January 22, 2004
(Updated) Neighborhoods And Businesses Divided Over Local Liquor Control Authority
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Let's get this out of the way up front: I am deeply ambivalent about the proposed ordinance "to provide a legal avenue for neighbors to petition the City of Portland to address the chronic livability issues associated with problem liquor outlets."
On the one hand, since launching this site I've moved in and out of various discussions regarding the increasing sense of powerlessness felt in the City's neighborhoods. On the other hand, I know more than a few Portlanders who either own or are employed by bars and restaurants. And even a mild examination of the arguments for and against the ordinance yields valid points from both sides.
Under the proposal, a "time, place, and manner" process would be initiated if three or more of the following nuisance complaints were logged in any given 30-day period: noise disturbance; disorderly conduct, offensive littering; drinking on public rights of way unless officially authorized; interference with vehicle ingress and egress; alcoholic beverage violations in parks; and/or discharge of a firearm on premise.
According to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement (at the link provided above):
Upon determining that there is reasonable cause to believe that three nuisance activities have occurred, a notice would be sent to the licensee requiring them to propose an abatement plan that would address the nuisance(s) identified.� This plan must then be approved by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI) and/or the Portland Police Bureau.
In the event an establishment refuses or fails to enter into an acceptable abatement plan, the case can be handed to a Code Hearings Officer, who would be authorized to do any of the following: specifying the hours or days during which the establishment may operate; specifying the hours during which the establishment may sell or serve alcohol; requiring the Licensee to hire adequate security personnel; and/or restricting the activities at the establishment to achieve noise reduction.
All of that said, let's next turn to today's coverage from The Oregonian on last night's 3 1/2 hour City Council hearing on the ordinance for a general sense of the debate:
Opponents said liquor licensees already are regulated by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which offers recourse for neighbors upset with an alcohol seller. They said the proposal misses the mark by exposing legitimate businesses to unfounded complaints instead of targeting patrons who cause problems after leaving.
...
Supporters of the proposal said it was a long-overdue tool for neighbors who have come away disappointed after trying to work with the OLCC or having to wait for bad-neighbor businesses to fail on their own.
As pointed out by The Oregonian, testimony last night indicated that it is estimated that at the present time there are perhaps three or four establishments which would fall under the auspices of such a "time, place, and manner" ordinance, with around twenty doing so over the course of the year. That's out of nearly 2,000 establishments licensed to sell alcohol in the City of Portland.
Those statistics in and of themselves provide some of the friction around this proposal ordinance, inasmuch that some stakeholders question whether such a low percentage of chronic nuisance estabishments make for a situation that rises to the level of requiring some sort of legislative action.
Also mentioned by The Oregonian is that the "time, place, and manner" ordinance is one of only fourteen recommendations from a report by a liquor license advisory group convened by the City -- a report which, according to testimony last night, has never been presented to and accepted by the City Council.
And that's where I'm going to leave the issue for now: Given the effort and bother of creating such an advisory group, it seems to me to be a rather silly thing to consider this proposed ordinance in a vacuum, divorced from any wider public consideration of all fourteen recommendations.
While certain additional piece of the puzzle were discussed at last night's hearing -- such as the appropriateness or lack thereof of providing businesses with only 10 business days to respond to allegations against them, and the possibility of including in the ordinance some positive incentives for businesses to be good neighbors -- the intention to vote on the ordinance as early as next week might be premature.
Let's see the entirety of the liquor license advisory group out in the open before the City Council first, and have a more properly wide-ranging discussion about the tensions between neighborhooods and businesses and the potential solutions to aleviating those tensions.
As infuriating as it might be to those who have spent a year or more working on this ordinance, the proper course right now is to have a fuller discussion on the context of the problem it purports to solve. And that starts with a public presentation to the City Council on all fourteen of the advisory group's recommendations.
Update
For what it's worth, coincidentally or otherwise after I asked ONI about it, the full report (pdf) from the Liquor License Advisory Board, from which the TPM solution was drawn, is now available.
Update
Here's a sign this thing has already gotten out of hand: An overblown story on tonight's KPTV newscast that made it seem like some sort of crisis. Of course, it also focused on the Pearl District, because of course Yupiie downtown is the only part of Portland that matters.
Comments (2)
Gary Marschke on 23 Jan 2004
First of all, the stakeholders that question
"...whether such a low percentage of chronic nuisance estabishments make for a situation that rises to the level of requiring some sort of legislative action." have undoubtedly never experienced the frustration of living next door to a chronic nuisance establishment and waiting months if not years for meaningful action.
Secondly, an incentive to be a good neighbor works on those chronic violators as probation does for a chronic criminal. Good neighbors don't come from incentives. How about rewarding those who are already good neighbors? They are the ones who are leading by example and should be recognized.
The One True b!X on 23 Jan 2004
The incentives aren't meant for chronic nuisance businesses. They would be meant for businesses who either are not problem businesses (in which case, I guess they'd more properly be called rewards), or for businesses who might drag their feet, or perhaps receive two complaints (one less than the three that triggers the process), so they might stop and think to get some things done on their own before TPM processes kick in.