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.

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.

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.

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.

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-purchase-could-put-freeze-on-openings-of-new-bars-and-clubs-along-bricktown-canal/article/3586776#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...

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.

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

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

mosdef.

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

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.

They'd sue the State of Oklahoma.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Ding, ding, ding...

Or they could simply apply for a variance

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.

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.

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

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

Captain Norm's Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Capt-Norms-Dockside-Bar/131443073598938?ref=ts)

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.

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.

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


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

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.

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"!!!!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-purchase-of-oklahoma-hardware-building-as-permanent-home/article/3594986?custom_click=headlines_widget

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

Say, any chance the booze/ACM/children/Baptist/legislature/ABLE discussion could be moved to the "ABLE Commission: No New Bars In Bricktown?? (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26466)" 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.

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.

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.?

Steve: Good one! LOL

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.

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?

http://synthr.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/randylahey-jpeg1.jpg

Just a little Trailer Park Boys humor.

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:

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.

good to hear

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.