Report a Comment

@Lance, the issue is not what Hank's agreed to, it is the larger issue of a process that can be obstructed by anyone.

The situation is summed up here. None of the basic points you are trying to say are reasonable (an I agree) are at issue here: the obstruction was against any expansion at all.

More importantly: "Notably absent from the list of protestants are any residents of the 1600 block of Q Street where HankÂ’s is located."

I agree that the positions of people who are directly affected by a proposal should be given greater weight.

But this didn't pass that laugh test: not a single person on the actual block where Hank's is located voiced opposition.

Here's there rationale: "The [Alcoholic Beverage Control] Board should continue to prohibit any incremental impacts generated by restaurant and bar seating.."

Is that a valid position? They came right out and said it: they're against everything, no matter what it is.

It is hard to sympathize with a coalition of folks from the "general dupont circle" area who object to an expansion of an outdoor cafe on principle. Many already exist, and certainly places like Fox & Hounds/Trio which are in immediate proximity, and have been for a half-century, are a far greater burden already. The use of the area is well established, and it is not even arguable that adding another dozen outdoor seats would substantially impact quality of life for the neighborhood at large.

Now, the owner one house right next door might have something to say about this, even though the property in question was already commercial. In the case of Red Rocks, I heard through the grapevine back then that they did indeed make a financial settlement with them in exchange for their support. That is how it should be: the people who have a legitimate complaint should be addressed directly. Those who do not, should not be taken seriously.

But the owners of the house nextdoor didn't say anything. Nor did anyone on the whole block.

by Jamie on Dec 1, 2010 12:34 pm • link • report