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

Wed Sep 14 14:26:31 MDT 2016

Susan,

Yes, the law does not need to be changed now. But whenever the advocates 
come to talk about changing it, that is a fine opportunity to bring up 
the objections many of us have about late-night drink sales: Rowdy 
people coming out of bars, car crimes related to patrons' cars parked 
along dark streets late at night, and DWI. And maybe ask them what they 
would do about those issues if they appeared next to their residence.

Spencer Nelson

------ Original Message ------
From: "Susan Michie-Maitlen via Neighbors_nobhill-nm" 
<neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
To: "Spencer" <spencer at swcp.com>; "Charlie Bennett" <CB4inNM at gmail.com>
Cc: "neighbors at nobhill-nm.com" <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>; "NobHill NA 
Board" <theboard at nobhill-nm.com>
Sent: 9/14/2016 10:18:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Proposed liquor license variations - Hit the 
specific problems please

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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20160914/406552cb/attachment.html>