Retail
Is there a good alternative to liquor moratoriums?
Are liquor moratoriums the only way to address issues of peace, order, and quiet in certain neighborhoods, or are there more creative and more effective ways to address noise and traffic issues without stifling commerce or customer choices through public policy?
Photo by MattHurst on Flickr.
Dupont Circle has been struggling with this issue for over 20 years. It instituted the first liquor license moratorium on 17th Street in 1990. There are now also moratorium zones in Georgetown, West Dupont (P Street), and Adams Morgan.
A moratorium zone limits the number of liquor licenses in an area. These were first established to ensure peace, order, and quiet. To a a lesser extent (though equally important to many people), they also address traffic and parking issues and ensure affordable retail space can exist.
Moratorium zones were originally considered temporary. What happens when a moratorium ends?
After over twenty years of experience dealing with moratorium zones, neither the City Council, local Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs), the Alcoholic Beverage Regulatory Administration, nor the Department of Transportation have moved to implement any rules or adjust fees to prepare for lifting any moratorium.
In 2009, when the East Dupont (17th Street) moratorium was last renewed, several members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board stressed that moratoriums were not designed to be a permanent solution to peace, order, and quiet, traffic and parking, and retail space issues. Board members implied that this last three-year extension of the Dupont East moratorium would likely be the last, and that the Dupont ANC should take other proactive steps to address noise, traffic, and economic development issues.
Below are some measures that city agencies, the Council, and the ANC could pursue to address the issues that led to the moratorium zone in the first place. This list is by no means exhaustive, and not all are politically (or financially) viable. But in Dupont, many would like to address the true issues that led to enacting these blanket moratoriums so that we are prepared when a moratorium is eventually, and inevitably, allowed to expire.
- Install additional Capital Bikeshare stations and personal racks to provide alternatives to cars, which produce traffic and parking issues.
- Direct the Homeland Security and Management Agency to study alternate emergency routes to reduce siren noise (if a re-designation would have no adverse effects on safety).
- Designate the main thoroughfare as a "No Buses" route to reduce heavy traffic and noise.
- Designate former moratorium zones as "retail incubation zones" and provide a tax credit for hard-goods retails or retail service providers, which would put non-licensed establishments on a more even financial footing with more profitable liquor-serving establishments.
- Increase the fees for endorsements (including entertainment endorsements, sidewalk cafe/summer garden) and overall license fees in post-moratorium zones. Utilize the revenue for additional ABRA inspectors. Post-moratorium fees could gradually reset to the normal fee after five years or so.
- Increase the fees for outdoor cafes in post-moratorium zones. Increased fees could go to more inspectors, or to install additional bike racks or other alternative transportation measures, such as spaces for Zipcars. Post-moratorium fees could gradually reset.
The East Dupont (17th Street) moratorium zone could be an excellent test case for addressing noise, traffic, and economic development issues through these and other measures in the absence of a moratorium. We're seeking input on these initiatives, and suggestions for additional activities that could take place at the council, ANC, and agency levels.
If successful, similar plans could be instituted in other moratorium zones around the city, bringing retail diversity, quieter streets, and consumer choices while addressing actual problems without a one-size-fits-all moratorium approach.
 | Jack Jacobson is an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner and community activist in Dupont Circle and a candidate for the Ward 2 seat on the DC State Board of Education this November. He chaired the 17th Street Moratorium Committee in 2009 and serves as Secretary of the Urban Neighborhood Alliance.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
Proposed solution: Bus routing away from main thoroughfares?
This is more than a little inconsistent, don't you think?
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report
This makes no sense whatsoever. Shouldn't the main thoroughfare be the best place for a bus route?
by Michael Perkins on Aug 26, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report
Georgetown, basically.
by cottontails on Aug 26, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report
Also, to pile on a bit, routing buses away from main streets will just encourage more people not not use busses and more than likely drive.
by Cassidy on Aug 26, 2011 1:14 pm • link • report
Anyway, the biggest problem is that the nature of retail has changed, and for the most part, stores can't function successfully in many categories at the "neighborhood commercial district level" as they need larger trade areas on which to draw.
The reason that restaurants open is that people eat every day, even if they don't patronize the same establishments.
Moratoriums are an indirect way to support retail, because they reduce the demand for and competition for space, reducing rents a bit.
But even so, most retail that can subsist is convenience (food, pharmacy, hardware).
by Richard Layman on Aug 26, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report
This makes no sense whatsoever. Shouldn't the main thoroughfare be the best place for a bus route?
But 17th Street isn't the main thoroughfare. It is the main 'neighborhood serving retail' street for the surrounding residential neighborhood but definitely not a thoroughfare as in 'through route' for traffic from outside the neighborhood. Jack is absolutely correct that this street should be made more pedestrian friendly and less attractive to those viewing it as a thoroughfare. I'd even go so fare as to say that maybe we don't want more CaBi Stations on it but rather less. The main north/south thoroughfares in the area area 16th Street, 14th Street, and Connecticut Avenue and all vehicular activities are left best centered on these streets so as to allow neighborhood streets such as 17th to serve their intended purposes.
by Lance on Aug 26, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report
by davidj on Aug 26, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report
There aren't any Metrobus lines that use 17th Street in Dupont.
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report
by Fritz on Aug 26, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
Regarding buses, in my mind I was thinking tour buses, as idling tour buses can be extremely loud for nearby residences and businesses.
And it's a rather hodge-podge of ideas/thoughts as the intent was, over a year or two, to address retail space, traffic issues, and noise issues without adding budensome restrictions on businesses and residents that enjoy options for food and beverage and outdoor seating.
I greatly appreciate all of the criticism, and will take all suggestions to heart before moving forward on anything.
Best,
Jack
by Jack Jacobson on Aug 26, 2011 1:44 pm • link • report
DC already has an idling law.
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report
by Rob on Aug 26, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
by davidj on Aug 26, 2011 3:22 pm • link • report
That's true, but you could make the case that there should be more gradations in licenses than DC has. There's certainly a wider spectrum of food/drink establishments than just 'nightclub,' 'tavern' and 'restaurant.'
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report
I guess the question then is why they've done a blanket moratorium on all new liquor licenses. Why not just do a moratorium on tavern and nightclub licenses, but still allow restaurant licenses?
by Rob on Aug 26, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
The definitions that separate a tavern from a nightclub from a restaurant are related to food sales, and they're rather arbitrary. See this piece on the Saloon on U St:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/28/dc-regulators-not-pleased-with
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
I don't see how tour buses would impact commercial districts negatively, although residents might not like it, but even so, it's going to be during the day, and during the week, it would have minimal impact on residents.
Similarly, the nightlife establishment issue is one for residents, but for the most part, most neighborhood commercial districts aren't going to be that attractive to nonresidents for nightlife purposes.
The issue of commercial district revitalization planning and management of commercial districts is more complicated than most of the proscriptions for "fixing" them. The biggest issue is lack of enough population to support "quality" retail offerings--basically, you need about 30,000 people minimum to support 50,000 s.f., that's basically a grocery store, plus pharmacy and hardware store.
WRT the "neighborhood" commercial districts that serve as regional destinations (Georgetown, Friendship Heights, Adams Morgan, to some extent H St., Connecticut Avenue in Dupont Circle), how much is the neighborhood really impacted?
WRT P St. and 17th St. in Greater Dupont Circle, it would be very interesting to see a detailed market study including demographic info on patrons. Likely the prevalent customer base is drawn from the greater neighborhood.
by Richard Layman on Aug 26, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report
So maybe they could improve how they draw the distinctions. But the concept of distinguishing between restaurants and bars seems pretty important. When people say they don't want their neighborhoods to become like Adams Morgan, it's the bars they're worried about, not the restaurants.
by Rob on Aug 26, 2011 7:36 pm • link • report
Because, for instance, in Virginia, there are no bars. There are only restaurants. You can only get a liquor license if you have a kitchen serving food.
Is this bad? No. Extreme example? The Crystal City
Strip-clubbarRestaurant actually serves good food.by Jasper on Aug 27, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report
Reason.com isn't the source, it just tells the story. The difference in license classifications is based on the percent of revenue that comes from food - this is a fact.
The real question is if this is a good way to distinguish between a 'bar' and a 'restaurant.' I would submit that it isn't a particularly good measure. Even if it was, what determines if 45% is the correct break?
The reason that Reason profiled the Saloon is because anyone who's been to the Saloon would be quite confident that it would never become an Adams Morgan type establishment. Yet they've run afoul of this law last year - which is an indication that the structure of the law isn't that great.
So, sure - the concept is fine. That's not the argument, however - the argument is that the definition matters, and it matters a great deal. Why base it off of sales revenue? Why not volume? What about more beer+wine licenses, instead of beer, wine and liquor?
If you've ever been at a bar and wondered why the appetizers are so expensive, I'll bet it's because they need to make up that revenue gap to get more food revenue. These kinds of unintended consequences from the policy are serious detriments to drinking and dining in the city.
by Alex B. on Aug 27, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
I know the distinction is pretty clear to some consumers, but to licensees that distinction can be easily blurred. Consider the whole class of "drinkertainment" establishments, where places with restaurant licensees and full food operations operate effectively as taverns (ie Local 16, Sticky Rice, Dukem). In some cases he externalities of the restaurant license can be virtually indistinguishable from those of a tavern license. Depending on the neighborhood, the restaurant license is easier to obtain than the tavern one.
by b on Aug 30, 2011 11:10 am • link • report
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
Add a Comment