We thought we won: LAX

[Islandman]

I put in on my Facebook a few days ago as well. I really hope it works!

[agrahlma]

I put in on my Facebook a few days ago as well. I really hope it works!

I did the same - the last time I checked...three of my friends had signed it, and one of them passed it on to their friends.

[DetroitIrishK]

Gaining steam

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/d..._over_fat.html

who's going to the hearing on Thursday?

[Meddle]

You DO realize that these on-line petitions carry no weight at all, right?

[DetroitIrishK]

Yes, I do realize the little weight that they carry. Especially with the commission appeal on Thursday morning. However, what it does is shows support for our side and gets positive press for the cause.

[corktownyuppie]

You DO realize that these on-line petitions carry no weight at all, right?

Agreed, and I don't think LAX was going to win the liquor license regardless.

But, I think their weight is two-fold:

[[1) After LAX makes their case, there will be an opening for public comment. If Omar and LAX show up with a signed petition, then having another petition signed by 200 people serves only to neutralize LAX's ludicrous position that "they have the support of the community". Seriously?

[[2) More interesting than the number of signatures is the commentary that petitioners are attaching. I think that speaks volumes and lends that much more credence to the people who will be arguing against a liquor license issue.

Political advocacy is hardly my forte. At this point, I think the only way they get a liquor license is through bribery.

Paging Barbara McQuade's office....

[swingline]

Did anybody attend the LCC hearing re LAX in Southfield this morning? Any outcome?

[DetroitIrishK]

I was present. Both sides are retaining counsel. Adjourned until next week.

[corktownyuppie]

I wasn't at the hearing, however, I believe that today's hearing was in regard to the applicant's [[LAX) proximity to the church on Adams and Woodward.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dl...s_343265_7.pdf

Sec. 503.


[[1) A new application for a license to sell alcoholic beverages at retail, or a request to transfer location of an existing license, shall be denied if the contemplated location is within 500 feet of a church or a school building. The distance between the church or school building and the contemplated location shall be measured along the center line of the street or streets of address between 2 fixed points on the center line determined by projecting straight lines, at right angles to the center line, from the part of the church or school building nearest to the contemplated location and from the part of the contemplated location nearest to the church or school building.

[[4) The commission may waive this section in the case of other classes of licenses. If an objection is not filed by the church or school, the commission may issue the license pursuant to this act. If an objection is filed, the commission shall hold a hearing pursuant to rules established by the
commission before making a decision on the issuance of the license.

I'm not a legal scholar, but you'll note that the law puts the burden on the applicant, mandating that they demonstrate that their operation will not adversely affect that of the school or church. However, you'll also see that if they demonstrate that, the above section can be waived and petitioner may be granted a license.

R 436.1963 Granting of the waiver.
Rule 13.
The commission shall waive the provisions of section 503 of the act where the applicant shows by competent, material and substantial evidence that a waiver of section 503 would not adversely affect the operation of the
church or school.

History: 1954 ACS 87, Eff. Apr. 16, 1976; 1979 AC;-MR 10, Eff. May 30, 2003.

Section R 436.1105, Rule 5 provides the grounds for denial, over and above the proximity to church. Note that the reasons are very broad, giving the commission lots of discretion to deny:

[[2) The commission shall consider all of the following factors in determining whether an applicant may be issued a license or permit:

[[a) The applicant's management experience in the alcoholic liquor business.

[[b) The applicant's general management experience.

[[c) The applicant's general business reputation.

[[d) The opinions of the local residents, local legislative body, or local law enforcement agency with regard to the proposed business.

[[e) The applicant's moral character.

[[i) The effects that the issuance of a license would have on the economic development of the area.

[[j) The effects that the issuance of a license would have on the health, welfare, and safety of the general public.

Interestingly enough, section [[i.) points to the effects the license would have on the economic development of the area. LAX has been arguing that it would be a positive, putting 100 unemployed workers back to work. One could argue that if 100 residents leave, they'll be taking $100-$200,000 per year away from the city's income tax rolls. If the investors will pull out, taking away from the property tax rolls, I think it could be very bad.

Food for thought.

[DetroitIrishK]

Excellent analysis

[downtownguy]

I was present. Both sides are retaining counsel. Adjourned until next week.

Who is the other side here that's retaining counsel? Is there an organized group fighting the liquor license that has retained counsel?

[Meddle]

^^ If you had been reading, you would have seen that pretty much everybody not associated with the place is trying to stop them. It's LAX against the world. Or the world against LAX.

[downtownguy]

^^ No, really? So why don't you tell me who exactly is retaining counsel?

[corktownyuppie]

Not sure, but I think the church is the one retaining counsel, as per the above liquor license ordinance.

[Pcm]

Sign of the times.

[corktownyuppie]

Ha. Very punny.

[michiganessay]

I live downtown.

One of the first places I take friends who visit from out of town is LAX.

I've run into pro athletes, musicians, lawyers, and ordinary working stiffs like me.

My impression was solid security and friendly managers and batenders.

I think of it as a first rate club in the heart of our region's entertainment district.

There are times in the summer when Old Shillelagh, for example, frustrates me with the noise and the fights after close. But I don't think it should go away.

What am I missing with LAX?

Because it can be difficult to convey tone: I'm asking in earnest and with an open mind.

[Meddle]

What am I missing with LAX?

Have you read the thread above? Or this one?

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...own-nightclubs

[WickedILL]

Any update on this place? I saw the owners on TV about a month ago when they met with the city counsel. For once I was proud of the counsel because every one of them slammed the owners for their business practices. Even telling them it was STUPID to put a club between 2 residentials.

[JBMcB]

Even telling them it was STUPID to put a club between 2 residentials.

And yet the city handed them a business license to open a club between two residential units. Weird.

[Islandman]

And yet the city handed them a business license to open a club between two residential units. Weird.

Exactly. If that is what the council said, then they seriously have no clue. Having a club around residentials isn't the issue, it's what those club patrons do when leaving the establishment, the loitering in and out of cars, etc.

[WickedILL]

Exactly. If that is what the council said, then they seriously have no clue. Having a club around residentials isn't the issue, it's what those club patrons do when leaving the establishment, the loitering in and out of cars, etc.

hmm, good point. crazy.

I don't see why these places can't be required to have better/more security. With such bad incidents they should either have to get more or lose their license[[s). imo

[Occurrence]

With the current state of the economy, I'm going to guess the city isn't going to be too aggressive against establishments that make money, as long as the right people are payed off.

[corktownyuppie]

With the current state of the economy, I'm going to guess the city isn't going to be too aggressive against establishments that make money, as long as the right people are payed off.

Well, yes, LAX was making money. But one can argue that the income taxes of all the residents at the Fyfe building, the Kales building, and the future residents of the Whitney and Broderick Tower development are a "money-making" establishment, too. And though I haven't crunched the numbers, I think the latter will outweigh the former.

I'm not usually one to defend City Council, but I don't necessarily think that they're at fault for offering the business license. The business license and the liquor license are two different beasts altogether. And I think that had LAX been more strategic about their programming and more aware of the surrounding community, it could've been a very different outcome.