DCist: Single Alcohol Sales Double Standard in Logan Circle

iAManugget

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:15 -0500

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

iAManugget

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:06:23 -0500

i long for the day when a hobo walks into whole snoods to buy a single beer. it will be a profound and humbling moment. i also long for that hobo to have a seat at a window counter and pop that sucker open. then maybe have a good whizz around the customer service desk - i would be surprised if anyone said anything.

G Lover Park

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:20:44 -0500

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!!

Esmeralda

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:08:29 -0500

Just a point about the Mt.P VA's -- the agreements restricting live music are with the Mt. Pleasant Neighbors Association (MPNA), not with the ANC. The ANC supports amending the VA's to allow live music. The thing is, from what I understand any neighborhood organization is allowed to protest a liquor license and resolve issues through a "voluntary" agreement (the voluntary part being that the establishment can agree to the group's demands and get their license, or they can not agree and have their license held up indefinitely). Anyway, you can have multiple VA's, but the most restrictive one holds, which is why there is so much fuss in Mt. Pleasant about this issue. Seriously, if you go onto the Mt.P board you will see that some of our neighbors seriously hate each other. Who knew the issue of live music could be so contentious?

DCificare

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:00:37 -0500

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.

Lane

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:37:06 -0500

Until then, it's an ill-researched, flame-baiting non-story; and the Current, City Paper, and DCist editors should all be ashamed. So should Rusty.

Ardvaark

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:32:12 -0500

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.

ChimayTriple

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:47:53 -0500

He said I dance now at every chance in honky tonks for drinks and tips But most the time I spend behind these county bars 'cause I drinks a bit He shook his head, and as he shook his head I heard someone ask him please Mr. Bojangles, Mr. Bojangles Mr. Bojangles, dance..

downtown rez

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:10:30 -0500

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.

damocles

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:29:28 -0500

is this for real? a double-standard? good lord, folks, stop feeling so guilty! the law is a blunt instrument, it's true -- the obvious intent here is to prevent our fine homeless friends from slugging back a wee 40 ounces o' the brew in front of logan hardware and then wandering off to take a dump in your backyard. if there's a way to do that which doesn't prevent me from buying my pint plus of rogue dead guy ale -- which i always drink in the comfort of my own home, mind you, and it's the rare evening when i piss on my neighbor's automobile -- then i'm all for it. but if the price we pay is to violate the god-given right of mr. john q. scizophrenic to tangle with the blue bull in front of viridian, that's a price i'm willing to pay. double-standard? sure. and yet, it makes a certain diabolical kind of sense. oh, and if you disagree, take the pepsi challenge -- the next time you're strolling down 15th st. on the way to your work-my-way-up-from-the-bottom lobbyist job, buy that hard-working vagrant guy or gal a *single* tasty alcoholic beverage from whole foods. take that, yuppies! get thee and thine tax dollars to mary-land! xoxoxo, d.

erahk0

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:39:07 -0500

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.

Ardvaark

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:15:42 -0500

Wow. Do the DCist editors even read the comments on their own blog? As I said yesterday, this is a non-story. If Barrel House has a Voluntary Agreement with the ANC that is outside of the current policies (since 2003), then all they need to do is petition the ANC, and they are very likely to grant an amendment. The over-reaction to this is just insane. The Logan Circle ANC (2F, to be exact) is one of the best and most professional in the city. They work their butts off to ensure these agreements protect the neighborhood, while simultaneously getting the businesses the licenses they need to succeed. Look at Veranda - a perfect example.

hwonder

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:12:18 -0500

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.

badtzmaru

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:06:20 -0500

So Uman just admitted he was not educated AND he is not a a liberal? Best.Comment.Ever.

abzdc

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:02:01 -0500

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.

Peregrine Solus

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:00:04 -0500

Wasn't banning alcohol sales after 10:00 pm supposed to save us from something? How well is that working?

UMan

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:48:25 -0500

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

Lane

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:38:31 -0500

Everywhere this has been "reported," commenters have rebutted that in fact the details of the ANC's agreements with these retailers are not what we think they are. Can someone please give us the facts on this story?

DixieCarter

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:35:46 -0500

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.

anderlank

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:34:00 -0500

This isn't necessarily a double standard. Whole Foods offers a dine-in option. You can consume on the premises while you eat your lunch or dinner. It is also pretty standard for a venue principally selling food to have more relaxed liquor licensing.

erahk0

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:26:33 -0500

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.

ces12

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:16:39 -0500

Seems fair to me. Whole Foods is not a liquor store and it's main business is not to sell alcohol. I'm not seeing a major problem here.

No No No

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:15:29 -0500

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

TMS

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:09:15 -0500

I love it when a topic like this comes up and we get to see well educated, "liberal" people demonstrate their sly racism by referring to people as "homies" and the like. Having more moey doesn't make you any less ignorant than anyone else and this is an indication of that.

mattont

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:06:06 -0500

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!

UMan

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:05:45 -0500

I don't pre-game on 14th street...well, not literally at least

Rusty

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:00:29 -0500

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.

UMan

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:54:47 -0500

I'm all for this. If homey wants to sip some Ommagang on the corner he's gonna have to do a better job of asking for change.

Invisible Sun

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:53:29 -0500

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.

edenman

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:53:18 -0500

RJ, the two-pack is how that WF used to package single bottles. Just annoying when I know I only want one of a particular beer, or when I just want to try something new. As far as the change in policy, it may not be "right" but it's made me a happy customer.

rob

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:53:16 -0500

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...

IMGoph

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:51:13 -0500

i have no problem with it either. i have yet to see an official statement from barrel house on this whole thing. are they complaining about it? tough darts folks. there's no constitutional guarantee to cheap beer.

zippy

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:32:57 -0500

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.

RJ

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:25:40 -0500

Time for someone to invent the 2 pack.