http://www.baltimoreguide.com/2008/03/20/soboblog-news-rumors-oddments-people-south-baltimore-23/#comments

For the record…The Police and Security detail to be specific was not put in to place by Paul Robinson or anyone at the FHNA for that matter. The Federal Hill Hospitality Association paid for off-duty police and private security. We also coordianted our efforts w/ Commander Bloodsworth. Stop the spin…for once give credit where credit is due Mr. Robinson. In the long run it will all be much more positive to building a better community.

I have read and re-read Coleen Wolfe’s latest SoBbBlog Column and I suggest that perhaps you should have done the same before pressing the send button on your post. Nowhere am I quoted as suggestion that FHNA was alone is assuring that proper planning a precautions in the form of additional security were put in place in order to assure the safety of everyone residents and participants in your organization’s St Patrick’s Day event. In fact, my praise for the job done by our Southern District Major Scott Bloodsworth and his dedicated officers in “keeping the peace” during and after the event was part of comment celebrating the level of cooperation between all of the parties in interest including FHNA, the South Baltimore Improvement Committee, the Sharp Leadenhall Improvement Committee and members of your organization.

I am sure than Ms. Wolfe will be happy to confirm this and hope that she will do so in an effort to dispel any misconceptions in this respect.

City officials turned their backs on the residents and, at times, encouraged the creation of
mega-bars.

The Federal Hill Hospitality Association? Does it have a mission statement?

Does anyone remember the “study” done by Federal Hill Main Street using the (I’m not making this up) Responsible Hospitality Institute. The study floated that, because the Federal Hill was a mix of empty nesters tax payers homeowners and 30 something non-tax paying renters,we needed more bars and restaurants to keep everyone entertained. Go figure.

What you could have said when quoted, if you were actually looking to unite a neighborhood rather than divide it, was, that the St. Patty’s Day weekend was a clear example of how when the community and its leaders work together, progress and positive outcomes can be achieved. Kudos to the newly formed FHHA and their commitment to hold events responsibly and in the best interests of the neighborhood. But that would just not be your style Paul. Re-read your own comments. It was spin.

I have read the “study,” which seems to have been partly a collection of anecdotes from an unscientifically formed focus group (5 people representing the 25 or so bars, 5 representing the 5000 or so residents, 5 from the city government, and 5 other business owners, all non-randomly chosen). And that is the “good” part of the report: although it’s hard to say what conclusions we could draw from it, at least there are some real opinions in there from interested parties. Maybe it could be used as a jumping off point for some discussions, or provide background to a serious study by a reasonably impartial party.

The troubling part of that report to me was that there is, interspersed in the report among these anecdotes, a bevy of random facts and analyses that are misleading and in many cases simply inaccurate. As an example, the report cites to national trends in age demographics (a surge in the number of young adults) as a reason for a need for more bars in Federal Hill. I looked up the number at the Census, and it turns out they are referring to an increase in 15-24 yr-olds from 13.9% of the population to 14.25% between 2000 and 2006. Does that sound like a reason for us to reorganize the community? It sure doesn’t to me.

I have plenty more to say about the RHI report, but suffice it to say, if anyone is relying on it to make decisions about development in Baltimore, they might also be pleased to learn that CT scans can prevent 80 percent of lung cancer deaths (recent research funded by tobacco companies).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/health/research/26lung.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Any attempt on Mr McComas’ part to divert attention from this issue by launching into personal attacks and accusations of “spin” simply do nothing to address the core issues raised in Ms. Wolfe’s original column.

Perhaps a better solution would be for Mr. McComas to invest his time and energy making sure that both he and Ryleigh’s staff provide a better overall dining experience for Ms. Wolfe and anyone else who may choose to patronize his business.

Jeannie:
One can safely assume that all “events” in our neighborhood are alcohol centric. Events are not about the neighborhood, it’s about profits for the bar owners. Save for a moratorium on all outdoor drinking, i.e. festivals, Purple Patio (how in the heck can that be legal?), Friday night concerts, etc., nothing is going to change.

The passion you speak of is for profits on part bar/restaurant owners. Profits will always win out over what is best for the residents, so don’t expect City Hall to be sympathetic. The past “havoc” you speak of can’t even come close to the nonsense that is now presently taking place.

Sorry to see that you can’t get out of the past. Your insult about the FHHA being more of the same “crapola” is the sort of position expected from someone who relies on studies. Our hospitality group is comprised of bars, upscale pubs and white table cloth/fine dining establishments. Seek the truth before you rely on a study. I can tell you our group was not officially a part of any study and nor do I honestly belive our members would argue the point that our neighborhood needs more “bars” because of a demographics change. I have not even read that report but I you have definately intrigued my interest!

All of this said, I invite you to come to our next FHHA meeting so that you will see/hear about the events and initiatives in the planning stages that will be a benefit to this community. We would love a residents perspective on our initiatives since all we care about is profits.

Security, cleanliness and events like family day in the park are all part of the mix for your information. Do I have your attention yet? If that is “crapola” then I suggest you stop throwing jabs for a bit and send over some legitimate suggestions of what you would like our organization to be working on. It will HELP rather than hinder the process of a better Federal Hill.

I also invite you to come in to Ryleigh’s Oyster sometime. Take some time out of your schedule and educate yourself about the good things happening w/ concerning food and drink in Federal Hill. It is not all beer guzzling, vandilism inappropriate bahavior. Really it is not. Get out of the past and the present negativity. I think you will be much happier for it.

Tonight would in fact be a good night as Ryleigh’s Oyster has flight nite tonite! In case you don’t know what a flight is…that means a selection usually consisting of three types of items like wine, oysters, cheeses and scallops. Your pick of any for $8!!!

Hope to see you soon and let me know if you would like to attend the FHHA April meeting @ Cork’s.

The “past” is still now. You might want to educate yourself with the difference between negativity and realism.

No doubt, FHHA will enlighten the residents as to what constitutes an “upscale pub”, but your group is not going to make one iota of changing the present mega-bar culture that is ingrained in Federal Hill. Mega-bars aint going anywhere my friend. Here’s how it works. I understand Ryleigh’s has plans to buy the building next door, knock out a wall and extend the present foot print. Then a game of three card monte is played using the now available liquor license. In a couple of years when you sell out, your upscale pub has all the trappings to become a mega-bar. See Drifters, Mad River, Mother’s, MaGerks as examples.

I think I aired a legitimate suggestion: a moratorium on ALL outdoor drinking. Are you willing to back that? Don’t think so. Upscale or not, you still benefit from jamming as many people as possible into Federal Hill, as often as possible.

Got to hand it to you though. Pretty shrewd turning a blog into an advertisement for Ryleigh’s.

Federal Hill Main Street has been promoting and partnering with the “Responsible Hospitality Institute” for some time. Check out the lead article in their newsletter from last summer:

http://www.historicfederalhill.org/images/user/July-August%202007.pdf

But who is this group? More important, who pays their salaries? Check out the list of underwiters on the RHI website. 80% of them are beer, wine, and alcohol distributors and/or manufacturers.

http://rhiweb.org/aboutus/underwriters/index.htm

I hope you can appreciate the cynicism one might have about this organization playing a prominent role in development of the area.

I really wish that you would at a minimum take me up on my invitation to atted the next FHHA meeting. If that is not of interest I welcome a meeting anytime with you so that we can discuss the past, present and more importantly FUTURE of our neighborhood.

The FHHA is an organization consisting of a diverse group of bars, pubs and restaurants. I think if you give me the time I can answer some questions about the FHHA, our goals and intiatives and possibly we can bridge the gap between uneccessary negativity and realism. The reality is that the neighborhood, as I stated in an earlier post, is experiencing growing pains. How about we do something about it together?

With regard to your suggestion of a moratorium on ALL outdoor drinking…that is just the kind of suggestion I would like to understand in more detail and in all honesty understand why or how you have come to that position. IE..I would reply that perhaps some outdoor drinking should stop if it is a historical problem…but my argument would be why would you oppose table service? Facts are that if we had more outdoor venues w/ seating, more establishments would take care of the neighborhood that extends from their doorstep! In fact most areas that have outdoor seating, etc. have proven that vagrancy will in fact decline! BTW..How come I never see anybody complaining about that? I personally would rather have the occasional unsavory Frat boys than the cast of characters we have sleeping on our streets.

My point is…topics like this are exactly the topics we should sit down and talk about! I am game if you are.

I am signing off…for good. No more blogging for me. I have said my peace. I have made an attempt to speak to you and others about these hot button issues. I once again extend an invitation for ALL interested parties to contact me directly anytime at brian@ryleighs.com

I always have time to talk about improving a neighborhood that we obviously both care about!

sincerely- Brian

http://www.baltimoreguide.com/2008/03/20/liquor-board-moves-close-chucks-place/#respond

A lot of good things come out of the bars’ quest for profits. That’s what drives them to renovate their properties, to improve their food offerings, to offer little dinner (appetizer?) packages like those on “flight night.” It gets rude waitstaff fired and encourages bars to clean their own bathrooms. Unfortunately, the profit motive doesn’t do everything we would like it to do, and that seems to be where the difficulties arise. It doesn’t weigh on bars (and other establishments!) to clean up their own sidewalks or their general vicinities. It provides way too little impetus to keep the noise down. And it provides exactly the wrong incentives as far as over-drinking and over-crowding of the neighborhood.

There are a few general approaches to addressing this problem. One is to get the bars to “internalize” the problem by somehow aligning the profit motive with desired behaviors. Brian’s remark that “if we had more outdoor venues w/ seating, more establishments would take care of the neighborhood that extends from their doorstep” is a good example of this approach. Unfortunately, I think, this particular suggestion would only exacerbate most of the other problems we face, especially that of overcrowding in the area at night (and its attendant parking, noise, and vandalism problems). Another approach is to build community with the bar owners, so that they will come to see the interests of the community with a greater esteem, and maybe forgo some revenues or (equivalently) incur some costs in order to be better team players for the community. This approach seems to have potential to bear some fruit; and again Brian has suggested increased collaboration through various organizations. I think, though, that realistically there are difficult-to-avoid limitations on this potential. We are talking about a lot of money being made by the very bars that are causing the biggest troubles for the residents – and even if you got those bars to step back, how do you prevent others from stepping up?

The third approach – government oversight – is the one most often taken and relied upon to manage these types of problems. That is because it is by far the most promising and effective approach. In particular, the state regulates the provision of alcohol, employing a significant force to do so. This system is supposed to keep bars from serving minors, but also keep them from over-serving anyone. In Baltimore, the liquor board is supposed to weigh the interests of the community whenever a bar wants to relocate or expand its premises; it also has the responsibility of ensuring that bar owners are of sufficiently high character. The city also has a planning department that is supposed to enforce zoning regulations; these are supposed to follow plans that logically and fairly consider the community’s needs. Right now, for example, there should be no live music being performed except in the 8×10 club, or any establishment having received explicit permission. That includes DJs. In the future, it seems, live entertainment may be allowed, but only those of the non-amplified variety.

In my opinion (and, it seems, in others’ opinions as well) is that the enforcement of these government agencies is in need of attention. Many have noted troubling instances here where practices that go against the local regulations are acted upon by no one. I could list several more. Perhaps the problem lies in the ways the regulations are written? Perhaps it has to do with underfunding in the agencies? Perhaps shining more light on the situation will energize the appropriate parties? I encourage everyone in the community to dialog with their local representatives about this. For example, City Council president Rawlings-Blake has an event coming up in which she’ll be seeking input.

As to Steve, who wrote about the one-sided criticism of the liquor board in this blog, I’ll give my 2 cents. The current liquor board (since O’Malley became governor) has been making great strides, and people appreciate that. Unfortunately, it appears that the board is working through a backlog of less effective administration in the past that has affected people’s perceptions over the long run. Any further perspective you could provide would certainly be appreciated.

So Would I, Mike. I second that (e)motion.