Club’s a bad mix
To The Editor: Re “Club Remix gets liquor license” (news article, March 13 – 19):
We residents of Murray St., Church St. and Park Pl. and surrounding homes suggest the owners of Remix try living in our neighborhood before they say their club is not a nuisance.
We are greatly saddened to hear for the first time that the dozens and dozens of citizen calls to police over issues caused by Remix making conditions for homes that surround the club uninhabitable are just now coming to light. There is obviously a flaw in the 311 system and 911 which seemingly does not follow up to alert the First Precinct about such neighborhood violations.
Must we follow in the footsteps of neighbors of Peppers/Eros/Deco on Leonard St.? At recent meetings with the First Precinct detectives, east Tribeca residents were told the “good news” is that someone finally has been stabbed, inside rather than outside the Leonard St. club. Why do we have to wait for a disaster to get attention to this serious matter?
What is the real purpose of hearing from the community over liquor licensing these establishments when community input is so blatantly disregarded?
Clearly stated in the A.B.C. laws; Article 8; Revocation of license for just cause. Section 118, # 3: “As used in this section, the term ‘for cause’ shall also include the existence of a sustained and continuing pattern of noise, disturbance, misconduct, or disorder on or about the licensed premises, related to the operation of the premises or the conduct of its patrons, which adversely affects the health, welfare or safety of the inhabitants of the area in which such licensed premises are located.”
If the State Liquor Authority were to honestly solicit community input, and the law was followed, such establishments would be made to be better neighbors.
Suellen Epstein and the Murray Street Block Association
Facts & fear
To The Editor:
Those opposed to the reconstitution of Southbridge Towers as a private cooperative continue to assert that the overwhelming majority (1,028 yes to 242 no) of S.B.T. cooperators who voted yes were somehow duped into doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prepared in 2006 and voted on in 2007, the feasibility study accurately and impartially reflected the market and economic conditions that prevailed at that time. For the past year the S.B.T. board of directors has worked diligently with its consultants to produce a plan that is reflective of the current economic environment. Our primary goal has been to assure that reconstitution will work for the benefit of all cooperators by preserving low maintenance while enabling residents to acquire significant equity. For S.B.T. residents who in the current downturn have seen the value of their savings and retirement accounts diminish greatly, their dividend payments slashed, and their interest income almost disappear, reconstitution will offer the best opportunity to acquire substantial equity, at no cost, to secure their financial futures. For those cooperators who remain fearful of participating in a private cooperative, they will be able to opt out and with the assurance that future maintenance increases will be capped. I fully expect that Southbridge residents will read the “Red Herring” with an open mind and will consult qualified professional financial consultants of their own choosing to see if reconstitution is for them. I am also confident that when the S.B.T. residents ultimately vote, they will judge the plan on its contents rather than the political views of those who have spread fear and confusion for the past 20 years. Wallace Dimson
President of Southbridge Towers board of directors
Protect wine stores
To The Editor:
In a recent op-ed, Whole Foods’ northeast regional president claims that letting supermarket chains sell wine will help New York State’s struggling wineries (Talking Point, March 13 – 19, “Let us sell wine near the grapes”). But most supermarket chains promote heavily advertised national brands, and that keeps out small competitor brands.
Yes, it would be convenient to buy a bottle of wine at the supermarket. But it’s a bad idea, especially for Manhattan neighborhoods.
Chain stores would use their market power to force out smaller wine stores, and then raise prices.
Chain stores would likely promote a small number of brands, limiting consumer choice. As wine stores go out of business or concentrate solely on liquor, consumers would lose access to variety and to a knowledgeable sales staff. Some wine stores would survive, just as high-end gourmet stores survive. But they’d be few and far between. The short-term revenue expected from new license applications would not be worth the damage to the wine retail market and its employees. Across New York City, small independent neighborhood stores are being replaced by chain stores – banks, pharmacy/convenience stores, etc. This is not good for consumers and our communities.
Fortunately, wine stores are one form of “mom and pop” business that have some protection. Under state law, each wine store must be separately owned. In New York, there are no “chain” wine or liquor stores. They are all small, independently owned businesses. But chain grocery stores have no such restriction. If we lose our wine stores, one might say, “Well, the market is the market.” But this is not just a matter of letting new players into a competitive market. It would dramatically change that market, and not for the better for consumers or communities. Richard N. Gottfried
Assemblymember of the 75th District in Chelsea
