[Neighbors] Proposed liquor license variations - Hit the specific problems please

Wed Sep 14 14:14:52 MDT 2016

Susan,

The issue is "injury to the adjacent community".  That law need never
change, though there is an effort by Planning to do so; you were at the
same table with me when they expressed just that. There are no other
arguments offered within this City's code that apply.  Stray from that
argument at your n'hood's peril.  The City's 500 foot and State's 300 foot
rules only require the applicant to apply for the exception.  Wishful
thinking regarding APD's presumed responsibilities will not serve your
case.  Promises by the applicant of drink limit, the size of bottles sold,
security cameras, parking lights and security guards are not addressed in
the Code and are unenforceable outside of an actual written contract.

And:
I and all neighborhoods in the International District remain concerned.
Even though we have beaten all packaged liquor sales applicants since 2009
and closed down six since 2002 we understand that those wins are only a
stay of execution.
The Planning Dept. made it clear to us that it was our request for a
moratorium on package liquor sales that shelved our most recent Draft
Sector Development Plan.  The marginalization that unrestricted liquor
sales provides any metro planning department in this country has been
evident in ABQ for decades.  It is a tool that must be removed from their
tool box with our collective neighborhood's responsibility to find and
develop leadership with the courage to do so — or — by our own "direct
legislation by voter initiative" on the next metro ballot.   It's
irresponsible to allow new development to continue to build anew on the
bones of their past mistakes.  That's a foundation given to failure.

La Mesa remains current on this issue and our past case files, including
letters to hearing officers, are available to all neighborhoods who ask as
well as is Nancy's very effective hearing presentation training.  We've
learned how these things are lost and how they are won.  I do hope that
this is an issue that inspires Nob Hill NA's next selection of board
members and officers.

Best wishes.

Charlie

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Susan Michie-Maitlen <sgm150 at ymail.com>
wrote:

> Spencer - I agree we should stick to the specific issue here - which is:
> why is our NHNA Board considering a proposal to change a law that will make
> a portion of Nob Hill (Girard to Carlisle) different from every other
> neighborhood in the city, except for Downtown.
>
> The current distance rule that is designed to protect schools and churches
> from establishments that sale alcohol has been in affect for decades and
> has not adversely affected the proliferation of bars, etc. along Central
> Avenue. Why does it need to change now?
>
> And Charlie, I do believe you should be concerned about this proposal,
> because if the liquor attorneys who are pushing this waiver here are
> successful in Nob Hill. It will make it easier for them to move it down
> Central to your neighborhood in the future, if they see a need.
>
> Again please stick to the specific issue. Why does this law need to be
> changed now?
>
> Susan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Spencer <spencer at swcp.com>
> *To:* Charlie Bennett <CB4inNM at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Pat Davis <patdavis at cabq.gov>; Sean Foran <seanforan at cabq.gov>; "
> neighbors at nobhill-nm.com" <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>; NobHill NA Board <
> theboard at nobhill-nm.com>; Ron Halbgewachs <ronhalbgewachs at peoplepc.com>;
> Susan Michie <sgm150 at ymail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re[2]: [Neighbors] Proposed liquor license variations - Hit
> the specific problems please
>
> Charlie,
>
> Thanks for your analysis. There could be a way if people are persistent.
>
> The City does provide a police force. And where the officers patrol is up
> to the police administration. The City also requires business licenses and
> fees for those licenses, and even has special provisions and taxes
> associated with specific types of businesses like pawnbrokers and hotels.
> So it could also be possible to have special provisions for businesses that
> sell alcoholic drinks which results in payments that could pay for police
> officers associated with troublesome locations.
>
> Or we could all just take reality into account and decide to each pay a
> little more for a quantity of police patrols that annoys the drunks and
> criminals enough to calm things down. Of course, over the years, APD has
> done special actions in our neighborhood that have resulted in great
> short-term improvement. They know how.
>
> We need to keep this issue on the burner continuously. We won't have an
> increased police force for years, but APD has some choices each night that
> officers go out to their jobs.
>
> Spencer Nelson
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Charlie Bennett" <CB4inNM at gmail.com>
> To: "Spencer" <spencer at swcp.com>
> Cc: "Pat Davis" <patdavis at cabq.gov>; "Sean Foran" <seanforan at cabq.gov>; "
> neighbors at nobhill-nm.com" <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>; "NobHill NA Board" <
> theboard at nobhill-nm.com>; "Ron Halbgewachs" <ronhalbgewachs at peoplepc.com>;
> "Susan Michie" <sgm150 at ymail.com>
> Sent: 9/13/2016 7:41:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Proposed liquor license variations - Hit the
> specific problems please
>
> Spencer.
>
> None of which is enforceable under City Ordinance or State Statute, in my
> opinion.  This City has no legal requirement to be socially responsible and
> it is not addressed in ordinance or code.  Historically, promises during
> hearings aren't worth the air or ink used to express them.  Any promises
> from the applicant must be contractual to be considered serious, i.e. a
> *written* contract with stated means of enforcement and a method of
> remediation if the contract is broken.  Anything less is just smoke.
>
> Do remember the rules of the ZHE and EPC:  "It is the burden of the
> applicant to prove that their project will not be injurious to the
> adjoining community."  That's the only argument any community has available
> to them and it's the only one they'll need, all the way to District Court.
> This comes from a number of successes by Nancy Bearce for our neighborhood
> and a few others, one involving Moe Chavez's firm.
>
> Do not let this go down the path of State Statute. Since 2006, the
> Directors of NM Div. of Alcohol & Gaming (AGD) have been political plants
> chosen by the liquor lobby, one of which is of council to Moe Chavez.  As
> of 2006, AGD is governed by Rules made by that Division and an advisory
> board made up of lobbyists.  These Rules are commonly used to circumvent
> Statute, particularly regarding the number of licenses sold in any
> particular County.
>
> Again, in my opinion, the only other recourse any community has are metro
> elections.
>
> Just sayin'
> Charlie Bennett
> La Mesa Community Improvement Association
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Spencer via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
> neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Pat & Neighbors,
>
> The issue of liquor sales near churches seems irrelevant when it comes to
> the actual problems the neighborhood has had with some drink sales. Most of
> the actual problems are rowdy people coming out of bars, car crimes related
> to patrons' cars parked along dark streets late at night, and DWI.
>
> So why not try to push for a conditional use tied to granting
> any alcoholic drink sales, one that requires the business operator to
> provide neighborhood security until an hour after the business closes? That
> "security" could be hiring or paying-for actual police officers to
> continuously patrol the area within a quarter mile radius of the
> establishment. The rule could allow businesses that are close together, say
> within the same quarter mile radius, to share the cost for an officer. That
> would give them some incentive to pool resources.
>
> Right now, liquor selling businesses will claim amazing compliance and
> security within their walls, but feel no official responsibility for
> patrons' actions once they leave. That may be a good legal stand, but
> mighty crumby when it comes to social responsibility and it doesn't
> recognize the reality of late night drink sales.
>
> This would be a tough road to go down, but it sure would be worth it.
>
> --
> Spencer Nelson
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman. swcp.com
> <Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
> http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/ neighbors_nobhill-nm
> <http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20160914/5c6c6e31/attachment.html>