A Rant on the District of Communism
Over at Gallery Place Living, there is a topic on which I am compelled to comment. I have done so several times on the thread over there, but felt the need to actually make a thread of my own regarding the issue, which isn't particular to the Gallery Place area, but is one that to me is a plague in this city.
In Chinatown, there is a liquor store, the Chinese Market on the corner of 6th and H Street, NW. This liquor store has been around for a very long time and is a local, individually owned business in the Chinatown area. Clearly the gentrification of this neighborhood has meant the end of many of these establishments. This liquor store, like many in the city, entices a type of customer that many people living in a higher end, "up and coming" area of town might prefer to avoid. This particular liquor store (though I would argue the other two in the area have the same issue) often has a great deal of people who loiter, drink on the sidewalk in front of the store, urinate in public, etc. etc. All the nasty trashy things we all hate in DC.
The liquor license for Chinese Market is up for renewal and the neighborhood commission is up in arms, trying to fight the renewal of the liquor license for various reasons. Some want to merely bring the owners of Chinese Market to talk about the loitering of customers and the general disdain for the people who patronize the store. Many would love to just have the license revoked, effectively closing Chinese Market's doors. It is a liquor store after all...no liquor license, no liquor store. On the face of things, I can understand the neighbors using this renewal process to air their grievances and to make the owners aware of concerns.
My argument against this entire process is that it ignores the fact that it is no more Chinese Market's responsibility to monitor and control what goes on outside of its front door and on the corner than it is mine or any other neighbor. We have laws and people to enforce the laws that should take care of those issues. So rather than demand that the DC government do its job and enforce existing laws against loitering, public drunkeness and urination, we'd rather close down a local business. Some argue that the Chinese Market has some social obligation to its neighbors to stop serving individual liquor items so that people won't sit outside with a forty of malt liquor and get wasted. I argue that we have no right to tell a store what to sell, so long as they are within the bounds of the law. They own that property...as long as they pay taxes, sell to those who they should sell to, obey the law...who has a right to tell them anything else? Especially neighbors with absolutely no personal interest in the business...people who would argue against a liquor license because they are inconvenienced by the clientele. Ridiculous. To me, this entire argument absolutely violates free market principles, capitalism and freedom in general. My rights as a neighbor are not being violated by Chinese Market. Why should I have any say in how they conduct business so long as my rights are not violated by their business?? What happens on the street outside the store is of no more concern to them than the business across the street or next door. The street is public, therefore is the concern of the public. If you see a drunk passed out on the sidewalk or someone urinating on a building or are harrassed as you walk by, CALL THE POLICE. It's their job and their responsibility, not Chinese Market. If you don't like the business doing business there, buy it and close it down. Until then, shut up.
This thought process is the same that many neighborhoods have used to withhold liquor licenses to bars in Dupont (and certainly other neighborhoods). They argue people leaving the bar are loud and disturbing. How is that the bar's problem? I'm on a public street and if I am drunk or loud, what the hell does that have to do with the bar I just left? Once I leave that bar, their responsibility for my behavior has ended in my opinion. If I'm loud, call the cops. You moved into the neighborhood voluntarily. You probably knew there was a bar there. If you didn't do your homework, hey, that's your issue.
What is up with these people who move into DC and expect all these things and when they don't like something, their answer is to ignore a person or business' rights and shut them down to suit their own lifestyle? If you want peace and quiet, I suggest you move to Fairfax. I hear in Virginia you don't have to deal with all those dirty destitute commoners who like a nice forty of Thunderbird in the evening...or those pesky gays contributing valuable tax dollars to our city, but who are loud when they are attending the sidewalk sale outside of Cobalt. Have fun! I blame the way the city is governed rather than its residents...ultimately the DC ABC commissioners make the determination, so hopefully they will see that personal preferences should not supercede the rights of businesses in this city. Having lived here a few years though, I have my doubts logic will prevail.
Okay, sorry, had to rant. This city is so ridiculous sometimes!
posted by Carrie Broadshoulders at Wednesday, August 09, 2006
13 Comments:
I blame the ANC people for the all the ills of dupont. I mean seriously, you choose to live on 17th street, but then bitch when at 2:00 am on friday or saturday night, it's too noisy. I'm sorry, either get ear plugs or move away, but don't punish the establishments that have made your "neighborhood" so nice.
believe me, the bums are probably my #1 complaint about this town. and the police don't even give a shit! 80% of the time that I walk down the alley between the back of my building and the street (and I live on a very nicely gentrified and trafficed block of Logan), I smell urine.
I even screamed at someone once who walked right behind me and then started pissing on the wall. He just started screaming something else back to me in Spanish. Bums constantly "move in" and sleep in the doorways of one of the buildings in that alley. It pissed me off to no end that no one is patrolling back there.
I guess they are too busy not patrolling neighborhoods to prevent murders and theft.
it's a courtesy thing. when closing up JRs, we always remind people to please leave quietly, and our door people are instructed to remind people to quiet down should they start making too much noise as they leave, especially if they are just hanging around the front of our building. it's all about keeping a polite, courteous relationship with the neighbors. we are not required by law to do so, we just do.
as for your comment that once people leave the bar (or any establishment) they are no longer that establishment's responsablity is quite far from the truth actually...esp. when alcohol is concerned.
example: just the other night, we had someone who left our bar, passed out, fell, cracked his head open, the police got involved and he said he'd just left jrs. doesn't matter where else he may have been that night, the police now associate us with overserving, which then gets reported to ABRA (the bureau of alcohol and beverage control here in the city) and now that is a blemish on our record.
an even better ex. is if someone leaves our bar, drunk, drives home, kills someone or himself, and it is determined that one of my bartenders got him that drunk, not only can we be sued, but so can the bartender. so yes, our responsability extends far beyond our front door.
if that liquor store is required by law to shovel the sidewalk in front of their building during a snow storm, i think they can keep the bums from pissing there too.
Matt-
I agree completely that bars are not free from regulation nor should be. There are laws that they must follow. However, if the bar has followed the law and the patrons of that bar, once they have left that bar are doing things illegal, it is not nor should it be the bar's responsibility. The whole overserving thing, while I understand its intention makes little sense to me. But again, I think that is an entirely different issue altogether than how someone behaves in a public place. If you buy a beer in a liquor store, you're not drunk when you walk out of the store with it. If you get drunk because of it, how is that the Chinese Market's issue? It's not. Nor should it be. It is their responsibility not to serve more liquor to people who are clearly drunk. There are laws against that. So if they follow the law, their license shouldn't be withheld because their patrons act like buffoons outside of the liquor store. Personally I don't think JRs bartenders should be responsible for making sure people stay sober. The law itself is too open for interpretation. If the person is clearly going to be a danger to himself or others, he should no longer be served and possibly have authorities called, but if a person leaves, seemingly sober to everyone (but who may have a low tolerance) and gets in a car to drive, they have, in my opinion, broken the law. I don't see why JRs should be responsible. I understand that's now how it works, but in the end, as long as JRs is doing what they are told to do and required by law, how their patrons behave on 17th street when they leave should be of no concern to them.
My comment was not that bars were not responsible for the actions of their patrons when they leave the bar, but that they shouldn't be. In many ways they are, but as for people being noisy, that should have nothing to do with the bar. It makes absolutely no sense and leaves far too much open for interpretation. In the end, the patron is drunk and loud in public and they are the ones that should be subjected to punishment for it. All in all, DC takes the idea of neighborhood input entirely too far.
As for you guys getting a blemish on your record, the fact is that the person who fell, while drunk made a deliberate action of getting drunk and may have injured himself because of that. It is our own responsibility to not get so obliterated that we pass out or fall down, it isn't your's. This is my point...this city blames business rather than the people who are disobeying the law. I recognize in our litigious loving society we are ready to sue everyone and everything for something terrible that may happen, but not everyone is to blame when people make poor decisions.
CB, i'm getting tired of posting at GP so I've followed you here.
you say "My argument against this entire process is that it ignores the fact that it is no more Chinese Market's responsibility to monitor and control what goes on outside of its front door and on the corner than it is mine or any other neighbor."
before i start, my disclaimer is that i'm not trying to judge anyone, and i'm not trying to say "alcohol is bad" or any other moralistic stuff.
that said, we're talking about sick people who I argue have a disease. A serious drinking disease (not some yuppie alcholic) who has a horrible diet and probably irregular sleeping habits. many of them also have serious mental illnesses.
CM, knowing this (my assumption, but it is clear as day), sells single beer cans to them anyways. these homeless folks hardly have a choice; they are irrational addicts without free choice.
i say under the law, CM cannot maintain a common nuisance. they are selling beer to folks who cannot control their alcoholism. these folks present a danger to themselves and to others.
that is the main distinction b/w CM and the bars . . . people choose to come to the bars (plus they dress up nicely and are self-confident). the homeless who go to CM do not have a choice, they are sick people.
matt's point about shoveling snow is on point.
Well I appreciate your thoughts and we can agree to disagree. CM has no more responsibility to alcoholics than JRs, Fado's or Clyde's. Alcoholics come in all shades and socioeconomic backgrounds and serving one who's going to go home and beat his wife or piss on the street corner is no more their concern than it is mine or yours. So I guess McDonalds has a social obligation to not serve overeaters or obese people? Cigarettes are one of the most addictive and arguably harmful products you can buy in a CVS, but they still sell them. Why? Because its legal. Serving alcohol is legal. Alcoholics don't carry signs or stamps or bracelets to inform stores that they have a drinking problem. If they come in visibly drunk, CM should not serve them. It's the law. By doing so, they are breaking the law. If a sober homeless man comes in with $3 for a bottle of Wild Irish Rose, and he appears to be sober, how is his $3.00 any less acceptable than mine or yours? You have to have a job and a place to live to have a drink? Where's that law? Again, you are arguing social responsibility of businesses versus their legal obligations. And because you think someone has an obligation to society doesn't mean they feel the same way. It's a privately owned establishment that, if it is obeying the law, has no obligation to you or to me. Hell it's been around a lot longer than either of us. I'm not saying that the issue of destitute human beings spending what little money they have on drugs or alcohol is a good thing. And if CM said, we're not serving you anymore, hey, good for them. But it isn't the Betty Ford Clinic, it's a liquor store.
Like I said before, if CM would stop serving those people and those people went away, they might realize how supportive their neighbors would be and how we may patronize their store more often. An old Chinese proverb once said, "Liquor store that shovel own sidewalk get many customer." Okay well not really, but yes, while it may be a legal requirement to shovel the area in front of your store (no clue why that is), it's also an intelligent business decision, no? Maybe getting rid of the bums is too. But until they are legally required to not serve bums or people with drinking problems, the argument doesn't stick for me.
i think we'll continue to agree to disagree for a long time :-)
alcohol is a mind-altering substance. Happy Meals and Marlboros are not, at least to the extent alcohol is. so i don't agree with the comparisons.
You say "CM has no more responsibility to alcoholics than JRs, Fado's or Clyde's. Alcoholics come in all shades and socioeconomic backgrounds and serving one who's going to go home and beat his wife or piss on the street corner is no more their concern than it is mine or yours."
You're right about CM has no more responsibility than those places . . . except those places wouldn't let these sick people into their establishment! So CM shouldn't either.
Serving a guy who goes home and beats his wife is probably your best point. I doubt most stores know that the guy they're selling beer to will go home and do that, so you don't have the intent element that CM does.
But even if I knew the guy would go home and beat his wife, arguably the wife has a choice to leave him. I know it's more complicated than that, but she can. I don't think these homeless alcoholics have that choice. So the choice element is absent in your hypo.
We're beginning to repeat ourselves, just in different scenarios, so I'm not going to beat this to death any further. But to bilk an addict for his habit and let the rest of the neighborhood absorb all of the costs is not the free market I've learned about.
Then you didn't pay attention in econ class. Some would definitely argue overeating is a disease just like alcoholism so I think the comparisons are quite on point. Someone with a food addiction is in no more control over their urge to eat than an alcoholic with his urge to drink. But again, I'd argue that McDonalds is not in the business of making choices for people or discriminating based on perceptions. CM certainly serves people who might be better off not drinking, but then again, who is better off drinking? Their entire business is based on one of altering your state of being. You still can't get beyond the SHOULD part of your argument. CM SHOULD do this because bars do. They shouldn't do anything they don't want to do, frankly, so long as they obey the law. If you don't like that, I suggest you petition to make it illegal to serve alcoholics. I'm not sure how that would be regulated but you're welcome to try. Basically you don't like dirty homeless people who spend money on booze. That is perfectly okay...I'm not a huge fan either. But who the hell am I to tell someone they should or shouldn't drink? And you say that the neighborhood is paying the price? What price? How are your rights infringed upon by CM's choice to serve liquor to who it chooses? If a vagrant attacks you or your property, the vagrant has violated your rights under the law, not CM. If he pisses on your property, it's again the vagrant who has broken the law and violated your rights.
My point in all of this is that because you think CM has a social responsibility to do something about the state of its clientele does not mean they actually do have that obligation. They have an obligation to follow the law. I'm not altogether sure how CM stays in business anyway. Their taxes must be outrageous and their choice to serve vagrants would keep me from going inside there, as I'm sure it would you and others. So maybe in the end, this won't be a big deal since eventually they probably won't be able to afford their spot in Chinatown. Then they can move to a neighborhood where I feel quite certain you and everyone who complains about CM's social responsibility to the community will no longer care whether they serve beer, crack or whatever since the patrons are no longer inconveniencing you.
my "should" was only in response that CM has no more responsibility than the bars. I pointed out the bars are being miniminally responsible (not allowing drunk folks in), so CM SHOULD be that minimally responsible too. i think you're the one who basically brought up that "should" argument i.e. CM should be as responsible as other bars.
not serving intoxicated folks is the law. i buy beer at CM (6 packs) and they never check my ID nor anyone elses. that's breaking the law. i think they are maintaining a common nuisance, which if I'm right, would be breaking a law.
sure obesity is a disease. but are obese people a danger to other people? getting fat is basically a self-contained harm. ok, insurance may go up for everyone, but it's not an immenient danger to others. i guess we just don't see eye to eye here.
ok, really now, i'll stop. we are just two insignificant blowbags who have little bearing on this issue.
Your the third person to say that DC cops suck. Wow. Didn't know you guys had such suck law enforcement.
Regardless of alcohol or economic standing of patrons, dont businesses exist to serve the needs of their communities? If they fail at that, why is it wrong that they be voted out? Certainly those that partake and love a business have equal rights to vote at an anc as those that oppose.
I'm curious why you feel that the business has more right to exist than community members having the right to shape the community as they see fit. if thats what you're saying, that is.
Personally, i dont mind liquor stores and do agree with your idea of actually enforcing the law, but the issue is certainly larger than this specific case.
SA-
Because as much as I love the reality shows like Big Brother or Survivor, this isn't reality tv...you don't "vote" people out because you don't think they fill some social obligation to the community that doesn't exist in the first place. Businesses are not here to serve anyone but themselves and they do that by providing goods or a service to people who pay for those goods and services. They are here to make money. That's the point. They are not here to help the homeless, clean up the streets or donate money to charity. If they do all of those things, good for them. They should be praised for it. But a business' right to exist should have nothing to do with their contribution to society. That is far too subjective. Their job is not to do anything but obey the law and pay their taxes. The DC police department is the organization that has a social obligation to clean up the community. After all, CM was here long before the current community that resides around it. They have no more of an obligation to their neighborhood to do anything other than obey the law than we, as the neighborhood has in patronizing their establishment. If you feel that CM isn't pulling its weight in the community (though not sure how that is assigned to everyone), then don't go there. If everyone feels the way you do, then they'll close down and you'll get your way. If not, well then the rest of the community voted to keep them by buying their goods and services.
To suggest that a business has a moral obligation to do anything beyond follow the law is absurd. And violates free market principles and the principles behind capitalism. Feel free to move to Cuba if you feel otherwise.
carrie,
its an interesting discussion. thanks for answering my question, i hope you dont mind continuing.
I don't believe that business have a moral obligation, though in truth, the idea that they should is part of our history as a country. We have never had a real free market society, nor will we while we have laws.
Business in the US is set up that the governmnet grants the right to exist. there are licences and forms to run a business. In a democracy,that gives the right to petition a revocation of that licence to the community.
This is part of what democracy is, serving the people, rather than communism which is to serve the state.
Also, as a business owner myself, i am actually pro-business, but my business soley exists to provide for the needs of my clients.It is shapes by those needs. this isnt a moral obligation as you suggested i said, but fundamental to what the market is.
Also, having been a member of an economic revitalization committee here in dc, i know that the standard practice in trying to elevate a neighborhood is to encourage existing business to adapt to the changing needs of a changing community. not to pull their existance out from under them.
anyway. thanks for this big ol thread.
Post a Comment
<< Home