel he owns, under the current system he gets one vote/consent on any license application radius within which his parcel(s) is located. Which, in some instances, gives him de facto veto power over who and what can open in the neighborhood. Whereas in a more "traditional" neighborhood it is significantly less likely that a single property owner will control enough parcels to have this power.

I think the politics behind this are complex as the Crossroads neighborhood continues to evolve and grow, but the ordinance is straightforward and is designed to give a more representative voice to the neighborhood.
earthling
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8519
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: milky way, orion arm

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by earthling »

How formalized is the Xroads Association? Do they have a master plan and do they have any guidance for development along Main to ensure fluid contiguous pedestrian scale development and not a series of isolated walled gardens? All of downtown needs this but especially development along Main through Xroads now that streetcar will likely draw more developers for all those surface lots.
Last edited by earthling on Fri May 13, 2016 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by DaveKCMO »

KCPowercat wrote:Petition!
i'll be the first to agree that we're in petition overkill, but you don't touch this third rail in KC without talking to the neighborhoods first. the good news is that everyone agrees the entire thing needs to be reviewed, and jolie has pledged to do that.

did you know, for example, that the previous council eliminated the 'density' requirement for the crossroads without telling us? this basically turned the CBD and crossroads (but really just the crossroads because who the fuck wants to open bar in the CBD?) into a free-for-all of liquor license applications. we've been getting once a month for over a year. consenters are fatigued and terrified this will turn into westport without other developments balancing things out.

they also insist that we're an entertainment district, but have not provided the level of protection that other entertainment districts can afford (plaza, zona rosa, P&L, and westport all have pricey security apparatus). sure, we could do a CID but that's putting pressure on non-corporate players (like brad) who are trying to build something unique. you know, the stuff that attracted tom's town and the sundry in the first place and doesn't have anything to do with liquor.

the #1 issue here is the ability of a license to be transferred to a new owner without triggering the consent process again. that has lead to at least three bars going terribly wrong under new ownership and ending up with multiple homicides -- balanca's, 1822 ultra lounge, and retro. the referendum is ultimately about forcing larger changes.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by DaveKCMO »

earthling wrote:How formalized is the Xroads Association? Do they have a master plan and do they have any guidance for development along Main to ensure fluid contiguous pedestrian scale development and not a series of isolated walled gardens? All of downtown needs this but especially development along Main through Xroads now that streetcar will likely draw more developers for all those surface lots.
we adhere to the greater downtown area plan and have embraced the city's TOD policy, as well as development restrictions along main that support the streetcar.

don't think for a minute that the owner of any crossroads surface lot on main doesn't have a plan to go vertical.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by flyingember »

DaveKCMO wrote:don't think for a minute that the owner of any crossroads surface lot on main doesn't have a plan to go vertical.
Or has a plan to sell their land to someone that will. (ex. the auto repair shop) The kcwiki parking map info I added gives you a snapshot of property ownership in the past to compare against for someone who's inclined.
earthling
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8519
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: milky way, orion arm

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by earthling »

Good to know. Thanks.
pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by pash »

.
Last edited by pash on Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 33837
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by KCPowercat »

It's not my hood so I don't know all the ins and outs of what is happening... From the outside it looks like a surface lot owner is wanting to play god with who gets in to do business... Not a good look. Especially given the examples of nice new bars/breweries that had to kiss the ring to even start up business.

I totally understand not wanting to turn into bourbon street.... And maybe this method is the only real way to do that right now... But I don't think one owner should be able to decide the fate of a business being established.
User avatar
chrizow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 17157
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 am

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by chrizow »

DaveKCMO wrote: the #1 issue here is the ability of a license to be transferred to a new owner without triggering the consent process again. that has lead to at least three bars going terribly wrong under new ownership and ending up with multiple homicides -- balanca's, 1822 ultra lounge, and retro.
you probably know this, but other neighborhoods have dealt with this (notably union hill, and i dealt with it on the HPNA) with conditional liquor licenses in which non-transferability is the principal term. so if a "good" bar operator goes out of business, the landlord can't just turn over the keys and liquor license to a stabby bar. i think it's a really powerful check on this kind of thing, which used to happen on troost all the time.

that said, i would think the crossroads is too expensive for a stabby bar/nightclub to operate in at this point. those places tend to open where they are "tolerated" or no one is around to complain, figuratively speaking - at this point other than maybe some desolate stretch of the E Xroads i can't imagine a place like this opening up.
DaveKCMO wrote: consenters are fatigued and terrified this will turn into westport without other developments balancing things out.
granted i dont get out much these days, but westport for the last few years seems very tame. also westport has 25 bars in a 4 block radius - the xroads has that many bars in an enormous, diffuse area. obviously it's hard to un-ring that bell if it gets there, but it seems like the xroads is far from becoming some sort of overrun entertainment district?
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 33837
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by KCPowercat »

Getting people to walk to 3 bars in the crossroads at this point is like asking them to cross an ocean in my experience.

Stabby bars... Lol... I miss chrizow posting more
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by loftguy »

It's interesting to see the lean of opinions here, where it seems that most are very willing to change the existing condition to take rights of representation away from 'the big guy'.....

The bias is represented in several ways, including the representation of 'an owner of parking lots'.

Since Nicholson is the one brought up specifically in the conversation, I have to point out that the guy has much more than parking lots. He has a 30 year career invested, with tens of millions of dollars of property development and as result hundreds of tenants to consider. He has a lot at stake and his ability to protect his responsibilities is being diminished by this change.

I might not agree with his views on liquor licensing (i don't know his views and opinions) but I'm really hesitant to support a change of the status quo in a way that reduces his existing rights simply because he has worked hard and invested.

The Crossroads owes it's success in part due to Nicholson's hard work and daily attention to the details of the neighborhood.
Last edited by loftguy on Fri May 13, 2016 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by DaveKCMO »

keep in mind i'm reflecting the general neighborhood consensus, not 100% my personal beliefs. although i've lived next to a 3am nightclub that was operating (with gunplay!) as recent as january. that license has already been transferred to the owner, so who knows what will happen?
TheBigChuckbowski
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

loftguy wrote: I might not agree with his views on liquor licensing (i don't know his views and opinions) but I'm really hesitant to support a change of the status quo in a way that reduces his existing rights simply because he has worked hard and invested.
But, by him having 50+% of the vote, that means that literally no one else in the neighborhood has a right to anything.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by loftguy »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
loftguy wrote: I might not agree with his views on liquor licensing (i don't know his views and opinions) but I'm really hesitant to support a change of the status quo in a way that reduces his existing rights simply because he has worked hard and invested.
But, by him having 50+% of the vote, that means that literally no one else in the neighborhood has a right to anything.
But, is that wrong if he is 50+% of the impact from the proposed liquor license?

With the proposed change, a 3am liquor license could be granted to an entity, as result of handful of property owners who own 10% of the affected properties are only around from 9-5 daily, or not at all. They aren't there at midnight and they don't care what's occurring at midnight. The person who owns 200-300 apartments and and offices that make up the balance of two surrounding blocks are limited to 10% of the response to application, regardless of their degree of ownership, exposure and potential for impact.

What I've outlined is a true potential on many blocks in many neighborhoods.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by loftguy »

loftguy wrote:
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
loftguy wrote: I might not agree with his views on liquor licensing (i don't know his views and opinions) but I'm really hesitant to support a change of the status quo in a way that reduces his existing rights simply because he has worked hard and invested.
But, by him having 50+% of the vote, that means that literally no one else in the neighborhood has a right to anything.
But, is that wrong if he is 50+% of the impact from the proposed liquor license?

With the proposed change, a 3am liquor license could be granted to an entity, as result of handful of property owners who own 10% of the affected properties are only around from 9-5 daily, or not at all. They aren't there at midnight and they don't care what's occurring at midnight. The person who owns 200-300 apartments and and offices that make up the balance of two surrounding blocks are limited to 10% of the response to application, regardless of their degree of ownership, exposure and potential for impact.

What I've outlined is a true potential on many blocks in many neighborhoods.
And it may be that what owners do in response is simply put each property into an individual LLC, or otherwise distribute ownership on paper to allow full participation.

I'm speaking up because the move appears to be based in prejudice and limited or no meaningful public input.
pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by pash »

.
Last edited by pash on Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 33837
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by KCPowercat »

I see both sides....what bothers me about this is how prospective businesses are being demanded to play certain music or only serve certain things or else they don't get to play in whomever sandbox... Especially if it's only one voice demanding it.

So say I buy property and want to open a pizza and music place at 18th and cherry. Is stretch going to keep me locked out?
User avatar
grovester
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4560
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by grovester »

Large property owners would garner a lot more support without Tom's Town, hip hop stories floating around. Also, what happens when someone lIke Nicholson sells out?
TheBigChuckbowski
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

loftguy wrote:
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
loftguy wrote: I might not agree with his views on liquor licensing (i don't know his views and opinions) but I'm really hesitant to support a change of the status quo in a way that reduces his existing rights simply because he has worked hard and invested.
But, by him having 50+% of the vote, that means that literally no one else in the neighborhood has a right to anything.
But, is that wrong if he is 50+% of the impact from the proposed liquor license?

With the proposed change, a 3am liquor license could be granted to an entity, as result of handful of property owners who own 10% of the affected properties are only around from 9-5 daily, or not at all. They aren't there at midnight and they don't care what's occurring at midnight. The person who owns 200-300 apartments and and offices that make up the balance of two surrounding blocks are limited to 10% of the response to application, regardless of their degree of ownership, exposure and potential for impact.

What I've outlined is a true potential on many blocks in many neighborhoods.
The guy that owns a bunch of property is likely just an investor and is MUCH MORE likely to never be around than condo owners, small business owners, small investors. You paint the one owner as someone that owns apartments but they could just as easily own surface lots or abandoned buildings and not care one iota about the neighborhood.

So, at that point, you have multiple property owners that don't want something to go in and they literally have no say whatsoever even though they actually live or own a business in the neighborhood, they're not some absentee landlord.

I'm going to side with giving more people a say in what happens in their neighborhood than less people. You're going to be much more likely to have people that care about the neighborhood have a voice.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Misc Crossroads News

Post by DaveKCMO »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:I'm going to side with giving more people a say in what happens in their neighborhood than less people. You're going to be much more likely to have people that care about the neighborhood have a voice.
understandable, but the 'more people' also means adding consenters that are farther from the liquor license holder -- up to 500 feet, i believe. so the person with the most impact now is diminished and someone two+ blocks away now has a say?
Post Reply