I got no problem with this. Sell your singles, get in your bmw and go back home. Its how it should be, not with a bunch of knuckleheads standing outside bouncing empty bottles off the sidewalk spraying bullets into the air.

this doesn't just affect the loiterers. it affects middle class young professionals, too. i like to grab a sparks from my local liquor store on my way out for the evening and there's no way i'm gonna buy a 4 pack. damn the man...

You missed the boat. The boat left. You don't see the boat. The issue is problems with one store and public drinking. The other store, Whole Foods, does not have that problem. If it did, the Board would revoke their license to sell single cans in a New York minute. An analogy is when one bar is temporarily closed b/c of a pattern of violence, etc. and not taking steps to remedy it (i.e., better ID check; bouncers). When this happens to a bar that has been a problem, you don't see people screaming that other bars in the vicinity, without a history of incidents, should be closed down too.

I think people should start selling 41oz bottles of malt liquor. That would actually be legal.

To anyone who think this is acceptable because Whole Foods is selling to "responsible" people (as if none of us have ever bought a single 40 to pre-game), that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it? Shouldn't the rules be applied equally to everyone.

The example I used in the comments of my post was the speed limit. We don't suspend the speed limit for someone "responsible" who has never been in a car accident. The same rules apply to everyone, period.

Not to mention the message this sends to the neighborhood businesses that were there before gentrification. The ANC is looking out for the new guys. Anyone else can go off and screw.

It seems that DCist has made the same mistake City Desk did -- jumping to conclusions without enough information.

I haven't attended ANC meetings, but I do know that Whole Foods is allowed to sell singles because of an agreement with the ANC. Maybe Whole Foods agreed to some special conditions or procedures which other stores haven't or wouldn't agree to? This is an important question to ask.

Either way, I'm happy to be able to get singles of Chimay Bleu; I love that shit!

Seems pretty simple: either ban single sales, or don't.

Like it or not (right or wrong) - it's still a double-standard. similar issue in MtP 2 years ago. Smells the same too .. rich oldish landowners "foggies" lay the law to protect their own; while almost everyone else doesn't care cuz their still "convenienced". No matter .. the urination, defication & human unsighltleness will likely remain.

Did Barrel House do something that I'm missing? I buy booze there and it seems like a perfectly nice store to me. From what some of these people are saying you'd think it resembled a crack den or something.

TMS, just cause I'm on DCist doesn't mean I'm well educated or liberal. Jeez, your stereotype is just as "ignorant."

Ok, so it's alright to expect special treatment when it favors you, but if it puts you at a disadvantage, all of the sudden it is discrimination.

If you are responsible enough to exist without needing to suckle at the teet of society by siphoning out half of my income, then you are ok to buy and drink a single beer anywhere you like. Otherwise, shut up.

I'm not (overtly?) racist, but I sure as hell am anti-drunk-homeless-dudes-in-front-of-my-house-assaulting-me-(or kicking my dog)-at-3pmist, and I know that above-mentioned dudes (Plural. There have been multiple assaults.) are all drinking single-serves. Out of straws. Of course, they're shooting up, too, but I think single serves are legal, there.

That said, the liberal elitist in me does feel a little guilty, so why not reach an agreement that allows "mix-n-match" 4-packs? Logan Circle gets to keep the only thing it has going for it and we all get that warm fuzzy feeling we get for pretending to apply the laws equally.

Hmmm .. Ardvaark, maybe LC ANC is different but the poor business owners in MtP have had difficulty changing their VA's after they've come to realize what they are really about.

Oh, please. Like this affects the go-to of DIP behavior- the hip flask of Popov vodka the unfortunate and unwashed pour into their complimentary water cup.

Not all ANCs are dysfunctional, erahk0. The ANC 2F commissioners work hard to come up with appropriate Voluntary Agreements, and really do care about applying a unified policy across the entire neighborhood.

I was at the meetings where this was discussed, and the concerns about classism and favoritism where brought up and discussed - and soon allayed by the fact that Whole Foods' VA was more restrictive than others that had gone into effect around the neighborhood, in accordance with the ANC's policies. In essence, Whole Foods was in the same position as Barrel House is purported to be. They came to the ANC to rectify the inequality, and it was done. It has nothing to do with favoritism of one over the other - Whole Foods simply asked! That's not a double standard, that's how the process works.

As I said, I don't know the details of the Barrel House agreement, and they may very well still have a more restrictive agreement, but if they want it changed, they need to start the process by asking. If they ask and are denied, then this becomes a story. Until then, it's an ill-researched, flame-baiting non-story; and the Current, City Paper, and DCist editors should all be ashamed.

There seems to be confusion between the law and ANC "voluntary" agreements in this thread. That's no big surprise. I understand a lot of ANCs are trying to do the right thing, but the example of MtP's para-legislative authority gone wild would dull anyone's sense of outrage over this relatively minor inconsistency. I wish we [in MtP] had an ANC like this one. I'd like to upgrade to a double standard, please.

Very Interesting. Reminds me of a case involving the ATF labelling requirements a few back. The long and the short of it was that, the ATF wanted to require MFRs to put the alchohol content on the label to warn the consumer about how strong it was, but they also wanted to restrict the manner by which you could put that information (ostensibly in large bright colored Batmanesque "Whammo"/"Splat"/"Kerpow" balloon format) so as to induce purchase and abuse by kids and common inebriates (read that as "Po' folks"). The Supremes said "Nyet." Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1995)

So essentially the idea is to allow singles of those tasty Belgian lambics while simulatneously outlawing the 40 oz of Olde English.

Problem: The whole problem with singles is that kids and hooligans are trying to get the most bang for their buck.

Simple solutions:

1) Ban the sale of fortified wines and malt liquors.

2) Price floor. Impose a price per ounce requirement on any beer, fortified wine or malt liquor sold as a single. Since the difference in price per ounce is going to be pretty dramatic between your Belgian ale and what you'd expect in a fortified wine or malt liquor one should be able to build in a cushion (assuming that Ommegang goes on sale) and still keep them from selling malt liquor for a buck.

But on a happier note: can you imagine leffe at OE prices . . . .MMmnnnn. Leffe. arghlghlglhlglghlhlglhlgh!!

@damocles: thank you for reminding me why its awesome that i dont have gate access to my yard.