Fight Brewing Over Bar Proposed for Former Craby Joe's on Main
Eric Richardson
[Flickr]
Haven Lounge is proposed to take the space at 656 S. Main that was previously occupied by Craby Joe's, a 1930s dive that closed at the end of 2007.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Downtown has seen an explosion of restaurants and nightlife venues over the last few years, but it has not come easily. Ask any owner about his or her story and you will likely hear a lengthy tale of permits, delays and extra costs. Special challenges are reserved for Downtown's Historic Core, where residential revitalization pushes up against what has historically been Skid Row.
The latest front in the fight over Main street revitalization is Haven Lounge, a bar proposed to occupy the former home of 1930's dive Craby Joe's, which closed at the end of 2007. A Skid Row community group is organizing opposition to the venue, arguing against any additional alcohol sales in the neighborhood.
In an email sent out this week, Zelenne Cardenas of the United Coalition East Prevention Project (UCEPP) asks community members to attend a Tuesday morning hearing and support denial of Haven's plan approval application.
"Once a community becomes saturated with alcohol," she wrote, "it has proven to be very difficult to reverse the trend. The long-term effect on the economic vitality of a community can be almost as devastating as the health consequences are to an individual."
Kate Bartolo, who is representing Haven, said that she has requested a meeting with UCEPP three times in recent weeks but only found out about the group's opposition when Cardenas' email was forwarded to her by another community member. Cardenas did not return a call for comment as of story time.
UCEPP has been vocal in its fight against bars on Main street. In 2007 the group led arguments against Kor Group's application for Conditional User Permits (CUPs) for the ground floor spaces in the Santa Fe building on 6th.
The group outlined its opposition in a March 2007 newsletter. "This unnecessary concentration will be a disaster for our community already struggling to reduce the negative factors and stereotypical images associated with the old skid row."
UCEPP succeeded in convincing Assistant Zoning Administrator Daniel Green to deny the applications. The Central Area Planning Commission reversed his ruling, but the process added a significant delay to projects hoping to open in the building.
The group also fought The Association bar, across the street in the Pacific Electric Lofts. UCEPP filed a formal appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval in early 2007. The bar won and opened, but only in December of 2008.
Brady Westwater, Vice President of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, believes that these fights have cost UCEPP as well as the venue operators. "When you fight the good operators," said Westwater, "you lose your credibility to fight the bad operators, the people who actually do damage to the neighborhood."
That restaurants and bars are able to open at all is surprising, according to the Downtown Center Business Improvement District's Justin Weiss. "L.A. is one of the most difficult cities in the country to do business in," said Weiss. "When a Zoning Administrator gives you difficulties or a group like UCEPP opposes a project, that just helps the restaurant or bar hemorrhage money."
"That's money that they could be giving to the community," Weiss added. "Look at 6th and Main or 4th and Main and how much good that has done."
In the case of Haven, approval would mean facade improvements and security outside the venue on a corner that has long been a site for drug sales and other illegal behavior.
The owner, Charles Lew, who is a lawyer and managing partner of the high end restaurant/lounge, Crown Bar, West Hollywood and the new burger/beer café, Stouts, Hollywood, is considering opening another Stouts next to the former Craby Joe’s location, but will not do so if there are additional extensive delays.
Haven's case goes before the Zoning Administrator on Tuesday, August 25, at 9am. The hearing will take place in City Hall, Room 1020.
Rob on August 20, 2009, at 01:02PM – #1
This is ridiculous. I can tell you I do not see the Skid Row folks frequenting the Association. Why not close down Ralphs Grocery since they sell cheaper liquor that any downtown watering hole? The more people come to Los Angeles and spend their money in restaurants, bars and other entertainment venues, the more tax money the city has to build affordable housing. This should be a slam dunk for an approval.
6th and Spring on August 20, 2009, at 02:43PM – #2
Why on earth should I be denied an evening out with my friends, or a relaxing cocktail after dinner, because of Skid Row residents and the Chicken Littles who "represent" that constituency? If these folks had their way, Downtown would be nothing but derelicts, drunks and drug addicts, and the government employees and private enterprises who enable them to continue living in squalor.
D on August 20, 2009, at 02:51PM – #3
What a ridiculous argument by the UCEEP. who gives these people validity? Are they worried that a bum is going to walk in to one of these bars and pay 12 bucks a drink to get hammered? are they worried that regular bar patrons are going to smuggle beer out and give it to the homeless? Honestly, these people are idiots and are afraid of any positive changes to the neighborhood because their status quo and way of life is changing and changing for the better. werent they also trying to stop bottlerock from opening with a similar argument? hilarious.
Steven on August 20, 2009, at 04:01PM – #4
The argument by the UCEEP should be concern that bars for lower income people are quickly being replaced by the lounge and hipster epidemic.
Craby Joe's was one of the last of the true dive bars that catered to poor people without their having to hang out with fashion nitwits and rich kids who dance at the edge of anything remotely ghetto.
Let's not kid ourselves that alcoholism and drug addiction escape those with money because as downtown demonstrates on a daily basis, the drunks, potheads and coke addicts with cash are in abundance down here.
It's gotten to the point where you can't even talk about where you drink anymore without it turning into a whisky lounge.
Jon on August 20, 2009, at 06:05PM – #5
These are restaurants/bars, not liquor stores. If they don't cater to the alcoholics living on the streets, what's the big deal? How devastating of an effect on economic vitality can a bunch of rich kids paying for overpriced drinks have on a community? Talk about counterproductive.
Jamie DeFrisco on August 20, 2009, at 07:05PM – #6
I agree with everyone else. I don't see what negative affects it could have on the community. I think it would be worst for those places to stay vacant than to have them filled, even if it's with bars. When the places are filled, there's more foot traffic and it will keep the area safer. In this economy, I doubt anything else will move into those spaces any time soon.
I wonder if this committee hasn't gotten with the changes in the downtown community. Downtown is being revitalized. There's a lot more middle income people living in downtown and a lot more people who come to visit downtown from other areas. A lot of the 'bars' coming downtown are aiming for that middle income crowd. They are trying to build a better nightlife.
In all of the bars I've been in, in downtown, the only bar I've regularly seen people from skid row in is King Eddy's/King Edward's. Occasionally I see one pop into Bar 107 when there isn't security checking IDs at the door.
Heather on August 20, 2009, at 09:05PM – #7
This is craziness...I work in the Fashion district and drive past this area regularly. I guess the first question i would have is the sanity of the person who wants to invest money into this particular location. Then my second question would be why on earth would the city do anything other than welcome someone who is crazy enough to gamble on this location.
Is UCEEP really concerned that this will contribute to the delinquency of the area??? have they visited the area lately, it doesnt need any additional contribution..... What a waste of time and money dont they have something better to do?
A B on August 21, 2009, at 09:39AM – #8
I agree with everyone. Put in a new establishment, pronto!
Russell Brown on August 21, 2009, at 10:18AM – #9
A visit to this corner shows the drastic need for change. It is the last full time abandoned corner on Main & Spring for cover. $40 burritos were common place with the crack sales wrapped under the guise of food sales. 5th and Main was the same with $40 T shirts, old VHS tapes and food sales outlets acting as covers for drug sales.
Those opposing this were not on the front lines shutting it down when it was a nuisance. Where was the concern then? No where have these folks created neighborhood watches to stop drug sales or illegal liquor sales on the streets.
The new business plan is coming from a proven bar operator with a security plan, lighting plan and amenities that will change the area. It is being managed by a CUP consultant who has worked with 100's of well managed facilities.
The real issue is not the ability of skid row folks to have alcohol. For that, just go to the steps right outside LAPD Central division and see folks selling beer . Using the total abstinence logic, since America is overweight, all restaurants, grocery stores and food in general should be stopped.
This is a gentrification, keep Main Street as it is issue.
Not sure how a new venue with $10 cosmos has anything to do with folks who have had alcohol and homeless issues for years in a neighborhood blocks away.
The only recovery zone is a boundary that no longer exists on Main Street. Indeed their logic states that any mixed income neighborhood with services should be anti- business and left empty and abandoned, dirty and unsafe.
No wonder most neighborhoods have a NIMBY attitude against affordable housing.
How about partnering with those who are willing to create a better, safer, cleaner community than defending the containment and abandonment of issues we have had downtown for 40 years?
Jon on August 21, 2009, at 04:24PM – #10
Anti-gentrification masquerading as anti-alcohol. Hmm...
Matt on August 21, 2009, at 06:18PM – #11
Anything anyone can do to that corner to give it more foot traffic and more legitimate economic activity is a blessing. Newsflash to UCEEP - nobody on skid row is frequenting The Association to buy $10 sazerac cocktails. What happened instead? The bar opened and brought (gasp) FOOT TRAFFIC to the area, which, guess what, LOWERS CRIME. Or maybe UCEEP would rather not get rid of the bands of thugs you see on the corner of 7th and Main every night selling drugs?
Maybe UCEEP should spend their time trying to shut down the convenience stores over on 7th in the heart of skid row that actually sell alcohol retail - if you want to target businesses that contribute to alcoholism on skid row, there's a start.
Kate Bartolo on August 21, 2009, at 06:56PM – #12
If you think that UCEPP’s goal of converting skid row to a “sobriety zone” for homeless “in recovery” makes no sense; and you want entrepreneurs like the Haven owner to convert a deteriorated, trash strewn, vacant space to a cool neighborhood bar, that activates the street-scape at this crime ridden corner, please: give us 30 minutes of your time, Tuesday morning, 9am, LA City Hall, room 1020, and testify at the Planning Hearing! There is nothing as powerful as your in-person testimony.
I represent the owner of Haven. We are asking to continue the same use as since the 1930s, only with a responsible operator and tough new conditions of approval. If you cannot attend in person and/or want to share your views with the ZA who will hear the case, her name is Sue Chang, email address: sue.chang@lacity.org, please, communicate to her respectfully as you would to a judge, and put this “case number” in the subject line: “ZA 2009-0852(PAB), 656 Main St”, but if can, please join us for the hearing!
Regards
Kate Bartolo Kate@KateBartolo.com 213 896 8906
Terri on August 21, 2009, at 10:23PM – #13
United Coalition East Prevention Project (UCEEP)? There's a phrase for groups like that:
POVERTY PIMPS
Anti-Drugs, Taking or Selling on August 22, 2009, at 08:54AM – #14
I read a comment on an older thread about how some Skid Row advocacy groups actually help to facilitate the illegal drug trade in this area. I cannot help but think this is another case of that.
When legitimate business owners take over a previously vacant storefront, that means more security and maintenance, and less unmanaged real estate to hang out in front of to do shady business.
Now, if we can just get them (dealers, addicts, hookers, pimps) to quit hanging around the bus stops so that we who are legitimate daily transit riders can wait in peace, and not be mistaken for riff-raff by the LAPD... that would be a return to civilization.
Been There on August 22, 2009, at 09:46PM – #15
C'mon, now. No neighborhood is so bad that a bar improves it. The Old Bank District area has already become a drinking destination. This does not need to be made more so by yet another venue selling alcohol. Check out seedy Bar 107 as an example of how a bar can bring down an area.
Get it straight: alcohol is a drug. Bars attract crime and problems.
No neighborhood--including this one--is so bad that a bar brings it up.
Jamie DeFrisco on August 23, 2009, at 10:45AM – #16
Been There, how long have you lived in the OBD? I'm curious to know how it 'ruined' the area.
Bar 107 is a dive bar. It's not a classy joint.
Bars create a nightlife for Downtown. If they are upscale joints they help the area be safer at night. It drives more people to visit downtown, move downtown, and keep other businesses open later. This is as long as the bars are run by people who discourage illegal and bad behavior. These bars usually do that by having dress codes, higher priced drinks, and bouncers at the doors. These measures can't stop illegal activities from happening. It is a way to help prevent it. Once a nightlife is built, more restaurants and shops with late hours will open up or existing ones will have extended hours.
The thing I can understand with the UCEPP's argument is that these bars might be nice now, but what happens in 10, 20, 30 years when downtown might turn back into a bad area?
Been There on August 23, 2009, at 11:21AM – #17
Jamie, they want to open a bar, a place that serves alcohol, a controlled drug.
The place was recently a bar and it was closed because it became a nuisance property. Now people from outside the area want to come in and reopen it. Hey, they say, we'll clean up the block by opening it up again as a bar. Oh, it will even be family friendly!
Sure. What an improvement. More alcohol! And if the place doesn't succeed then the new owners will sell it and it could well become a clone of Bar 107 which is, as you state, a dive. Wasn't Craby Joe's a dive too?
Of course, the neighborhood is peppered with SRO's and Skid Row Housing Trust buildings full of people in recovery from substance abuse issues, including alcoholism. I suspect many of these neighbors have lived here longer than you have, Jamie. Doesn't their health, comfort and recovery matter to you?
I suspect you're looking for a new place to drink. May I suggest a couple of dozen other bars in the Historic Core area? Really, how many places do you need? A bar was recently approved for inside the Cecil Hotel. That's just a few steps away. Why not go there? Why continue to saturate the core with alcohol?
You say other wonderful things will follow a brand new bar, Jamie? Get real. So far when a new bar opens in the Core we get.....another bar. Of course, maybe that's what you want. I can't imagine a non-drinker wanting or needing another bar in this drinking destination.
Memorize this: no area is so bad that a bar will bring it up. Alcohol is a dead end. That's a no brainer.
Jon on August 23, 2009, at 06:52PM – #18
"No neighborhood is so bad that a bar improves it. The Old Bank District area has already become a drinking destination."
That seems a bit contradictory...
Bar Bar Rah on August 23, 2009, at 06:56PM – #19
Well I'd take another bar over a hostess club or "medicinal marijuana" store any day. So yes, there could be worse businesses than bars in a neighborhood. And if there is no business, you've got the street business which is the most undesirable of all.
Jon on August 24, 2009, at 10:55AM – #20
The thing I can understand with the UCE PP's argument is that these bars might be nice now, but what happens in 10, 20, 30 years when downtown might turn back into a bad area?"
The hope is that these nice bars will serve as catalysts for improving the area (by improving, I mean safer, not necessarily whiter/yuppier/richer/etc.). It does not appear t hat anyone else is interested in investing in that area. So the choices are (i) allow an upscale bar to open to hopefully rejuvenate the area, and if it fails, we could be back to where we started (a bar that caters to poor people), or (ii ) leave things as is, with little chance of improvement, but one less bar to tem p alcoholic transients.
Is there a way to mitigate Been There's concerns? Once a bar opens, is the city stuck with it, or does the city have the authori ty/leverage to shut down "bad operators." Can the requisite permits be condit ioned upon "upscale" use?
More pricey bars! on August 24, 2009, at 12:09PM – #21
Why?
Because there's nothing more entertaining that watching weekend warriors risking life and limb to get wasted in what they think is "the hood" and seeing a skinny girl barfing all over the door and seats of her boyfriend's leased Lexus while hip hop blares from the car stereo.
Staying home has never been so fun.
Charles Lew on August 24, 2009, at 12:28PM – #22
Thanks to everyone for your comments, even to the people who are not in support of our attempt to open this venue. While we do not agree with your stance against this project we certainly appreciate and recognize your concerns. Thanks also to the moderator of this blog for shedding light on this subject. Hopefully we will see all of you tomorrow at the hearing. Have a wonderful day.
Charles Lew, partner, Kagianaris Lew LLP
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on August 24, 2009, at 01:27PM – #23
Jon: You can't condition "upscale," but you can and do condition certain elements of a security plan. In this case, Haven has volunteered 28 conditions that would become part of the approved plan for the venue. They include things like training for security guards, required video cameras, cleaning up litter, etc.
anthony costantino on August 24, 2009, at 02:32PM – #24
Been There, as someone who works in the field of drug/alcohol recovery, I can tell you that it's the ex-addict's responsibility to be able to avoid relapsing. Every day ex-addicts walk past 7/11's and drug dealers that tempt them, so another bar isn't going to be the straw that breaks their backs.
Russell Brown on August 24, 2009, at 02:44PM – #25
Eric is correct.
All conditional use permits have detailed “code of conduct/ operations” requirements. These are called "voluntary conditions". Voluntary in the sense that the operator agrees to them before the facility can be approved. These conditions allow LAPD, the neighbors, the city and others to feel comfortable it will be well run.
These same conditions can be used to shut down the facility when it is not properly run.
The Historic Downtown BID and Fashion District BID receive complaints of drug dealing and other issues now on this abandoned corner. Ask the residents of SB Main to tell the stories of activities outside their window.
We understand the hesitancy to reopen a bad bar, thus the requirement that this is a new operator. Significant construction changes and money is being put into the building. All of that is at risk if it is not well run.
A proposed restaurant next store and many other additions are also planned.
Or we can leave it the same and expect the same behavior to continue.
Jon on August 24, 2009, at 03:26PM – #26
So are there any other voluntary conditions that would assuage UCEPP's concerns? Or are they taking a hard line against all purveyors of alcohol? Mr. Lew has chimed in; it'd be wonderful to hear from a representative of UCEPP as well.
kate bartolo on August 24, 2009, at 06:46PM – #27
The Haven owner/operator has voluntarily offered 28 Conditions and accepted the 24 LAPD Conditions. There are ample restrictions to assuage UCEPP's concerns, if they wish them assuaged. If these Conditions are not enforced, the City can hold a public hearing to consider yanking Haven's right to sell alcohol.
DorrisW on August 24, 2009, at 07:48PM – #28
You do have a point there. However, the area around the now shuttered Craby Joe's has been a disaster -- a Dante's Inferno, if you will -- for decades, well before the current round of new investment started showing up.
Why weren't more people screaming about the horrible condition of downtown's east side several years, if not decades, ago? Probably for the same reason not enough people even today are raising a ruckus about Bar 107.
For any number of reasons, people will become more resentful of the devil they don't know instead of the one they do. So they become complacent about an existing nuisance like Bar 107 while getting peeved over a possible new business entering the neighborhood.
Here's a suggestion for today and well into the future: Instead of putting energy into the potential pitfalls of a new place like Haven Lounge -- which appears to at least offer responsible ownership -- put energy into getting rid of places like Bar 107 and all the SROs and SRO-related activities that have made central Los Angeles one of the most infamous urban settings in all of America.
As for the United Coalition East Prevention Project? If they've been trying to find the ones whose politics and attitudes have contributed to making a bad situation even worse, or allowing it to remain ridiculously bad, they need look no farther than the mirror.
Rich Alossi on August 25, 2009, at 09:54AM – #29
Went to the hearing this morning with a little speech to speak in support of the project, and it turns out that the hearing had to be canceled because someone high up in Planning gave the applicants some bad information. Really bad information, actually.
The wrong application was filed and the applicants have to go through the CUB process. It would've been much better had they known that last year when this whole process started.
Kevin Michael Key on August 25, 2009, at 10:33AM – #30
There is a lot of controversy and talk about whether some alcohol outlets are good or some are bad. UCEPP's purpose at the hearing today was to raise procedural errors that are occurring in this case. Perhaps, if the applicant had done their homework, we all would not have wasted our time this morning.
The applicant has filed the wrong request, this location is not entitled to deemed approved status. The previous business, Crabby Joe’s, existed before local permits were required for establishments selling alcohol. But that business has been closed for over a year, and the location has therefore lost its nonconforming protection. The status doesn’t remain in perpetuity. In order to maintain this privilege the business would have had to continue the sale of alcoholic beverages at the location. But when the place closed, sold their liquor license and stopped selling alcoholic beverages, the benefit of deemed approved status was relinquished.
Further, the applicant’s offer to voluntarily agree to accept operating conditions is insufficient, as this approach would not provide the same protections as a CUP. And by trying to extend deemed approved status to their establishment, the applicant is simply seeking an unfair business advantage over other businesses in the community. This is a new business and should go through the process of obtaining a CUP just like any of the scores of other new alcohol outlets that have opened the downtown area of Los Angeles in the last few years.
UCEPP’s position on this matter isn’t about a good operator vs bad operators. It is about how much alcohol is too much in any neighborhood – and in this instance in the downtown community. We stand by our mission to change environments in order to discourage substance abuse problems and to promote an understanding of the link between the environment and the health of community residents. And to prevent some of the clearest manifestations of that link such as addiction, car crashes, and violence. The state department that governs alcohol licenses has deemed the downtown Los Angeles to be oversaturated with alcohol outlets and a high crime area. Currently there are over 55 on sale outlets in the area; the formula used by the State ABC only allows 4.
For this and other reasons UCEPP sought and obtained the dismissal of this erroneous request. As a person who lives, works and got "clean and sober" in this community, and as a Skid Row Advocate who has been a voice articulating the community as The World's Largest Recovery Community, we need to take a stand.
Rich Alossi on August 25, 2009, at 10:57AM – #31
As a resident of the Historic Core (6th and Main, across from Cole's), I was kept up until 3am this morning. The reason? It wasn't the people at Cole's; it was the drug dealers' lookouts yelling "HEADS UP!" every time a police car passes by. Where's UCEPP when it comes to the open-air drug market that happens nightly on our streets?
7th and Main needs foot traffic, especially at night, and this use helps in that regard. I am fully supportive of the project and plan to voice my support at the next hearing.
Been There on August 25, 2009, at 12:27PM – #32
Hooray!! Haven can't become outlet #56, at least not without the CUB process. The neighborhood is spared for now.
Rich, why did you move into your unit without checking out the street scene? At least in your case the situation was already there and you chose to livet with it. With Haven, the situation would have been added to the mix.
Goodbye velvet ropes. Today the neighborhood scored a victory! Hooray!!!!
Been There on August 25, 2009, at 12:45PM – #33
p.s. I plan to celebrate today's VICTORY by purchasing a book from Metropolis Books. Julie, the owner, helped turn around a wild block without selling or serving a drop of alcohol. She proved that a bar is neither the only nor the best way to tame a troubled neighborhood.
Hooray!!!
Rich Alossi on August 25, 2009, at 02:07PM – #34
Been There: Actually, the problem with the lookouts has only started within the past month, month and a half. You really make a lot of assumptions, don't you?
And I lived here while there was no Cole's, Association, Blu LA or art galleries. I've seen the increased pedestrian activity and fewer drug sales on 6th Street even in the past year. I'll take the bars over empty storefronts.
Great to hear you're supporting Downtown bookstores. Still, Metropolis closes early, and as I stated before, the problem is at night with empty streets.
Ironically, I got mugged right in front of Metropolis Books in December. I'm not saying that if there were a bar there it would have turned out differently, but if there were actual people out on the streets like there are now thanks to Cole's, Association, et al., I'd have felt a bit safer.
So congrats on your 'victory.' I'll see you at the next public hearing.
Jamie DeFrisco on August 25, 2009, at 02:09PM – #35
Been There, have you been to any of the new bars in downtown? It sounds like you haven't.
Just last Saturday I saw a line outside of the Crocker Club, the Association, the Varnish, the new bar at 5th/Spring, and Cole's was pretty packed. I can only assume that Bar 107, Pete's, and the Edison were also fairly busy that night. This area in particular is becoming a nightlife destination. It brings more people and more money into downtown. That's what downtown needs. The new businesses are reminding me of a Santa Monica type of atmosphere. It is changing people's fears of downtown. It is also bringing in tourists.
I think a bar is much better than drug dealers. You could put a shop there, but I think it would present two problems. The first is that the shop would close earlier than a bar and the drug dealers would still come out. The second is that the area is not so nice and not a lot of people would want to travel out there to go to a shop.
I will say that there aren't enough programs for the homeless, for the mentally disabled, and for people addicted to drugs(including alcohol). Some of the money that is coming to downtown needs to be used to helping these people. Some of them need to get on their feet and possibly move to a place where they won't be tempted. Unfortunately a lot of them get stuck in downtown.
Zach A. on August 25, 2009, at 02:31PM – #36
Hooray???? Been there, lets celebrate that two venues one being a full service restaurant may not move into those locations now. lets celebrate that 30-40 jobs that would have been produced will not, lets celebrate that 2 of those jobs would have been licensed security guards that im sure would have been a welcome addition to the area. Lets celebrate that fact that the state is bankrupt and that the vacant store fronts there obviously wont help to alleviate that. Do you really think the neighborhood scored a victory there was over 40 letters of support for this project. I think you should celebrate by hanging out on the corner tonight sometime after 10pm and discuss the victory with the passers by i am sure they will have some interesting wares to sell you.
P.S. Been There, its "CUP" NOT "CUB". Please take the time to educate yourself before writing incorrect information. Enjoy the dilapidated neighborhood, enjoy the lack of safety, and keep opposing projects that would improve the community and supply needed jobs to this struggling State's unemployed work force.
Rich Alossi on August 25, 2009, at 02:54PM – #37
^ In fairness, either CUB (Conditional Use-Beverage) or CUP (Conditional Use Permit) is acceptable. Same goes for CUX (Conditional Use-Adult/Live entertainment).
Been There on August 25, 2009, at 05:35PM – #38
Thanks, Rich, for that clarification and thanks, everyone, for helping me to celebrate the big victory.
Downtown dodged a bullet. A Mutt and Jeff alcohol outfit spent big bucks for representation by Kagianaris Lew LLP and couldn't even end up going with the correct procedure. This is the outfit that was to tame a bad block?
I can just see the genius of Haven on opening day: does the front push in or pull out?
Yes, a bullet was dodged!
Matt on August 25, 2009, at 06:23PM – #39
I live at 6th and Main. Today isn't a victory, it's a shame. I'm part of the "community" (whether you like it or not, the "community" is not just skid row) and I want places like this open down here.
Exterminate the Drug Trade on August 25, 2009, at 06:35PM – #40
Godspeed the Haven.
Drive the illicit drug dealers and users out.
Jon on August 25, 2009, at 07:51PM – #41
Thank you for the post, Mr. Key. It's a bit disappointing that UCEPP does not differentiate b/w good and bad operators and chooses to focus only saturation. It seems you may end up throwing babies out with the bathwater based on that approach. But thank you for clarifying the UCEPP's position.
JUSTICE on August 26, 2009, at 12:46AM – #42
I have agreed to every condition under the sun with no movement from the opposing party. The only way to get approval on the CUP is to remove the "DJ" element from our plan and we are good, seems like an unfair request, who dosn't see djs in bars in downtown or anywhere else in the world?
Bands vs. dj's is a weak arguement in my opinion, who dosn't love some old vinyl records? who dosn't love to have a good time? Why would any operator intentionally shoot themselves in the foot by doing unsavory events?
The process will put you out of business before you even have a chance to serve one person. The CUP process is brutal.. 10+ months for a hearing. this was slated to open in January 2010 with Full Service Restaurant/Lounge /Live Music/Cocktails Funding Obstacles have put the brakes on this project, after a long fight we must watch 18 months of work and planning get swallowed back up into the pool of empty store front spaces surrounded by undesirable street scapes that supposedly "are up and coming"
Our Simple goals were unrecognized by the Mighty Hands that rule the "New Downtown" our efforts would have done a number of this like: Activate Street Life: Activate Security Presence: Activate Awareness: Activate Entartainment: Activate Local Destinations: Activate Local Eatery
The CUP process is flawed in so many ways.. imply devastaing to be on the waiting end of the city's ruling Stick.
I feel your pain Mr. Lew I have a space if you have the cash! Keep fighting the good fight!!
Simply devastaing to be on the waiting end of the city's ruling Stick.