Liquor Licenses

[TheBigChuckbowski]

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?

Are they changing the amount of land area that gets a vote?

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

I'd want a vote two blocks away from my condo.

[loftguy]

Chuck, the ownership you describe is very unlikely to be involved in the liquor license approval process or to care.

There are many I know of, who are in the shoes represented by Nicholson in this circumstance and they typically are better informed, more involved and frankly businesslike and diplomatic.

I know there are gross examples otherwise, but this reality has to be accounted for too.

[KCPowercat]

If he is businesslike and diplomatic... Who is the one demanding bars close earlier than other bars, only serve certain drinks, don't play certain (*cough* rap *cough*) music?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

So, one guy owns 51% of a neighborhood and he gets veto power on what every other property owner can do on their property? This is good for property rights?

[loftguy]

I have limited info on the case specifics you are referring to KCPowercat, which includes your 'quote' and I'm told that it's a distorted or at least twisted perspective on the story.

What many of you are not considering, is that large property owners have often been the support mechanism that has allowed many establishments to provide alcohol and I have to wonder if those establishments would have been successful in their pursuit of licensing under the proposed changes.

In growing a community and supporting your investments, well run establishments that serves a lot of booze in a variety of venues are an important component in an urban communities development.

If I had my way, no public consent, or church zone, or other prohibition would be in place.

Allow tavens every seven feet, if the owner of the property wants to have a tavern. Just have reasonable and well enforced controls on noise and other nuisances which prevent bad neighbors.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

I think your last part is why the neighborhoods are fighting this at the front. The city isn't good at (and probably has its hands tied somewhat) after the bar is open... Hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

I don't pretend to know the whole truth behind all this. I know of one brewery that had to jump through some of these neighborhood hoops that seemed pretty silly considering what they opened.

I totally get wanting to ensure an all night rave club doesn't pop up next to your property.

[grovester]

I am hoping that since all involved seem intelligent and well meaning that this will get solved. The timeline for the new reg was sketchy at best.

[earthling]

Xroads has a liquor license problem...
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... oblem.html

It's up to Xroads residents to decide what it wants to be and I can understand not wanting to become Westport/P&L party district. But limiting a restaurant to one red, one white wine and one beer out of fear of becoming a bar district?

[DaveKCMO]

Xroads has a liquor license problem...
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... oblem.html

It's up to Xroads residents to decide what it wants to be and I can understand not wanting to become Westport/P&L party district. But limiting a restaurant to one red, one white wine and one beer out of fear of becoming a bar district?

residents didn't ask for that one.

if you talk to residents, they don't want excessive noise or anything after midnight or 1:30am. pretty standard resident perspective.

[KCPowercat]

I totally understand that, but when you decide to live downtown, doesn't that kind of come with the location?

[DaveKCMO]

I totally understand that, but when you decide to live downtown, doesn't that kind of come with the location?

does it? and is that for people who don't live downtown to decide? the crossroads is not an official entertainment district. that designation is for plaza, westport, 18th/vine, P&L, and zona rosa.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

I see both sides.

[KCPowercat]

I totally understand that, but when you decide to live downtown, doesn't that kind of come with the location?

does it? and is that for people who don't live downtown to decide? the crossroads is not an official entertainment district. that designation is for plaza, westport, 18th/vine, P&L, and zona rosa.

When the crossroads claim to fame is an art event with free wine, it kind of brought that unofficial entertainment district mindset onto itself.... But I totally understand thr need to focus the 3am entertainment venues... But the law as written definitely includes the crossroads as prime 3am bar area.

As one that lives by a busy 3am bar I get wanting to keep a hold on new places for the residents sake... But I also feel like I knew what I was getting into when I bought the place.

[flyingember]

An under 21 dance club that doesn't sell alcohol blasting music to the outdoors is a problem.
A bar that calls cabs is not a problem.

There's even simple design solution to the problem. Churches use vestibules to keep noise out. Require them for any facility that wants to sell alcohol and play music. A small room at the entrance that could be used for ID checks in bad weather and such.

I'm not against alcohol sales, I'm against annoying noise every night of the week and it doesn't matter if it's downtown or not. There's a perfectly fine noise ordinance for these issues.

A special event is a different story. People move downtown to be close to events, not close to a 3am club every night of the week.

[DaveKCMO]

When the crossroads claim to fame is an art event with free wine, it kind of brought that unofficial entertainment district mindset onto itself.... But I totally understand thr need to focus the 3am entertainment venues... But the law as written definitely includes the crossroads as prime 3am bar area.

As one that lives by a busy 3am bar I get wanting to keep a hold on new places for the residents sake... But I also feel like I knew what I was getting into when I bought the place.

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), doesn't matter whether it's an entertainment district or not. regardless, no new 3am licenses have been approved in the crossroads in years (but they do get passed down to many new owners, hence the hesitation to approve them).

keep in mind first friday events almost always end by 9 or 10 and only happen once a month. most galleries eventually give up on free wine because people do stupid things. you rarely see it at the established commercial galleries anymore (blue, leedy-voulkos, sherry leedy, studios).

[KCPowercat]

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

I totally get what you are saying... But to the region, the crossroads has become an entertainment district for an evening event... Which I think is why the neighborhood is struggling with the influx of bars much more than the cbd or river market.