But the surprisingly important information to come out of the meeting was his description of the disciplinary powers of the SLA which include prosecuting establishments with violations to ABC laws, non-compliance with local fire/health/safety laws, 106A violations (reports filed by police dept. on disorderly conduct, serving to minors, noise complaints, etc… – these are the follow-ups to 311 calls), and non-compliance with the ‘methods of operation’ set forth in the original application.

Why do I think the method of operation (hereinafter referred to – for my amusement – as MOP) is important? Because the factors laid out in the MOP (hours of operation, food service, (music?)) are factors that have a huge influence on the quality of life effect of an establishment. And because the license, once granted, is contingent upon MOP being followed. Changing these factors mid-stream is a prosecutable offense by the SLA.

So, as I see it, a community board may give or deny their recommendation to approve a license based on the ‘methods of operation’. It can become a bartering tool for a community board that wants to ensure that establishments that receive applications are held to reasonable strictures that allow for the least friction possible between the residents and the establishments. A community board may suggest certain changes to a MOP before granting approval. And a community board may withhold approval and point out specific areas of concern in the MOP.

And a bar that is behaving irresponsibly? Chances are they may no longer be following the blueprints they laid out in the MOP, and that is a prosecutable offense.

It’s our secret weapon, and I like calling it MOP. MOP! MOP! (I’m picturing Road Runner).

(For a simple explanation of the 500ft. rule – click here.)

Here’s what happens at a 500ft. hearing (which is more of a read-aloud report than a meeting).
1. The application is read.
2. The applicant’s statement to support that the establishment will serve the public good is read.
3. Each side may make a presentation regarding the proposed establishment (there is no cross examination to these presentations).

A successful presentation by a community group wishing to challenge a license will:
- use clearly drawn maps to prove close proximity of new applicant to existing businesses and to schools, senior homes, and apartment buildings to show that it is a mixed use area that includes high-density residences.
- Present testimony from residents about quality of life issues like traffic problems, noise problems, etc…
- Use specific examples from the application to prove that it will not be in the best interest of the community. The ‘Methods of Operation’ section includes helpful information on how the establishment will conduct itself.
- If owners have other establishments that have been poor neighbors, a pattern of irresponsibility may be created

Because there is no cross-examination of the presentations, it is EXTREMELY important to be familiar with the application and to have already prepared the arguments that relate specifically to the application. However, it should be noted that, especially in commercial areas, community quality of life complaints tend to carry less weight than economic factors in terms of deciding what is ‘in the public interest’… What a nicely ambiguous phrase ‘in the public interest’….

dotting the i’s:

I delivered additional testimony to the SLA today [regarding the 26LW12 application - see 500' post for details] (with receipt) and left copies at ONE. The final package included: my letter, Mike’s e-mail, SLA decision re Hotel Gansevoort, illegal parking log as well as comments reprinted from HSA blog.

Now we wait.

Did anyone go to the 14th St/Gansevoort Market CB2 meeting tonight? I couldn’t make it but wonder what happened.

LWT presented a petition signed by 400+ people, declaring that 26 would be in the public interest. They said they would contribute to the neighborhood. They presented letters from charities that had hosted fundraisers at ONE. They noted that CB#2 had approved the application.

Then the real business started, as Ivy and Mike spoke eloquently about the saturation of the neighborhood, the overissuance of licenses, the problems that come along – traffic, garbage, noise, ill-behaved patrons spilling into the street and Gansevoort Plaza.

We are enormously grateful to Keith McNally, Pastis, who spoke passionately about his desire to be part of a vibrant community, not one where drinkers run wild. And also to Gregory Brender from Deborah Glick’s office who presented testimony from Deborah opposing the license as well as a letter signed by Tom Duane, Christine Quinn and Deborah Glick.

It’s an odd and exotic process and it will be weeks before we know what the outcome of this is.

If you want to submit additional testimony, it must be received by 3 PM June 7.
Sent or delivered to SLA, HEARING DEPARTMENT, 317 Lenox Avenue, 10027 Attn: Akiva Tessler, Adminstrative Judge.

Personally I think we need to go to any meeting that impacts us, whether we have a gripe or not. And we have to continue to let everyone know that we care and are willing to act.

Fret Not! The little man can still persevere. Compose a letter, click comments at the bottom of this post, type it into the empty boxes, press PUBLISH and it will appear in the comments section of this website!! Or, email it to Elaine Young. All letters posted or emailed will be printed and brought to the SLA hearing. In your letter, you need to argue that this club would NOT be in the public interest. You may want to note that there are many more than three bars within 500 feet of 26 Little West 12 (Buddha Bar, Cielo, Pastis, Paradour, 5, One, Nero, Macelleria, PM) and that the area has become dense with drunks, traffic is insane and we are seeing the decline of a great neighborhood. Quality of life has been adversely impacted.. in a short period of time.
More info on the 500 ft. rule, the application and the meeting.

We need people to show at the SLA 500-ft HEARING on a pending liquor license request for the huge space at 26 little west 12th, a 9500 sq ft space that is currently a garage/gas station. The owners of ONE (9th Ave & Gansevoort) have applied for the license and plan to be open 7 days a week from 11am to 4am. Umm, ouch. I’m not so sure this in the public interest.

DATE: May 31
TIME: 11 AM
PLACE: SLA, 317 LENOX AVE , 4TH FLOOR HEARING ROOM (2 or 3 train to 125th Street)

26 Little West 12th still looks like a functioning garage to me, which makes it rather odd in my mind that there’s an active request for a liquor license, but maybe that’s just the way it works? Come find out.

IF YOU CAN’T ATTEND, CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION ON THE LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN.

This is an important meeting whether you are for or against the club. If against, then come prepared to protest that this club in not “in the public interest”. If just curious, come on down just to show the club that we are an active community – that way if they do get the license, they know right off the bat that this is a neighborhood of active peeps and they need to be good neighbors and we’ll stand for no less.

Many people oppose this bar because this area is already saturated with venues and the noise/drunks/traffic are already reaching an intolerable level.

What do you think? Come voice your opinion and make your presence known.

PS – State Senator Tom Duane explained the 500 ft ruling at his meeting this Winter and then followed up by sending the relevant part of the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws. Thanks for the education State Senator Tom Duane!