[Photo courtesy Bryan Bruchman/flickr]
Yesterday, Jon Crow, the Union Hall neighbors who led the charge against the venue, circulated an email about the Community Board 6 decision to support renewal of its liquor license. The fight was one of the most bitter in recent memory in Park Slope and cast supporters and opponents on very opposite sides of a wide divide. We think the perspective the email offers is interesting, and certainly deserves to be part of the record of the discussion about Union Hall. Here it is:
Last night, Community Board 6 voted to recommend the approval of Union Hall’s liquor license renewal. This means that for the second month in a row, CB6 has dealt a blow against the residents they’re meant to protect. Just last week, after hearing from both sides, the CB6 Land Use Committee voted in FAVOR of residents, recommending the full Board send a strong message to State Liquor Authorities that Union Hall NOT be rewarded with a renewal until resident complaints are fully addressed. In a system where the laws favor business over residential rights, the committee bravely sent a message to bar owners and City and State Authorities that the wishes of a commercial venture should not outweigh basic quality of life issues for residents.
At last night’s meeting, because only Board members are allowed to speak, residents sat in silence while members shared false information supplied to them by the bar owners. Residents were
accused of not meeting with bar owners, when the truth is there have been multiple meetings with block, bar and elected officials represented. In fact, the only meeting cancelled in the last year
was done so at the last minute by bar owners after months of work by residents to organize that meeting. Only recently, with their license renewal looming, have owners taken the initiative to organize
these important meetings.Residents were also accused of making false 911 calls, when the truth is, acting on the advice of the City’s Building Department, residents were encouraged to make 311 calls to alert authorities that the bar’s load capacity permits had expired — meaning that at the time of the calls, the bar was illegally overcrowded. Those 311 calls were diverted to 911 operators.
The Land Use Committee had the advantage of hearing these and other truths, including multiple citations for underage drinking and ineffective sound proofing — the full Board did not. Despite the
overwhelming recommendation of a committee which made its decision after a well run, democratic hearing, the Board voted in favor of the bar.Last month, in a similar vote, the Board sided with an applicant wishing to operate a full license on quiet Hoyt Street between Union and Sackett. Again, while resident voices were silenced, Board
members friendly to the applicant shared false information and blasted residents who have mounted an overwhelmingly successful effort to gain local support. While denied the public hearing Union
Street was granted by last weeks committee hearing, Hoyt Street residents, working with Councilmember DeBlassio’s office, will host their own public meeting next Wednesday, May 21, at PS32 (corner of Hoyt and Union) beginning at 7pm.Of course we’re disappointed by last night’s outcome, though not completely surprised. Board Chairman Richard Bashner reminded the audience that the Board already had nurtured a cosy relationship with the bar, having held their 2006 Holiday party at Union Hall. That relationship paid off last night as member after member read from text prepared by bar owners, blasting the work done by block residents.
Despite last night’s decision, we remain confident that CB6 is an educable Board, that admittedly is facing this issue armed with little of no information on how to base their decisions. At last
night’s meeting, Chairman Bashner announced that a working group will soon be created to fully inform the Board of the facts surrounding their role in the issuance of liquor licenses. We on Union Street would be happy to work with that group to share the information we’ve gathered. From the very beginning we’ve vowed that while we knew the cards were stacked against OUR efforts, we will do all we can to insure this never happens again to any of our neighbors.
And, here’s a bit from a follow up email about the “false 911 call video” that ended up on YouTube:
You’re right John, the video certainly doesn’t help our case (and that’s not my most flattering side), but the fact is our rep at the buildings department encouraged us to place that 311 call — which was then transferred to 911. When the call was placed, an hour and a half before the fire department showed up, the bar was packed, and there was a performance going on downstairs. It was only at the encouragement of the buildings dept rep that we made that call, since, because of the way state laws are written, the only thing State Liquor Authority reps look at in term of license renewals is infractions on the part of bar owners. Quality of Life issues mean nothing to them, either in the issuance OR renewal of these licenses.
And that’s all for today.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Ben K. // May 16, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I hear the suburbs are nice and quiet if life in New York is getting a little too loud for Mr. Crow, who could sorely use a good editor as well. Funny that the new Tim Robbins movie is out at the same time as this brouhaha as well.
2 DK // May 16, 2008 at 3:45 pm
While I certainly am sensitive to the concerns of those who want peace and quiet, wanting the popular bar on your block to go under while you walk over to someone else’s block to eat and have a drink is pretty hypocritical. I’m not a huge Union Hall fan, but they have the right to operate their business. Good for Union Hall.
3 Batty // May 16, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Progression of areas in NYC:
1) Artists move in, cool bars pop up
2) Other people want to move in, drives rent prices up
3) People paying a lot of rent to be in hip area complain it’s now too noisy and want to get rid of all the bars.
Repeat.
Eff Crow – people know what kind of area they’re moving into. This is NYC, if it’s too noisy because you decided to move in down the street from a bar I don’t feel sorry for you. Move, do your homework next time and stop trying to change everything around you.
4 kyle // May 16, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It’s a good thing this article wasn’t biased. Objective journalism rules.
5 Teddy // May 16, 2008 at 6:23 pm
For the record, I think Mr. Crow has every right to press his case, and this letter shows that he is shrewd rather than nuts, as many have surmised.
HOWEVER, his letter contains much “false information” and many distortions.
Notably the Landmarks/Land Use committee did not make an “overwhelming recommendation” against Union Hall. In fact, they did not even have a quorum–only 10 of 20 members were present, and only 6 of those voted against Union Hall.
The “multiple” soundproofing citations against Union Hall are non-existent. Union Hall is in compliance with Department of Environmental Protection regulations.
Although the full board did not have the benefit of hearing the testimony of Union Hall’s supporters and detractors, the key argument in favor of Union Hall at the full board meeting was delivered by a member of the Landmarks/Land Use committee who heard both sides fully. He was just not persuaded by the arguments of John Crow’s block association and felt Union Hall was not the type of establishment that deserved to be punished.
I could go on…. but I will simply add this. An unknown number of Union Hall supporters and Park Slope residents (60 people perhaps) sat for nearly three hours in total silence as the Community Board discussed other matters–hardly a noisy or disruptive bunch. But after the aforementioned board member spoke in Union Hall’s support, the sudden burst of applause echoed across the chamber like rolling thunder–sorry if that sounds cliched, but so it was.
Mr. Crow, THAT is democracy. In the end, you and your group were outvoted.
6 You lost. Let it go. // May 16, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Actually at the committee meeting where the residents got a chance to speak, the bar didn’t get a chance to speak. I love how in this residents eye’s the only “democratic” decision was the one in his or her favor. How convenient.
Actually the community board isn’t required to spend any of their time on this process to recommend or not recommend a license renewal, as their recommendation may have little to no effect on the actual outcome of the license renewal anyway, and if I’m not mistaken CB6 already broke precedent by doing this in the first place.
In reality this decision went through the fair process just like it should have. A select few sore losers are continuing to act as they have been and are still stuck like a broken record repeating the same things over and over instead of trying to fix things and move in a positive direction.
GET OVER IT. Better yet, there are actually real sick people in the world (not just people who are allergic to noise) – maybe residents of Park Slope who are upset about this would sleep better at night if they spent less energy on this tired subject and more focusing on helping people who don’t have the privilege of living in a beautiful row of Brooklyn brownstones.
7 Eric // May 16, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Community Board Six should OPEN its meetings with the public comment session, rather than relegating it to the end when half the board members have left or fallen asleep.
Batty — Jon Crow lived on Union Street long, long before Union Hall existed. Back when no one would have dreamed of opening an upscale bar in Park Slope. He’s put a tremendous amount of energy into making Park Slope such a desirable community. But I’m sure you know better.