Nic Nak Liquors--A Community in Disagreement

Our recent blog about Mr. Pannell's efforts to get a Major Conditional Use Permit and Major Variance to sell liquor at 6400 Shattuck seems to have generated quite a few of comments. More than any other We Fight Blight Blog, this post, like Mr. Pannell's proposal, has garnered quite a bite of controversy. There are now 50 comments on the original post.

Mr. Pannell, for unknown reasons, requested the City continue his item until October 7, 2009. As you may recall, the City had placed this matter on the Planning Commission's Consent Calendar. However, the Planning Department has now advised us that based on several requests from the Community, the matter will no longer be placed on the Consent Calendar, but will require a full public hearing. This will allow the public to weigh in on the proposed conditions and findings of approval, both of which are inadequate. Several theories have been advanced as to why Mr. Pannell requested a continuance including the following: (1) Mr. Pannell is unwilling to accept some of the City's conditions for approval and is trying to lobby Planning Commissioners through ex-parte discussion to remove several of the conditions; and/or (2) Mr. Pannell is feeling the heat and wants to get some space between the media attention and his Planning Commission vote. There are two new Commissioners who have not indicated where they stand on this matter and their vote will be crucial as to whether Mr. Pannell is allowed to peddle liquor in North Oakland. What we do know is that Mr. Pannell has already begun to implement several of the conditions that are under consideration for his permit, including modifying the Nic Nak pole sign and installing security lighting. Whether these are being done with the approval of the City and appropriate building and demolition permits is unclear.

Between now and the next Planning Commission Meeting on October 7, We Fight Blight will be posting several follow-up articles that explore the over-saturation of problem liquor stores in North Oakland and deconstructs the unorthodox and highly unusual findings that "historical relevance equates to a unique or extraordinary physical condition" necessitating a Major Variance.

We do have to note that when rereading the comments to date, there seems to be consistent and repeated approach by those who support Mr. Pannell in his effort to sell liquor. These comments appear to be written by the same person or by the same small group of people posting as different members of the community. One of the ideas presented by these posters is that the author of this blog and those that support the denial of Mr. Pannell's liquor license are liars. That we are purposefully and collectively propagating lies about Mr. Pannell and his business--apparently, if you cannot provide a rational argument for your case, then smear the opposition as liars. While We Fight Blight does not support this liquor store because of the inextricable link in North Oakland between liquor stores, blight and crime, we have endeavored to report what is factually correct, what has been stated by Mr. Pannell and his supporters, and to make it clear where we are lending our opinion or our inferences.

Rather than foisting the term liar upon those who argue against Mr. Pannell's ability to peddle liquor, we would appreciate a more civilized dialogue that avoids personalizing this disagreement. We felt it was inappropriate for Mr. Pannell, at the public hearing, to suggest and state that those who opposed his permit were rascist, gentrifiers, and newcomers who were opposed to black-owned businesses. That is simply not true. Those opposed to Mr. Pannell's request to sell liquor are concerned about the over-saturation of liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley, and the fact that, on the whole, liquor stores have been magnets for crime, litter, graffiti, loitering and drug dealing. This linkage has been abundantly and consistently documented in North Oakland and South Berkeley by the Oakland and Berkeley Police, the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, neighborhood associations, the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Action Network and by those neighbors who suffer daily the consequences of liquor stores. Those opposing the liquor store do not oppose Mr. Pannell. They simply don't want another liquor store because of the quality of life issues associated with liquor stores. It has nothing to do with Mr. Pannell as a person and everything to do with the problems that liquor stores attract.

We had hoped Mr. Pannell and his supporters would argue the merits of his case based on the requirements of Oakland land use regulations and law. The laws apply to all equally. Unfortunately, he and his entourage chose to make this personal by framing this disagreement over a proposed land use in ways that are irrelevant to the legal question at hand which is whether his proposed use of 6400 Shattuck meet the findings and requirements of a Major Conditional Use Permit and Major Variance. Neither Mr. Pannell nor any of his supporters have provided any evidence whatsoever to support that his lot suffers from a unique or extraordinary physical or topographic constraint that merits an exception to existing land use requirements. Hence the City's legal gymnastics to create some justification to approve this use as the City Planning Commission directed. In all of the posts, his supporters continue to use irrelevant and extraneous arguments that frankly have no merit when it comes to judging the validity of his application or they attack the posters and this author as being liars.

Please argue the merits of the case, do not smear each other or personalize this issue. At the end of the day, we all will continue to live in North Oakland--at least most of us.

One of the issues brought up consistently is that somehow the denial of the Major Conditional Use Permit and Major Variance is going to be an economic hardship on Mr. Pannell. The fact is that unless Mr. Pannell has opened his personal and business accounting books to anyone, no one knows the financial repercussions a denial of liquor sales will have on Mr. Pannell. To our knowledge, Mr. Pannell has not provided a business plan or business pro-forma that shows he cannot operate a convenience store without liquor sales profitably. We do not know if Mr. Pannell has the capital to develop the site for another use acceptable to the community. What we do know is that Mr. Pannell owns a home in Clear Lake and a residence in Trestle Glen neighborhood of Oakland. We know that he owns the property at 6400 Shattuck and owns a liquor license. We know that he is a retired Alameda County Sheriff and it is likely that he has a pension from the County. We also know that he owns a recreational vehicle that is parked in front of Nic Nak. We also know that he claims his family once controlled 30% of all black-owned businesses in North Oakland. We have no idea what his current liabilities are and what his balance sheet shows. Frankly, the discussion about his financial situation is totally irrelevant.

According to the City of Oakland, A Variance is permission to depart from the development standards, or setbacks, of the zoning district. Variances provide the discretion and flexibility to resolve difficulties or hardships that may be inappropriate where special or extraordinary circumstances occur on the property. These circumstances do not mean economic hardship; rather, they refer to topographic or physical attributes of the site that do not allow for the development standards of the Zoning District to be applied.

Note: Economic hardship is not a criteria for approval or denial. It is irrelevant to the decision at hand. So all of the conjecture about his financial situation is irrelevant. Moreover, it is irrelevant as to whether Mr. Pannell can make some other viable use of his property. It is not the Community's responsibility to plan his site and ensure that he makes a profit. A financial investment does not guarantee a profit. Mr. Pannell has a fundamental responsibility to show why his project meets the requirements for a Major Condition Use Permit and Variance for liquor sales. We believe that he and his supporters have not met this burden. They have talked and talked about everything under the sun to create a distraction from the fundamental legal question. That is a good strategy when you have no legal foundation for your proposed land use. But it is not a basis to approve the project as the Planning Commission suggests. Their flawed reasoning will only invite legal scrutiny.

Speaking about distractions, Dr. Rockwell has posted that we are baring the facts based on fiction and that we are making judgements based on stereotypes and too much TV. Perhaps Mr. Rockwell is interested in speaking directly with the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council or the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Action Network or the Berkeley and Oakland Police as to the effect liquor stores have on public health and blight and crime. This is not TV or fiction. This is the reality of North Oakland and liquor stores.

Both the City of Oakland and the City of Berkeley have taken rather drastic action to declare some liquor stores a public nuisance and shut them down. We agree that not all liquor stores are nuisances. However, we are not interested in additional liquor stores in our Community because North Oakland and South Berkeley already have an abundance of liquor stores selling hard liquor and a good number of these are problem outlets. The cost of liquor stores goes well beyond the immediate impact to the nearest neighbors. The whole community suffers. There is a cost to taxpayers in increased police (if you can get it in Oakland) and emergency medical responses for alcohol related crimes and the devastating effects of alcoholism on families. Who should know this more than Mr. Pannell? We find it surprising that a former Alameda County Sheriff and a self-proclaimed pillar of the African-American community would not know or at least not seem to understand or care about the concerns neighborhs have about the nuisance activities caused by liquor stores and the public health damage to the African-American Community in Oakland caused, in part, by abundantly available liquor. Clearly, this is a situation where an individual is expecting that the economic return on his investment is more important than any cost he imposes on the Community.

So Mr. Pannell, who pays the cost and who reaps the profit?

We invite you, Mr. Pannell, to submit a guest post on We Fight Blight. We want to hear your story. We will give you an unedited platform to address our readers and the community. Just send your post to wefightblight@yahoo.com and we will post it for you.