Spokane7
61°
December 13, 2010 in City
Bars, restaurants chafe over city rules
Owners say Good Neighbor Agreements hinder business
Soulful Soups and Spirits owner R. J. Portmann heads the Spokane Alliance of Bars and Restaurants, which is fighting city restrictions.
(Full-size photo)
One Spokane bar is restricted from serving shots after 1 a.m. Down the street, a restaurant is allowed to serve only “upscale wine and microbrews.” Around the corner, bartenders aren’t allowed to mix liquor and energy drinks.
The restrictions, contained in what the city of Spokane calls Good Neighbor Agreements, have been around for five years but just recently became a new point of contention between city officials and local bar and restaurant owners.
The city says the agreements protect the community from unsavory behavior, but business owners say they hinder local commerce and their ability to compete fairly.
Now, a business group is trying to get the agreements scrapped. Members of the Spokane Alliance of Bars and Restaurants contend the agreements lack legal merit.
“They are completely baseless in law,” said alliance lawyer Jerry Davis. “They can throw anything they want at them. It makes absolutely no sense.” Once the agreements are signed by business owners, even though some say they felt coerced, they become legally enforceable contracts.
City Administrator Ted Danek agrees that improvement can be made to the process but believes they help protect the community.
He said the contracts are meant to prevent businesses – bars and restaurants in particular – from becoming a nuisance to neighbors, and are tailored to each individual establishment to tackle problems specific to that business and the neighborhood in which it is located.
“It’s intended to solve problems,” Danek said. “We just need to adjust the process.”
Business owners contend the rules are applied arbitrarily and unfairly. An agreement in place at one establishment could be nonexistent for another.
“We need to have a template,” Davis said. “We need to have a standard.”
Alliance members said the inconsistency in the rules stifles owners’ ability to compete on an even playing field with similar establishments.
Although restaurant and tavern owners generally receive city support when seeking state liquor licenses if they sign the Good Neighbor Agreements, Danek said it’s up to each proprietor whether they want to sign them. However, those who refuse to sign could lose city support for their liquor license.
“We have input just like they do,” Danek said of the process the state goes through in deciding which liquor applications to approve.
But many business owners feel they are bullied into signing the contracts, said R. J. Portmann, alliance president and owner of Soulful Soups and Spirits.
When a business is applying for a local entertainment license, for example, the city will present the application with one of the contracts, Portmann said, and many business owners have signed the contracts believing it’s a required part of obtaining the city license.
Without that license, a business cannot have music or a dance floor, so many just agree to sign the contract in fear of having the entertainment license revoked.
Alliance members say it’s intimidating when a police officer and fire marshal walk into your business and ask you to sign a contract.
“An agreement is supposed to be two parties that mutually agree, but that’s not what’s happening with these Good Neighbor Agreements,” Davis said.
The current system allows an owner accused of a violation to request a hearing, but alliance members say this is just more bureaucratic smoke and mirrors.
Currently, an establishment has to close while awaiting the hearing outcome. For most bars and restaurants, that is impractical; having to close the doors for just one weekend could mean they close forever.
“That isn’t viable,” Davis said. “I’m not sure if the city understands.”
The possibility of going out of business as a result of the hearings makes bankers wary of lending to businesses, hampering the local economy and the growth of downtown Spokane, alliance members say.
Further, they say, the ability of the city to close down a business for contract violations supersedes the state Liquor Control Board. And, there already are laws in place to protect the community – such as those against over-serving or serving minors.
Danek argued the agreements are not meant to supersede the Liquor Control Board, but actually help businesses keep their liquor licenses when they seek renewal. If they have had violations in the past but have entered into an agreement with the city to show they are making an effort to address those issues, the city will pull for them in front of the board, Danek said.
The city has put a 90-day moratorium on the agreements to work with the alliance on creating a new process. Danek said the city just became aware of the problem and that their goal is not to hinder business.
“If we want a program that is supposed to help the community and help business owners but it’s not, we need to fix it,” Danek said. “It’s as simple as that. We just need to adjust out process.”
Alliance members will attend tonight’s City Council meeting to express their concerns.
“We do mean business,” Davis said.
Recent stories by Chelsea Bannach
Civil War re-enactment reverberates with camaraderie, cannons May 27, 2012 6- Nightmare rerun: Family’s second child diagnosed with cancer first child had just beaten May 25, 2012 7
- Torchlight Parade honors military, challenges youth May 20, 2012
- A new place for helping kids, families May 17, 2012
- Spokane seniors shine at Bring Your Talent competition May 16, 2012
cpd805 on December 13 at 4:53 a.m.
The article should have made it clear that good neighbor agreements between liquor serving establishments and the city are only asked of those businesses that have generated documented violations, such as over-service, serving minors, excessive police calls to the establishment for fights, etc, etc.
The agreement is meant to be a way for the establishment to demonstrate good faith that they doing what they can to take care of the problems that have been generated due to their liquor license violations. This agreement is in lieu of their license being pulled or denied.
That said, if there is a procedural problem with how the agreements are implemented, then fix that.
drywitt99 on December 13 at 5:14 a.m.
Yes, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Just because something is not running properly does not mean it can’t.
Spokane_Citizen on December 13 at 6:23 a.m.
The agreements are just another attempt at social engineering by do-gooders on the council in order to enact a slightly more subtle form of ‘blue law’ by ordinance. There’s already a state regulatory framework to pull liquor licenses from malfactors, we don’t need yet another layer of inequitable interference from local government.
SpokaneLiberal on December 13 at 6:34 a.m.
I think a template good neighbor agreement is a reasonable request. It doesn’t seem equitable to have once sports bar restricted from selling hard liquor mixed with energy drinks and another allowed to.
cpd805 - do you have any evidence that the GNA is only for those that have already done wrong? When I went to South Perry Pizza they mentioned the good neighbor agreement they signed when they were “planning on opening” (they said it like a badge of honor). Also the article seems to imply that it is when a business is doing its initial application for an entertainment licence or liquor license that the contract comes up - not in response to violations. They do say that if they have had violations the GNA helps improve their chances of keeping the liquor license because they are working with the city to improve (but that phrasing implies that while some fall into the category of violator not all do).
misjustice on December 13 at 6:48 a.m.
Good luck at the City Council meeting; I hope that Shogan lets you speak and doesn’t curse you out.
Ed Byrnes on December 13 at 7:46 a.m.
First off I am not a big fan of alcohol because it is a substance that has many concomitant problems associated with it. In terms of behavior problems I hypothesize that if one examined incidents involving local law enforcement when an alcohol offense was present there would be other aggressive behavior offenses present at a rate that significantly exceeds incidents when a marijuana simple possession offense is present. I assert that there is a societal interest in regulating alcohol and that this interest is more compelling and legitimate that the interest for criminalizing marijuana, which is a relatively more benign substance.
I believe that cpd805 accurately described the original intent of this policy and that like many social policies some individuals who are interpreting the policy who have implementation responsibilities are overreaching the policy mandate. The best practice in such situations is to revise the policy toward greater specificity to achieve a balance between realizing the policy goals while maximizing fairness, and in this case, public safety. Including sanctions for individuals who overstep the policy boundaries when they implement it would be evidence of the city being serious about applying the policy within its original intent.
We should all bear in mind that those who are challenging the policy at is currently being applied are the owners of very small local businesses. This differentiates this debate from the one about changing state liquor distribution policies, whose proponents included very large businesses which were not local. We should also keep in mind that these local establishments, especially restaurants, operate on a very thin profit margin so we should avoid encumbering those who are behaving well with any additional policy burdens.
This all being said I concur with misjustice and wish our local restaurant and bar owners success in their pursuit of justice in this matter.
Ed
lewis8457 on December 13 at 8:28 a.m.
sounds like blackmail to me sign or go out of business.
Orphan on December 13 at 8:41 a.m.
Blackmail and intimidation by a goverment agency plain and simple.
deacon46 on December 13 at 9:44 a.m.
I think that if Bar and Restaurant owners spend more time pleasing the needs of community instead of fighting it their businessess would be more respected and perhaps more profitable. Some of these “establishments” are breeding grounds for violence, prostitution, gambling, and drug dealing. The sorts of behaviour and activities that are not wanted by the community. City Council needs to stand up and tell these folks conform to the rules or get out of town. Of course if the economy was better the owners would have better things to do.
eagleproducer on December 13 at 9:53 a.m.
CPD is correct when stating businesses approached with these contracts have had multiple violations of their liquor license and their business is a nuisance to its neighbors. The city is trying to protect a revenue source from being lost in providing a behavioral plan for owners who can’t follow liquor laws or have the needed security to ensure their patrons aren’t damaging the property of surrounding business owners. The contracts are voluntary, plain and simple. If you sign and mind your p’s and q’s, the city is on your side when your license comes up for re-newal. Don’t sign and continue being a nuisance to neighbors, over-serving or violating other liquor laws and lose your license and business. That’s a choice, not blackmail or intimidation. How many of you even go downtown for late night entertainment? It’s a freaking dangerous zoo on weekends because of over-served twenty-somethings wired on red bull infused alcohol drinks.
Why is four-loco banned but I can still get a bull blaster at a bar?
spokanesucks on December 13 at 10:06 a.m.
Spokane sucks.
SpokaneLiberal on December 13 at 10:36 a.m.
Spoketucky I have been downtown on an occasion in the evening - even to Soulful Soups (which makes great Soup and Beer Bread.
But it isn’t just downtown. As I mentioned South Perry Pizza, which hadn’t been opened long said they had to sign a GNA when they where “planning on opening” - now maybe they violated repeatedly in the first couple weeks and rephrased it for their advantage. I have no doubt that some of these GNAs are due to violations but some of them I could not find any evidence on the State Liquor Control Board website indicating there were violations that necessitated the GNA. Soulful Soups was also mentioned in the article but there is nothing on liq.wa.gov about them ever having a violation or South Perry Pizza. Can anyone who has said it is only for repeat violators provide a link to anything that shows this is true?
SpokaneLiberal on December 13 at 11:34 a.m.
I have been reading the Spokane Code. Some venues are required to enter into a GNA as a condition of getting a business license. See SMC 10.23A.040, SMC 10.23A.060, SMC 10.23A.070.
I am actually pretty sure now that GNA’s are not in response to complaints but part of the permitting process. The Fox Theater, The Arena, The Opera House all had to sign GNA’s to be approved for “Dark House Conditions” and licensed in prior years. It seems that the city basically requires everyone operating an entertainment or venue that supplies any type of alcohol to enter into a GNA as a condition of licensing them.
hcamper on December 13 at 1:49 p.m.
Bottom line is - want to play the game? Here are the rules. This isn’t backyard football where it is my ball, therefore, my rules.The GNA may not be perfect, but nothing is. The intent is good. I am all for restrictions, especially late at night and for establishments which repeatedly violate laws. A show of force at the Council meeting means nothing. Sounds like Ted Danek is aware of the challenges and is willing to work with the group.
rjportmann on December 13 at 1:58 p.m.
All of the comments present valid concerns for the economic growth of spokane business, entertainment for it’s citizens/ tourists and especially for the safety of our community. Please attend our city council meeting tonight at 6pm to hear more information and/or show support. Alll are also welcome to attend and comment at any of our open S.A.B.R. meetings too. This is a local business AND community issue and any/all input we receive can help us better plan how to work with the city to keep Spokane a responsible AND fun place to live and visit!
Orphan on December 13 at 2:13 p.m.
Spoketucky/william et al
How many more laws/rules do you think it will take to get people to obay the current laws. If a business is not obaying the current laws what makes anyone think if they have a new rule/law they will change. Simply enforce the current laws no more no less. I’ll bet you think you can rehab violant felons too.
SpokaneLiberal on December 13 at 3:22 p.m.
hcamper
This seems to be what the city is asking for. My ball my rules and the rules are whatever they want to make up for businesses. And there is no uniformity. My ball my rules and only these 2 receivers are allowed to run more than 5 yards, only these two people are allowed to block, and only these four can take more than 7 steps with the ball.
You may think Ted/the city is taking it seriously but they stiffed the last meeting to address some of these issues. None of this would be an uproar if the city had shown up to the meeting.
thewrittenword on December 13 at 4:11 p.m.
To those who have been misinformed that the ‘Good Neighbor Agreement’ is a document only relevant to establishments with a track record of issues, I am aware of several businesses who were told to sign the GNA before they were even open for business. There are also many other local businesses who have NEVER received any ticketing of complaints but are still at the mercy of the GNA for the continued use of their liquor license. Furthermore, there are multiple establishments with multiple tickets and complaints who have never been requested to comply with a ‘Good Neighbor Agreement’ (The INB, The Spokane Arena, Park Inn, Fast Eddies…. and so on). It would seem that the more directly affiliated a business is with the city, the less likely it is that they will have to worry about being harassed by arbitrary and subjective documents like the GNA.
I would recommend that anyone interested in this issue should show up at the meeting taking place this evening at City Hall at 6:00 to properly inform themselves before making unfounded statements.
“Running businesses out of town” should not be a goal of our City Council. I’d imagine that ignorant statements and behaviors like that should be more than enough to keep Spokane on the losing track it’s been on for the last decade.
Bob_Knows on December 13 at 6:22 p.m.
Another MONOPOLY program by corrupt politicians intended to protect businesses that bribe Council members and blue gun thugs while driving off competition.
All of these MONOPOLY CORRUPTION politics destroys business and eliminates jobs. It also reduces sales tax collections, but it lines the pockets of corruption.
deacon46 on December 13 at 6:51 p.m.
Orphan.
Law abiding communities are a result of both enforcement and compliance. Societies function with the rule of law.
I don’t think I mentioned new laws. But if bar owners don’t like the rules move out of town. If Bar owners want to change the laws then abide by them first and then get the community involved to get the laws changed. If the community is not interested then “move out of town”.
cpd805 on December 14 at 12:22 a.m.
Liberal and Word….
I have sat in negotiations for a GNA for Club Uno when police were getting an inordinate amount of calls for service there. The specific terms of the GNA were derived from specific violations.
As far as GNA’s for businesses not yet open….I’m not familiar with those. I do agree that if they are making businesses sign GNA’s under these circumstances, they should be uniform and reasonable.
cpd805 on December 14 at 12:34 a.m.
Liberal…
I just read the SMC’s you referred to. I was not even aware the city was doing this. They apparently started this in the summer of 2009. I don’t like it. The GNA’s should be utilized how they were prior to this, as a sort of last chance agreement for violators. Thank you for citing the SMC’s.
nannette on December 14 at 12:41 a.m.
I believe Seattle tried the same idea.
What amazes me about WA state,is that it’s pretty much a whimp.
I mean,really,even Bill Gates Sr. wants to pay an income tax.
So, I’m curious,how many “cities” in the US have signed this”contract”(sic)?
By the way, cops are never there when you need them…So what.
I mean really where were the cops when Joseph Duncan had all the time in the world to STALK a family?
By all means worry about the working class in a bar.
Nannette Heintzelman
SpokaneLiberal on December 16 at 9:15 a.m.
I wouldn’t mind a contract of last chance, but yes, with how it is currently being treated I understand the frustration of the business owner. I didn’t know anything about this 4 days ago, now I know a lot and it kind of chafes me.