| Author |
Message |
    
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 267
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:10 am: |     |
If the reason for a LL is for control of consumption then how do we allow BYO?
DO we limit the amount of drug stores? Do we limit the number of nail salons...do we limit the number of places allowd to sell coffee so the current ones do not take a hit?
If the reason the state issues a LL is to control the consumption of alcohol and to make sure no one under age is drinking then how do we allow BYO's? |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:24 am: | |
Brett - you make some very valid points but I doubt the market would be flooded out of the gate with new liquor establishments all needing to get their ROI. If done correctly it would be a slow release of licenses over a period of time (maybe 10 years).
User - you are correct in theory but let's not let the posts by Pizzaz or even Brett confuse the real issue here. It's all about money and state politics. The current owners of the LL's in the state of NJ have a vested interest to make sure the "laws" are followed and no additional LL's are provided. While I have never researched the issue, I am confident there is an entire lobby that is funded in large part by the current LL holders to make sure the laws are enforced and more importantly, not changed.
An idea like Mark's is great but the likes of it happening anytime soon or slim to none.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:31 am: | |
Single: I agree it is an uphill battle, but I am not sure of all the reasons. It would mean more revenue for the towns and the state.
I certainly hope Orange Lawn sells their license which would at least add one to the mix.
|
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 303
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:45 am: | |
Protecting the public is a ridiculous, specious, ill-conceived argument for restricting liquor licenses in 2005.
Brett Weir: Competition is a good thing. It keeps prices in check and drives out marginally performing businesses, in favor of business that consumers prefer to patronize.
In NYC, where virtually EVERY restaurant is licensed to serve liquor, there has been no discernable adverse impact -- just a flood of wonderful restaurants that have made the city the restaurant capital of the world.
Pizzaz: "The appreciated value of the license is a good thing for the public as well. It stimulates the forebearance to the LL holder to preserve and protect, and as a result, it helps to ensure that alcohol is not served to the underaged or intoxicated."
As a trained accountant and business man, you appear to be confusing licensing/certification and controls designed to protect the public (e.g., accountants, morticians, beauticians, vehicle drivers, schools, massage therapists, doctors, lawyers, electricians, plumbers, etc., etc.) with sanctioned oligopolies that serve only one purpose -- enriching the chosen few who hold an artificially controlled supply of licenses. There can be standards to which businesses are held accountable, without artificial, de facto price controls. Why not, for example, restrict the number of accountants allowed to practice, particularly given the last decade's accounting scandals, in which seemingly reputable firms betrayed the public's expectation that they would preserve and protect shareholders? Sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?
mrosner suggests a great solution, which could be expanded to allow all current license holders be made whole, and give the public what it wants and deserves. Simply take the current, aggregate market value of all seven S.O. licenses -- probably about $2.5 million -- and split it among a larger number of licensees, 20 for arguement sake. Each license would be revalued at about $125K, and the current LL holders would receive a "return of capital" of about $225K. The playing field would be leveled, and the oligopoly enriching Pizzaz and his fellow LL holders will be cracked open like a coconut falling from a palm tree.
By the way, since liability insurance can be required, the insurance industry effectively helps police potentially wreckless LL holders through its underwriting and rating process -- make coverage unaffordable for negligent licensees.
All in favor, say "Yea".
There's no problem with licensing to ensure that standards of safety, care, and insurance are met. But, there's definitely a problem with controlling supply to protect a half dozen merchants in a town with 250,000 people within a five-mile radius. |
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 268
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:50 am: | |
Two sense......Pizzaz is done with this thread.
|
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 269
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:52 am: | |
I would by one for $125,000 open a bar with a Bring your own food! |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:52 am: | |
Yea!
(There are only 7 LLs in S.O.? That's unbelievable!) |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 790
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:52 am: | |
Brett,
Are you really trying to say that the restaurants without liquor licenses are better off without the burden of being able to serve alcohol?
This may be true in an era of $500,000 licenses, which are expensive to amortize, but with a saner number of less-expensive licenses available I'm not convinced that it would make the situation any more "Survivor"-like than the current situation of a few places needing to support expensive licenses while many others have to compete with them on a BYOB basis.
Honestly, having an old liquor license (gotten before they got so expensive) seems like a sweet deal. Barriers to entry by new liquor-serving restaurants are high enough to help ensure an even higher failure rate. Meanwhile new entries without liquor licenses have one more thing against them as they try to get up and running and make a name. It's a system that favors incumbents, and thus is favored by incumbents.
There is no doubt that some nights we end up at Bunny's or Toro Loco rather than their competitors in part because we want an actual drink with dinner, rather than BYOB wine or just water. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 746
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:52 am: | |
Malt- I agree, and South Orange could probably add new licenses. My only point is that dispensing them freely upon request is a bad idea. Reasonable competition in any market is generally a good thing, and can spur existing businesses to improve to keep pace. |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 306
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 1:02 pm: | |
User58: Maybe so, but he's reading it and turning beet red with anger -- realizing we're revisiting this dirty little "secret" that he and the S.O. LL clubs holds onto so dearly.
Let's not forget that it was a Class C liquor license that allowed the liquor store on Valley & Third to convince his landlord to push Niecy out of her adjacent space. So, in addition to bestowing a windfall of financial benefit to the holders, the economics of holding one of the few LL's gives their owners considerable economic might to prey on less fortunate BYOB restaurants. |
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 274
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 1:08 pm: | |
Less fortunate BYOB's.......Antonella is packed all the time! |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 747
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 2:15 pm: | |
Susan- what I'm trying to say is that towns are better off without the burden of more liquor establishments than they are able to adequately patronize and contain. Liquor establishments have a very high rate of failure, and those that struggle tend to become problems for local authorities, particularly police. Fights, drugs and other undesirable elements increase and carryover into other venues. The impact on quality-of-life is bad. Towns with expansive bar areas devote alot of resources to quelling such activity, and it doesn't help when trying to cultivate new business. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 10:27 am: | |
Just to clarify some points about liquor licenses.
At present we have 8 consumption licenses, 4 distibution licenses (liquor stores) and 3 club licenses.
New Jersey State Statute (NJSA 22:1-12.14 stipulates a municipality can have one consumption license per 3,000 residents. The last cenuse shows a population of 17,000 people (no, SHU does not count).
The law was passed in 1947 and any one who had a license was grandfathered (which is theoretically why Hoboken has so many more).
|
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 284
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 10:41 am: | |
who has the 3 club licenses??? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 10:45 am: | |
I would have to find out, don't remember all three. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 10:55 am: | |
What's the difference between a 'consumption' and 'club' license? |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 10:58 am: | |
JTA -
Consumption is open to the public and club is for a private establishments like country, tennis, social or golf clubs. |
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 285
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:02 am: | |
Orange lawn has a full C i believe as they have outside functions. who has the 3 club licenses? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 248
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:05 am: | |
Wouldnt it be great if South Orange could sell their own South Orange LL? That might bring some $$$ into the village. |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 246
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:15 am: | |
I agree...
NJ gives a lot of "home rule" sovereignty to municipalities but obviously not monetarily.
Singlemalt - nice avatar - don't worry... she's got my vote. Glad to know you support her as well  |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8963
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:20 am: | |
Bring back Prohibition!!!!!!!!!!!! |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:23 am: | |
I am very fond of Mrs. Clinton and think she has been a great Senator. I am undecided on 2008 but so far I am leaning her way.
Speaking of avator's, is that Tracy Flick from the movie "Election" starring Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick? Great movie! |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 315
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:57 am: | |
Consumption?
Cryan's
Gaslight Brewery
Toro Loco
Lot 15
Bunny's
Voro (formerly Family Buffet/Alex Eng's)
Distribution?
Wine Emporium/Niecy's
Town Hall Deli
University Liquors
Shop-Rite Liquors
Club?
Orange Lawn Tennis Club
Italian social club on 3rd Street???
NJ ABC Web Site:
HOW MANY LIQUOR STORES AND RESTAURANTS ARE ALLOWED IN EACH MUNICIPALITY?
The number of licenses to sell alcohol for consumption on a licensed premises (restaurants and bars) and to sell alcohol for off premise consumption (packaged goods) within a municipality is determined based upon the population. A municipality may issue one consumption license for every 3,000 of its population. As to distribution licenses, which allow the sale of alcohol for off premise consumption, a municipality may issue one license for every 7,500 of its population. A municipality is allowed to ban all sales of alcohol within its borders if it so desires.
|
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 749
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 12:00 pm: | |
I'm not sure, but I think the 3 club licenses are the Savoy Club on 3rd St., the Elks Club on Prospect St. and the Casa Italiana on Fairview Ave. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 12:15 pm: | |
Two Sense: Wine emporium/Papillion has a full consumption license.
Orange Lawn has a full consumption license. Gaslight is missing from your list and they have a consumption license.
Brett: I think you have the right three. |
Lucy
Supporter
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 56
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 8, 2005 - 12:30 pm: | |
If i figure correctly then the state ABC will say south orange is over by 2? How many consumption licenses are in Maplewood or Millburn in comparison to population? |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 2155
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:10 am: | |
So, tell us some more two sense.
AS POSTED ABOVE BY Mr.N to User58: "Maybe so, but he's reading it and turning beet red with anger -- realizing we're revisiting this dirty little "secret" that he and the S.O. LL clubs holds onto so dearly".
BTW: You should talk about beet red with anger. The party has only begun.
|
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 371
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 9:15 am: | |
What makes a restaurant BYOB? Do they need a specific license or can I simply bring my own to any restaurant that does not sell liquor or do they have to say it's ok to to BYO?
Can I bring any liquor to a BYO, vodka, gin and tonics, or only wine and beer? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2114
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:05 am: | |
Unless there is a municipal ordinance prohibiting it (which we do not have), customers of an unlicensed restaurant may be permitted by the restaurant to bring their own wine or beer (not liquor). The restaurant owners may supply glasses, ice, etc. but may not impose a cover, corkage or service charge. The restaurant owner may not advertise the fact that wine or beer may be brought onto the premises. The owner may not permit consumption of those products during the hours in which the sale of these products by licensees is prohibited. Persons under the age of 21, or persons who are visibly or apparently intoxicated must be prohibited from consuming alcohol. A non-licensed restaurant may not forge a relationship with a distribution licensee for free delivery of wine and beer to its customers.
At BYO's, you cannot have wine or beer in the al fresco area (unless it is on restaurant property). |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page