Comments on: Saga of Hank’s Oyster Bar’s Outdoor Seating Continues

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:33:29 +0000

+1 Let’s also remember that the gang of five signed this VA containing provisions (13a and 13b) by which they agreed to support relaxation of the liquor license moratorium covering 17th St. And before Jamie ever expanded, or ever filed to terminate her VA, those protestors went back on their word regarding the moratorium. They went into oppositional overdrive against relaxing the moratorium, in 2009. So, they broke THEIR word in the VA. Jamie was dealing with, um, very, very special people here.

By: SettingYouStraight

SettingYouStraight — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:44:05 +0000

Sorry, but this is wrong and misleading. Firstly, the voluntary agreement was not between the ANC and Leeds, it was between the “Gang of Five” and Leeds. Secondly, Leeds undertook the process written into the DC Code to terminate her VA. So saying that she is at fault for pursuing her legal rights, is totally absurd. ANC can CERTAINLY be parties to Voluntary Agreements, protests of ABC licenses and also court cases. You are totally mistaken in that regard. The ANC was 100% IN FAVOR of terminating the VA and in permitting Leeds expansion. It was the “Gang of Five” that was opposed for their own petty and NIMBY reasons. Everyone is getting the facts wrong. Leeds didn’t “promise not to expand, but decided to expand without asking for permission”. She filed to terminate her VA (which limited occupancy, but didn’t provide any “promise not to expand), the termination was granted by ABRA, the law was changed to permit lateral expansions, and Leeds was permitted by the Board to expand. Stop acting like Leeds hoodwinked some neighborhood groups. They had notice and opportunity to respond to her expansion plans, but ultimately lost in their attempts to prohibit her expansion through the normal and regular legal processes in place. This recent curfuffal is all about one element that the Court of Appeals determined was not addressed by the ABC Board, when the Board terminated the VA. The case was remanded to the Board for further review.

By: Gino Scarlotti

Gino Scarlotti — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:55:09 +0000

Anyone know the names of these six goobers?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:27:13 +0000

Oooh, wow, an entire five people inconvenienced?! Clearly that’s worth antagonizing a profitable business patronized by – and this is just me guessing – at least four times as many people.

Sure, business hours could be limited – that’s why we don’t have a truly late-night scene in the city – but that’s a matter for regulation, discussion, and voting; not the loud voices of a tiny minority.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:18:26 +0000

it’s a lazy term and a slur by whatever way you look at it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:00:50 +0000

Understood. There’s a process to go through to handle all that. Lots of restaurants and bars go through it with residents and the city agency and come to an agreement and move on. In the case of Hank’s, however, residents have for SEVEN YEARS decided to let the single most toxic activist in the neighborhood lead them in that process. So this is what you get. Not a huge mystery here.

By: Louise

Louise — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:29:56 +0000

I disagree. Noise is a huge concern for folks living close to a restaurant. Why should any business have the automatic right to come in and make one person, let alone 5 people’s life hell by having an outdoor patio that closes late? Don’t homeowners have a right to peaceably enjoy their home? Yes, even in the city? Why can’t they seek an agreement to limit hours, etc.? And stop this “move to the suburbs crap” – no one is asking for silence, just a reasonable change to enjoy their life. Why can’t a business limit operating hours, outdoor music, trash, etc.? Why should any business get a blank slate to do as they please? If you don’t live directly across the street from a restaurant or bar, you have no idea what it can be like.

By: Zinsation

Zinsation — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:13:31 +0000

Thinking I should make an appearance in support of Jamie Leeds on Wednesday. Anyone care to join me? The hearing is scheduled for the late afternoon, I believe.

By: victoria

victoria — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:26:19 +0000

But the term also implies that it is perfectly o.k. to let whatever evil is impending happen in someone else’s backyard, so long as it doesn’t directly affect you.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:45:25 +0000

The earlier poster was asking if, since the agreement is called voluntary, the business could opt out voluntarily – i.e., unilaterally. And the answer to that, as you know, is No. There is no voluntary opting out of the agreement by the business owner, if the business is still in operation. As a legally binding document it is in effect until it is officially and legally terminated or altered via the proper legal process.