Report a Comment

I am a bit late to the party as I just caught the link from DCist, but a couple of thoughts.

As the District grows in population and becomes more affluent, there is going to be a continuing rise in pent up demand for going to bars and restaurants and other service economy perks. The reason Adams Morgan and H Street are full is because they are meeting some of that demand. Moratoriums are just going to displace a lot of that demand in different ways:
Existing bars (even not very good ones) will become overcrowded
People will start filling bars in other areas even less optimal for bar density
People will not come into the district from surrounding areas, spending their money elsewhere

In addition, prices will likely rise to take advantage of some of that demand. Moratoriums are handing monopoly privileges to existing franchises, allowing them to raise prices, cut quality and definately increase volume.

If the desire is to limit some of the ill perceived affects of bar districts, I think a better way to capture some of those monopoly rents would be for the city to leverage a blanket higher alcohol tax. Additionally, liquor licenses should not be capped at all but should be made to be renewed at a market rate annually. This will allow the city to recoup much of the excess revenues going to bars and place them on an equal footing with hard retail. It will also probably result in more, but more spreadout and less full bars. More expensive alcohol in the form of direct taxes should tend to see less consumed at the margins and hence less loud behavior (at the margins - I am not promising a panacea)

All that being said, keep in mind that there are a lot of vacant storefronts around the city and an unemployment rate among non college educated residents well above the historical average. If what the market is offering is jobs in bars and restaurants, than these types of moratoriums should also be seen as job killers. Bars also support other non liquor licensed business like pizza joints, frozen yogurt and falafel stands.

Dupont Circle's neighborhoods are home to a lot of property owners that pay a high price for their square footage. But it is also the location of a city provided and paid for infrastructure hub in the Dupont Circle Metro. Metro stations are maintained by all tax payers in the city for the benefit of all. It is in the city's interests to make the area surrounding a metro station as dense as possible, not just in office/residential square footage (I think that debate has been had in this forum at other times) but also in sidewalk activity. Bar/restaurant patrons pay sales tax too (in fact a higher tax than retail I believe and as I mentioned it could even be higher) and that revenue helps pay off and justify the investment in heavy rail. This activity will also tend to raise property values.

BTW, I do really like the idea of more bike share stations.

by Mik on Sep 15, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report