April 4, 2006
running commentary on an ABC appeal hearing
In the ongoing saga of the fight over the ABC license of the corner store at 2300 Venable Street (see 1,000,000 bottle bags), there was an appeal hearing on the original ruling.
We enter the room at 3:25pm. 3 black or dark blue leather chairs (I’m slightly color blind) sit on a raised diaz behind a counter, facing into the room. In front of this sits a podium, facing the judge chairs. There is a chair to the side with microphone, as if for a witness. There are two tables with mics flanking the podium. The room is decked out with an American flag and a standard square-tile drop ceiling. With seating for almost 100, there were 7 people present (including me), one of whom was Lt. Snawder of the 1st Precinct/Sector 111. Ann, of Union Hill, 3 other Union Hill residents, me from Fairmount. Venable Avenue, 23rd and 22nd Streets are all well represented.
The judges enter the room: all 3 are women, 2 are African-American. What a nice surprise; I think judge and picture some old white guy.
A court lady starts talking at the podium, describing the case so far. A lot of legal and specific talk, I catch something about the potential disruption of “the usual quietude and tranquility of such area” (speaking of Venable). This hearing is not to rehear the case, but to state why the original ruling should be amended.
The store owner is a clean-cut man in a blazer and glasses, with a French name pronounced “Jay”. Mr.Klieb states that he doesn’t speak English well enough to speak before the court, has a written statement.
Ann Wortham, the official complaintant, sits at the other chair, to the audiance left.
Ann speaks first, on the 2 points of objections (that basically the store being there will lead to bad things happening in the area [litter, defacating/pissing, fighting]). She has objective and subjective complaints, quality of life issues and facts about the impact of the store (some of which is quoted here).
Ann presents a map showing incidents in the area that allegedly relate to the cleintelle of the store. Most of the calls are for drunkeness and/or disorderly conduct. Anne says, “When alcohol is sold from the store, problems occur”. Mr. Klieb objects to the map’s hand-drawn quality. Ann cites and quotes studies and facts. Simply, the area has many places to purchase alcohol (7 places). There are 7 stores of any kind in the area, all of which sell alcohol. When there are many places to buy alcohol, bad things happen — underage drinking, loitering.
Center Judge says that they know many of the facts, please make your point.
Anne reiterates “Alcohol causes problems when sold from this location”.
Center Judge calls into question whether any of the previous probelems associated with the store at that area are the fault of the current owner.
Ane spends few more minutes talking about drunken people fighting and urinating in public.
The judge to audiance left asks about neighborhood support and Ann indicates that those present in the audiance are from the neighborhood.
Mr.Klieb rises to speak. That English is not his native language is apparent, but he is well spoken. He states that he has a Master in Journalism, has kids, is educated, is “proud of this country”.
He tells the judges that he bought the store for $65,000 on April 18, 2005, and “can’t be held responsible for previous owner”. He also says that sonce losing his ABC license that he had lost $500/day in alcohol sales and is heading towards bankruptcy from the lost sales. He also refers to a petition presented at the original meeting that was signed by 259 residents, a portion of whom live on Venable Street.
One issue from the original meeting that kept recurring and that felt incongruous is that of the public phone outside of the store. Klieb states that he provides the public phone as a community service, citing an inident of a man using the phone to call for medical help. He seems to feel put upon, states that this seems personal. He mentions that he has said before that “your problem is my problem”, that he had intended to buy the building and to live upstairs with his family. All in all he is a sympathetic figure: he purchased this business thinking that he would be able to carry on as before, but the ground has shifted under him.
Judge Right asks if vacant buildings contribute to the problems of the area. Klieb says no, mentions that there is a bus stop on the street. Prompted, Klieb says that he has not seen problems with drunkeness or loitering.
Judge Right asks Lt.Snawder to the center podium, he is sworn in. Judge Right asks about the vacant buildings. Snawder says that it is “ludicrous” to say that there is no loitering or drunkeness, dealing, etc. He refers to the community’s outcry and description of common problems, specifically loitering and drunkeness. He mentions that there are many ABC llisenced establishments in the area, and that the area has many realted issues. He mentions that there are other areas of the Hill that have ABC stores yet never generate problem calls.
Judge Center, tossing a soft one for Klieb, asks Lt.Snawder if he is talking about the area or the specific store, reminding us that ABC licenses are given to poeple.
Judge Left asks if the presence of another ABC license on the street probably affects the likely regeneration of the area. Snawder says that that Venable Street, like, totally sucks and that another ABC licence would only make it suckier (my words not his, I was a bit loopy at this point).
Ann rebuts some things. Klieb then rebuts some things.
A written ruling will be given within 30 days.
We adjurn at 4:24 pm.
I am believer in the free market economy, but in this case another liquor store would be a detriment and hinder the entrance of other “finer” establishments from entering the area to do business. We need more Jumpin J type establishments up here. I cant see the need for another liquor store as there is already one at 25th and Venable (right near 1st Precinct). Its scary to think the demand for booze is that great. As for the pay phone- rarely are they used to call 911- an emergency post with siren lights and quick call feature would be better….most of what I see pay phones used for is to return pages (beeper) by drug dealers.
GPK — It’s not a liquor store at 2300, “just” a store that wants to sell beer & wine. Of which there is also one at 25th and Venable, and Nine Mile and 25th, and Venable and Mosby, etc. Same effect though.
The ABC board was allowed to consider whether or not opening the store would effect the real estate value of the area, or something to that effect. If the license is denied, it will likely be on that account…
John, this is great, like minutes of a meeting. I want to thank everybody who took the time to attend yesterday’s appeal hearing. My particular thanks goes to Lt. M. Snawder who is committed enough to helping us make our neighborhood better to take action. His presence yesterday turned out to be very important.
Great job neighbors. Real change will come to the neighborhood if we can make this kind of showing at every single ABC review hearing that comes up in our neighborhood - especially lic. renewals. The minimum goal should be getting these places to stop selling singles, tall cans, and 40s. That sort of restriction will have a measurable impact on vagrancy and litter.
ABC Hearing Officers want to hear about what you actually see, so keep photo logs and journals of problems you witness at these corner stores. Dated pictures of litter, especially singles containers and those singles bags, have the best effect.
One of the worst offenders has got to be that place close to Jumpin J’s at the corner of Jefferson and 24th. The loiterers pull out plastic crates they keep in that patch of woods and sit on the street drinking.
what blows my mind is the clay street market, and how close it is to the school. Hey kids dont drink but in case you do there is a store over across the street.
Can these store owners be sued in civil court for damages associated with the negative externalities of their operations? If these folks were forced to defend themselves in civil court for their spillover impacts, then I am sure the profits they get from selling beer would soon evaporate. Does VA or Richmond have nuisance bar/ establishment laws?
Since the state seems to be of little regulatory help, we can do the conservative thing and develop a fund at the city level to buy out these licenses. Or, the liberal thing and push for a significant tax on take out purchases to limit demand and or to pay for enforcement and community impact issues.
In other words, we need to press for a larger, city-wide effort to regulate problem establishments, and perhaps come up with some ideas to pursue at the public safety committee.
As far as he ABC hearing, it would seem that the statement that the license goes to the person, not the establishment is troublesome to the complaint. Moroeover, John’s statement that impacts of the store on property values could be cause for license revocation did not seem to be addressed in any systematic fashion. (That is, there was no evidence linking this store to flagging local property values) aside from some anecdotal evidence.
As soon as I’ve received the ABC Board’s decision I’ll pass the word on. One of the reasons I filed the appeal was my intent to take to the General Assembly the whole issue that a glut of alcohol outlets results in neighborhood degradation…and that a government that ‘licenses’ such degradation ain’t working for its citizens. ‘at’, I think filing suit for civil damages is an option worth considering. Any CHPN reader know anything about Richmond’s nuisance ordinances?
It is so encouraging to see this much involvement and concern for our area!
I don’t know much about them, but I do know where to find them. Check http://www.municode.com, then go to the online library and browse to Richmond. The entire Code of Ordinances is available.
If you ever wonder about specifics you can check the city’s site (http://www.richmondgov.com/applications/clerksTracking/index.asp) to view individual ordinances and resolutions or to check the voting record of a council person. Good stuff.
I use the ‘municode’ site quite a lot and so have it bookmarked. Just haven’t queried ‘nuisance.’ Being lazy and thot perhaps someone might have that info to share. I’ll dig and see what I can come up with. I was NOT familiar with the other site. Good tip.
I’ve been informed that a restricted ABC license has been granted to the store at 2300 Venable Street.
The two objections to granting a license were listed as follows:
1. The place to be occupied by the applicant is so located that violations of the ABC Act or of the laws of the Commonwealth relating to peace and good order would result from issuance of the license and operation thereunder.
2. The place to be occupied by the applicant is so located with respect to a residential area that the operation of such place under the license will substantially interfere with the usual quietude and tranquility of such residential area.
A quote from the ABC Final Decision and Order: “UPON REVIEW OF THE RECORD AND APPEAL ARGUMENT, THE BOARD IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE OBJECTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE EVIDENCE, BUT THE WINE AND BEER OFF-PREMISES LICENSE SHOULD BE GRANTED, RESTRICTED AGAINST THE SALE OF BEER IN SINGLE CONTAINERS AND AGAINST THE SALE OF FORTIFIED WINE.”