|
|
|||||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||||
|
|
For Immediate Release: Thursday, January 26, 2006Contact: Jordan Isenstadt (c) 516.991.3842 (w) 212.490.9535 (f) 212.490.2151 Barry Klein (w) 212.605.0937 EMBASSY
BAR DEBACLE SHOWS LIQUOR AUTHORITY’S LICENSE GRANTING PROCESS MUST BE
REVAMPED Bing,
East Side community leaders urge agency to consider neighborhood, business, safety
concerns before granting liquor licenses to nightclubs Joined by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, New
York State Senator Liz Krueger (DManhattan), Councilmember
Dan Garodnick (D-Manhattan), representatives from Community Board 6 and other concerned neighborhood groups in front of the future site of the bar, Bing announced legislation he will introduce that requires the Liquor Authority to take local quality of life issues more seriously before granting licenses to proposed nightclubs that fall within 500 feet of three or more establishments with a liquor license. Embassy, located in a densely populated residential
neighborhood near the United Nations building, was granted a liquor license
despite a year-long movement by Bing and others to prohibit the bar from getting
a permit. During the course of the year, Bing, along with his fellow
East-Side elected officials wrote several letters indicating concern to
Edward F. Kelly, former chairman of the Liquor Authority. “The According to the law, establishments with liquor licenses
within 500 feet of each other fall under the “500 foot rule,” which requires
the applicant to show that obtaining a liquor license would be in the public’s
interest. Embassy, located within 500 feet of twelve existing entities with
liquor licenses, was still granted a permit even though the “public interest”
notion of the rule was heavily challenged by Assemblymember
Bing. Additionally, the nightclub was opposed with a negative resolution “in
the strongest terms possible” from Community Board 6 in February, a petition
of more than several hundred signatures and regular protests at Community
Board meetings. “Community boards and neighborhood residents must have more of a voice when it comes to deciding crucial issues that will directly impact their quality of life," Stringer said. "From all indications, Embassy's intentions in the neighborhood are in direct conflict with the interests of residents and the community board which have both spoken loudly. Their voices must be heard.” Garodnick echoed Stringer by
noting the overwhelming opposition to the nightclub’s presence in the neighborhood. “It simply does not serve the public interest at all," Garodnick said. “The community openly opposes it, and Embassy has not addressed the concerns of the neighbors or local elected officials.” Embassy had five opportunities to address the community
board and state its intention in the neighborhood, but Bing said that instead
of allaying resident’s concerns, the establishment only furthered the belief
that they have no intention of being “good neighbors.” Beyond the public’s concern for granting the license in
such a high population residential neighborhood, Bing noted that Embassy
could cause distractions that would threaten security operations near the
United Nations building. His legislation would make sure that public interest
is absolutely maintained in the license-granting process. Krueger agreed that
more changes are needed at the authority to ensure proper review is given to
establishments applying for a permit. “The State Liquor Authority's approval of Embassy's
application underscores the need to reform the liquor licensing
process," Krueger said. "For too long, To specifically address the neighborhood’s concerns, Bing
is introducing legislation that gives community boards’ negative resolutions
more weight in the Additionally, Bing is sponsoring a bill (A.6686-A) that
would modernize Beverage Control Law, which was created in 1934 and has
since become ineffective. The neighborhood has another option to prevent Embassy
from opening by filing an Article 78 appeal, claiming the “When the residents speak out against it, when neighboring businesses, attractions and high-security buildings identify possible problems with it, and community leaders are adamantly opposed to it, then the Liquor Authority should recognize that approving a bar’s liquor permit isn’t the best course of action,” said Bing. “The agency needs to examine all aspects of how their procedures affect an entire community.” -30- |
|||||||||
