Able Commission: No New Bars in Bricktown??

[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]

../.