Hearings on Liquor Licenses at CB 8 Economic Development Committee

whynot_31 said:

Capt-

While I do not know what they are atoning for, I can think of six people I know who regularly attend the CB8 meetings.

What have I done to you, that you would wish such a fate on me?

Don't you subscribe to the Golden Rule?

P.S. Happy Friday

Whynot31, I appreciate that you spend more time posting on Brooklynian than probably anyone else. That's great. It shows a real need for a lot of civic engagement.

Unfortunately, Brooklynian is not mentioned, even once, in the City Charter. Communities Boards are and can actually oppose, legally, liquor licenses, zoning variances and lots of other stuff that impacts our community.

Perhaps in a former life, or even a current one, you suffered some form of inhuman punishment at a community board meeting. I don't know. But speaking as someone who has attended 100's of them, the worst I've found them to be is a boring waste of time. But the same can be said for a lot of things we do regularly. Occasionally you find out some really cool stuff and even more occasionally you make a real difference.

The choice is obviously yours. All I can say, is that, to my knowledge, no one has ever died, or even suffered serious physical or psychic injury as a result of a community board meeting.

Well actually after the meeting last night, I might have to withdraw the comment about "no physical or psychic" harm occuring at CB 8 committee meetings. It was pretty intense.

First the head of the Vanderbilt Ave merchant association was accused of having a grudge against the one of the applicants, which she subsequently denied.

Then the first two applicants were both out of compliance with the "no more than 2 liquor licensed establishments within 500 feet" rule, which lead to a lengthy discussion about over saturation with bars. Finally after a lot of heated debate, the 2nd appicant, The Calf BK, an Australian themed bar slated for 611 Vanderbilt bet. Bergen and St. Marks, was not supported by the majority of the committee. It seems the biggest complaint was a promotion they ran for one of their Manhattan restaurants offering an "all you can eat or drink special for $20 within 2 hours", in apparent violation of the State Liquor Authority regs. The proprietor responded that was just what worked in that location and not necessarily what they would do in Prospect Heights. Not too comforting I fear.

Given that the committee expects more of the "out of compliance" applications due to arrival of Barclay Stadium, a special subcommittee was established to develop a policy that would make our handling of these cases more consistent.

Any thoughts regarding what this policy should be would be welcome and appropriate.