Tuesday, June 1, 2010

City Council Denies Nic Nak Proposal to Sell Liquor

Tonight, the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's approval and denied the Nic Nak convenience store the ability to sell alcohol. Focusing on the legal requirements for a variance and discounting the Planning Commission's fabrication of "historical relevance" as a basis for granting a major variance, the Council voted 5-3 to uphold the appeal and deny the alcohol sales. Many of the arguments adopted by Councilmembers voting to uphold the appeal were arguments We Fight Blight has articulated over the last year and that were confirmed by the City Attorney in his legal opinion. Councilmembers Brunner, Quan, Nadel, Kernigan, and De La Fuente voted in favor of the appeal. While Councilmembers Brooks, Kaplan and Reid voted to deny the appeal. More details to come later.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I say congratulations and pat yourself on the back for getting rid of a NON PROBLEMATIC liquor store. Wow that is going to make a huge difference.

Anonymous said...

As an owner of a business less than a block away, I applaud WeFightBlight's efforts to improve our neighborhood and protect it from the negative influence of alcohol. Thank you for all your hard work!

nomoreliquorstores said...

Finally this unbelievable fiasco is at an end... for the neighbors anyway. If a lawsuit results, the City's nightmare is just beginning.

I doubt the Pannell's will be able to find a reputable attorney who will be willing to take this case because there is no way they would win it.

And Anonymous 10:59: if you were at the City Council hearing last night, you would have heard Kaplan admit that neighbors in these cases have little recourse except to pounce on lapsed licenses to rid ourselves of this plague of liquor stores because Oakland quite frankly sucks at getting rid of problem stores. As Quan noted, it takes literally years. Wasting one year of my life on this crap is quite enough, thank you. Until Oakland drastically streamlines its process for revoking permits to problem liquor stores and makes it much easier to get rid of those, we will continue to be vigilant against every single license lapse we can.

ralph said...

Most business owners do everything to protect their assets. The liquor license is a valuable asset. The Pannells should have done a better job of protecting their asset.

No one faults them for running a clean business. It is the cumulative impact of liquor stores that got them. It is for this reason that the law does not make a distinction between the best and worst run liquor stores. Had they protected their asset this would not have been an issue.

The Pannells should be upset with prior advisors who allowed the license to lapse.

kos said...

Thanks for covering this story. I look forward to the full story. And please blog more!