Update on PB Town Council vote regarding Shore Club
June 17, 2010 2 CommentsReporting on the PB Town Council meeting last night: There were obviously many (i.e. estimated 25 minimum) new ‘members’ (in the strictest sense of the word) attending what looked like their first PB Town Council meeting. Coincidentally, where the issue of the Shore Club was on the agenda, many of these new ‘members’ said they were employees or staunch supporters of Shore Club. Since I, nor many of my friends I spoke with at the meeting, recognized any one of these people, and since we’re somewhat reasonable people, we concluded that perhaps these new ‘members’ joined to vote on the very issue that affects their employer or supporter.
Kind of like a bunch of tire-installers from a local factory showing up and joining a bingo hall club the week before the biggest event of the year – pretty obvious they’re there for the big prize (the tire smell gives them away) and most likely won’t be appearing over the next few years to the weekly service-opportunities the bingo club does year-round. Analogous to the monthly trash cleanups, river cleanups, fundraiser events, service opportunities, graffiti paint-outs… you know, the stuff the PB Town Council does every month – for over 50 years.
What’s especially interesting is this groups hesitance in having an actual Town Council vote – actually spending all this energy working against one – in light of the fact that we’re speaking about the safety and security of the very community they purport to care about by joining the Town Council. To me, they are not hearing the pleas of the community who, with 19 times the citywide average of alcohol arrests and citations (not including drunk tank drop-offs) in the core census tract alone, are simply pleading with these ‘caring, concerned and community-passionate’ businesses to minimize their footprint because it’s far past beyond injuring the community. Should we wait till we are 22, 25, 30, 40, 50 times the citywide average for crime before they support no expansions or some breakthrough change? My guess is they could care less about these concerns.
By the way, the standard for allowing new licenses in a census tract is the tract cannot have over 1.2 times the city wide average. Since we’re already 19 times over it seems logical to many of us to blow the whistle and ask for a one-year reprieve. Ideally enough time to review a conditional use permit for all alcohol licensees solution – or something very close. Not too unreasonable to me. But, I’m betting we’re only getting warmed up for a much more long-term fight – one that the multi-million dollar operations will fight strongly against. The levels of the state ABC enforcement are at record lows. So, why wouldn’t they fight any change. No one wants a tough babysitter now do they?
After the Shore Club crew lost the vote – by one vote no less – a supporter immediately made another motion, initially under my protest, that sought to have yet another meeting to weigh the issue where both sides would have equal time to present their case – which the general membership could then vote upon by mail ballot. i objected because to me it was their jockeying for another vote since they have now been voted against two times. So, the original motion-maker, Scott Chipman, agreed to give the business the chance to have this meeting with one stipulation – that only those that were members up to that moment were eligible to vote.
Of course everything was done messily as technically, the original motion was seconded, discussed, voted upon and passed – meaning the mail-in ballot should be sent out as stated. But, I’m not too tight-fisted either and I’d love to hear what the Shore Club has to say. Turns out there was an owner at the meeting but, he declined to talk at a couple of opportunities before the vote and in the public comment period after. Seems he’s big on the community but, isn’t passionate enough about his business to stand in front of a group of concerned citizens to say so. Conviction?
So, stay tuned. All this work and sour attitudes. If only the business district and alcohol licensees would just work with the community they might have an easier time. But, I guess it’s tough looking over all those piles of money to see the community in the first place.
I’m all ears Chris. However, I do take exception to being grouped together with ‘your hostile cadre of conservatives’ as you put it :). We are all working to improve the environment of PB – not to take the fun and enjoyment out of it. Everyone has different standards of community. Unfortunately, it seems the people with all the money have been imposing their standard on the rest of us too long and what you’re seeing is a pendulum effect.
I too am concerned you seem to be doing the very same thing you’re accusing me of doing – making false and inflammatory representations without really knowing who I am or what I actually believe. I have worked very hard to accomplish many forward-moving ideas in this community – always pleading for help from many facets of people (city, state, residents, neighboring communities etc.). Quite frankly the only people who seem to be putting in work to actually improve PB – that is, as it relates to helping stem the heavily-influenced alcohol industry businesses that are the source of many of our problems in my opinion – are the ones I’m working with today and some I have worked with on the Discover PB and PB Town Council boards in the past.
Your defense of the Shore Club is puzzling as you seem to be totally missing the context of the expansion. That is, there are very specific guidelines which are being ignored by the State resulting in PB becoming the dumping ground for extreme over-concentration of alcohol licenses. If a license for every 85 residents in the core census tract isn’t enough should we have one for every 60? 50? 15? When is enough enough already? In the end we’re proposing a realistic, fair and equal system for monitoring issues as it is very clear (to me anyway) self-policing isn’t working. It seems the bars don’t want to change a thing as everything is just fine for them. I’m too not certain why the owner of this business doesn’t speak up for himself. In contrast and in my case I am VERY passionate about my business and will tell anyone who wants to know why I believe it is the best thing since sliced bread. I am all over any opportunity to tell people about our work and love to spread the word across the country. I’m not playing chess with the community – I’m telling them how it is and why I am so passionate about my work.
In PB I’ve personally been trying for years to get to the tables with the ‘other side’ (read: alcohol-licensee holders) but, have been rebuffed at every attempt. Their strategy seems to be quite frankly to stonewall any work together and steamroll their agenda on the community. Mine has consistently been to help make PB more friendly and safe for the entire population (not just 20-30 somethings), attract people to our entire palette of businesses (not just the bars) and to work together to clean the place up (not relying so much on the city to do so). I’ve been 100% civic-engagement minded for quite some time and believe that, as a community, we can address all of these issues.
In the end, I represent people – not just a tiny sector of businesses (the bars) – and certainly not profits over people. That’s an important distinction and I hope you’ll respect that.
So, let’s meet?
Jerry
p.s. I have rented in PB within about 10 blocks of Cass and Garnet for 20 years now and don’t see buying on my horizon. If anything I’d like to keep property values stable so I might be able to do so someday. I’m here for the long-haul too and hope to help build a community and not polarize it.
Mr. Hall,
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING REPLY REPRESENTS MY OPINION AND MY OPINION ALONE.
After years of listing to your unrelenting rants, your polarized view Pacific Beach has angered me enough to take time out of a busy Friday to post an opposition.
I have been active in the PB community for several years now. I am a business owner here and I am in my 30′s. Over the years of attending meetings of various groups here in PB, I have noticed that the representation PB’s residents is grossly slanted to a certain crowd.
Years ago, several friends and I were vigorously courted to become active in our community and to attend meetings of the many organizations here. It seemed everyone wanted “young blood” and a “fresh perspective”. And after years of involvement, I’ve found this to be painfully untrue. These organizations have absolutely no desire to hear from the younger population that makes up a very large part of this community.
In month’s past, the bitter dialog and slanted representation has all but encouraged first-timers to flee the scene. Why aren’t younger people getting involved, you may ask? It seems, Jerry, that the rantings of wealthy home owners, reformed alcoholics and elderly residents is absurd and uncomfortable to most of us. And with today’s young adult holding down multiple jobs, going to school and, now sit down, Jerry, ENJOYING the community, I can’t blame them for discrediting these organizations as local mud-slinging spectacles! What young adult in their right mind would want to hear you recapitulate the same statistics and arguments over and over again every time the mere word “alcohol” is mentioned.
I was thrilled to see so many young people actually stay at the last Town Council meeting. Yet each and every new face was accused of being a “bought vote” by several elders of the organization.
Who were these new faces? These are young residents and hospitality employees who make their living here in Pacific Beach. These are young, working adults who were finally outraged by the old regime of PB and moved to action. And how were they met? How were they received by these long-standing members of our community? They were immediately insulted and discredited. No wonder every PB meeting looks like Bingo night at Shady Palms.
The Shore Club should have every right to expand their deck. They have taken a once run-down building in a hospitality-driven, commercial district (NOT residential) and are giving it a face-lift. They want to do exactly what their neighboring restaurants have done; build an ocean-view patio to attract customers and grow their business. In these economic times, successful, community-conscious and responsible businesses should be supported by this community and applauded for creating jobs in our neighborhood. Instead, these local business owners have been singled out and put on trial for everything “wrong” with Pacific Beach by a group that represents a mere part of our diverse local culture.
These are issues of the County and City that are being heaped on the shoulders of The Shore Club. They are trying to grow their business, the are doing everything they can to work with the community but they are being slapped in the face by a group of residents overwhelmed with pious judgement and hatred. If you are not happy with the problems of our community, talk to the governmental bodies put in place who can make a change! The Shore Club has expressed a desire to work with any organization but has been met with nothing less than hostile objection by those who oppose them.
This proposed deck expansion will not draw more people into Pacific Beach. People from all over the world come here to enjoy themselves and will continue to do so whether The Shore Club upgrades their building or not. These people are already coming out to support our only industry in PB…..hospitality. The fact that you want to single out and exclude an admirable business from prospering in our local economy is unfair and, as we have already seen, destructive to our community.
The motion made by Chipman to send out an expensive mail-in ballot to the entire General Membership is a cheap trick worthy of the lowest of zealots. You are all fully aware that the General Membership in no way represents the demographics of our community. As as you go door to door, rolling in wheelchair after wheelchair of mis-informed retirees to these meeting, please remember your false-accusations of vote-stacking.
Your bad-mouthing of the owner of the Shore Club clearly illustrates your petty short-sightedness. This poor man was not invited to make a presentation to the General Membership. But I am not surprised that you feel a 2 minute retort in the midst of a hostile cross-fire is all that is needed to educate the general public of the Shore Club’s intentions. All while you and other frantic fanatics continue to monopolize every one’s time for months on end. Why even bother, Jerry, to listen to what your opposition has to say? It’s clear that you have no spirit of communication or negotiation to make this a better community for everyone. I charge you personally, Jerry, to contact the Shore Club directly, sit with them, talk with them and come to a common ground. And I will await your post on this meeting.
I need you, Jerry, and your hostile cadre of conservatives, wealthy home-owners and disgruntled former-alcoholics to listen to your youth and to your community. We are willing and want to work together, but you need to understand how horrible each and every one of you make it for the rest of us.
Chris