By Antonio D. French
Filed Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 8:46 AM
Steve Smith, owner of The Royale Food and Spirits, which is often home to many political and social get-togethers, has some beef with 20th Ward Alderman Craig Schmid. While Smith is eyeing a Cherokee Street property for his next splash of urban cool on the southside's often beige canvas, a little thing called Ordinance No. 66690 all but ensures the underutilized commercial area remains one of the city's notable underachievers. Labels: Beefs
Last year, around the same time Schmid was also pushing a law to authorize seizing young people's vehicles for merely possessing speakers deemed too large, the shall we say "conservative" alderman passed Ord. 66690 which extended by three years his ban on new bars in the ward.
The ordinance states, "The existence of alcoholic beverage establishments appears to contribute directly to numerous peace, health, safety and general welfare problems including loitering, littering, drug trafficking, prostitution, public drunkenness, defacement and damaging of structures..."
Smith takes objection to that blanket characterization of neighborhood watering holes.
"Contrary to Ordinance No. 66690, I do not believe that an establishment similar to the Royale will contribute to the destruction of property or community values in the 20th Ward," wrote Smith in an open letter asking people to write a letter of their own in support of his campaign against the devil-90 law.
But even with a Santa's bag full of supportive words and "fight the power" sentiments, Smith is going to have a tough time swaying Alderman Schmid.
Schmid told former RFT reporter Mike Seely earlier this year that he'd rather see buildings remain closed and vacant in his ward than allow new bars to open.
"In particular locations, absolutely," the alderman said. "What happens is that your good residents go somewhere else, and you can't attract people to take their places. We're planning some new homes right to the north of [Crimmins' property], and we can't have that next door. Quite frankly, we want to have our cake and eat it too."
The Crimmins in reference is Tim Crimmins, a local realtor who paid $130,000 for a 20th Ward property with plans of opening a hip urban bar similar to what Smith now has in mind. But before Crimmins invested another $200K in the building, the alderman pulled his coat tail to the fact that he, his bar, and his money weren't welcome in the 20th Ward.
Despite that precedent, Smith remains hopeful. In the nearly 10 years since the bar ban was first enacted, the city has seen a surge of new energy and a greater willingness on the part of entrepreneurs to invest in the region's urban core.
"What the Ordinance does not take into account," wrote Smith in his letter, "is the progress that has been made in the intervening years by the neighborhood, and the City itself. The area is poised for additional growth."
But is Craig?
11 Comments:
In a conversation yesterday with Alderman Schmid, he said that an establishment, such as the Royale, would be welcomed to the neighborhood if they serve at least 50% food. What the neighborhood, and the Alderman, are attempting to limit are the alcohol only establishments, which are linked to behavior that the residents of the 20th ward don't want in their part of town. Frankly, living in the neighboring 25th ward, I would welcome a Royale-style restaraunt that also serves liquor, but not just another bar.
9/24/2006 11:06 AM
All "bars" are not created equal. Some are clear nuisances, attracting drunks, thugs, trouble-makers, cheapskates, and general low-lifes (you know, the fun places).
Others attract more trendy, music-loving, clove-smoking, urban pioneering, 20- to 40-somethings. Any area in this city looking to revitalize has to attract that demographic. And to attract young people to spend money and buy homes in an area, you have to give this population what they clearly want -- not what you want them to want.
The fact is that Cherokee Street in particular doesn't have entrepreneurs lining up to invest hundreds of thousands to build new restaraunts. That 10-year experiment has clearly failed.
On a case-by-case basis, aldermen and the City's Excise Commissioner should evaluate if a proposed new establishment will add to or deter future development.
But to simply ban "any and all" is just lazy legislation.
9/24/2006 12:35 PM
I think Craig Schmid is a hard-working, community-minded alderman, but I'm with Steve and Antonio on this one.
9/24/2006 1:56 PM
Cherokee Street has the potential to be an arts and entertainment district. If public policy is getting in the way of such progress then said policy should be abolished.
9/24/2006 3:37 PM
Alderman Schmid is a smart man and attorney that is really working to turn his area around. Alderman Schmid inherited a tough ward from Alderman Mike Sheehan, and is slowly but surely making a difference in that ward.
Alderman Schmid tries different techniques and methods, and some don't work quite as well as others. In this case, maybe the Royale will serve at least 50% food, and everything will work out fine. Work with Alderman Schmid, he is not unreasonable.
The owner of the Royale better make sure that he watches out for the strong gang presence on the State streets though, because people may not feel to comfortable getting car jacked after enjoying a cheeseburger with fries. Most gang members don't care about what you're serving in the restaurant, they care about what your customers can give up outside of it!
9/24/2006 4:41 PM
Ha! "Devil-90." Nice one.
9/24/2006 6:56 PM
Why do the restaurants close at 9PM? Whenever I try to visit Cherokee its usually about time to close? I don't really enjoy the feeling of being rushed.
9/25/2006 8:16 AM
First, a bit of nit-picking. Schmid did not "pass" the relevant Ordinance. The Board of Aldermen passed it and the mayor signed it into law. With our system of Aldermanic courtesy it can seem like an individual Alderman simply "passes" a law relating to their ward. But if other Aldermen wanted to question and/or put a stop to an ordinance like this, they could.
Nit-picking aside, I agree with Antonio - not all bars are created equal. Some help bring positive street life to a neighborhood, while others cause a lot of problems. (Some do both). How do you find a constitutionally permissible and non-discriminatory way to distinguish between the two?
The problem with the "50% of revenue from food" rule that Travis references is that liquor is a much higher-margin item than food. Thus, even places like the Royale, which has a full kitchen and an extensive menu, probably end up deriving far more than half their revenue from liquor sales.
While different neighborhoods may have slightly different needs, maybe what we need is a city-wide (rather than ward by ward) discussion about how our zoning laws, liquor license proceedures, and other regulations promote or impede positive neighborhood developments, and what changes would be needed to improve the system. This would require our aldermen to think and act as members of a city-wide legislative body, rather than as lords of individual fiefdoms.
9/25/2006 9:15 AM
With its full kitchen and extensive menu, The Royale derives about 35% of its revenue from food. People who say that the 50% rule isn't a huge obstacle don't understand the realities of the industry.
9/25/2006 1:06 PM
I concur with the Anonymous poster warning of gang presence. I hope Smith has thoght through what clashes may be in store for his lily-white clientele.
9/26/2006 11:28 AM
I can't wait to welcome my clientele to Cherokee. Half of them already live in the neighborhood. It is going to be beautiful. The neighborhood is ready right now. It has been ready for about ten years actually, but none have been afforded the opportunity, and I don't just speak of my industry. I can't wait to open.
I also plan on moving my athletic club from North Broadway to Cherokee as well, but not until I find the right space.
9/26/2006 1:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home