It sounds like this hearing was more for police & other city officials. Wait until the next one, when they get an earful from actual residents.
- 3,235
There were numerous residents that testified. It is my impression a decision will be made next week and the the residents can protest with the petition if the original ruling isnt favorable.
- 6,775
Hopefully the people in that building gave it to them with both barrels.
Something makes me think even that won't be enough given Lure's owners and their connections along with their high priced lawyer team.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Hopefully the people in that building gave it to them with both barrels.
- 3,235
Are they bigger than City Hall?
Its the city trying to shut them down not the residents. If the city is unsuccessful then the residents will file their petition complete with the ample number of resident and businesses.
LetS say they are able to stay open. Will they be able to remain profitable with the bad publicity they have received?
Its the city trying to shut them down not the residents. If the city is unsuccessful then the residents will file their petition complete with the ample number of resident and businesses.
LetS say they are able to stay open. Will they be able to remain profitable with the bad publicity they have received?
- 124
They may be bigger than city hall. The hearing was interesting. I was shocked by the new police captains testimony. After hearing him testify it sounded like Lure was good for the neighborhood. Aprille testified and actually made Lure sound fun like a place all the beautiful people hung out. Two residents of the building testified - I understand their frustration but they have not actually witnessed much activity - just the after effects. Innovation testified and spoke about the effects of Lure - again not an eyewitness. It sounded like all they wanted to hear was eyewitness accounts and without that the testimony was worthless to the fight. I was an eyewitness - I posted back in 2007 and 2008 on the Lucky's/Lure thread about the shootings I watched. My testimony got a bit to emotional and I was then attacked by Aprille (I guess she is the owner). It is a shame - the Triupano (sp) family are not good business people. They cannot manage the crowds or the aftermath of a night in their club. I sincerely hope the judge understands what Lure does to Downtown however from the testimony I heard it sounded like they have quite a few friends in high places.
dweebe wrote:Yes. Let's prevent more businesses from opening. Because there are tons of shops clamoring to open along Washington Ave. [/sarcasm]TheRemedy wrote:Isn't there a limit on liquor licenses per area? I keep hearing about more and more bars opening up. Would be nice to see more shops to balance things out.
This isn't as odd of a concept as you would think. It is a common ordinance embraced by many city commissioning and planning boards. Quite a few have a percentage of food sale requirement for the liquor license. It could be a way to regulate the Trupianos next club. Just an Idea...
Interesting letter in the paper today from Bob Ray of the Washington Avenue Post:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... e3ae0.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... e3ae0.html
- 6,775
So he doesn't think a nuisance business should be shut down? Seriously?Framer wrote:Interesting letter in the paper today from Bob Ray of the Washington Avenue Post:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... e3ae0.html
I guess I'll have to exercise my right not to enter his store.
This isn't too surprising considering that Bob is dating a board member of the group, Washington Avenue Liaisons. This group was formed by Club Lure supporters and proclaims to advocate for downtown nightlife and entertainment businesses and be the "voice of the people" in serving as a forum for discussion and mediation amongst all stakeholders.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:So he doesn't think a nuisance business should be shut down? Seriously?Framer wrote:Interesting letter in the paper today from Bob Ray of the Washington Avenue Post:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... e3ae0.html
I guess I'll have to exercise my right not to enter his store.
I put this, "voice of the people" spiel to the test a few weeks back by submitting links on their Facebook profile page to news reports about Club Lure as well as photographs of Jack Thompson Square furniture that was recently destroyed by Lure patrons. Apparently, Bob's girlfriend didn't appreciate this, deleted my posts, and banned myself and others that do not openly support Club Lure.
There's nothing wrong with anyone defending Club Lure. But if you're a group like Wash Ave Liaisons that proclaims to be something that it isn't, then it's only fair to speak openly about it.
- 6,775
I checked out that Facebook group when it first formed. What a bunch of tools.innov8ion wrote:This isn't too surprising considering that Bob is dating a board member of the group, Washington Avenue Liaisons. This group was formed by Club Lure supporters and proclaims to advocate for downtown nightlife and entertainment businesses and be the "voice of the people" in serving as a forum for discussion and mediation amongst all stakeholders.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:So he doesn't think a nuisance business should be shut down? Seriously?Framer wrote:Interesting letter in the paper today from Bob Ray of the Washington Avenue Post:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... e3ae0.html
I guess I'll have to exercise my right not to enter his store.
I put this, "voice of the people" spiel to the test a few weeks back by submitting links on their Facebook profile page to news reports about Club Lure as well as photographs of Jack Thompson Square furniture that was recently destroyed by Lure patrons. Apparently, Bob's girlfriend didn't appreciate this, deleted my posts, and banned myself and others that do not openly support Club Lure.
There's nothing wrong with anyone defending Club Lure. But if you're a group like Wash Ave Liaisons that proclaims to be something that it isn't, then it's only fair to speak openly about it.
Yes, Bob (Wash Ave Post) does support Lure's right to stay open, but his letter to the editor was to point out the Downtown STL Partnership was wanting to put in place a vetting process where the Partnership would scrutinize all liquor applications within its district. Many merchants and downtown stakeholders feel that this is overstepping their duties and they should concentrate on promoting the building (or re-building) of the downtown district and SOLICIT new buisiness, not try to make the process of moving into the area harder.
^ Looking at the Partnership's "About Us" section below, they are tasked with creating and promoting a vibrant downtown. Is safety considered a building block to vibrancy? And if conditions were to worsen, would it become more difficult to further promote and rebuild the district? Although not popular with some, it seems that the Partnership is doing the right thing.
About the Downtown Partnership wrote:The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis serves as the catalyst for creating and promoting a vibrant downtown -- a nationally celebrated asset that attracts investment and economic activity at the hub of our region.
The Partnership also manages the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District (The CID) that provides enhanced services to make downtown St. Louis a cleaner, safer and more vibrant place.
I think this goes hand in hand. It is hard to attract new business if current businesses are causing problems. 1 step forward... 2 step backwards.STL63101 wrote: Many merchants and downtown stakeholders feel that this is overstepping their duties and they should concentrate on promoting the building (or re-building) of the downtown district and SOLICIT new buisiness, not try to make the process of moving into the area harder.
So it makes sense to me.
- 6,775
They'll only have the authority if Kraiberg and the city grant it to them.STL63101 wrote:Yes, Bob (Wash Ave Post) does support Lure's right to stay open, but his letter to the editor was to point out the Downtown STL Partnership was wanting to put in place a vetting process where the Partnership would scrutinize all liquor applications within its district. Many merchants and downtown stakeholders feel that this is overstepping their duties and they should concentrate on promoting the building (or re-building) of the downtown district and SOLICIT new buisiness, not try to make the process of moving into the area harder.
- 2,940
I'd support Bob's contentions, in that I don't want to see another level of self-appointed bureaucracy that could be both intrusive to current businesses while prohibitive to new business formation.
I'm also glad to see DTSLP siding with the neighbors towards Lure reform/eviction.
I'm also glad to see DTSLP siding with the neighbors towards Lure reform/eviction.
The Partnership is an unelected body accountable to no one. They should not push their vision on downtown as if they have exclusive ownership rights. I have to agree that downtown is not at a point by which it should exclude business. If you want to argue in the courts, or administrative hearings at City Hall, as to whether Lure has responsibility for the problems which exist sometimes outside their not-so-immediate vicinity then that's fine. However, the mission statement of a non-for-profit in no way gives it authority to determine which businesses belong in the neighbourhood which they extra-legally "represent." While the Partnership may use their influence to lobby for changes in public policy or land use, as they have done for parking garages in the past, this does not indicate that citizens should defer to their judgment as if they carry equal legitimacy as an elected government or the bureaucracy which implements and enforces legislation.
That being said, I have a slightly different perspective on this issue having now lived in Toronto for a while. As I said before the neighbourhood does have an interest in protecting public safety and you wouldn't believe how regulated liquor usage happens to be in Canada. While it's rather draconian not being able to purchase a beer after 9 or 10PM, this does seem to help with public drunkenness and thus crime. Though, again, I do not believe this goal should be applied exclusively to certain businesses who happen to serve a type of clientele. The rule of law (and the degree to which public safety can be eroded before generating this much attention) should also not have greater weight in certain neighbourhoods and little to none in others. My biggest complaint with this dispute continues to be that if this occurred blocks north away from downtown no one would care, let alone write several news articles, and it certainly would not go to court. We can see this conflict as an example of discrimination within our City.
That being said, I have a slightly different perspective on this issue having now lived in Toronto for a while. As I said before the neighbourhood does have an interest in protecting public safety and you wouldn't believe how regulated liquor usage happens to be in Canada. While it's rather draconian not being able to purchase a beer after 9 or 10PM, this does seem to help with public drunkenness and thus crime. Though, again, I do not believe this goal should be applied exclusively to certain businesses who happen to serve a type of clientele. The rule of law (and the degree to which public safety can be eroded before generating this much attention) should also not have greater weight in certain neighbourhoods and little to none in others. My biggest complaint with this dispute continues to be that if this occurred blocks north away from downtown no one would care, let alone write several news articles, and it certainly would not go to court. We can see this conflict as an example of discrimination within our City.
Doug, this did NOT occur blocks north away, it occurred downtown. If you or anyone else wants to start an article on this forum about happenings at clubs "blocks north away" then I completely support that. I support rational efforts to reduce crime and am following this particular issue closely as Lure is in my neighborhood. Should the neighbors of these "blocks north away" businesses ask for our support in removing the liquor licenses or business licenses from those who harm their neighborhoods, I would be happy to do so. But right now we are living and working in the reality of shootings, fights, and general disorderly conduct stemming from one busines in particular, not some hypothetical situation "blocks north away."Doug wrote:My biggest complaint with this dispute continues to be that if this occurred blocks north away from downtown no one would care, let alone write several news articles, and it certainly would not go to court. We can see this conflict as an example of discrimination within our City.
As far as the Downtown Partnership is concerned, I don't really see the need to have them on some sort of official board. As Doug pointed out, they are accountable to no one. Plus, the system is slowly working in this case, and, while this may be naive, I would hope that when we encounter similar issues in the future with other businesses (or the same one) that we would have learned from this experience and would start a public campaign against the business in question. While Lure may survive this round, I don't htink that they will be able to continue business as usual. It sounds like the other "problem" businesses have already learned and are working with the community.
- 6,775
Which is why I posted this:Doug wrote:The Partnership is an unelected body accountable to no one. They should not push their vision on downtown as if they have exclusive ownership rights. I have to agree that downtown is not at a point by which it should exclude business. If you want to argue in the courts, or administrative hearings at City Hall, as to whether Lure has responsibility for the problems which exist sometimes outside their not-so-immediate vicinity then that's fine. However, the mission statement of a non-for-profit in no way gives it authority to determine which businesses belong in the neighbourhood which they extra-legally "represent." While the Partnership may use their influence to lobby for changes in public policy or land use, as they have done for parking garages in the past, this does not indicate that citizens should defer to their judgment as if they carry equal legitimacy as an elected government or the bureaucracy which implements and enforces legislation.
Continuing...The Central Scrutinizer wrote:They'll only have the authority if Kraiberg and the city grant it to them.
"For a while" = 3 weeks.Doug wrote:That being said, I have a slightly different perspective on this issue having now lived in Toronto for a while.
And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.Doug wrote:My biggest complaint with this dispute continues to be that if this occurred blocks north away from downtown no one would care, let alone write several news articles, and it certainly would not go to court. We can see this conflict as an example of discrimination within our City.
I have to disagree with your statement that nobody talks or cares about problems "blocks north away", there are many concerned residents and local media does cover the stories. Unfortunately, media covers more negative stories than positive, but the community does try and implement change. There have been quite a few rallies and events to address the concerns of residents. If there are enough facts to pinpoint a source of crime, the residents take action.Doug wrote: That being said, I have a slightly different perspective on this issue having now lived in Toronto for a while. As I said before the neighbourhood does have an interest in protecting public safety and you wouldn't believe how regulated liquor usage happens to be in Canada. While it's rather draconian not being able to purchase a beer after 9 or 10PM, this does seem to help with public drunkenness and thus crime. Though, again, I do not believe this goal should be applied exclusively to certain businesses who happen to serve a type of clientele. The rule of law (and the degree to which public safety can be eroded before generating this much attention) should also not have greater weight in certain neighbourhoods and little to none in others. My biggest complaint with this dispute continues to be that if this occurred blocks north away from downtown no one would care, let alone write several news articles, and it certainly would not go to court. We can see this conflict as an example of discrimination within our City.
- 2,940
Jake's the first to call it.
Lure. Is. Gone. No more liquor license. Appeals sure to follow. Claims of political impropriety turning into feuding between Lebanese families in South City. Got to love this City.
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... c17af.html
Lure. Is. Gone. No more liquor license. Appeals sure to follow. Claims of political impropriety turning into feuding between Lebanese families in South City. Got to love this City.
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... c17af.html
- 6,775
I'm reminded of the old song from the Coasters (I think):Gone Corporate wrote:Jake's the first to call it.
Lure. Is. Gone. No more liquor license. Appeals sure to follow. Claims of political impropriety turning into feuding between Lebanese families in South City. Got to love this City.
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... c17af.html
"Take out the papers and the trash"
Here's a pdf of Judge Walsh's ruling.Gone Corporate wrote:Jake's the first to call it.
Lure. Is. Gone. No more liquor license. Appeals sure to follow. Claims of political impropriety turning into feuding between Lebanese families in South City. Got to love this City.
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... c17af.html
First, the owners of Lure labeled downtown residents as racist for being concerned with safety. Now after the judge rules against Club Lure, the Mayor is, "out to get them?" I mean, how could the Lure ownership display any less class and credibility? Don't let the door hit you on the way out...
