# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Able Commission: No New Bars in Bricktown??

## OklahomaNick

Heard about a rumor that the Able Commission is not allowing new tenants to serve hard liquor in central Bricktown because of the ACM at UCO and the Able Commissions proximity rule to schools and churches? What is law; 500 feet?

I heard that someone wanted to reopen Makers, but was rejected to serve hard liquor that close to the ACM. I guess beer only is acceptable. I know a few of these bars and resturants around town that only serve beer.

It is my understanding that current establishments are grandfather claused in, but anyone new will not be able to obtain a hard liquor license until some laws change.
More of a reason that Oklahoma needs more modern liquor laws; have not changed since Prohibition.

Midtowner??

----------


## kevinpate

Not mid, but 3.2 beer is, I think, still classified as non-intoxicating and if stronger drink is not in the mix, the rules are different.  As for proximity, 500' or 1000' sounds about right.

----------


## G.Walker

There goes Bricktown...that's crazy...so much for upscale nightclub in Bricktown...

----------


## Pete

The law is 300 feet from a public school.

However, ACM has been open since 2009 and there have been several new bars open in Bricktown since then, although I'm not sure any within the 300 foot range.


Even though there is such a statute, you can receive a variance.  It's hard to imagine such a request being turned down given the unique location of the school.

----------


## BoulderSooner

i have heard this is directly affecting moes dockside bar the new pizza place and the former location of othellos

----------


## mcca7596

The school law should only apply to public schools. That is crazy.

----------


## G.Walker

if this holds, it will deter a lot of development from Bricktown...

----------


## kevinpate

Thanks Pete.  The distance is not an issue I've ever dealt with.
It shouldn't even be an issue for an institution like this, but I don't hold the same paranoia of demon rum that too many policy makers hold.

----------


## Pete

FYI, ACM@UCO is a public school.

I saw a case from the 90's where a bar owner tried to argue that OSU (and other universities) should not be included in the broad "public school" definition.  But the court ruled the intent of the statute was to not disrupt education and worship and therefore the 300 foot limit does apply to public colleges.


As I stated before, this may be a case of simply having to go one extra step and apply for a variance.  I would also expect ABLE to understand this is a unique situation.

----------


## MikeLucky

Yeah this is logical... I mean college kids don't drink anyway! LOL

----------


## menos

From what I was told, years ago this was a problem on campus corner. From what I heard a church rented one of the spaces with the express purpose of preventing any new liquor licenses from being granted. It pretty much killed campus corner for a little while. I'm guessing it changed because there are new bars there now, right?

----------


## MikeOKC

> The law is 300 feet from a public school.
> 
> However, ACM has been open since 2009 and there have been several new bars open in Bricktown since then, although I'm not sure any within the 300 foot range.
> 
> 
> Even though there is such a statute, you can receive a variance.  It's hard to imagine such a request being turned down given the unique location of the school.


Yeah, I agree with Pete. It's not like this school was there and they decided to start building bars and clubs around it. It was a nightlife district they chose to move to. If it really prevented new clubs from opening it would be one of those "Only In America" type things I read in _The Week_ magazine.

----------


## SatelliteHigh

So why is it that at OU, there are bars that are practically on campus?

----------


## Pete

I'm sure none of the bars on Campus Corner are within 300 feet of any of the OU buildings.

However, Stubbeman Village is very close to Adams Center.

----------


## bluedogok

> FYI, ACM@UCO is a public school.
> 
> I saw a case from the 90's where a bar owner tried to argue that OSU (and other universities) should not be included in the broad "public school" definition.  But the court ruled the intent of the statute was to not disrupt education and worship and therefore the 300 foot limit does apply to public colleges.
> 
> 
> As I stated before, this may be a case of simply having to go one extra step and apply for a variance.  I would also expect ABLE to understand this is a unique situation.


Never dealt with the ABLE commission have you?

I can understand the 300 foot rule with K-12 schools but to lump colleges in with it is ridiculous.





> So why is it that at OU, there are bars that are practically on campus?





> I'm sure none of the bars on Campus Corner are within 300 feet of any of the OU buildings.
> 
> However, Stubbeman Village is very close to Adams Center.


Those areas were "wet" before the existing incarnation of the ABLE commission existed. There are some places across Boyd that might be within 300 feet of the old engineering building.

----------


## Pete

> I can understand the 300 foot rule with K-12 schools but to lump colleges in with it is ridiculous.


The wording of the statute is just "public school" but universities were ruled to be a part of of that category by a court of appeals.

----------


## BDK

They were ruled to be so by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, as well, Pete (_ J. Brotton Corp. v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Com'n_).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?citeid=15174

----------


## kevinpate

> I'm sure none of the bars on Campus Corner are within 300 feet of any of the OU buildings.
> 
> However, Stubbeman Village is very close to Adams Center.


There was a time, some time ago, when low point brews were served up plentifully in the basement of the union.  the brews were so plentiful those of age at times had so many pitchers they sat them down at tables of the underaged ... or so goes the old rumor mill anyway.

----------


## Questor

This is insanity.

----------


## bluedogok

> There was a time, some time ago, when low point brews were served up plentifully in the basement of the union.  the brews were so plentiful those of age at times had so many pitchers they sat them down at tables of the underaged ... or so goes the old rumor mill anyway.


They still served beer there when I was in school, in fact they had a casino night in the union and sold beer there, beer was also still 18 at the time so there weren't many "underaged" at that time. During move-in week at the dorms the beer companies had booths setup between Walker and Adams and were giving away various items, not beer though.

----------


## bombermwc

Even a public/private partnership like this? It might be partnered with UCO, but the ACM itself is private. I think it would be a stretched to consider the ACM suites part of the "campus". No more than Presbyterian Tower is part of OU's campus simply because it's at OU Med Center. Health/Science Center...different story.

I mean hey, if it got voted on and that's what they said, then whatever. But it seems like it's a point in case for a variance. No tolerance policies are for pissy parents that don't blame themselves for any of their kid's problems....not for the real world.

----------


## Rover

Before we all go ballistic, why doesn't Steve actually interview someone from the Able Commission to hear what their position really is?  Seems like this would be newsworthy.  I would like the real story, not hysteria based on hearsay.  What license applications, if any, have actually been turned down and what were the reasons given?  Anybody have those facts?  Is that public knowledge?

----------


## Steve

I've been looking into it for the past few weeks. Can't get a straight answer, but it appears that the Capt. Norm's bar, the one on Sheridan is opening. Will try to get this resolved next few days. All very weird.

----------


## kevinpate

Steve, if it is any consolation, you aren't the first, and won't be the last, to consider ABLE and weird in the same thought.

----------


## Brandon Rush

I still don't understand how on a Sunday before noon I can be served beer or liquor but not "low point beer"

totally backwards

----------


## OKCNDN

> Not mid, but 3.2 beer is, I think, still classified as non-intoxicating and if stronger drink is not in the mix, the rules are different.  As for proximity, 500' or 1000' sounds about right.


3.2 beer is now considered intoxicating.  The change was made way back in 1995.  This is why Oklahoma now limits the time frame that beer can be purchased.  No more around-the-clock beer sales.

----------


## OklahomaNick

Find anything out Steve?

----------


## Midtowner

There are two applicable statutes:

37 O.S.  518.3,  License Restriction for Selling Alcoholic Beverages Near Schools or Churches, http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...?CiteID=104396 ; and

37 O.S.  163.27 - Restrictions of Low-Point Beer Permits Near Schools or Churches, http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...?CiteID=104395 .

And yes, there's the case law which was brought to our attention earlier.

I looked for some sort of process to obtain exceptions, but I couldn't find anything in the statutes or the Administrative Code.  It would appear that ABLE is just following the law in denying new permits to sell alcohol since the installation of ACM.  That said, I don't understand why ABLE is now following the law, and apparently was ignoring it when it granted licenses to OU to sell in their student union (maybe the school was grandfathered and had that license prior to the above statutes?)  

At any rate, I hope the Chamber and Bricktown Association see this as the threat to further downtown development that it is and move against it.

----------


## OklahomaNick

Great info MidTowner!
I can assure you that the powers that be are very aware of this situation..

----------


## Spartan

> Before we all go ballistic, why doesn't Steve actually interview someone from the Able Commission to hear what their position really is?  Seems like this would be newsworthy.  I would like the real story, not hysteria based on hearsay.  What license applications, if any, have actually been turned down and what were the reasons given?  Anybody have those facts?  Is that public knowledge?


In most cases reason and prudence before taking a position would be nice, but we are talking about the ABLE commission here... Why bother? Asking their opinion or reading a press release from them must be one of the biggest wastes of time on the planet.

----------


## Midtowner

> In most cases reason and prudence before taking a position would be nice, but we are talking about the ABLE commission here... Why bother? Asking their opinion or reading a press release from them must be one of the biggest wastes of time on the planet.


In this case, it's not their fault.  They're following the law.  Blame the legislature for not taking this issue up.  I can't imagine that it'd be very controversial to allow beer and liquor stores within 300 feet of a public college or university.  

That said, this statute could be challenged from a number of angles.  It has before, but developments at the federal level, notably, Lawrence v. Texas, have weakened the states' abilities to pass laws solely for moralistic reasons, so you might have a due process violation in that there is no rational basis for the state to prohibit the licensure of an alcohol-serving establishment within 300 feet of a public university--especially when they allow other entities to keep their licenses solely because they were there prior to the existence of the college or university.  It's essentially an admission that the legislature doesn't really think there is a problem here.  

If I had my druthers, we'd just do away with ABLE entirely.  Enforcing 21-to-drink regulations can be done by state police, licenses can be issued by the OTC.  We don't really need anyone to enforce the job-killing/cartel supporting regulations we have now.  Let's get rid of all that and laissez les bonne temps rouler.

----------


## bluedogok

> I looked for some sort of process to obtain exceptions, but I couldn't find anything in the statutes or the Administrative Code.  It would appear that ABLE is just following the law in denying new permits to sell alcohol since the installation of ACM.  That said, I don't understand why ABLE is now following the law, and apparently was ignoring it when it granted licenses to OU to sell in their student union (maybe the school was grandfathered and had that license prior to the above statutes?)


The ABLE Commission came into existence in 1984 after the successful passage of the Liquor by the Drink measure was passed by voters. Before that wine/liquor/high point beer was handled by one agency and low point beer was controlled by another agency. They only sold low point beer in the Crossroads restaurant in the student union, I am not sure when they stopped selling it.

----------


## warreng88

Bricktown’s booze problem: Chamber lobbies to change law that prevents new bars from being within 300 feet of ACM@UCO
By Brianna Bailey
journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2847	
Posted: 08:57 PM Monday, July 18, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY – New bars that want to open in Bricktown could hit a brick wall with the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission because of their close proximity to the University of Central Oklahoma’s Academy of Contemporary Music.

State law bans businesses that derive the majority of their revenue from alcohol sales from opening within 300 feet of a church or school.

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber wants the Oklahoma Legislature to change the law during its next session to keep new businesses moving into Bricktown.

While the law doesn’t affect restaurants in the area, the Academy of Contemporary Music’s relatively recent appearance in Bricktown could keep new bars and nightclubs from opening in what has become the city’s entertainment district, said Jeannette Smith, executive director of the Bricktown Association.

“While UCO is a very viable business partner in this district, we don’t want to deter any other business that is opening in Bricktown,” Smith said. “We’re concerned because we don’t want to prohibit any new development in Bricktown. We’re an entertainment district – that’s what we’re known for.”

ACM@UCO moved into the Oklahoma Hardware Building on the Bricktown Canal in 2009. In May the university announced plans to purchase the historic property for $6.5 million.

Two new bars that have applications pending with the ABLE Commission sit within 300 feet of UCO’s operations in Bricktown.

The Purple Martini, a venue that bills itself as an upscale jazz and blues club, is in the process of opening at 315 E. Sheridan Ave., just down the street from where UCO musicians perform at the ACM@UCO Performance Lab at 323 E. Sheridan Ave. 

Construction crews were working on the interior of the violet-painted, 7,000-square-foot Purple Martini space this week, but the owner could not immediately be reached for comment.

Capt. Norm’s Dockside Bar also has a pending application with ABLE. The outdoor patio and cigar bar wants to open on the Bricktown Canal at 105 E. California Ave., across the street from the Academy of Contemporary Music’s headquarters in the Oklahoma Hardware Building at 25 E. California Ave.

Capt. Norm’s owner declined to comment on the matter when reached by phone Monday. While the ABLE Commission always tries to work with applicants, the alcohol-regulating agency is restricted by what state law tells it to do, said John Maisch, general counsel for the ABLE Commission.

Attempts to contact Steve Kreidler, executive vice president at UCO, were unsuccessful on Monday.

The school has been supportive of the chamber’s efforts to get the law changed, said Mark VanLandingham, vice president for government relations at the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.

“The last thing they wanted to do was to create problem for Bricktown – that’s where the venues are that a lot of their musicians could end up playing in,” VanLandingham said. “They wanted to be close to where action was.”

The chamber attempted to get an amendment attached to an existing bill in the Oklahoma Legislature late during the last session that would have allowed schools to opt out of the 300-foot alcohol ban at their choosing, but it failed to gain support in the House of Representatives, VanLandingham said.

The chamber plans to work with state lawmakers to introduce new legislation to resolve Bricktown’s bar problems when the Legislature reconvenes in February, but in the meantime it could be difficult for new bars and nightclubs to open unless another solution is found, VanLandingham said.

“It’s a bad situation, because it’s tough for a new bar to open in Bricktown right now,” he said.

----------


## CaseyCornett

Our alcohol laws are about the only thing that makes me embarrassed to be an Oklahoman...those and Sally Kern.

----------


## BDP

Aren't there bars in Campus Corner that are within 300 ft of the the OU campus? They're not just 3.2 bars are they?

----------


## BoulderSooner

don't see how a venue that is just owned by uco is still called a school ...   i can see where the ACM would couln't but not the performance venue

----------


## Midtowner

> Aren't there bars in Campus Corner that are within 300 ft of the the OU campus? They're not just 3.2 bars are they?


3.2 is also forbidden.

Check out the statutes I posted.

----------


## BDP

> 3.2 is also forbidden.
> 
> Check out the statutes I posted.


Either way, they exist. Did they all get variances, or does the campus not end where I think it does, or is 300 feet shorter than I think it is?

----------


## easternobserver

There is no way to vary the 300 foot requirement for an ABLE license.  Restaurants deriving less than 50% of income (and this is a judgement call by the ABLE reviewer) are permitted to get an ABLE license within the 300 feet.  The issue of a variance comes up because many cities also have zoning ordinances that contain similar 300 foot requirements -- a variance would be possible from the city's Board of Adjustment, but this would only solve the zoning issue, not the underlying ABLE issue.

----------


## Questor

Really doubt the state legislature will go along with wanting to change this. The small towns always seem to want to impose their will on OKC. I guess it's possible, but I can't imagine how hard it'd be. Might as well write that part of Bricktown off now and start looking for other uses.

----------


## bluedogok

It could spur some of the development east of the ballpark into a club district and the canal area could become more restaurant oriented as long as food sales exceeds alcohol sales.

----------


## Midtowner

> Either way, they exist. Did they all get variances, or does the campus not end where I think it does, or is 300 feet shorter than I think it is?


There's no way to apply for a variance.  I checked the Administrative Code, the statutes, nada.

----------


## Midtowner

> Really doubt the state legislature will go along with wanting to change this. The small towns always seem to want to impose their will on OKC. I guess it's possible, but I can't imagine how hard it'd be. Might as well write that part of Bricktown off now and start looking for other uses.


The language they're asking for is very weak.  Probably only applicable to Bricktown.  I disagree with your assessment, I think this might be one of the first pieces of legislation to get the governor's signature this session.

----------


## mrktguy29

> Our alcohol laws are about the only thing that makes me embarrassed to be an Oklahoman...those and Sally Kern.


Where is the 'like' button!

----------


## Larry OKC

just a random thought, the _Oklahoman_ article on it said that they were getting around it right now because they were only leasing the space. It seems the ownership of the building will be the trigger. So why not lease the building from an independent third party?

----------


## Just the facts

> It could spur some of the development east of the ballpark into a club district and the canal area could become more restaurant oriented as long as food sales exceeds alcohol sales.


Until someone opens up a church east of the ballpark.  I for one don't understand how these laws meet the equal protection clause.  If bars can't open within 300 feet of a school, schools should not be allowed to open within 300 feet of a bar.

----------


## Midtowner

> Until someone opens up a church east of the ballpark.  I for one don't understand how these laws meet the equal protection clause.  If bars can't open within 300 feet of a school, schools should not be allowed to open within 300 feet of a bar.


It doesn't work like that.  Bars are not exactly a protected classification.

----------


## Rover

> Until someone opens up a church east of the ballpark.  I for one don't understand how these laws meet the equal protection clause.  If bars can't open within 300 feet of a school, schools should not be allowed to open within 300 feet of a bar.


Yes, I think the drunks should be protected from those school kids who might negatively influence them.

----------


## BDK

Nor is it the type of discrimination the Equal Protection Clause prohibits.

See, e.g., _Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York_.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/336/106/case.html

----------


## Just the facts

> Yes, I think the drunks should be protected from those school kids who might negatively influence them.


With the grandfather clause the drunks will still be there.  Why do you want 5 year old kids to go to schools with drunks across the street?  You can't on one hand say that bars can't open next to schools because of the bad influence, and then open a school next to bar and give the bar a grandfather exemption.  Well, you can - but it is stupid.

----------


## BDK

The law is completely fair, if there were not such an exemption, the teetotalers could open a school or church next to a bar under false pretenses with the intent to force the removal of the bar.

----------


## Just the facts

> Nor is it the type of discrimination the Equal Protection Clause prohibits.
> 
> See, e.g., _Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York_.
> 
> http://supreme.justia.com/us/336/106/case.html


I can see why that case did not involve 'equal protection'.  In fact, that was a no-brainer.  It prohibited advertising by everyone except companies involved in advertising - hence equal protection.  If the trucking company wants to go in to the advertising business they can.  A bar cannot go into the public school business.

If they wanted to be consistent and protect equally, bars and schools should be kept 300 feet apart and whoever gets there first establishes the 300 foot line.  I am not sure why that is such a controversial point of view.

----------


## Just the facts

> The law is completely fair, if there were not such an exemption, the teetotalers could open a school or church next to a bar under false pretenses with the intent to force the removal of the bar.


They can do that right now in Bricktown.  They could open up a couple of small buildings and just wait for each bar to go out of business and in 10 years there wouldn't be a bar left in Bricktown.  Turn-over in the bar business is pretty high.

----------


## Rover

> With the grandfather clause the drunks will still be there.  Why do you want 5 year old kids to go to schools with drunks across the street?  You can't on one hand say that bars can't open next to schools because of the bad influence, and then open a school next to bar and give the bar a grandfather exemption.  Well, you can - but it is stupid.


One, bars come and go out of business, schools don't. Two, if the patrons of the bar bother the kids, the city/police will find a legal way to make life very difficult for the bar and its patrons.  A few months of multiple public intoxication arrests per night, drunk driving arrests, vagrancy arrests, code violation citations, etc., etc., etc. and the bar is out of business.

----------


## Just the facts

Most schools are done for the day by 3:30PM.  Most bars don't see many customers until after 7PM.  There is very little chance the two groups would ever meet.  However, I made the same point that you did regarding the bars changing frequently.  The law will eventually kill off that portion of Bricktown because 'next generation' bars won't be allowed.

I still don't see why this isn't reasonable:




> If they wanted to be consistent and protect equally, bars and schools should be kept 300 feet apart and whoever gets there first establishes the 300 foot line.

----------


## asta2

So at this point what are the owners of Purple Martini and Captain Morgan's supposed to do?  Do they go ahead and open and not serve liquor or will they have to wait it out til some decision is made?  Which came first their lease of the space and able application or the schools intent to purchase?  It seems the right hand is not talking to the left and these owners should have been made aware that this was a potential problem when they leased the space.  Was it ABLE that made the connection and told everyone?  Seems like the people at the school buying the building should have know this.

----------


## Midtowner

They have two choices--wait or sue. Both are going to cost them.  Don't blame ABLE here, these laws have been on the books for a long, long time.

----------


## OKCNDN

> *Most schools are done for the day by 3:30PM.  Most bars don't see many customers until after 7PM.  There is very little chance the two groups would ever meet.*  However, I made the same point that you did regarding the bars changing frequently.  The law will eventually kill off that portion of Bricktown because 'next generation' bars won't be allowed.
> 
> I still don't see why this isn't reasonable:


Well if that would be true for ACM@UCO then it would be true for bars next to middle schools to, right?  If you let one go you gotta let em all go, if you want "truth and justice for all".

The is law the law.  A respectable law enforcement agency will enforce the law for all and not enforce for others.  The law may need changing but until it is...enforce it on everybody.

----------


## Just the facts

I am all for enforicng the law - I just think it needs to be done away with completely.  No distance restrictions at all.

----------


## Midtowner

Interestingly, no one has mentioned the fact that ACM is not the only public school in Bricktown or the surrounding area.  UCO and OU share some classroom space in the Santa Fe parking structure.  I'm positive that the property line of that structure is located too closely to the property line of the Skirvin for the Skirvin to have been issued permits.  Also, Advanced Academics makes their home over on Sheridan, right around Abuelo's.  Although they are a for-profit operation, an online charter school, a subsidiary of DeVry, they are a public school in the sense that they are funded by taxpayer dollars and must enroll any student who applies.  That would probably foreclose the development of a lot of the North Bricktown area along Sheridan.  That's just off the top of my head, but this might be a bigger issue than anyone really thinks.

And looking to the future, when we build the downtown elementary school, will we have ABLE refusing to issue permits to the Devon building?  To the Film Exchange folks?

----------


## kevinpate

Mid, are the ones you reference in leased space.  That seems to be a factor as does who's on first.  Odd that leased v. ownership is a factor, to me anyway.  None of this is anything I look at though.  Shoot, I thought the range was near double or more.

I get how we got the range, though like JTF, I think it is a tad unneeded and not all that useful.  But then I do not like many nanny type laws that end up on the books.

----------


## yukong

> Interestingly, no one has mentioned the fact that ACM is not the only public school in Bricktown or the surrounding area.  UCO and OU share some classroom space in the Santa Fe parking structure.  I'm positive that the property line of that structure is located too closely to the property line of the Skirvin for the Skirvin to have been issued permits.  Also, Advanced Academics makes their home over on Sheridan, right around Abuelo's.  Although they are a for-profit operation, an online charter school, a subsidiary of DeVry, they are a public school in the sense that they are funded by taxpayer dollars and must enroll any student who applies.  That would probably foreclose the development of a lot of the North Bricktown area along Sheridan.  That's just off the top of my head, but this might be a bigger issue than anyone really thinks.
> 
> And looking to the future, when we build the downtown elementary school, will we have ABLE refusing to issue permits to the Devon building?  To the Film Exchange folks?


The Skirvin derives less than 50 percent of their income from alcohol.  The same with Devon.  Or for most restaurants for that matter.  Nothing would stop HardRock Cafe or any other restaurant that has a bar from opening.  It will only effect bars that make more than 50 percent of their income from alcohol.  In truth, it likely won't effect anything but a "bar."  Would not effect Toby Keith's either.  Maker's Cigar Lounge....yes, probably.  The issue of the income split will be very subjective, and I feel certain that ABLE would err on the side of the establishment in Bricktown.

----------


## Snowman

> Interestingly, no one has mentioned the fact that ACM is not the only public school in Bricktown or the surrounding area.  UCO and OU share some classroom space in the Santa Fe parking structure.  I'm positive that the property line of that structure is located too closely to the property line of the Skirvin for the Skirvin to have been issued permits.  Also, Advanced Academics makes their home over on Sheridan, right around Abuelo's.  Although they are a for-profit operation, an online charter school, a subsidiary of DeVry, they are a public school in the sense that they are funded by taxpayer dollars and must enroll any student who applies.  That would probably foreclose the development of a lot of the North Bricktown area along Sheridan.  That's just off the top of my head, but this might be a bigger issue than anyone really thinks.
> 
> And looking to the future, when we build the downtown elementary school, will we have ABLE refusing to issue permits to the Devon building?  To the Film Exchange folks?


Well they may just be leasing the space like UCO had been, it only mattered when they purchased the building. It sounds like their is support and work going on for a state amendment for exception when one goes into an established entertainment district anyway.

----------


## Midtowner

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis that the purchase is what makes the statute go into effect.  While it does refer to the location as a "school or church property," it could definitely be argued that a leasehold estate is enough to call something so-and-so's property.  That's not a huge leap at all.  If I lease something from you, that leasehold is mine subject to the terms of the leasehold estate and until the lease ends.

----------


## Larry OKC

Mid, the lease or ownership issue seemed to be the trigger mentioned in one of the articles (think it quoted an ABLE spokesperson). Will see if I can find it and post.

*ON EDIT:* here is the article I was thnking of where the subject is mentioned, Read more: http://newsok.com/acmuco-building-pu...#ixzz1ShVnUTba




> The warehouse along the Bricktown Canal is already home to the Academy of Contemporary Music, but *the school becoming a landowner next month unintentionally triggered* a law that prohibits issuing licenses to new bars or clubs that derive more than 50 percent of sales from liquor if they
> 
> John Maisch, counsel for the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission (ABLE), said questions also surrounded the ACM@UCO performance lab at 323 E Sheridan Ave. Enforcement around that location as well would extend the prohibition against new bars and clubs throughout most if not all of original Bricktown, which is the state's busiest urban entertainment district.
> 
> “We're finding ways to treat the Sheridan location differently than the space they (ACM) will own,” Maisch said. *“It's leased, not owned,* it's not classroom space, it's a perform venue open to the public.”


In the above it also throws in the classroom/performance venue aspect but would that apply to their current leased classroom space?? This is another fine mess...

----------


## Questor

> The language they're asking for is very weak.  Probably only applicable to Bricktown.  I disagree with your assessment, I think this might be one of the first pieces of legislation to get the governor's signature this session.


I just have no faith in our state legislature to be progressive in any way. And I can think of at least one example where a bill was explicity written to apply only to Tulsa and OKC and the state still shot it down. I know, the balance of power has shifted since then, but some things just never seem to change. Here's hoping for a miracle though.

----------


## Larry OKC

Would a law that only applies to OKC and Bricktown in particular be a "special law" and against the state constitution?

----------


## Midtowner

> Would a law that only applies to OKC and Bricktown in particular be a "special law" and against the state constitution?


mosdef.

----------


## Thunder

> And looking to the future, when we build the downtown elementary school, will we have ABLE refusing to issue permits to the Devon building?


Impossible.  The restaurants is like 800+ feet away. :-O

----------


## asta2

> They have two choices--wait or sue. Both are going to cost them.  Don't blame ABLE here, these laws have been on the books for a long, long time.


Sue who?  The leasing agents, owners of the building, the school or ABLE?  Is this just a case where no one did the research?  I'm just extremely curious to figure how this mess happened in the first place.

----------


## Midtowner

They'd sue the State of Oklahoma.

----------


## OKCNDN

> They'd sue the State of Oklahoma.


Sue based on what?  It is the responsibility of the business owner to check all regulations and comply with what they are asking.

----------


## Thunder

> Sue based on what?  It is the responsibility of the business owner to check all regulations and comply with what they are asking.


No.  ACM/OCU is at fault.  They intentionally moved into an area where bars/clubs already exist and prevented new bar/clubs from opening.  How dare you criticize the business owners.

----------


## kevinpate

> No.  ACM/OCU is at fault.  They intentionally moved into an area where bars/clubs already exist and prevented new bar/clubs from opening. ...


So?  They did nothing wrong in moving there.  No fault at all on their part.

----------


## Thunder

> So?  They did nothing wrong in moving there.  No fault at all on their part.


They are at fault.  They were fully aware of the limitation, but they chose to move there and induce destruction.  Case closed.

----------


## Just the facts

So if the school is leasing space it isn't considered a school, but if a bar is leasing space it is still considered a bar.  Bars have to stay 300' from schools but schools can open next door to a bar.  Someone explain to me how this law is 'fair' again.  Just do away with the distance requirement completely.

----------


## Midtowner

> Sue based on what?  It is the responsibility of the business owner to check all regulations and comply with what they are asking.


It is the responsibility of the state to pass constitutional legislation.

----------


## coldbeer

Hi...Ive been watching this thread and understand that bricktown was designated a alcohol zoned district from the start. It would seem that common sense would dictate that if a school/church decided to establish themselves inside that zone and  of which the city and private businesses have millions of dollars invested...that state overlay law should not apply in this case...they should allow some sort of varience

----------


## Just the facts

> Hi...Ive been watching this thread and understand that bricktown was designated a alcohol zoned district from the start.


Was that done back when Sega Gameworks was planned for Bricktown?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Hi...Ive been watching this thread and understand that bricktown was designated a alcohol zoned district from the start. It would seem that common sense would dictate that if a school/church decided to establish themselves inside that zone and  of which the city and private businesses have millions of dollars invested...that state overlay law should not apply in this case...they should allow some sort of varience


it has nothing to do with the zoning ...   it has to do with  ABLE issuing them a liquer licence.

----------


## badfish77

Saw an ad on craigslist hiring staff for a new patio bar in bricktown supposed to be located right on the canal called Cap't Norms Dockside Bar. Anyone know anything about this place or where exactly it will be?

----------


## SkyWestOKC

There was a thread about it here not too long ago. Anyone know where it went?

----------


## Just the facts

Pretty sure the UCO school thing put this on hold.  No new liquor licenses within 300 feet of a school.

----------


## Watson410

It's located right next to where the Dungeon Ride was on the Canal level. It should be opened by Aug. 15th.

----------


## ljbab728

> Pretty sure the UCO school thing put this on hold.  No new liquor licenses within 300 feet of a school.


That just depends on whether they will receive more than 50% of their revenue from liquor sales.

----------


## Rover

Maybe they will be approved before ACM completes their deal and will be grandfathered in.

----------


## Steve

> Maybe they will be approved before ACM completes their deal and will be grandfathered in.


Ding, ding, ding...

----------


## metro

Or they could simply apply for a variance

----------


## Pete

Regarding variances, I suggested that as alternative to the over-arching ACM and downtown school problems but others have posted indicating that is not even an option with our existing laws.

----------


## metro

> Regarding variances, I suggested that as alternative to the over-arching ACM and downtown school problems but others have posted indicating that is not even an option with our existing laws.


Wow, especially in an entertainment district.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Wow, especially in an entertainment district.


that is because it is not a zoneing issue (all of bricktown is in an ABC overlay) .. it is a state ABLE license issue

----------


## Pete

To not even have a process in place to consider special exceptions is absurd yet consistent with the rest of our crazy liquor laws.

----------


## Urbanized

Captain Norm's Facebook page

Oklahoma mixed beverage license in hand. Still some miscellaneous finish work, staff training and provisioning to go before opening, but look for an opening date to be announced soon.

----------


## Patrick

> that is because it is not a zoneing issue (all of bricktown is in an ABC overlay) .. it is a state ABLE license issue


No....it's an Oklahoma "Baptist" issue.

----------


## kevinpate

> No....it's an Oklahoma "Baptist" issue.



Now, if that were it, this would be a 'by the wink' state

----------


## Larry OKC

To a certain extent that is true. While I understand the morality basis for the proximity rule (not saying I agree with it, just understand where they are coming from). If it is wrong it is wrong. Yet businesses are grandfathered in and allowed to violate the intent of the statute. This was brought up again by Councilman Kelly recently. I got the impression he didn't seem to understand why it didn't apply to pre-exisiting businesses, but only to new ones.

----------


## rcjunkie

> To a certain extent that is true. While I understand the morality basis for the proximity rule (not saying I agree with it, just understand where they are coming from). If it is wrong it is wrong. Yet businesses are grandfathered in and allowed to violate the intent of the statute. This was brought up again by Councilman Kelly recently. I got the impression he didn't seem to understand why it didn't apply to pre-exisiting businesses, but only to new ones.


Some never cease to amaze me, the distance rule/law has absolutely nothing to do with "morality"!!!!

----------


## Larry OKC

Oh wise one, then what does it have to deal with? And you may need to share that info with your legislator and council person just so they are clear on the matter. Oh, and let Patrick know too (he is the one that mentioned the Baptist thing)

----------


## Rover

A Baptist thing?  Are we back in the 50s?  

This is a law with good intent and sometimes bad results that needs some tweaking to take into account situations that it didn't anticipate...like this one.  It is now obvious and will be addressed.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Oh wise one, then what does it have to deal with? And you may need to share that info with your legislator and council person just so they are clear on the matter. Oh, and let Patrick know too (he is the one that mentioned the Baptist thing)


It's a safety issue and a means of keeping underaged children from the exposure.  If it was a "Baptist thing" as you state, why doesn't the law only apply to Churches.

----------


## betts

Because the Baptists don't want anyone drinking, anywhere, and it was easy to convince lawmakers that alchohol shouldn't be near schools.  I didn't grow up here.  I grew up in the land of Germans and Scandinavians, Lutherans and Catholics.  My parents gave me a little glass of beer when they were having one when I was below the age of 5 (I know I was that young, because I remember the house and we moved when I was 5).  We were allowed to have a single glass of wine with our nicer dinners when we were in high school.  My parents are infrequent drinkers, I rarely drink, and my brother and sister rarely drink as well.  There were no restrictive liquor laws like there are here, and, to be honest with you, we didn't have anywhere near the high school age drinking that I saw in my kids' schools here.  

As usual, vice laws rarely affect behavior.  If restraint is not taught in the home or you have a genetic propensity for drug problems, you're more likely to have them.

----------


## Architect2010

I agree Betts. This law definitely does not protect children on the basis that they may be "exposed" or whatever that really means. If they're in a school, they're not going to be first-row seats to some drunk just walking aimlessly through their halls. What's even funnier is that ACM@UCO is a UNIVERSITY. I also have a hard time believing that this law is applied to keep University or High School from being "exposed", seeing as a lot of them are old enough, or have risked exposure themselves. Ha.

----------


## dankrutka

Have morality laws ever worked? Prohibition led to speakeasies and an increase in the power of organized crime. The 21 year old drinking limit has led to a culture of binge drinking at unsupervised high school and college parties across the nation. There are many more examples. 

The irony of it all is that these laws,  at least in Oklahoma,  that try to legislate people's morals are primarily pushed by the same people that praise small government... Hopefully the legislature will meet enough pressure to repeal these laws soon before it does harm to Bricktown

----------


## Larry OKC

> It's a safety issue and a means of keeping underaged children from the exposure.  If it was a "Baptist thing" as you state, why doesn't the law only apply to Churches.


First of all, I didn't say it was a "Baptist thing". Patrick said that, in response to his post, I was simply saying I could see where they are coming from on it.

I can go along with the safety thing for the younger school aged kids, but adults and others attending college? How would the safety thing apply to Churches (which are also included in the proximity ban).

Whatever reason (morality or safety), how is it more "Moral" or "Safe" if the establishment is pre-existing? If it is wrong it is wrong. If it is unsafe, it is unsafe.

----------


## dankrutka

It's not wrong or unsafe. Don't let kids into bars (easily done) and don't let drunks near kids (how many drunks really wander towards schools? they don't want to get arrested for being drunk). Both of these are easily accomplished without the government getting involved.

----------


## Larry OKC

*Kilgore*: I am not disagreeing with you, just asking what was the rationale behind the proximity rule in the first place? How does the 50% of sales come into play with that rationale?? Does it only apply to places where kids congregate (like schools and churches)? Does it apply to public parks, playgrounds, water/theme parks, zoos, museums, McDonald's, Chucky Cheese, etc?  For whatever reason it exists, how does that jive with a preexisting business being exempt as opposed to a new business?? That's the part I don't understand and by Councilman Kelly's question, _seemed_ to be his confusion as well.

----------


## RodH

> *Kilgore*: I am not disagreeing with you, just asking what was the rationale behind the proximity rule in the first place? How does the 50% of sales come into play with that rationale?? Does it only apply to places where kids congregate (like schools and churches)? Does it apply to public parks, playgrounds, water/theme parks, zoos, museums, McDonald's, Chucky Cheese, etc?  For whatever reason it exists, how does that jive with a preexisting business being exempt as opposed to a new business?? That's the part I don't understand and by Councilman Kelly's question, _seemed_ to be his confusion as well.


Preexisting just means that the bar was there first and was within the legal requirements.  It would not be fair for a business to have to worry about being thrown out of compliance by a school moving into its space and forcing it to move.

----------


## ljbab728

> Preexisting just means that the bar was there first and was within the legal requirements.  It would not be fair for a business to have to worry about being thrown out of compliance by a school moving into its space and forcing it to move.


I think Larry understands that rationale.  He is just questioning the reality of the safety issue.  If a school is unsafe because a bar moves into it's proximity it should also be unsafe if it moves into the proximity of a bar.  Whether the bar came before or after should not make any difference in safety if that is the main concern.

----------


## Larry OKC

In previous articles on the subject, it was suggested that the proximity law wasn't being enforced so far because the space for the school is leased. Seems the way around it (until it can be addressed by the legislature) would be for the school to continue leasing. But that seems to be a moot point now since the school closed on the property, the the proximity rule kicks in. This new article by Steve: http://newsok.com/acmuco-closes-on-p...adlines_widget

----------


## Steve

My sources at 23rd and Lincoln tell me this will be legislatively fixed pretty quickly during the next session.

----------


## Urbanized

Say, any chance the booze/ACM/children/Baptist/legislature/ABLE discussion could be moved to the "ABLE Commission: No New Bars In Bricktown??" thread? Especially since this thread's namesake bar got its license and the discussion is at this point mostly irrelevant to the bar in question?

I'm sure some other poor soul will attempt to license a bar in Bricktown prior to the discussed legislative change and become the unwitting poster child for this issue.

----------


## Steve

No change in threads unless Capt. Norm drinks some booze with a child of a Baptist legislator in front of ACM@UCO. And get photos.

----------


## BDP

> My sources at 23rd and Lincoln tell me this will be legislatively fixed pretty quickly during the next session.


Good to hear. Do you know how they're going to do it? Exempt universities, carve out districts, change distance, etc.?

----------


## Larry OKC

*Steve*: Good one! LOL

----------


## amaesquire

> No change in threads unless Capt. Norm drinks some booze with a child of a Baptist legislator in front of ACM@UCO. And get photos.


Well played, Steve.

----------


## Just the facts

> No change in threads unless Capt. Norm drinks some booze with a child of a Baptist legislator in front of ACM@UCO. And get photos.


What about a Baptist legislator that has drinks with a shirtless Capt Norm, and someone gets pictures?



Just a little Trailer Park Boys humor.

----------


## Downtowner405

> No change in threads unless Capt. Norm drinks some booze with a child of a Baptist legislator in front of ACM@UCO. And get photos.


Hey! As long as that kid is 21, who cares?   :Tiphat:

----------


## OklahomaNick

It appears that the Legislature is trying to make something happen quick which is GOOD for Bricktown.
I wonder which bars have "tried" to open but were rejected due to this law?

*Bricktown bar bill goes to state Senate*
Heidi Rambo Centrella
OKC Biz

Oklahoma's liquor laws soon may be tweaked. The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, with the support of University of Central Oklahoma, the city of Oklahoma City, Downtown OKC Inc. and Bricktown Association, hopes new legislation will quickly receive the governor's blessing.

When the ACM@UCO music institution opened in Bricktown, the state law that restricts the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission from issuing mixed-beverage licenses to bars situated within 300 feet of a school reared its head.

“I know that the last thing UCO wanted to do was cause a problem for business in Bricktown,” said Mark VanLandingham, vice president of government relations and policy at the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber. “There were tenants ready to move into Bricktown and put new bars in, and the ABLE Commission said, 'We're sorry, but under the current law, we're unable to do that.'”

Authored by Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, Senate Bill 1218 would allow a college or university in a business improvement district, such as Bricktown, to waive that restriction.

“It amends the state law very, very narrowly,” VanLandingham said.

The bill would not amend the state law as it pertains to churches or elementary, middle, junior high and high schools.

The Senate committee for business and commerce passed the committee substitute for SB 1218 on Feb. 16 by a vote of 7-0; its next stop is the full Senate.

“The Legislature hardly ever passes anything unanimously, and there will be, without a doubt, some people who will make the argument that this is allowing more access to liquor,” VanLandingham said. “But we think we can show that this is so narrow, and the continued development of Bricktown ought to be what's most important to everybody.”

Oklahoma City has seven business improvement districts: Arts District, Automobile Alley, Bricktown, Central Business District, Deep Deuce, Film District and Park Plaza.

----------


## BoulderSooner

good to hear

----------


## CurtisJ

> It appears that the Legislature is trying to make something happen quick which is GOOD for Bricktown.


And by quick we mean four monthes after it became an issue in the first place?  I realize that this is quick for government, but if I sat on something this big for four monthes at work I would be fired.

I'm glad they are finally fixing this problem, but I would much rather see them permanently fix our backwards liquor laws than this peice of legislation, which amounts to a one time exception.  I have already seen a bible thumping baptist church (and I'm not anti-religious, just anti-"impose my beliefs on everyone else") move into the middle of the strip in Stillwater to try and restrict new bars from coming in there, and its not good for anyone.  It won't reduce drinking in stillwater, it will just de-centralize it, which makes it harder on police, harder on the drunks and harder on the other sober citizens.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> And by quick we mean four monthes after it became an issue in the first place?  I realize that this is quick for government, but if I sat on something this big for four monthes at work I would be fired.
> 
> I'm glad they are finally fixing this problem, but I would much rather see them permanently fix our backwards liquor laws than this peice of legislation, which amounts to a one time exception.  I have already seen a bible thumping baptist church (and I'm not anti-religious, just anti-"impose my beliefs on everyone else") move into the middle of the strip in Stillwater to try and restrict new bars from coming in there, and its not good for anyone.  It won't reduce drinking in stillwater, it will just de-centralize it, which makes it harder on police, harder on the drunks and harder on the other sober citizens.


did you want the legislature to do something when they were not in session??

----------


## OklahomaNick

> I'm glad they are finally fixing this problem, but I would much rather see them permanently fix our backwards liquor laws than this peice of legislation, which amounts to a one time exception.


I agree. However that requires SEVERAL amendments to our state constitution; thus possibly requiring a series of state questions that ALL would need to pass. Its a very difficult process.. 

This in particular law is "somewhat" easier to override..

----------


## CurtisJ

> did you want the legislature to do something when they were not in session??


I would have rather it not be an issue in the first place.

----------


## OklahomaNick

From the Chamber's Weekly Legislative Report E-mail: (March 9th, 2012)

Bricktown Legislation Passed by Senate
Legislation to allow a college or university in a Business Improvement District to waive the state's 300-foot rule (which prohibits mixed beverage bars within 300 feet of a church or school) was passed Wednesday by the Senate 43-0. Sen. Holt authored the bill and was a strong advocate on the Senate floor. The legislation relates to the University of Central Oklahoma locating its Academy of Contemporary Music in Bricktown, one of Oklahoma City's seven downtown Business Improvement Districts. The legislation would permit a college or university to waive the requirement if it chooses to do so. The legislation would not impact state law that prohibits bars within 300 feet of churches, elementary, junior high, middle or high schools. The bill will now move to the House of Representatives. 

Good news! Get this passed QUICK!

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Definitely good news.  Hopefully it doesn't fly backward in the HofR

----------


## BDP

> Definitely good news.  Hopefully it doesn't fly backward in the HofR


Yeah, they will probably amend it so that you have to get an ultrasound of your liver before you can buy a drink.

----------


## Pete

Anybody know how the Dollhouse was able to get around this?

----------


## Skyline

How can something like this pass so easily and yet other liquor laws are the most difficult to change?

----------


## kevinpate

> Anybody know how the Dollhouse was able to get around this?


Is there a 50% of gross revenue from alcohol requirement?  That 20.00 cover is beginning to make more sense if there is.

----------


## kevinpate

> How can something like this pass so easily and yet other liquor laws are the most difficult to change?


A lot of alcohol laws are intertwined with each other and with the constitution.  This basically adds language that says X can be waived by a college age school, without doing anything to impact if it is a church or secondary school or one for younger students.

It's simply easier to say one can have a mulligan on hole 2 than it is to layout an entire new golf course.

----------


## Skyline

> A lot of alcohol laws are intertwined with each other and with the constitution.  This basically adds language that says X can be waived by a college age school, without doing anything to impact if it is a church or secondary school or one for younger students.
> 
> It's simply easier to say one can have a mulligan on hole 2 than it is to layout an entire new golf course.


I understand that, but I think if the politicians want something done they make it happen.

----------


## kswright29

Unfortunately, getting the liquor laws changed in this state has about as much chance as Obama carrying the state.

----------


## kevinpate

> I understand that, but I think if the politicians want something done they make it happen.


By and large, politicos are not innovative and risk taking types.  They get put into place by folks who want things to be a certain way.  

Those folks fund the initial entry into public office and raise the funds to keep their preferred warm body in its chair.  

A lot of people spend a lot of money to keep certain things as they are, and they spend a lot of mney to change things they think need changing.

So, with a large element not wanting change, some to protect their sacred cows, some based on faith, some based on fear of uncertainty, change does not ever come real easy on the macro level.  You want the alcohol laws changed?  Organize some money, make that a lot of money.  Target multiple seats, and get pro-change candidates elected.  Then get ready for a fight the likes of which most folks haven't really contemplated.

I'm not saying mass change is good or bad for our alcohol process, but wants and wishes alone will never, ever, cause it to happen in this state.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> I'm not saying mass change is good or bad for our alcohol process, but wants and wishes alone will never, ever, cause it to happen in this state.


+1

And if anyone is really serious about making changes, a good lesson can be found in the way J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon made the state go wet in 1959. They simply enforced, almost to the letter, the existing antiquated laws. They didn't have to raid the Petroleum Club many times, or shut down the 24-hour-service bootleggers' delivery operations very long, to force the change...

----------


## foodiefan

> +1
> 
> And if anyone is really serious about making changes, a good lesson can be found in the way J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon made the state go wet in 1959. They simply enforced, almost to the letter, the existing antiquated laws. They didn't have to raid the Petroleum Club many times, or shut down the 24-hour-service bootleggers' delivery operations very long, to force the change...


unfortunately, the biggest "issue" that needs changing hasn't become "liquor by the wink". . . i.e.,  I don't know of grocery stores that are selling wine "under the table", so I'm not sure what it is that could be enforced.

----------


## Just the facts

> They should have repealed the original law.  But that might be a little too "small government" for some folks.


There simply is not enough root-cause analysis and solutions in the world today - just work arounds to work arounds.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> I'm not sure what it is that could be enforced.


Prohibit all alcohol sales within 300 feet of a school or church -- and establish new schools or churches within 300 feet of every existing bar. That should stir up the populace enough to force a rapid change in the law.

----------


## Bunty

> +1
> 
> And if anyone is really serious about making changes, a good lesson can be found in the way J. Howard Edmondson and Joe Cannon made the state go wet in 1959. They simply enforced, almost to the letter, the existing antiquated laws. They didn't have to raid the Petroleum Club many times, or shut down the 24-hour-service bootleggers' delivery operations very long, to force the change...


 So raiding the frat houses at OSU and OU for marijuana might work to get marijuana decriminalized in Oklahoma.

----------


## Jim Kyle

Yep; especially if the seize-everything rules were applied and all of the members sent up the river. Such a move might even get faster results than we saw back in '59.

For the record, my attitude on all of the "war on drugs" theater was formed by an editorial written by the late John W. Campbell some 50 years ago. He advocated decriminalizing ALL drugs, and letting people OD as much as they wanted, thus cleansing the gene pool. He also advocated removing all licensing and regulation from such things as health care, and allowing free competition so that quacks and frauds could not be protected by law. To put it mildly, he out-Randed Ayn Rand and made Libertarians look downright conservative...

However, the most effective way to get bad law changed seems to be to enforce it to the letter, taking special care to burn "the powers that be" to the maximum extent possible.

----------


## OklahomaNick

From the Chamber's weekly Legislative Update:

*Legislation to Address UCO/Bricktown Issues Passes House Committee*

SB 1218 (Sen. Holt), which previously passed the Senate 43-0, cleared its first hurdle in the House on Wednesday when passed by the House Public Safety Committee 12-0. The legislation addresses a state law that prevents the ABLE Commission from issuing mixed beverage licenses to establishments within 300 feet of schools or churches. As a result of the UCO Academy of Contemporary Music's presence in Bricktown, the ABLE Commission is presently unable to grant mixed beverage licenses to new bars in Bricktown.

SB 1218 would allow a college or university located in a Business Improvement District, such as Bricktown, to waive that requirement if it chooses to do so. The legislation would not impact the 300-foot rule as it relates to churches or schools that are not colleges or universities (elementary, junior high, middle, high school). The bill will now move to the full House for consideration.

----------


## kevinpate

Good for BT, but not any help for the areas that are within the no PBR zone of the new DT grade school.

----------


## OklahomaNick

Senate Bill 1218 passed the House this morning 63-29. Now on to the Governor's desk who is expected to sign.

----------


## Skyline

> Good for BT, but not any help for the areas that are within the no PBR zone of the new DT grade school.


That doesn't seem right to discriminate, with a no PBR zone, against one of American finest beers of all time. Pabst Blue Ribbon is delicious.

----------


## Urbanized

He shoots...HE SCORES!

----------


## ljbab728

Signed by the governor.

http://newsok.com/governor-signs-mea...financial-news

----------


## Larry OKC

Unanswered question is "Why?"...fFrom the above article:



> That law prohibits the opening of any new bars or clubs on the Bricktown Canal between the Bricktown ballpark and the BNSF Railway viaduct. It also affects properties between Sheridan and Reno avenues.


Personally am disappointed in this, the school knew the neighborhood in which they were moving into (apparently the law wasn't triggered while they were renting, only when they bought the building), those laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced or dispensed with. The loopholes need to be eliminated, not added.

----------


## jedicurt

> Unanswered question is "Why?"...fFrom the above article:
> 
> Personally am disappointed in this, the school knew the neighborhood in which they were moving into (apparently the law wasn't triggered while they were renting, only when they bought the building), those laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced or dispensed with. The loopholes need to be eliminated, not added.


and what reason is that?  i've yet to find a real reason for it.

----------


## Pete

This newly passed law will make it easy for the new downtown elementary school to waive the alcohol restriction as well.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> This newly passed law will make it easy for the new downtown elementary school to waive the alcohol restriction as well.


i don't believe so .. i think the law only includes colleges and university's

----------


## Larry OKC

> and what reason is that?  i've yet to find a real reason for it.


Reason for what? (Sorry if my post was confusing)

----------


## kevinpate

> i don't believe so .. i think the law only includes colleges and university's


That is correct.  This has no impact except as to post-secondary institution waivers.  The area near the planned DT elementary remains a no new imbibe zone.

----------


## Urbanized

> Unanswered question is "Why?"...fFrom the above article:
> 
> Personally am disappointed in this, the school knew the neighborhood in which they were moving into (apparently the law wasn't triggered while they were renting, only when they bought the building), those laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced or dispensed with. The loopholes need to be eliminated, not added.


I had some personal involvement with this one and in fact initially alerted David Holt about it. ACM@UCO had no inkling whatsoever that their presence would cause a problem, and was very involved in finding this solution. Unintended consequence of their laudable desire to locate in a downtown entertainment area.

----------


## jedicurt

> Reason for what? (Sorry if my post was confusing)


sorry... after re reading your post, i'm not sure what i was asking either... lol... it was before i had my coffee today, so i'm blaming it on that

----------


## Larry OKC

> I had some personal involvement with this one and in fact initially alerted David Holt about it. ACM@UCO had no inkling whatsoever that their presence would cause a problem, and was very involved in finding this solution. Unintended consequence of their laudable desire to locate in a downtown entertainment area.


It seems the solution would have been for them to keep renting rather than creating yet another loophole, circumventing the intent of the law. I agree our liquor laws are antiquated but they need to either be enforced or eliminated (and this is coming from a  non-drinker).

----------


## Urbanized

I understand that position, but from a Bricktown perspective I am thrilled that they are now owners rather than renters.

----------


## ljbab728

nm

----------


## BoulderSooner

> It seems the solution would have been for them to keep renting rather than creating yet another loophole, circumventing the intent of the law. I agree our liquor laws are antiquated but they need to either be enforced or eliminated (and this is coming from a  non-drinker).


the law wasn't circumvented it was changed ..

----------


## Larry OKC

By changing the law, the intent of the law was circumvented with yet another loophole. The intent being that alcohol not be sold/in proximity to schools and churches. So many loopholes in it already (percentage of sales, grandfather clause etc)...if the alcohol is so bad of an idea to have within 300 ft of a church or school, is it any less bad if a business doesn't reach the percentage benchmark? Or stuff served from an establishment that existed before the school/church was built is somehow less dangerous than that sold from a new place? How does owning the space (instead of renting) make the presence of alcohol more dangerous?  Etc, etc etc

Again, I am not saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. Either enforce the law or get rid of it completely instead of adding more loopholes to it.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> By changing the law, the intent of the law was circumvented with yet another loophole. The intent being that alcohol not be sold/in proximity to schools and churches. So many loopholes in it already (percentage of sales, grandfather clause etc)...if the alcohol is so bad of an idea to have within 300 ft of a church or school, is it any less bad if a business doesn't reach the percentage benchmark? Or stuff served from an establishment that existed before the school/church was built is somehow less dangerous than that sold from a new place? How does owning the space (instead of renting) make the presence of alcohol more dangerous?  Etc, etc etc
> 
> Again, I am not saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. Either enforce the law or get rid of it completely instead of adding more loopholes to it.


the intent of the law was to not have BARS/clubs near churches/schools .... . this university is helped by having bars/clubs (places their students can play) nearby.

----------


## jedicurt

> By changing the law, the intent of the law was circumvented with yet another loophole. The intent being that alcohol not be sold/in proximity to schools and churches. So many loopholes in it already (percentage of sales, grandfather clause etc)...if the alcohol is so bad of an idea to have within 300 ft of a church or school, is it any less bad if a business doesn't reach the percentage benchmark? Or stuff served from an establishment that existed before the school/church was built is somehow less dangerous than that sold from a new place? How does owning the space (instead of renting) make the presence of alcohol more dangerous?  Etc, etc etc
> 
> Again, I am not saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. Either enforce the law or get rid of it completely instead of adding more loopholes to it.



talking with one of my friends who is in the legislature... he said that they way most of the State Senators read the law as was originally written, that it never applies to colleges/universities... and that it was only the Able Commission that interpreted it this way, so he felt that the law change was really just changing the wording so that the correct intent of the law was known by all

----------


## OklahomaNick

From the Chamber Weekly Legislative Report Today: 

*Legislation to Allow New Clubs in Bricktown Signed Into Law*

Legislation that will allow new bars and clubs to open in Bricktown was signed into law by Gov. Fallin on Tuesday. Growth in Bricktown had been impeded by a state law that prevented the ABLE Commission from granting mixed beverage licenses to new establishments within 300 feet of the University of Central Oklahoma's two Bricktown locations. Under the new law, a college or university located in a Business Improvement District (such as Bricktown) may waive the 300-foot prohibition by providing notice to the ABLE Commission, the establishment seeking the license and by publishing its intent to waive the rule in a newspaper.

----------


## OklahomaNick

I guess we can now consider this issue resolved!

----------


## Urbanized

> talking with one of my friends who is in the legislature... he said that they way most of the State Senators read the law as was originally written, that it never applies to colleges/universities... and that it was only the Able Commission that interpreted it this way, so he felt that the law change was really just changing the wording so that the correct intent of the law was known by all


I think that is pretty accurate. The similar City ordinance specifies COMPULSORY education, which would apply to elementary through high school, but would not include college. So the City ordinance was never a problem. But ABLE enforces state law, not municipal, and they approached the issue with an abundance of caution. This basically refined the pre-existing law.

----------


## Midtowner

../.

----------

