Jump to content

Cercle Rouge, Tribeca Tavern, Bubble Lounge


Recommended Posts

Could I just say that the resident should go fuck him or herself, and how dare they interfere with everybody's fun?

 

(The sub-text here is the pompous little e-mail I received from the Community Board which is messing around with liquor licenses in my neighborhood - more later.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(The sub-text here is the pompous little e-mail I received from the Community Board which is messing around with liquor licenses in my neighborhood - more later.)

 

On that other thread, there's an offer to help you get nominated to your local Community Board...

Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is that the SLA didn't know there was a mosque this close (no one did) and that the mosque DOESN'T CARE about the bars- a resident on White Street who's been trying to stop any new licenses found the clause and alerted the SLA.

 

SLA doesn't normally inspect, it awaits complaints, and then reacts.

 

Same thing happened with Whole Foods wine store on 59th. The store never had outside access, yet it received an OK, and operated several months without an issue raised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But technically the SLA is supposed to deny a license if there's house of worship nearby. So if they granted them the license, why take it away now? Why is the burden of awareness of the mosque on the licensee?

You're right, of course. ;)

 

But, as noted earlier, SLA doesn't independently determine whether there's a school or house of worship nearby. After a review by the local community board, the prospective licensee posts a notice, and any person (or community board, or group of upstairs neighbors, etc) may bring facts to the SLA's attention.

 

If the SLA grants a license in error, it will revoke the license.

 

Maybe the issue is what constitutes a valid house of worship for purposes of the SLA law. As Orik notes, it could be used a means to freeze out new competitors in a hot block

 

 

 

Carefully phrased to focus on the SLA

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the license was recommended with the approval of the community board at the time, and the community board wasn't aware of the mosque (apparently not many people were)...then again, how can the licensee be expected to pay such a severe penalty now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the issue is what constitutes a valid house of worship for purposes of the SLA law. As Orik notes, it could be used a means to freeze out new competitors in a hot block

I'm already in the process of incorporating "Houses of Worship, Inc.". We'll do all the work for you (space, build out, religious endorsement, hired devotees) for a modest fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the license was recommended with the approval of the community board at the time, and the community board wasn't aware of the mosque (apparently not many people were)...then again, how can the licensee be expected to pay such a severe penalty now?

They should sue the arse off someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the license was recommended with the approval of the community board at the time, and the community board wasn't aware of the mosque (apparently not many people were)...then again, how can the licensee be expected to pay such a severe penalty now?

They should sue the arse off someone.

I doubt there's recourse to sue if a license was granted in error, and subsequently withdrawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be interesting to hear from the lawyers, because on the face of it that looks like negligence causing considerable damage.  Not actionable?

 

Suing the SLA is a non-starter. You can't force them to violate the law.

 

Whether your lawyers have a positive duty to search the neighborhood for schools and churches is debatable, although you (the owner) certified that no schools or religious houses (tm pending) were in the restricted area. And, the local community board didn't call you on the certification.

Edited by Rail Paul
Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the license was recommended with the approval of the community board at the time, and the community board wasn't aware of the mosque (apparently not many people were)...then again, how can the licensee be expected to pay such a severe penalty now?

They should sue the arse off someone.

I doubt there's recourse to sue if a license was granted in error, and subsequently withdrawn.

Yesterday, in the Sunday Times Real Estate section, someone wrote a letter (an "ask the expert" column) asking if he had recourse against a real estate agent (or seller) since he found out that the claims about there being no plans to obstruct the view of the apt he was buying (and has now gone to contract on) were false and the agent knew about plans to construct a building directly in the sight line within the next 2 years.

 

The "expert" said that there was probably no real recourse since the buyer had access to public info about building permits, land use, etc and failed to do dilligent research himself.

 

Now I dont know if that's correct but it seems to me that it has to work both ways if it is. The SLA and others have open access to tax rolls, etc and should be expected to grant licenses based on dilligent research, no? Once granted, and a business sinks $$$$ into their operation, how can they just pull the license with no recourse. Where's the consistant "ignorance is no excuse" part?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I dont know if that's correct but it seems to me that it has to work both ways if it is.  The SLA and others have open access to tax rolls, etc and should be expected to grant licenses based on dilligent research, no?  Once granted, and a business sinks $$$$ into their operation, how can they just pull the license with no recourse.  Where's the consistant "ignorance is no excuse" part?

State employees. What do you expect? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I dont know if that's correct but it seems to me that it has to work both ways if it is.   The SLA and others have open access to tax rolls, etc and should be expected to grant licenses based on dilligent research, no?  Once granted, and a business sinks $$$$ into their operation, how can they just pull the license with no recourse.  Where's the consistant "ignorance is no excuse" part?

State employees. What do you expect? ;)

 

Unfair blow, and not always true.

 

I've found municipal employees to be as helpful, or not, as the average person with whom I deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...