Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Just more than one-third of the city's 1,027 bars will not be able to extend hours during the inauguration due to binding voluntary agreements with their neighborhoods, reports the Washington Post. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Attorney General Peter Nickles confirmed on Friday that no occasion — not even the election of the first black president of the United States of America — is too special to supercede voluntary agreements with neighborhood groups, many of which are 20 years old.
Nickles had some line about "contracts" and "the Constitution" and something about how this so-called Constitution "protects the sanctity of contracts". This is a reasonable-sounding position to take. Many bars throughout the city struck (and still strike) agreements with neighborhoods as a precondition for allowing the liquor license to pass without challenge, agreements that set terms for features such as live music and weekend hours. Bars that have it on the books that they will not stay open past 3 a.m. on the weekends will not be granted an exemption by the city, as the city will honor those contracts.
So Nickles says this is a simple legal question. But in the same sense, this is a legal question and Fenty and Nickles arguably cannot say pro forma that every neighborhood agreement — without specific attention to any actual contract — is binding and does not provide any room whatsoever for an exemption in the face of a (temporarily) changed law. Those agreements all refer to a legal standing that no longer applies, after all. In Magic: The Gathering these questions resolve in last-in, first-out order and while I've not studied District law so closely as I have the finer play using Serra Angels my understanding is that contracts don't resolve so quickly as by calling a press conference and saying that LIFO rules will be observed.
After all at a certain point there comes a question of enforcement. If during inauguration week one of those 345 bars provided for by some sort of voluntary agreement stays open as is legally provided by city law and neighbors complain, will the District shut it down? No, of course not. The District won't even have the police to do it.
Not entirely related Google map by rock creek
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Would it really be that hard for any of these bars to approach the community groups that they have agreements with and ask for an amendment for that one day?
Just because you have a contract doesn't mean you can't make changes to it if both parties agree.
These contracts probably contain provisions prohibiting the bars from being open past a certain hour and to they extent the contract provisions provide for exceptions, it's doubtful that any were written with the foresight of an exception written in for the inauguration of the first black president in U.S. history. These contracts, assuming they are valid to begin with, would be just as valid with respect to the inauguration.
That being said, as the prior commenter stated, there is nothing preventing the parties from negotiating to amend the contract to add an exception for the inauguration.
I think I get what you are trying to say there in the third paragraph, but I'm not completely sure.
Do you think you could relate it to Yu-Gi-Oh! some how?
NIMBYs are neither visionary nor are they tolerant of others. There is no way that groups like the Mount Pleasant Neighborhood Alliance would ever consider any type of exemption to its "voluntary" agreements much to the detriment of the business community in the neighborhood. These agreements are highly contentious and create so much acrimony that they could not be altered in the less than a month to inauguration weekend.
you had me at 1,027 bars.
Just because the city/police won't shut the bar down doesn't mean that there won't be legal ramifications if a bar does decide to violate the agreement/contract.
The city most likely won't be able to make any "exceptions," as Article I,Sec 10 of the Constitution states that “No state shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts.” (though I guess you could argue that DC is not a state, but I am sure there is some case out there binding DC to this section of the Constitution.) Typically exceptions only apply to "emergencies," and the legislation needs to be addressed to a legitimate end to protect the over all needs of society, not just a couple of drunks like myself who would like to have a few more oat sodas until 4 am.
More importantly, is there any way to find out (other than calling ahead of time) which bars will be closing "early" so we know where NOT to go?
voluntary agreements—one of the most orwellian terms in DC governance.
there's nothing voluntary about these things. the neighborhood groups figuratively stick a gun to the head of the establishment's owner and say "meet our demands, or we will make sure you are not able to function as a business."
it's a shame that, yes, these bars, restaurants, what-have-you should be able to go to the neighborhood and say, "please, could we stay open an hour later for a couple nights," and promise to make sure things stay quiet, etc., but that's basically impossible. there will always be at least one NIMBY that screams "no!"
I was told that these agreements set hours, music type/volume, etc and that they're not really 'voluntary'. If a neighborhood group wants to have a bar abide by these rules all they need to do is say "sign here & agree by this or we'll make sure ABC/ABRA withholds your liquor license".
That's how it was explained to me by several Ward 1 area bar owners commenting on the Mt. Pleasant bars/MPNA fiasco, so they obviously a little cynical - how far from the truth is this?
More importantly, is there any way to find out (other than calling ahead of time) which bars will be closing "early" so we know where NOT to go?
Presumably not all DC's bars will apply for extended hours, but those that want to may file registration forms starting Monday.
Now that I think of it, therein lay the fix, I'll bet you. Those bars who are subject to a neighborhood agreement will be denied the license (whatever the actual mechanism is) to stay open during the inauguration. What do you bet the registration form has a checkbox about pre-existing neighborhood agreements?
Again, though, and not to sound so disrespectful to the twin pillars of Law and Order, but: Who's gonna check? Police won't be making stops between 3 and 4 a.m. during the inauguration to check on the 300+ bars subject to neighborhood agreements to ensure they are abiding by those terms — much less the other 700 to ensure they are all properly registered. Over what is sure to be a madhouse weekend, I argue that the spirit of the law is more likely to obtain than the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law on this matter is pretty clear: D.C. bars are allowed to stay open 'til 4 a.m.
In the bright light of day there may be legal ramifications for some, but meh: I bet there's more chaos than the city knows how to sort come Monday morning. The Nimbys' complaints will be low on that list, I bet.
Here is the posting on the dc.gov site with the list of the 300+ bars, clubs, and restaurants with VAs.
So don't plan to go out any later in Dupont, Logan, Mount Pleasant, G-Town, Adams Morgan, H St. NE, U St, 14th St, 8th St SE, and most of Capital Hill, most of Conn Ave and the 19th St., the West End neighborhood, and most other areas of the city were there a bars and restaurants.
My opinion, what's the point of introducing this and then amending it if the majority of the popular spots don't even have the option to participate? It seems like a giant waste of time and effort.
http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1440&mon=200812
Well, it's not like I was playing on spending the whole time at the Raven anyway.
Quite a few of the voluntary agreements only control patio hours, not indoor hours. So it's a bit more complex than "don't go to Dupont, Logan, etc..."
Just call the business you're interested in.
it makes me wonder if anyone thinks that anywhere in the urban parts of the city will have a moment of quiet during the inauguration weekend.
i heard on the radio that Love anticipates bringing in over 700,000 dollars a night
Here, here IMGoph. That pretty much sums up the "voluntary agreement" process. I've got an inquiry out to two members of ANC2f inquiring about how they are planning to handle the inevitable inquiries about how they may handle petitions from area businesses regarding the granting of extended hours exemptions to area businesses. I think I know what the answer will be, but we'll see...
"Quite a few of the voluntary agreements only control patio hours, not indoor hours. So it's a bit more complex than "don't go to Dupont, Logan, etc..."
Not the ones I have seen. VAs cover practically every aspect of a bar/restaurant's business, from the hours they can operate, to how loud the music can be on their rooftop patio. The spirit of the Council's decision to allow an extension of operating hours will be lost if there isn't some way to deal with the VAs that are currently in place.
true Love is was projecting to do $700,000 a night, from door sales and valet services alone, not including any food or beverage sales, big bucks.
VA's do cover patios but the hours of operation are often a large part of them.
just the term "voluntary" in nuts.
I agree that this is unenforceable which is bad news for me. When a "concierge lounge" wanted to open up next to our house we were nervous, but agreed to a voluntary agreement. BIG MISTAKE. Now it is a full blown club that rattles our house every night Thursday-Saturday. Our case has been tied up in the DC system since July. Do you have any idea what it is like to hate weekends because you know you can't sleep? To be verbally accosted by someone because you have the audacity to call the cops when its too loud. Imagine you wake up at 3am every night because they throw their empty bottles in the garbage can without any thought to who might be sleeping. I think voluntary agreements work if they are enforced. And ya know what? Who needs to be up drinking until 5am in a residential area anyway?