Report a Comment

Lance: It is my understand that Hank's owner DID, in fact, attempt to communicate proactively and productively with key protestants, but those attempts were not fruitful. I have had my own disagreements with the establishment's attorney, so I appreciate your willingness to somewhat separate the owner from counsel. Nonetheless, it remains my strong opinion--based on a high degree of familiarity with some of the key figures on the protestant's side--that even before counsel was secured, or even with any other figure in that role, the lead protestants would not have been reasonable.

Specifically, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association president, Robin Diener, is quoted in the latest Dupont Current saying *any* expansion of Hank's would unacceptably damage to quality of life in the neighborhood. This position is stunning, given that DCCA's own position in the renewal of the liquor license moratorium covering 17th Street was to concur with ANC2B that two expansions were perfectly acceptable.

Only DCCA's president can explain the ever-widening gap between her words, and the stated position of the organization. If two expansions were acceptable, and Hank's is one of the finest operators on the corridor, then what possible case is there against any expansion for Hank's, of the two permitted?

I will venture this guess: I know, as a former Board member and former president of that org, that the same lead protestants against Hank's were the same figures who fought a toxic battle to oppose DCCA concurring with two expansions, and to oppose a new, reformist, flexible future for the org (which led to my resignation).

J'accuse, I'll say it: DCCA's president acted throughout this Hank's matter to attempt to block/reverse an org position with which she, and her key supporters in the org, found to be apostasy.

by Joel Lawson on Dec 17, 2010 11:51 am • link • report