Cordish may sue over non-P&L festival liquor licenses

[dangerboy]

What negative press is Westport pushing about downtown? I hadn't heard anything about that. I am a bit puzzled why Westport is being blamed here. What, exactly, are they doing?

They are saying that the city is killing Westport by giving Downtown so many tax breaks that Westport does not have.  As Grid pointed out, it's curious that they doing this now after saying for years they wanted to de-emphasize the night clubs and bring in more retail and offices.

They are also complaining that the live block canopy gives the P&L an unfair advantage, but I don't think I ever heard Westport ask for a canopy until Cordish had the idea.

[PumpkinStalker]

When we say "Westport" who are we really referring to?  A couple outspoken business owners or a Westport Business Association?  Something else?  Serious question.

[dangerboy]

When we say "Westport" who are we really referring to?  A couple outspoken business owners or a Westport Business Association?  Something else?  Serious question.

This is part of what Grid refers to as Westport "deciding what it wants to be."  I have the sense that landlords are behind the drive to reduce the nightlife, while business owners might want to go the other direction.  It would really benefit them to have a shared vision and strategy.

[KC-wildcat]

When we say "Westport" who are we really referring to?  A couple outspoken business owners or a Westport Business Association?  Something else?  Serious question.

I guess I am referring to WP as a collective entity of bars and restuarants that stand to lose business from P&L's emergence.  What bars and restuarants are included in WP?  I don't know.  I guess all of them.  There may be a few places in WP that don't care about the festival license, but I lump them all together as one, unified WP because I assume their political and monetary interests are all pretty much in line with one another.  I mean, the entire district employs one lawyer to represent its collective voice.  


"Charles Renner, the attorney representing Westport, the Brookside Art Annual and the Martin City Irish Parade, had tried to negotiate a compromise with Cordish that would allow the company to drop its opposition to expanding festival licenses."

[FangKC]

The thing I don't  get is that if Cordish wanted that exclusivity, why didn't they get it in a written contract from the city?  According to Wayne Cauthen, there is no contract in writing that gives them that.  If it was so important, why didn't they get it in writing to cover themselves?

A verbal promise from politicians. Please. Cordish should have known better. I can't see a judge siding with them without a written contract.  Basic law.

On the other hand, the City might have  promised Cordish a 365-day festival license exclusively, but didn't promise that no one else could have periodic one-day festival licenses for events.  That would shut down every public event in the city.

I don't see where periodic festival licenses for specific neighborhood events in other parts of the city is going to hurt Cordish.  They have an all-the-time, 365 day outdoor festival license.  The other parts of the city will probably only be getting them for things like First Fridays, or St.  Pat's Day.

As far as the Council goes, there is a political aspect here too.   Other merchants in the city are  probably breathing down their necks saying it's an unfair advantage.  These merchants actually live here, where Cordish is an out-of-town company.  It becomes quite a different kettle of fish when your constituents are complaining.   The other aspect is that residents see it as an unfair advantage. Why should an out-of-town company get an advantage all the time that home-town merchants can't even have periodically when there is an event in their neighborhood.

From what I can tell now, other parts of town aren't asking for a 365-day license, they just want to be able to get periodic licenses for special events and festivals.

From the position that Cordish appears to be taking, it would mean that no alcohol could be sold at the Spirit Festival in Penn Valley Park, or July 4th at the riverfront.   How pissed off are people going to be about that?

[beautyfromashes]

Yeah, and if they are going to say this was some sort of verbal agreement/contract then we probably have 10 of our own that were never fulfilled.  Get it is writing or tough luck.

[KCTigerFan]

The proposed changes have nothing to do with preventing any area or event from serving alcohol.  All areas, can now, and will be able to continue to apply for a special event permit and catering permit.  See Plaza Art Fair, Wesport Art Fair, Parades et cetera.

The real issue that isn't discussed is the expansion of this "license" is a veiled proposal that will allow Westport (and others) to serve and allow alcohol service outdoors on the sidewalks and allow people to walk down the street with booze.  Wesport is saying it is just for certain days et cetera.  Get real, this will be every Friday and Saturday at a minimum.  The fact is, the P&L is designed to host crowds in the Live area and has the facilities and security to manage it.  Does anyone really believe Westport will be able to manage booze on the streets?

The thing I don't  get is that if Cordish wanted that exclusivity, why didn't they get it in a written contract from the city?  According to Wayne Cauthen, there is no contract in writing that gives them that.  If it was so important, why didn't they get it in writing to cover themselves?

A verbal promise from politicians. Please. Cordish should have known better. I can't see a judge siding with them without a written contract.  Basic law.

On the other hand, the City might have  promised Cordish a 365-day festival license exclusively, but didn't promise that no one else could have periodic one-day festival licenses for events.  That would shut down every public event in the city.

I don't see where periodic festival licenses for specific neighborhood events in other parts of the city is going to hurt Cordish.  They have an all-the-time, 365 day outdoor festival license.  The other parts of the city will probably only be getting them for things like First Fridays, or St.  Pat's Day.

As far as the Council goes, there is a political aspect here too.   Other merchants in the city are  probably breathing down their necks saying it's an unfair advantage.  These merchants actually live here, where Cordish is an out-of-town company.  It becomes quite a different kettle of fish when your constituents are complaining.   The other aspect is that residents see it as an unfair advantage. Why should an out-of-town company get an advantage all the time that home-town merchants can't even have periodically when there is an event in their neighborhood.

From what I can tell now, other parts of town aren't asking for a 365-day license, they just want to be able to get periodic licenses for special events and festivals.

From the position that Cordish appears to be taking, it would mean that no alcohol could be sold at the Spirit Festival in Penn Valley Park, or July 4th at the riverfront.   How pissed off are people going to be about that?

[mean]

Yeah, good point. Cordish is just looking out for us. They don't want people getting rowdy and getting hurt in Westport.

Hail Cordish!

[KC-wildcat]

A verbal promise from politicians. Please. Cordish should have known better. I can't see a judge siding with them without a written contract.  Basic law.

None of us know the details of the contract.  I would assume, however, that there is a good faith and fair dealing clause.  Hence, if the city begins heavily lobbying the state legislature for statutes that are directly opposed to Cordish' interests, there could be a contract violation.  Not sure what the remedy would be, but it's simply not as black and white as no writing = no claim.  Remember, Cordish contracted with the City Government, not the State Government.  As such, they have no right to contract as to what the State may or may not do in the future.  

In terms of your other points, they all make some sense.  I mean, if the statute would only grant festival licenses for up to 20 events a year, Cordish may not be hurt.  Then again, I don't know.  At the same time, I have a problem with WP crying foul and people vilanizing Cordish as an out-of-town robber baron monster that just wants to exploit KC.  Further, I have a problem with WP and other districts thinking that a few more open container policies will save their asses.  I can understand Crossroads on First Friday and WP on STPD.  Fine.  But, if WP thinks they are in the clear if they get this legislation passed, they are more ignorant than I thought.  

[NDTeve]

Again, there is still not enough people and residents downtown and with the arena lacking a tenant, I would bet the existing tenants at the districts are already struggling more than they had hoped.

I have my doubts about this. Especially when places like McFadden's have said they've tripled expectations.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I have my doubts about this. Especially when places like McFadden's have said they've tripled expectations.

Exactly - if you are "struggling" when there are lines out your door more times than not, you're not doing it right. 

[mean]

Further, I have a problem with WP and other districts thinking that a few more open container policies will save their asses. 

Well, it's not about saving their asses, it's about evening the playing field a little bit, which I can respect. It didn't seem clear whether 20 per year is per site or city-wide; if we're talking 20 citywide, then fine. That will let Westport, River Market, Crossroads, Brookside, Waldo, etc., each have a few events per year. I don't see anything wrong with that, although, frankly, I think the whole idea of walking around sidewalks with open containers being illegal is stupid to begin with...but that's another story.

If anyone is slamming Cordish as an out-of-town robber baron monster, it is only to temper those who are saying Cordish is the Grand Saviour of Kansas City. Until everyone can agree to stop making these wild, hyperbolic proclamations, we're all going do a good job at making ourselves look stupid.

[WoodDraw]

The proposed changes have nothing to do with preventing any area or event from serving alcohol.  All areas, can now, and will be able to continue to apply for a special event permit and catering permit.  See Plaza Art Fair, Wesport Art Fair, Parades et cetera.

The real issue that isn't discussed is the expansion of this "license" is a veiled proposal that will allow Westport (and others) to serve and allow alcohol service outdoors on the sidewalks and allow people to walk down the street with booze.  Wesport is saying it is just for certain days et cetera.  Get real, this will be every Friday and Saturday at a minimum.  The fact is, the P&L is designed to host crowds in the Live area and has the facilities and security to manage it.  Does anyone really believe Westport will be able to manage booze on the streets?

If they make the needed security enhancements needed to enforce that, than what is the problem?  There was no contractual promise made by the city or state to Cordish that gave them sole use of a year around "festival" permit.

Cordish sees this as a threat to their bottom line, and is trying to scare off the city and state.  That's fine, but their argument is crap and it looks like it is already backfiring. 

[AJoD]

The proposed changes have nothing to do with preventing any area or event from serving alcohol.  All areas, can now, and will be able to continue to apply for a special event permit and catering permit.  See Plaza Art Fair, Wesport Art Fair, Parades et cetera.

The real issue that isn't discussed is the expansion of this "license" is a veiled proposal that will allow Westport (and others) to serve and allow alcohol service outdoors on the sidewalks and allow people to walk down the street with booze.

I don't get why this isn't discussed, seriously.  Reading the newspapers and this thread, up until now, has made absolutely no sense to me.  It doesn't make sense that Cordish would care to restrict the kind of public booze events that have gone on for years.  It also doesn't make sense to have multiple districts in town, Beale Street style, that have outside-facing bars like Fuego, serve in plastic cups, and let you carry your booze up and down the street.

I didn't realize this [what TigerFan describes] is what Westport bars were after, but if so, there's no way that should happen.  Not good for Westport, not good for P&L, not good for KC.  The set-up they've had in the past at the art fair (and Brookside Art Fair, Plaza Art Fair, etc.) is fine.  If that's not in jeopardy, I don't understand the problem.

[KCPowercat]

I would be fine with downtown having the only blanket permit...that is what we wanted, downtown to become THE entertainment district...westport turned into one by default but its not really setup to handle those crowds.  good alternatuve with some good bars but not a city's entertainment district.

that being said, this lawsuit talk is turning off the general public to the cordish name imo. 

city officials shouldn't realy be backing this though either.

[mean]

I didn't realize this [what TigerFan describes] is what Westport bars were after, but if so, there's no way that should happen.  Not good for Westport, not good for P&L, not good for KC.  The set-up they've had in the past at the art fair (and Brookside Art Fair, Plaza Art Fair, etc.) is fine.  If that's not in jeopardy, I don't understand the problem.

Yeah. What, exactly, does this "festival license" permit, that differs from what already happens at...uh, festivals? I was assuming that the current festivals (art fairs, etc) specifically prohibited people from walking into and out of drinking establishments with an open container. I know current law does prohibit you from leaving or entering any bar with an open container, and as far as I know it isn't waived during festivals. Rather, liquor intended for consumption outdoors is poured outdoors.

Which is all rather stupid and unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. Just do away with the laws, let people run around with beers in their hand everywhere. Why is this regulated? Who cares? Yeah, someone is going to run in and buy a beer for an underage kid sometimes, but that happens at liquor stores every day and the kids go consume in private. I'd rather underage kids be wandering around in public with their drinks, where we can see them and card them.

[Highlander]

Yeah. What, exactly, does this "festival license" permit, that differs from what already happens at...uh, festivals? I was assuming that the current festivals (art fairs, etc) specifically prohibited people from walking into and out of drinking establishments with an open container. I know current law does prohibit you from leaving or entering any bar with an open container, and as far as I know it isn't waived during festivals. Rather, liquor intended for consumption outdoors is poured outdoors.

Seems a bit silly but I suspect the original intent of the law was something along the line of collecting taxes and ensuring that people purchased their alcohol through a limited number of marketers rather than bring their own beer, purchased at a Kansas Walmart, into KC depriving business of a profit and the city of tax revenues. 

Having said all that, I suspect Cordish probably has a point regarding what was promised but they are not doing themselves any favors pursuing the issue.  The Star's forum on this subject is running several pages deep and very few comments favor Cordish.  It may be a legally astute thing for Cordish to do but in the realm of public perception, they are looking bad right now. 

[mean]

Seems a bit silly but I suspect the original intent of the law was something along the line of collecting taxes and ensuring that people purchased their alcohol through a limited number of marketers rather than bring their own beer, purchased at a Kansas Walmart, into KC depriving business of a profit and the city of tax revenues. 

Doesn't seem like it's much of the city's business where I buy or consume my beer, but ok.

[WoodDraw]

Yeah. What, exactly, does this "festival license" permit, that differs from what already happens at...uh, festivals? I was assuming that the current festivals (art fairs, etc) specifically prohibited people from walking into and out of drinking establishments with an open container. I know current law does prohibit you from leaving or entering any bar with an open container, and as far as I know it isn't waived during festivals. Rather, liquor intended for consumption outdoors is poured outdoors.

Which is all rather stupid and unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. Just do away with the laws, let people run around with beers in their hand everywhere. Why is this regulated? Who cares? Yeah, someone is going to run in and buy a beer for an underage kid sometimes, but that happens at liquor stores every day and the kids go consume in private. I'd rather underage kids be wandering around in public with their drinks, where we can see them and card them.

I agree, mostly.  If a place wants the same rules as the P&L district, they need to set up entry and carding controls in the same way.  If they do, I see no reason why the rules shouldn't be extended.

Personally, I agree with you that alcohol rules are stupid and mostly unnecessary.  Missouri's are fairly liberal compared to most places though, so I don't complain too much.

[KC-wildcat]

I agree, mostly.  If a place wants the same rules as the P&L district, they need to set up entry and carding controls in the same way.  If they do, I see no reason why the rules shouldn't be extended.

Many cities have entertainment districts that flourish because of rules that allow for a unique and dynamic environment.  Bourbon Street was the example cited by Cordish' attorney.  One competitive advantage that P&L has is its open container policy.  It's what makes the district "one of a kind."  By extending the policy to any and every entertainment district in the state of Missouri, this competitive advantage is effectively nullified.  In Cordish' opinion, this is one very big reason why the rules shouldn't be extended.  Since DT's growth and viability hinges directly upon the success of P&L, I support Cordish' efforts to retain their competitive advantage.