1.) It was this Council, though the ‘Livable Streets’ initiative that made the investments that have revitalized Downtown Raleigh. Important to remember the goal is a ‘livable street,’
2.) It’s not just about noise. The City wants vitality, but also has a responsibility to ensure public safety, and what has been happening has been becoming a public safety issue. Establishments have taken liberties, like blocking the entire sidewalk, forcing patrons in the street, along with kiddie pools and slip and slides on the sidewalks.
3.) Original staff proposal was based on what Austin, TX does, where only restaurants, not bars, are allowed sidewalk alcohol sales. The same is true in Charlotte. There are also questions of whether staff had the legal authority to issue the Public Use Permits to these establishments originally.
4.) Council listened and did not ban bars from outdoor sidewalk sales. The compromise requires seating and increased enforcement, along with the reduction of hours to midnight on weeknights, and 1:00 am on weekends. The hours are the same as New York, and later than even Savannah, GA. They are longer than the overwhelming majority of cities in America according to data acquired by staff.
5.) The only difference in what passed, and what would have passed unanimously is 2 hours a week on weekends from 1:00 am to 2:00. If that is onerous, Council can change when they revisit in 3 months, although bars in most every other city seem to be able to make those hours work.
6.) Currently, establishments only pay $150/year for a Public Use Permit for the right to utilize these sidewalks . If sidewalk alcohol sales, and keeping them going until 2:00 am is so critical to their business model, then perhaps they should pay rent, something equivalent to ¼ of downtown rental prices, to cover the cost of more enforcement, and then give them the extra hour. Average rent downtown is in the $35 to $40/sq ft range. 1/4 would be around $8 to $10/sq ft.
Well thought out post. Council is working right now on updating a 10 year downtown vision to attempt to address all those issues.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. It was well reasoned.
Boz is an intelligent, friendly, and honest young man. However, ambition may have gotten the best of him here because he owns this situation. He sought SEANC's endorsement in writing, was okay with them violating their own rules, to make the endorsement, and has their top IE political operative as his chief strategist. He was aware of Lorrin speaking out against SEANC's Pay Day purchasing program that is a predatory lending scheme when he sought the endorsement. Last year SEANC made $280K off this program. Essentially, they are spending money made off the desperation of their members to fund this effort in support of Boz, and it is not really believable he didn't know they were going to spend money on his behalf.
He has had over a week to disavow it, but instead has denied responsibility, then last night, after apologizing to a reporter, basically defended and repeated the attack in an e-mail.
This is not a legislative race, but the DA. You are absolutely correct when you wrote, 'The Office of the District Attorney should be independent of special interest groups. The office should not be for sale.' When it comes to the public trust, perception matters. Unfortunately, in perhaps a bit of immaturity, he has allowed himself to be too closely connected with SEANC, undermining his ability to fill this role.
Full disclosure, I work for Lorrin. I like Boz, but here he has made a mistake.
Mr. Franklin, As a new sustaining fund co-chair, how much money did you raise in the last month?
Was it more than Ms. Szlosberg-Landis? Which old pols are you referring to. I recall winning an election out your way once. We lost that seat after I had moved on. Was it your fault then?
Not sure why you continue to defend Mr. Parker. He either covered up sexual harassment or exhibited the worst political judgment in the history of the Party. He compounded that by placing himself above the good of the Party, then lying to everyone from our Gubernatorial nominee, to SEC members to the DNC by orchestrating that farce of a meeting. No one attacked Mr. Parker before or during that meeting because we made the mistake of believing him, and for good of the party, let him try to save face. Instead what we got was orchestrated false attacks from people like you and Mr. Telesca on our elected officials, as well as on Sallie Leslie who did nothing but serve the Party honorably for 18 years.
You can attack Nina, but she has done far more to elect democrats than you, Mr. Voller, and the rest of your 'cabal' have combined. She won overwhelmingly in January against the incumbent, (whom Mr. Voller put back on Executive Council despite her overwhelming defeat) while Mr. Voller won by just 11 votes against a man who said he did not want the job and was not there. Instead of realizing he won a narrow election and that being Party Chair does not make you important, just gives you a chance to make Party important, Mr. Voller and his supporters have continued to attack and bully to try and consolidate power (that does not exist), rather than reaching out and actually unifying the Party.
I would suggest that instead of attacking anyone who raises questions, you guys take Nina's resignation as a wake up call, because quickly you not going to be able to even pay for Mr. Voller's legal expenses, much less keep the doors of the Goodwin House open.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation