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 Commission’s 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??

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=15174

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.

This is insanity.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Find anything out Steve?

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/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=104396 ; and

37 O.S. § 163.27 - Restrictions of Low-Point Beer Permits Near Schools or Churches, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?