H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
The city’s alcohol density plan came under scrutiny Thursday at an Alcohol License Review Committee subcommittee meeting.
Some committee members and others present — some of whom own bars — questioned whether the density plan accomplishes its intended goal of curbing downtown crime or whether it merely serves to drive away any potential business in the area.
The density plan was passed in 2006; the purpose of the plan, according to the ordinance, is to limit or gradually reduce the number of certain alcohol licenses in a portion of the downtown area.
The ordinance contains a sunset clause, meaning it will automatically be repealed —unless City Council votes to keep it — one year from now.
At the subcommittee meeting, stakeholders in the downtown community and some members of the ALRC voiced their opinion of the ordinance and offered suggestions for changes. These suggested changes and comments will be brought before the greater ALRC body.
Hawk Schenkel, owner of Hawk’s Bar & Grill, said from a financial standpoint, he is in support of keeping the density plan because of the increased revenue it affords his bar. Overall, and from a philosophical perspective, however, he is against it because it goes against the fabric of what the downtown is trying to do — attract more people to the area.
Committee member Rick Petri also raised the concern the density plan was potentially hindering business, and that food and drink is integral to the culture downtown.
While he was not calling for repeal at this point, Petri said one could argue development of downtown is being jeopardized because of the difficulty in acquiring an alcohol license in the area.
“(The plan) is stultifying what can happen in the future,” Petri said.
Curtis Brink, owner of Brink Lounge, detailed a concern in the same vein.
“What the density plan has done is it has permitted certain areas (of the downtown) to be blank,” Brink said.
Marsh Shaprio, representing the Tavern League on the ALRC, raised the concern of having too many bars in the area and how it relates to bar competition.
“The pie is the same size, but the slice is smaller for everyone,” Shapiro said, adding business should be encouraged, but having all the bars in one area is not desirable.
Schenkel said the bars that are managed poorly would be weeded out, and this was the proper way to regulate the density in the area.
“What needed to be done was enforcement,” Schenkel said, adding if he had underage people in his bar, he should get a citation.
He added the problems with bar violence could be solved with enforcement, and the density plan is not necessary to accomplish this goal.
Mary Carbine of the Business Improvement District said she wanted more clear data on how the density plan relates to economic impact. She also suggested the ordinance should offer more leeway in allowing more non-bars to come into the density plan and make it less restrictive even if it exceeds the mandated alcohol ratio.
IP hash: 21fa7185
�The pie is the same size, but the slice is smaller for everyone,� Shapiro said, adding business should be encouraged, but having all the bars in one area is not desirable.
You greedy sonofabitch.
IP hash: f9872dcf
What a bunch of transparent horseshit. The Tavern League’s argument amounts to “we want a cartel.”
IP hash: 162dbb7a
I never said I was in support of the ALDP. I have actually fought this from the beginning. I said that I “should be for it” from a financial stand point. Yet, I am not. We can make the pie bigger. Hawk
IP hash: 01eedbd2
haha hawk doesnt have underagers in his bar? bahaha i didnt realize there was anyone over 21 in that bar on a given weekend. the bar owners will obviously support this because it restricts competition. if the market can support more bars, why not have them? its not underage drinking that causes crime either, it’s the thugs and trash that come in from the shitty parts of town looking for trouble, even the MPD will admit that
IP hash: f9872dcf
The reason here is simple: Everyone knows that bars generally have single-digit profit margins and that a huge % of them go out of business in any given five-year period. Other than the license issue, the barrier to entry to starting a bar isn’t all that great. Although a lot of banks won’t lend money for bars because of the above failure rate…
In any event, a new, successful bar has clear potential to maul the bottom lines of existing bars and possibly put several out of business. The Tavern League knows this, and rather than compete, would prefer to just ban all new bars. In most other industries, this would be against federal law as a conspiracy in restraint of trade; the only difference here is they manipulated the city into making it a licensing issue.
IP hash: 7e24ef39
Hey you duffases. A better plan is to only allow certain down town city blocks to have so many bars and loosen restrictions to neighborhoods that don’t have so many bars. (In other words rezone.)
Loosen the restrictions on Wine bars, restaurants and Coffee shops. (Not everyone drinks beer) and different venues attract different customers.
You can’t just shut out the competition.
Underage drinking is illegal already. Crime is illegal already.
If in a certain area, there is more criminal violent or undesirable activity than normal require business owners who sell alcohol to provide security. Make that a part of a specific requirement to sell alcohol without food.
It just makes sense. This bullshit does not make sense.