Dear Neighbors,

I am a property and business owner in Nob Hill.  I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association (NHNA) Board of Directors. The following is only offered as a neighboring business owner and not as comment as a Director.  The Board of Directors has not taken a position on this important issue as yet.

Tomorrow night is the annual meeting of the NHNA at the Monte Vista Christian Church, greetings from 6 to 6:30 and meeting thereafter.   I hope this sparks a bit of discussion, if not then perhaps soon by email.

SHOULD THE NOB HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FAVOR AMENDING  A CITY ORDINANCE SO THAT APPLICANTS COULD SEEK WAIVER OF THE HARD LIQUOR SALES PROHIBITION WITHIN 300 FEET OF A CHURCH OR SCHOOL?

Currently waivers can be sought for wine and beer sales for on premises consumption within 300 feet of a church or school.  There is no waiver process for hard liquor.  This amendment would change that.  A two step process is proposed for Nob Hill hard liquor license applicants: (1) they must first get the church or school approval and (2) only then can they apply for a waiver with the Albuquerque Liquor Hearing Officer (LHO).

The proposed amendment is limited to the area within 100 feet of Central Avenue, between Gerard and Carlisle Boulevards.

The impetus for this change comes from people who want to open a New Mexican restaurant including beer, wine, and hard liquor drinks at the vacant building previously housing La Provence restaurant.  In May 2012, Calgary Albuquerque opened a branch in Nob Hill’s Lobo Theater, within 300 feet of this now vacant space.  That church presence prevents hard liquor sales in the La Provence building under current law.

OPPOSITION TO THE ORDINANCE

Susan Michie addressed several e-mails to various city officials, the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association (NHNA) members, the NHNA Board of Directors, and others in which she strongly opposes this ordinance amendment.  She encouraged Nob Hill neighbors who agree with her to inform the NHNA Board of Directors of their opposition to the amendment. About three dozen people from within and outside of our neighborhood boundaries have taken Ms. Michie’s prompt to object. One person has e-mailed that amendment should be passed.

Ms. Michie’s principal concerns appear to fit in the following categories:

                (1)          Nob Hill already has too many bars or restaurants serving hard liquor;

                (2)          Nob Hill needs more retail establishments instead of liquor establishments;

                (3)          Some of these particular applicants may have a poor track record contributing to an alleged rise in criminal or antisocial conduct in our neighborhood;

                (4)          “[A]dopting this ordinance might discourage new schools, churches, and families with children from choosing to reside in our community. These institutions are very important to community stability - and too many bars can have the opposite effect.”

RECONSIDERING OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT

Are there too many bars or restaurants serving hard liquor in Nob Hill?

Susan says yes. Others may be open to more hard liquor establishments. The answer is subjective.

What is not subjective is that La Provence sits vacant as part of the welcoming western door of Nob Hill, accumulating trash on occasion in the outside dining areas and losing stucco here and there. I do not think a slowly degrading vacant building is as contributing to the good of the neighborhood as an active restaurant serving beer and wine and, perhaps, hard liquor.

Nob Hill needs more retail establishments instead of liquor establishments.

A respected business consultant working with the City and with Nob Hill Main Street looked Nob Hill over in 2015 and recommended increasing the ratio of retail and other commercial  businesses to entertainment establishments (bars and restaurants). 

Fair enough. Nob Hill has available retail space. Walk up and down Central to see abundant vacant store fronts available for retail. We need to help those vacancies disappear. Keeping this particular vacant space out of the hands of liquor license holders is no guarantee it will become a retail establishment. More likely, it will just remain vacant.

Efforts such as zoning for denser residential and multi-use buildings in the area will bring more customers here.  More customers, more retail opportunities. More such opportunities, fewer vacancies. The somewhat ‘walkable’ Nob Hill neighborhood will become more walkable.

The important ratio to consider at the moment is not just retail to bars/restaurants. The ratio to consider is retail to bars/restaurants to vacancies.

Some assert an unsubstantiated belief that particular applicants may have a poor liquor license track record, contributing to an alleged rise in criminal or antisocial conduct in our neighborhood.

I have seen assertions but no proof.  I do not know any of the proposed investors.  I listened to one of them at the last board meeting.  He was sincere about working with Nob Hill.

Nonetheless, harshly and unfairly assume for this moment that they or some other investors down the road possess demonstrable track records of degrading neighborhoods by careless liquor license stewardship.

If the concerns are real and verifiable, the applicants will not be given the waivers to get the license. Why? Because of the two step process contained in the proposed ordinance amendment.

First, they have to get permission from Calgary Nob Hill to even apply for a waiver.  Will Calgary Nob Hill grant it?  I don’t know.  But if the applicants present real potential dangers to the neighborhood, I doubt Calgary would approve, Matthew 9:10-13 notwithstanding.

Second, if the license applicants get the Calgary permission, then the applicants must apply to the LHO for a waiver, which is not a certainty. The Hearing Officer is required by Ordinance 13-2-4 (G) to consider the following:

                (4)          consistency of use within the neighborhood character;

                (5)          impact on other businesses, residents, schools, and churches in the area;

                (6)          the number of other applicants and/or licensed premises in the area;

                (7)          previous experience with similar licensed establishments in the area;

                (8)          impact on the area, including crime, traffic control, and parking;

                (10)        previous experience with the applicant’s operation of a liquor establishment; . . .

These are the very concerns Ms. Michie’s e-mails raise against this project in particular and the harm she foresees to the neighborhood in general if the amendment passes.

It is fairer to judge these or any future applicants within the orderly process of this proposed amended ordinance, providing notice and an opportunity for all concerned to present real evidence for and against the application.  Denying that opportunity ahead of time by sinking the amendment proposal with unsubstantiated e-mail assertions bothers me.

We must protect our schools as institutions important to community stablility. (There is no school within 300 feet of this location but Monte Vista Elementary is not far away.)

I agree with Ms. Michie.  But as she has pointed out, other bars and restaurants have coexisted peacefully with the residents and businesses in this neighborhood for decades.  Importantly, the proposed amendment carries within it the schools’ rights to stop a license applicant dead in his or her tracks. So why fight this amendment?

There are other things we can do of immediate benefit to our schools. For instance, Monte Vista Elementary has three safe streets which feed directly into that school yard:  Lafayette, Wellesley and Tulane NE.  Parents cannot park on those streets to take their children to and from school. They cannot park there to attend a jog-a-thon, school play, or teacher meeting.  They cannot park there to pick up a sick child. There are resident only parking signs during the 9:03 AM to 3:50 PM school hours on Lafayette (8 AM to 5 PM), Wellesley and Tulane (9 AM to 4 PM).

Encourage the City to remove those no parking signs so that parents have safer alternatives than the busy Monte Vista Avenue and the streets south of there.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT IF THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT ADOPTED?

Lost opportunity.  This is a great restaurant space. You don’t like this particular restaurant?  OK, what if instead your favorite San Francisco restaurant wanted to open in that location?  What if a South Valley restaurant you enjoy wants to expand here?  Defeating this amendment means our community will not get those opportunities to consider.  Passing it does not mean unfettered bar expansion.

Thank you for considering other points of view.

Pat Massey

Born in this neighborhood,

Resident of four homes in this neighborhood (Sierra, Wellesley, Graceland, Amherst)

Business owner and business property owner in this neighborhood since 1997 (Campus Blvd),

Dedicated to the well-being and progress of this neighborhood since 1950 (OK, when born I really didn’t care, but I have made up for those lost early childhood years)