Nov
3
What happened to Craig’s Liquor Bill?
Posted by Jason Deem on November 3, 2008 | 1 Comment
I’ve had a couple people ask me about this lately so I put together a not-so-brief timeline and current status of the revised bill based on all the info I’ve come across.
May 9th, 2008 – Alderman Schmid presents the first reading of Board Bill #47, titled “Prohibiting package liquor in the 20th Ward” at the Board of Aldermen meeting.
The bill was spotted on the St. Louis Board of Aldermen agenda and upon review it turned out to have little to do with prohibiting package liquor and more to do with extending an existing moratorium on all liquor licensees which was set to expire in September of 2008.
Many local residents and business owners had concerns with both the content of the bill as well as the way it was introduced under a misleading name and without any notice from Alderman Schmid. Some of the provisions for obtaining a liquor license in the new bill included; a minimum of at least 35% of total revenue from food sales, an increase in parking requirements for establishments that serve liquor, a restriction on hours of operation during the week requiring businesses to close at midnight, installation of a video surveillance system that operates 24/7 and must have a live video feed available for viewing by computer via internet with a password provided to the Alderman of the 20th Ward, no outside performances, sales, equipment, beer garden, or activities, no music or noise audible outside of the establishment, and no more than two (2) establishments having a liquor license with gross food sales less than 50% of gross sales within 350 feet of each other.
A copy of the bill was forwarded to the business association by Alderman Schmid after it had been first read at the Board of Aldermen Meting.
May 15th, 2008 – Concerns were raised about the bill in progress at the monthly Cherokee Station Business Association meeting.
Many of the people felt as if they had been caught off guard by Schmid’s plan. “I’m very disappointed in you as someone who represents us because we were not included,” said Andrew Liebermann, a member of the board of the Cherokee Station Business Association. “This needs to be scrapped and started over. I don’t see a reason why this can’t be postponed for several months.” ” – South Side Journal
“My opinion is that there is no need for a liquor moratorium,” posits [9th Ward Alderman] Ortmann. “I’ve explained my position to Craig. We already have sufficient state and city laws that deal with alcohol sales. I don’t see the need for further legislation. ” – Riverfront Times
After a lengthy discussion, Craig agreed to postpone the bill for 90 days to allow for further review. A date was set for a town hall meeting to discuss and obtain broader input on the bill.
June 17th, 2008 – A town hall meeting took place with over 60 people in attendance. After an hour and a half of discussion the following vote was taken:
[ 1 ] – Those in favor of the existing bill as it reads
[ 14 ] – Those in favor of having some additional restrictions above and beyond the current St. Louis city requirements for obtaining a liquor license.
[ 38 ] – Those opposed to any additional restrictions above and beyond the current St. Louis city requirements for obtaining a liquor license.
Out of the 61 people in attendance 36 were residents of the 20th ward. A vote was taken of just residents of the 20th ward with the following outcome:
[ 0 ] – Those in favor of the existing bill as it reads
[ 12 ] – Those in favor of having some additional restrictions above and beyond the current St. Louis city requirements for obtaining a liquor license.
[ 21 ] - Those opposed to any additional restrictions above and beyond the current St. Louis city requirements for obtaining a liquor license.
Based on the outcome of the votes, it was requested that the bill be completely withdrawn.
June 19th, 2008 – Benton Park West Neighborhood Association Meeting took place which included a discussion of Board Bill #47. At the end of the discussion there was a request for a formal vote to be taken and recorded. The results of the vote were as follows:
[ 3 ] - Those in favor of having the current 50% food requirement apply to all alcohol serving establishments.
[ 1 ] - Those in favor of having some additional restrictions above and beyond the current St. Louis city requirements for obtaining a liquor license.
[ 14 ] - Those opposed to any additional restrictions above and beyond the current St. Louis city requirements for obtaining a liquor license.
September, 12th, 2008 – Craig Schmid presents the first reading of Board Bill #207, titled “An ordinance prohibiting the issuance of any package or drink liquor licenses for any currently non-licensed premises within the boundaries of the Twentieth Ward Liquor Control District”. The bill is again introduced without an advance copy provided to the Cherokee Station Business Association for review.
The new bill retains the 35% food requirement but removes the large majority of the specific requirements in BB#47 and replaces them with a single requirement that “Operator must have a letter of support from the Cherokee Station Special Taxing District, Benton Park West Neighborhood Association and Gravois Park Block Link Neighborhood Association that accompanies the operator’s liquor license application.”
The new requirement essentially gives full veto power on any liquor license applications to each of these three organizations.
October, 9th, 2008 – Board Bill #207 is read at the Public Safety Committee meeting. An unnamed source who was present at the meeting said the committee questioned the legality of neighborhood and business associations having the right to vote on the approval of liquor licenses. The bill was not voted on, presumably to give time for city counsel to review the bill.
During this interim period input can be provided directly to the public safety committee via mail at the address below or directly to the members of the committee.
Terry Kennedy, Public Safety Committee
City Hall, Room 230
1200 Market Street
The date and time of the next public safety committee meeting hasn’t been set but the only legal requirement is to post notice on the public safety calendar 24-hours in advance of the meeting.
Organizations and Associations
- Arch Reactor
- Art Dimensions
- Benton Park
- Benton Park West
- Cherokee Antique Row
- Cherokee-Lemp Historic District
- Cherokee Station Business Assn.
- Community Arts and Media Project
- Dutchtown South
- Gravois Park
- Marine Villa
Neighborhood Resources
- - Quick Reference -
- Cherokee Recreation Center
- Community Arts and Media Project
- Franciscan Connection
- West Corner Community Garden
This is good news!
35% is only for the few blocks of Cherokee
The rest of the 20th ward is still 50%.
operating a restaurant with at least 50% food sales at a previously non-licensed premises,
or operating a premises with at least 35% food sales and complying with other
requirements set forth herein;
Below is the results of a survey we took at the May 2008 Marine Villa general meeting.
Half of Marine Villa is located in the 20th ward.
Marine Villa neighborhood is bounded geographically by Cherokee
Street on the north side, Gasconade on the south side, and South Broadway
and Jefferson the west side. The mighty Mississippi River provides a
natural Eastern boundary just past Interstate 55
Marine Villa Improvement Association
20th Ward Liquor-Control Bill – Survey
1. Do you agree with the current liquor-control ordinance requiring any new establishment opening in the 20th Ward to earn at least 50% of its revenue through food sales?
Yes 4
Hopefully if they eat, they won’t get intoxicated.
No 16
35% is fair enough. Limiting growth of neighborhoods. No further obstacles should be in place on business. 50% too restrictive, 30% would be acceptable then working towards phasing it out. This ordinance was designed to close business not encourage. Unfair burden to place on small business owners. The current St Louis City laws are enough. It is driving away business and development, increasing vacant buildings. Etc.
Undecided 2
If the establishment is legitimate.
2. Do you agree with the new liquor-control proposal laid out in Board Bill No. 47 (see bill attached)?
Yes 4
35% food sales for a well run restaurant, night club.
No 16
The requirements are to unrealistic and unnecessary. Too strict. Isn’t this American? It’s anti-urban, anti-pedestrian. Too many restrictions on business owners.
Undecided 2
A lot is written but with many ideas.
3. Are you in favor of allowing new establishments opening in the 20th Ward to earn 100% revenue through alcohol sales?
Yes 7
A properly run bar, even 100% alcohol sales will very likely make meaningful contributions to the neighborhoods. Bars have to jump through enough hoops already. Regulated by other measures.
No 15
Believes it can cause several problems in the area. We have to have more discussions. A properly run bar, even 100% alcohol sales will very likely make meaningful contributions to the neighborhoods. There will be littering of beer cans and liquor bottles. Don’t think we’re ready. Would approve 35% for all without all the requirements. Not strict enough.
Undecided 0
Comments/Suggestions:
Separate meeting just for this topic. There are enough problems with liquor being sold at ‘QT’. Litter is all over the neighborhood. Think is should be considered on business by business basis. BB 47 should not exist. It was written without the community input, against the wishes of property owners and residents of the neighborhood.