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

[mean]

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.

Entry and carding controls are an unnecessary expense. I mean, if they want to pay for them, then great. But I don't see why it should be a requirement. Card at the bar.

Many cities have entertainment districts that flourish because of rules that allow for a unique and dynamic environment.

I'd argue that cities may flourish even more, and have an even more unique and dynamic environment, when there are fewer rules. Bourbon Street in particular and New Orleans in general is an example of this. I don't know what the open container law is in New Orleans, but I know for damn sure that people can and do walk all around the city carrying open containers with impunity.

Another, perhaps better, example of this would be Kansas City, 1930.

[KCPowercat]

open container ia not legal in nola outside of bourbon street....at least as I was warned by an officer...exception is for parades I believe.

[Highlander]

A portion of what Wikipedia has to say about open-container laws.  If this is correct, KC is among the more liberal cities in the nation.  NO allows open containers only in the French Quarter.

The vast majority of U.S. states and localities prohibit possessing and/or consuming an open container of alcohol in public (i.e. on the street). Only seven states (Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) have no state law against general public possession and/or consumption of an open container by a person of legal drinking age, although nearly all local jurisdictions in those states do prohibit public open containers.

There are a few public places in the United States, however, where open containers always are permitted in the street:


In the Power & Light District of Kansas City, Missouri, a special Missouri state law[4] preempts Kansas City's ordinary local law against open containers[5] and allows the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the street in open plastic containers.[6] The special state law refers to any "entertainment district" in Downtown Kansas City, so in 2006, the City Council of Kansas City extended this provision to include any portion not open to vehicular traffic of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, the Crossroads Arts District, the 18th and Vine Historic District, the Liberty Memorial, Crown Center, and the Union Hill neighborhood.[7] The Power & Light District remains the only part of Kansas City where open containers are allowed actually on the street, and throughout the rest of Kansas City, open containers remain expressly prohibited.

On the Las Vegas Strip of Las Vegas, Nevada, unlike every other locality in Nevada, city law allows the possession and consumption on the street of any alcoholic beverage in an open container throughout the year, although the container must be plastic for certain special events such as the 4th of July and New Year's Eve.[8], Because Nevada has no state public open container law, the city law governs. Although open containers usually are allowed throughout the rest of Las Vegas, they are prohibited at certain times of the year, except in the Strip.[8]

In the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana, city law allows the possession and consumption on the street of any alcoholic beverage in an open plastic container. Because Louisiana has no state public open container law, the city law governs. Throughout the rest of New Orleans, however, open containers remain prohibited.


Savannah Georgia has an open container district and Butte Montana has no open container laws whatsoever according to Wikipedia.

Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_container_law

[aknowledgeableperson]

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

City officials represent the whole city not just downtown interests.  This is not like in the 50's when someone said "What is good for General Motors is good for the country".

From what I have read there is nothing in the contract between the city and Cordish about KC Live being the only game in town for this type of liquor license.  If there was some sort of verbal agreement then the current council is not bound by it (like the car salesman promising some sort of lifetime warranty).  If this was to be so vital for Cordish then it should have been in writing.

[KC-wildcat]

City officials represent the whole city not just downtown interests.  This is not like in the 50's when someone said "What is good for General Motors is good for the country".

From what I have read there is nothing in the contract between the city and Cordish about KC Live being the only game in town for this type of liquor license.  If there was some sort of verbal agreement then the current council is not bound by it (like the car salesman promising some sort of lifetime warranty).  If this was to be so vital for Cordish then it should have been in writing.

Look, none of us know what was in the contract either way (except for possibly Tigerfan).  And, frankly, though I don't know the specifics about whether a city council is bound by agreements made by the previous city council, I doubt you know the answer to that either.  I mean, if the city agreed to act fairly with and in the best interest of Cordish in all of its dealings, it seems kind of backward to lobby the State legislature in contravention of Cordish' position.  I don't care if it was Barnes or Funkhouser.  No matter who the mayor is, the agreement is between Cordish and City, as far as I can tell. 

Again, whether it was oral or written is not the point.  The legislation is at the State level, not the City level.  Cordish could have had the contract laid in gold and the festival license clause engraved in diamond.  That still would mean nothing in the face of State level legislation allowing for festival licenses.  Cordish' problem seems to be that City Hall is actively lobbying the State legislature now that the entertaintment portion of the district is complete.  Whereas, a year ago, they were under the impression that this was going to be one of their most important marketing tools.  Seems kind of underhanded in my opinion.             

[aknowledgeableperson]

Cordish' problem seems to be that City Hall is actively lobbying the State legislature now that the entertaintment portion of the district is complete.  Whereas, a year ago, they were under the impression that this was going to be one of their most important marketing tools.  Seems kind of underhanded in my opinion.               

So the city is doing it, so what?  If they are not legally bound not to then they are free to do so.  And again, if it was that important to Cordish to have exclusivity then it should have been in the contract.  I will take the opinion of the city attorney on this matter (afterall Cordish is not saying it is in the contract).  Even Kay Barnes disputes Cordish version of the negotiations:

“I can state personally that the commitment to exclusivity was made by city representatives on multiple occasions, and our client acted in reliance on this commitment,” he wrote.

That claim, however, is contradicted by a March 2006 City Council resolution signed by then-Mayor Kay Barnes that put the city on record supporting expansion of the festival liquor license legislation.

“The city supports amending the state liquor control law to provide for festival district special permits and licenses within designated festival district boundaries,” the resolution stated.

Yes, there must be some hardball politics going on but that is to be expected.  And playing hardball, I would expect, is something that Cordish is experienced in playing also.  So let the fun begin.

[WoodDraw]

City officials represent the whole city not just downtown interests.  This is not like in the 50's when someone said "What is good for General Motors is good for the country".

From what I have read there is nothing in the contract between the city and Cordish about KC Live being the only game in town for this type of liquor license.  If there was some sort of verbal agreement then the current council is not bound by it (like the car salesman promising some sort of lifetime warranty).  If this was to be so vital for Cordish then it should have been in writing.

Yeah, well said.  I don't see the problem.  This city has already expanded the open container coverage to nearly all of downtown.  What's the big deal?  Cordish should work on getting quality bars and restaurants into the district, not on where these rules will apply. 

The P&L district should be unique enough to where these things don't matter.  Really, does anyone want to go hang out in the street in Westport?  The P&L area was built to take advantage of these laws, so it already has a leg up on the competition.

[KCPowercat]

nearly all of downtown?  It's within one block and expanded to approx. 2 blocks for things like the Big 12 tournament.  Hardly "all of downtown".

I agree with wildcat...we built this entertainment district as a city, let's not undercut it.  We have a great resource that we have a lot invested in, let's do what we can to make it successful...it's not like Westport, et.al. are losing any "right" that they previously had.....just keep the laws as they are....Westport can get a festival license for special occasions and in normal situations, the open container at the Live block is contained within the live block.

The city messing with this seems underhanded.

[AJoD]

The thing is, I don't really care about underhanded or obligations or contracts or Cordish.  And since the terms of the contract, the legislation, and such don't really seem to be known, that part of the conversation seems to be pointless.  We have courts to decide what the contract does or does not say.

What I don't get is why (or even if, really) anyone here thinks that Westport ought to have bars on the sidewalk, where you get your booze in plastic cups and wander around from joint to joint.  I get mean's point about lots of stupid alcohol laws in general, but that's not going to change right now.

The disturbing thing about the city's stance, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with screwing over Cordish but having a shortsighted vision for Westport.

It's possible, I suppose, that city officials are lobbying for the right to grant such a license to Westport, in order to curry favor with locals, without any intention of actually granting such a license.

[WyCo]

Personally P&L really doesn't appeal much to me.  It seems to be aimed at the "club" crowd and that is not me.  BUT, I do like First Fridays, Plaza Art Fair, etc.  If I want to wander from bar to bar with my glass (plastic container) of wine, what is the freaking big deal?  How is this hurting Cordish or P&L.  They really aren't aiming for my money, otherwise they would have fewer venues like Howl, Tengo Sed, etc and more Bristol's.
So give me the same courtesy you give the P&L patrons. 

[GRID]

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.

There is a huge difference between sustaining a few night clubs vs 400k, or even 200k of retail and restaurants.   I think the LIVE block will be ok for the most part, but it’s practically shut down during the day and most evenings.  The rest of the district is going to take a lot of effort and marketing and a much larger and more vibrant downtown residential and employee population to survive.  I think it will be fine, but we have to keep the momentum going downtown.  We still have plenty of opportunities to bring more people to the downtown area.

[WoodDraw]

nearly all of downtown?  It's within one block and expanded to approx. 2 blocks for things like the Big 12 tournament.  Hardly "all of downtown".

The P&L district is not singled out in the law.  It is one of six areas listed as "promotional association sub-zones", the other ones being 18th & Vine, the Crossroads, the performing arts area, Union Hill, and the Crown Center/Liberty Memorial/Union Station area.  

[edit]

I don't know the specifics of the current liquor license; my point was only that the current law was never written as applying only to Cordish.

[KCTigerFan]

This change has absolutely nothing to do with First Friday's, Plaza Art Fair et cetera.  I grew up here, love KC and frequent all of those events, and more.  Right now, and regardless of any legal change, any area can apply and recieve an event permit and a catering license to allow outdoor beverage service.  THE story that is being missed is that this change would allow for continuous outdoor alcohol access outdoors.  Cordish may be fighting it for economic and "promised" reasons, and you may think that is sh*t, but ask yourself if you really thin it is good public policy to allow all areas of KC to have open containers in the streets.  THAT is the issue that overlooked in this whole argument.  I an amazed that no one seems to be asking that question.  Maybe they are, but no media outlets are discussing it. 

Furthermore, I can assure everyone that every place at the P&L is more than exceeding all sales projections.  That shows no signs of slowing as the P&L hasn't even launched their concerted events and marketing campaigns yet.  There will be concerts and events Tuesday-Sunday.  The District will be fine and more than deliver the TIF revenue. 

What I don't get is why (or even if, really) anyone here thinks that Westport ought to have bars on the sidewalk, where you get your booze in plastic cups and wander around from joint to joint.  I get mean's point about lots of stupid alcohol laws in general, but that's not going to change right now.

[mean]

open container ia not legal in nola outside of bourbon street....at least as I was warned by an officer...exception is for parades I believe.

That may be the case, but when I have been down there it has hardly been enforced. And I've never been down for Mardi Gras.

What I don't get is why (or even if, really) anyone here thinks that Westport ought to have bars on the sidewalk, where you get your booze in plastic cups and wander around from joint to joint.  I get mean's point about lots of stupid alcohol laws in general, but that's not going to change right now.

I don't care whether Westport has bars on the sidewalk, that isn't really what I'm addressing. But if I wander into McCoy's and order a few pints and decide halfway through one that I want to head outside and wander down to Dave's Stagecoach or Record Bar carrying my legally purchased beverage with me, why should that be illegal? I can buy a Pepsi and take it with me. Sure, my legally purchased beverage contains an age-restricted drug, but if I smoked I could buy a pack of smokes and take them with me...

It's just stupid. Maybe it isn't going to change right now, but now that it is an issue that is making headlines (even if on page 6G) it seems like a good time to talk about it.

[KCKev]

Isn't it because of the lawsuits against bars for the actions of drunks? Once your out of the bar it's hard to find the so called guilty party to get money from when something bad happens.

Are you willing to sign a waiver of the bars responsibility  to leave the?

[mean]

The bar shouldn't be responsible regardless, in my opinion. If I buy a knife from a cutlery store and stab someone with it, that isn't the cutlery store's responsibility; it's mine.

Of course, in this society I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually have to have background checks and sign waivers to buy chef's knives, so you may have a point.

[KCKev]

My thoughts also! Bars are in it for money not to babysit. If only drunks killed drunks in car crashes the world would be a better place but I guess GOD doesn't see it that way.

[aknowledgeableperson]

  We have a great resource that we have a lot invested in,

And the city doesn't have an interest in seeing these other areas survive in the wake of what is happening downtown?

One might call this the "slippery slope" people talk about.  Let someone have something and then others want it also.

[Czar]

While I hate the idea of Cordish suing over "verbal promises"....  It is the best interest of the City for Cordish to be exclusive holder of this license (at least for 5 years or so).  First the City is on hook for bond, so Live distirict better bring in tons of paying customers.  Second, Cordish has this concept down to a science, have you seen the controlled access, security and drivers license readers in the Live Block.  I wonder how many shootings would occur in Westport this summer with an open container law?  I have no idea why Brookside would want this, are you kidding me?  As a rivermarket resident I would HATE my neighborhood having an open container law....

[Maitre D]

I agree full-bore with Cordish.  They've invested massive dollars, as well as sweat-equity, with the promise of being the exclusive outdoor entertainment spot.


The owner of Kelly's bitches in the Star constantly: "We want DT to succeed but..." he always starts off.  "...they shouldn't be subsidized as our competitors"


Hey dipshit - how much investment in KC have YOU made?  That dumpy bar you own has had about $18/yr in ongoing maintenance the past 30 years.  Cordish isn't getting a free ride DT.  They're paying a ton, and all upfront.