Nic Nak Liquors at 6400 Shattuck Avenue is attempting to obtain a Major Conditional Use Permit and a Major Variance from the Oakland Planning Commission for liquor sales. Approval of this land use activity would create a major and significant precedent in the ability for liquor stores that have lost their Deemed Approved Status as a non-conforming legal use to re-open in Oakland.
Because the property is located 80 feet away from an existing liquor store, T and K Market, and continuous liquor sales at Nic Nak ceased for more than 90 days, the City of Oakland requires Nic Nak to obtain a Major Variance. A Major Variance relates to a unique or extraordinary physical or topographic constraint which Nic Nak does not have. There is nothing in the Administrative Record that currently supports approval of another liquor store in North Oakland. Not even if former Commissioner Anne E. Mudge and Commissioner Boxer fabricate out of thin air the notion that "historic relevance" is equivalent to a unique physical constraint does this mean the courts will validate their misapplication and misinterpretation of the City requirements for a Variance. We note this because if the City of Oakland approves this land use, contrary to its own adopted public policy and regulations, it will likely receive judicial scrutiny according to some neighbors.
North Oakland is already over saturated with liquor stores, many of which create significant nuisances for North Oakland neighborhoods. The City Staff Report, dated August 5, 2009, recommended denying Mr. Pannell's proposal to peddle liquor and stated that: This proposed location [Nic Nak] is within 80 feet of a market across the street selling beer and wine. A Variance has been requested to allow this Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activity closer than one thousand (1,000) feet to any other Alcoholic Beverage Sales Activity. This is an adverse precedent for other such uses. This store will not provide an unmet Alcoholic Beverage Sales need for a population in the immediate Oakland Community, since beer and wine can be purchased across Alcatraz Avenue and spirit liquors can be purchased at several locations within a 5-minute drive. The store will not serve as a catalyst for other desirable businesses in the area, such as retail or restaurant uses; rather, the store is planned to operate like liquor stores from 40 years ago.
The August 5, 2009 Staff Report also noted that: the Planning Code Section 17.09.040 defines: "Alcoholic beverage licenses over concentrated areas" as "a police beat with crime rates that exceed the City median by twenty percent or more or a census tract in which the per capita number of on-sale or off-sale retail Alcoholic Beverage Sales licenses exceeds the Alameda County median" The applicant's store is in Police Beat 11-X. In 2008, there were 1,030 crimes in 11-X. the City's "over-concentrated areas "threshold was 1,320. Beat 11-X is thus approximately 30% below this threshold and is thus not over-concentrated by that standard.
In Census Tract 4005, in 2008 there were three alcoholic beverage licenses other than (exempt) full-service restaurants; the applicant's store would make 4, not exceeding the standard threshold of 6. Therefore, this site does not meet the definition of over-concentrated area defined in Section 17.09.040.
We submit that the definition of over-concentrated areas using a threshold that exceeds the median crime rate by 20% or more and/or a census tract is fundamentally defective in capturing the true blight and nuisance activities associated with liquor stores. Using crime rates that exceed the City median by 20% or more is a blunt metric that does not accurately target or identify the most specific crimes associated with liquor stores in a particular community such as North Oakland--loitering, littering, vandalism, public drunkenness, driving while under the influence, etc. It is blunt because it includes all crimes and then establishes that over-concentration is a threshold of 20% or more of the City median. The City of Oakland, by most accepted measures, has some of the highest crime rates in the entire United States. These high crime rates are driven by some of the most blighted, poverty-stricken, depressed, violent neighborhoods in the country. To use a threshold that is 20% or more of the median crime rate of one of the worst crime-plagued cities in the country as a metric for success results in the unbearable tolerance of an incredibly high number of nuisance crimes associated with liquor stores within a police beat as compared to the vast majority of cities of a comparable size in the United States. The fact that Beat 11-X is 30% below the threshold for crime in Oakland is actually a testament to the years of hard, dedicated and focused work of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, neighborhood associations, businesses and the Oakland Police. Crime that is 30% less than the Oakland median crime rate would not be tolerated in the vast majority of communities in the United States. To penalize this hard work with the addition of yet another liquor store is contrary to the public interest, the stated public policy of the City, and the health and welfare of the residents of North Oakland particularly when considering the body of research and evidence that establishes an incontrovertible link between the density of alcohol outlets, crime and adverse public health consequences.
The analysis by the Oakland Planning Staff in their report and findings for approval are troubling and highly deficient in that it did not consider or evaluate any liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley, except Nic Nak, for their cumulative contribution to crime, nuisance activities and detriments to quality of life and public health. No assessment was done to map out and show the location of such liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Hence no accurate baseline was defined as to the adverse effects liquor outlets are currently having in North Oakland. It is critical, since Nic Nak liquors is located less than 1/4 a mile away from South Berkeley, that liquor stores in South Berkeley also be considered. The absence of any reasonable assessment of the cumulative effects of existing liquor stores fails to properly place the approval of Nic Nak liquors in an appropriate context for decision makers and essentially encourages them to disregard the over-concentration of liquor outlets in their decision tree.
The use of a census tract, while a relatively standardized and efficient unit for comparing and measuring changes from one small geographic area to another, does not adequately assess the over-concentration of liquor stores and, in fact, underestimates the cumulative adverse effects these stores are having on geographically distinct neighborhoods that are larger than a census tract in North Oakland and South Berkeley. The use of a census tract as a geographic demarcation for the assessment of effects on a neighborhood or community is artificial and politically expedient with no real scientific basis or nexus to assess the true public health effects and increases in crime related to the availability of alcohol. In the case of North Oakland, census tract 4005 is also artificially constrained by city boundaries, effectively negating a true assessment of the cumulative effects and over-concentration of liquor stores in the vicinity of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store which spans the Oakland Berkeley City boundaries. This is true particularly in our highly mobile community where movement of people and alcohol is facilitated by an abundance of public transportation including AC Transit, BART, personal autos, bicycles and other conveyance methods. This allows the nuisance effects of alcohol outlets to be dispersed over a relatively wide area rather quickly such that the use of a census tract to assess over-concentration of alcohol outlets would fail to adequately capture the true societal costs of increased crime and public health issues. While liquor stores are the epicenter and causation of the problem, the problems and effects are dispersed throughout a community.
There is a wide and growing body of evidence nationally and internationally that shows an incontrovertible link between a concentration of liquor stores, crime and public health concerns. One study in Richmond California, Liquor Stores and Community Health, prepared by the Pacific Institute, notes that: A high density of liquor stores can contribute to a variety of health and safety problems. Studies show that neighborhoods with higher concentrations of liquor stores also have higher rates of alcohol-related hospitalizations, drunk driving accidents, and pedestrian injuries. A recent study across all California zip codes found that neighborhoods with a higher density of liquor stores had higher numbers of childhood accidents, assaults, and child abuse injuries. Liquor stores become places where social controls are weaker, increasing the likelihood of criminal and nuisance activities. A high density of liquor stores is linked to higher levels of crime and violence. A study conducted in Los Angeles found that each new liquor store in a neighborhood resulted in 3.4 more assaults per year. In New Jersey, researchers found that the number of liquor stores was the single most important environmental predictor of why some neighborhoods have higher crime rates than others—a stronger predictor than unemployment rate or median household income.
The Pacific Institutes Study also noted that: A high density of liquor stores also contributes to economic and social disintegration. Similar to power plants and refineries, alcohol outlets represent a form of locally unwanted land use that conflicts with desirable land uses such as schools, parks, and residences. The over-concentration of liquor stores increases the perceived lack of safety and limits walkability in the community. Moreover, concentrations of liquor stores in a neighborhood can constrain economic opportunities for current and new businesses and therefore are both a symptom and accelerator of economic decline.
Recognizing the importance of educating decision makers, the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association has compiled a significant list of research on alcohol outlet densities at http://www.hbneighborhood.org/My%20Web/1%20HB%20CrimeNews%202004%202.htm.
These various national and international peer reviewed studies collated by the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association conclude or provide significant evidence that: (1) alcohol availability is related to violent assaults at the local level; (2) alcohol outlet density was the single most important environmental factor explaining why violent crime rates are higher in certain parts of the city than in others; (3) neighborhoods with higher alcohol outlet density have higher rates of alcohol-related problems than a neighborhood's racial or ethnic makeup; (4) localities with more alcohol sales had more assaults per capita; (5) the more off-site alcohol outlets a neighborhood has, the more likely it is to have more homicides; (6) three northern California cities with a higher density of alcohol outlets had significantly higher levels of crime among Mexican American youth; (7) there was more youth violence in neighborhoods that had more off-site alcohol outlets than those that did not; (8) areas with more alcohol outlets experience more violent crime; and (9) blocks having more bars had higher crime rates.
None of this body of incontrovertible evidence was either reviewed, evaluated or consulted by the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission in preparing its findings to approve a Major Variance to allow yet another liquor store in North Oakland even though it is readily available on the internet. The approval for the Nic Nak is moving forward despite significant objections from the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association, and local business owners that an additional liquor store in an already over-concentrated North Oakland community will increase alcohol related crimes and public nuisances. In dismissing community concerns, one Commissioner, Sandra Galvez, even went so far as to characterize the predominantly white residents who were objecting to additional liquor stores as fostering" institutionalized racism." The body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and the actual experience of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association and local business owners in North Oakland is diametrically opposed to the personal beliefs and political leanings of those Planning Commissioners who are loathe to deny the Nic Nak's application for a Major Variance for fear of opposing a black-owned business and looking very un PC, no matter how detrimental it is to the community.
Since former Commissioner Mudge and existing Commissioner Doug Boxer led the charge for approving another liquor store in North Oakland, and seem to think more liquor stores are a good and positive thing to maintain and retain historic associations including neighborhood, social and leadership activities , and because Commissioner Galvez believes the opposition to another liquor store in North Oakland somehow is the result of "institutionalized racism", we decided to show them and others just how many liquor stores and other off-sales alcohol outlets there are within an approximately 1 mile radius of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store. There are a total of 18 existing off-sale liquor outlets within an approximately 1 mile radius of Nic Nak . If Nic Nak is granted a Major Variance to peddle liquor it will make 19.
We chose an approximately 1 mile geographic limitation for our assessment as it takes only 15-20 minutes to walk one mile, 5-7 minutes to bicycle one mile and 1-2 minutes to drive one mile (not counting wait times at lights). A one mile geographic boundary gives a reasonably convenient radius for all modes of travel and provides a more comprehensive assessment of over-concentration than does a much smaller census tract.
This assessment does not include the many on-sales liquor outlets such as the Starry Plough, the White Horse Bar and Inn, Valparaiso, Dorsey's Lockers and Nick's Lounge where disturbances have included everything from people being drunk in public, to drunken bar fights, shootings, stabbings and even murders (Dorsey's Lounge and Nick's Lounge). This assesment also does not include the liquor stores that have already been shut down as public nuisances.
T and K Market
6342 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex.
Alcatel
6363 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.30 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: None.
Aiban Market
701 60th Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.45 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, drug dealing, and public drinking. Three confirmed sales to underage minors documented by ABC.
Stanford Market
3400 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, and littering. Frequented by south Berkeley gang members.
M and H Market and Liquor
Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, littering, graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.
Uptown Market and Liquors
5635 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkennes, drug dealing, boom cars, unauthorized hip hop promotion, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members.
Alcatraz Market
1601 Alcatraz Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, drug dealing, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.
Williams Liquors
5830 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.57 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex. Drive by shootings at corner of 58th and Telegraph.
Berkeley Bowl
6363 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.62 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Aggressive panhandling.
Black and White Liquors
3027 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.72 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Averted declaration of public nuisance by City of Berkeley Zoning Board 5-4. Public drunkenness, public urination, defecation and vomitting on nearby residential streets, litter, and graffiti. Site of violent crimes including recent day-time pistol whipping and armed robbery of a woman. Currently under severe operational restrictions.
M and B Liquors and Groceries
6310 Market Street, Berkeley
Approximately 0.73 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkeness.
ASA Liquor Store
5909 Market Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.74 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkenness.
Whole Foods3000 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.79 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.
Safeway
6310 College Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.80 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.
King's Market
5442 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.00 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Graffiti, litter, and minor loitering.
Adeline Liquors and Market
5702 Adeline Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 1.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loiteiring, public drunkeness, littering, and graffiti.
East Bay Liquors
5350 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.06 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, cigarrettes, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the Cit of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Public drunkenness, loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Involved in several shootings including a killing by an Oakland Police Officer.
Andronicos
2655 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 1.18 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students.
16 comments:
I don't know whether to cheer or throw up, frankly.... I will say, though, that this is meticulously researched, highly informative and clearly written. I do not drink at all, so if I need wine for a recipe I pick it up when I buy the rest of my groceries. Consequently, until now I was blind to the true number of liquor stores in my immediate vicinity, and it is disturbing and appalling to say the least. It does explain the various forms of liquor store fallout that I see daily, such as the litter, the questionable individuals loitering and wandering around looking for trouble, the graffiti. Thank you for doing such a fine job of bringing this problem to the forefront of the discussion and keeping the focus on the goal of preventing any more liquor outlets from placing themselves in our neighborhood.
We Fight Blight this is an amazing analysis and a great assessment of the over-concentration of liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley. The body of evidence linking crime and public health problems to liquor stores is overwhelming. I don't understand how on earth any Planning Commissioner could consider voting for the Nic Nak given the information you have compiled. Oakland does not need more liquor stores. Period. You have proved this point emphatically.
This is very interesting.
I have a question.What are documented problems with nic nak?
I failed to see that.
Another question. If the store closes and wont be able to sell alcohol. What is the justice league going to do about the stores with documented issues?
Anonymous,
There are no recent documented problems with Nic Nak because it has been closed for the past five years. See prior discussion of that issue. Also, see the overwhelming peer reviewed studies from throughout the United States that links alcohol outlets or liquor stores with increased crime, social disorder and detriments to public health and business development. Having another liquor store in North Oakland and South Berkeley will only contribute to these existing problems. When people drink they lose their inhibitions. When people lose their inhibitions they are more likely to engage in socially unacceptable behavior--urinating in public, vomitting in public, littering, vandalizing, fighting, etc.
Regarding liquor stores with documented and ongoing problems, there are any number of crime prevention councils, neighborhood associations, and public interest groups that are trying to address those specific stores. Believe me, there is already an effort to address those. Mr. Pannell is not being singled out by any means. He is only being asked to play by the rules that apply to all business owners regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, religion or any other protected class.
What about the years before the closure?
Although I appreciate the homework you've done regarding the overproliferation of liquor stores in the neighborhood, allow me to suggest that you've cast too wide a net in this specific case. Any blight created by a liquor store at Shattuck and Alcatraz will impact that immediate intersection: not, for example, the surrounding one-mile radius. In other words, when I walk by La Peña, a scant quarter-mile away, the potential blight created by an additional liquor store has no effect on me or my perception of my surroundings.
This gets to the heart of my argument: Blight is an aesthetic concept, quantifiable only in relative and perceptual terms. And standing in front of both T&K liquors and Nic Nak, the aesthetic difference is astounding. T&K looks like a cartoon from some ghetto nightmare; Nic Nak appears clean and tame by comparison. Not to mention that Nic Nak's gated parking lot keeps most of the unsavory loitering crowd you so desperately wish to see eliminated off of the sidewalks. Top this off with the numerous complaints of racist bullshit the T&K guys have been known to let loose with, and it becomes difficult to justify letting T&K maintain a monopoly on the corner.
Kudos again to your hopeful worldview; perhaps someday Oakland will come to terms with its liquor problem. In the meantime, why keep an honest old man out of the loop while his competition continues to foul the air?
Thanks Meatcoat, we appreciate your comments. This most recent blog was largely about the over-concentration of liquor stores and their relationship to crime, not so much blight.
We would agree with you that to most people the notion of blight is infused with perception and has an aesthetic quality and judgement. What are weeds to one person may be a beautiful garden to another. The definition of blight is much debated by policy makers implementing blight ordinances. It reminds us of the statement about pornography: I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. There is a significant degree of subjectivity and there is often no hard and fast threshold that clearly defines blight. As with pornography, blight is governed by community values.
The City of Oakland has passed a blight ordinance that defines a range of conditions that constitute blight. The City Council considered public comments and their definition of blight reflects, to some degree or another, our community values. The City of Berkeley also defines a range of conditions that constitute blight. Those activities, while overlapping wih the City of Oakland in some areas, are not the same. And the approach to enforcement between the two cities is vastly different. We all will look at blight from a set of cultural, social, experiential and physical lenses that allow us to view the same exact condition, yet come to vastly different conclusions about its value--blight or not blight. We respect that because it is human nature.
The blighting effects of liquor stores can be related to several aspects. First it can include the site itself which is related to site design, aesthetics,and urban design. We know not everyone has the same architectural tates. Second it can include the maintenance of the site itself relative to garbage, peeling paint, litter, graffiti etc. Third, it can relate to the behaviors of the customers that are taken off-site--drug dealing, public drukeness, litter, graffiti, public urination, etc. And fourth it can relate to the cumulative effects of anti-social behaviors and physical conditions that, if unchecked, promote the broken window theory.
These activities in their entirety can effect both a site specific location, a block , a neighborhood, or an entire community depending on the concentration of liquor stores and the mobility of the patrons using the liquor store, consuming alcohol and engaging in undesirable behaviors.
We agree with you that the Nic Nak in its present condition looks neat and tidy, although we personally do not like the 1960's architecture and site design. It is really the cumulative effects of another liquor store that we are concerned about as it relates to social disorder and crime.
Why keep an honest old man out of the loop? Because his proposal is not consistent with the current land use laws. You frame your question as if Mr. Pannell is some sort of victim--far from it.
We do not shop at T and K because they provide neither a price point nor a product we are interested in. Consequently, we are not aware of any documented racist leanings of the proprietors. Frankly, while that may influence your decision where to shop, that is totally irrelevant to the land use and policy issues related to Nic Nak.
solid. now let's work on the pizza hut across the street.
Thanks Meatcoat. Personally, we would rather have a different use on the corner of Shattuck and Alcatraz rather than a Pizza Hut. However, they have recently cleaned up and painted their store. For a major intersection that defines this neighborhood, a higher density signature building that frames the corner with mixed land uses and pedestrian oriented features would be preferable.
Meatcoat,
YES!
That Pizza Hut has also not moved with the times and having spoken to the store manager, they are in a constant battle with vandals. It is no wonder because the interior is 'fortified' like the Nik Nak. (I think these glass partitions must encourage criminals!!??)
Having both corners be 'unfriendly' does nothing for the neighborhood and only serves to promote the idea that we have a high crime neighborhood.
"I think these glass partitions must encourage criminals!!??"
What? Why would they do that? There is bulletproof glass so im going to try and rob the place or hang out. As someone who studied criminal justice, bulletproof class is to deter crime not encourage it. It is a form of a security system. like having a registered gun in your house, or locks on your doors and windows. I looked at the picture of the outside and he has a fence. The fence is a good thing. No criminal is going to want to hang out where there is no way to escape but to two exits. Criminals don't want to be trapped if 2 police cars were to block the two entrances. Some neighbors really need to stop and think before you say things, like bulletproof glass or "partitions" encourage criminals
Anonymous-9:07
While you've studied criminals, I've studied business.
YES, if you fortify your retail location you are more likely to have crime. WHY? you ask. Precisely because you are signaling to criminals that you have something to protect.
If you look like you have "nothing", criminals will walk by. If you look like you have something to loose, on the other hand ...
It really is just about shopping and consumer behavior after all.
Average 'shrink' losses to retailers fall within the 1-4% of total sales. Those that concentrate on selling, experience lower 'shrink', while those that worry about criminals experience a higher percentage of loss. (This is a basic math equation, related to where you spend your operating dollars.)
While you have laid out a good case that seeks to correlate social problems with the presence of "liquor" stores your analysis falls short on how to attack the problem. Instead of looking for a way to address the social ills that drive people to service these businesses you simply attack the businesses and the customers who go there. Instead of using all of your energy to fight perhaps you could use a tenth of it to change these stores. One example would be to propose a subsidy to the store owners to offer a more healthy selection of foods, or a subsidy to alter liquor sale, either limiting total hours or what type of alcohol being sold, exc. Instead of attacking these institutions you should find ways to change their interactions with the community. For many people the luxury of a car is out of their financial or legal grasp. This makes local stores a must have for many. By labeling their only consumption outlet a nuisance you disregard their needs. You should focus instead on how to transform these community institutions in order to promote the virtues that they could represent. My last point is that many of these stores rely on liq sales as their only source of income. So while they may only provide processed foods and liq to their patrons I bet they do this more out of fear than want. Change the liklihood that they can compete for customers who shop at andronicos and safeway by providing direct subsidies and promote the creation of well maintained healthy local stores.
Thank you Anonymous. You raise some very good questions. First of all we, as have others in the community, supported Mr. Pannell's desire to open a covenience store. We opposed his application to sell liquor.
When the Planning Commission expressed a desire to approve the liqor store, we provided to the Planning Staff a long list of conditions including hours of operation, security, limits on the type and amount of alcohol that could be sold, limits on alcohol advertisement, etc. Unfortunately, Mr. Pannell adamantly affirmed at the public hearing that he is not interested in any limitations or conditions on the approval of his alcohol sales.
We have put an extensive amount of effort in preventing this liquor store from re-opening up. The reason is not unlike treating a wounded soldier on the battlefield; you deal with the immediate problem stat through triage. Stem the bleeding, stabilize the patient and then work to improve long-term health by rehabilitating them from the wounds. In this case, we are trying to stem the bleeding. If we don't the patient will die. We are bleeding liquor stores. Eighteen to be exact. We need to address the source of the problem, liquor stores, as well as the anti-social behaviors expressed by some liquor store patrons.
We agree with you that efforts need to be in place to address and change the stores' interactions with the community. This is not a problem just in North Oakland but in all of Oakland. When liquor sales, cigarettes and lotto are the money makers, store owners need a viable alternative product to sell if we want them to move away from the bad stuff (Not unlike Afghani farmers and opium and the issue of crop substitution).
The issue about accessibility to the local store is important in many parts of Oakland, particularly east and west Oakland where there are no grocery stores due to a variety of reasons including product loss. We do not believe it is such an issue in North Oakland given that there are 14 liquor stores/markets four excellent grocery stores within approximately 1 mile in an area (not to mention three farmers markets) that are well-served by public transportation, both AC Transit and BART. We do not disregard the issue of food security, but if food security means a 40 ouncer, a swisher, cheetos, ding dongs and a coke...we are highlighting these stores as a problem in terms of the type of products provided and the health and financial costs to their patrons. People need to recognize the problem first, before they can be addressed. As a public policy issue, food security has more recently become a big issue in Oakland.
Several times you point out what we should do by saying "you should". The you is us, the us is we, the we is yourself, We Fight Blight and every other resident that lives in Oakland. What are you doing to achieve the great ideas and goals that you laid out? It is unfair to rely on others if you are not stepping up. We are doing our part and playing a role that we feel is important.
Regarding the customers and social ills, Oakland already provides a huge amount of our tax dollars through Measure Y programs and other social service funding to address drug addiction, alcohol abuse, education, crime prevention, employment, retraining of parolees, etc. Issues of anti-social behaviors expressed through the irresponsible use of alcohol often have deep social, family, psycological and environmental influences. We are not the best trained people to address such issues and leave it to the professionals.
We agree that this issue is complex, and that a comprehensive approach is warranted that goes beyond opposing a liquor store. However, preventing another liquor store from locating in North Oakland is a very important step towards a comprehensive solution.
Anyone wishing more information about Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs), including their siting,regulation, and operation, might be in interested in my Rutgers website, policy.rutgers.edu.faculty/popper. I originated the LULUs idea in 1981.
Best wishes,
Frank Popper
Rutgers and Princeton Universities
fpopper@rci.rutgers.edu fpopper@princeton.edu
732-932-4009, X689
Post a Comment