This makes me sick. The mega wine warehouse that was proposed for south Jefferson is running into classic st. louis obstructionism. Everyone save two or three NIMBY's is dying for this project .. read Mclennan's c\column in the post ....



can we do anything about this?

markofucity wrote:Damnit - I can't get ther link to post ....



can someone help me out here

Here's the LINK



I hate to say this, but I think if I we're Randall, I'd be looking for space in the county somewhere. And that's a shame too, I was looking forward to this place opening.

city politics and red tape strikes again

It's hard to see how either politics or red tape is involved. The law is clear -- and it's the same for every license.



Many applicants find their new neighbors unwilling to support a license. What they often do is spend some time working out differences. Only rarely do you find someone who acquires a site, spends the development money, and only then goes out to work on the license.



(It is certainly too bad that the experts he hired either bungled the licensing process or got caught trying to fudge it.)



I hope he works out a compromise with his neighbors -- or finds another site.

i thought the city DID award him a license and then pulled it ....



also - yes .. this is "red tape," in that its a law that is obstructing development (obviously - red tape has a negative connotation and implies that I do not like this particular restriction - some restrictions are necessary and beneficial)



here's my question: if we can cite the "will of the community" as a justification to use eminent domain to forcefully acquire someone's private property - is there not some way that we can override the objections of two people when licenses are concerned? The entire community wants this development with the exception of two people ... the neighborhood association wants it ... the aldermen want it .... the city certainly wants new businesses of this sort .... are we literally bound by the opinion of to measly land owners?



and shouldn't there be a difference between a corner liquor store, a bar and a high end wine distribution business? Couldn't we make a distinction between the licenses required for each.

is there not some way that we can override the objections of two people when licenses are concerned

Couldn't we make a distinction between the licenses required for each

Sure. Doing that is what your earlier post referred to as "politics." And maybe that will happen in this case.



I don't have a problem with the project, just the characterization of its current plight as "politics" and "red tape."

I would like for this store to happen as well, but I don't think a place called "randall's warehouse wine" could flee the city and run to the county to open shop. He'd have the exact same problems trying to go to many parts of the county, like WG or Clayton or Ladue or town and Country.



I hope this works out though.

I'm calling it that ... the official name sounds much better...

63104mom wrote:I would like for this store to happen as well, but I don't think a place called "randall's warehouse wine" could flee the city and run to the county to open shop.

But I think that's Mark's frustration. It's not that he's fleeing the city, but instead is trying to set up a very successful business model IN the city.

63104mom wrote:I would like for this store to happen as well, but I don't think a place called "randall's warehouse wine" could flee the city and run to the county to open shop. He'd have the exact same problems trying to go to many parts of the county, like WG or Clayton or Ladue or town and Country.



I hope this works out though.

Um, er, he already is in "the county." East County, to be exact. He runs a very successful business over there, in Fairview Heights or thereabouts. The now-obviously-doomed City location would have been his second.

I read that article yesterday and was incensed too. As a former Fairview Hts resident I visited Randall's many times. They have a superb beer and wine selection and it is a great place to find something hard-to-get.



If these neighbors are worried about 'vagabonds' buying 24 oz cans and malt liquor, they seriously don't even know they type of store is trying to move in.

I think it's been overexplained what type of liquor store he wants to put in. So if those people are objecting because they don't want a malt liquor store 20 feet from their house, then they are obviously morons. But lets not assume the worst. I'm sure they have other ideas of what they would like for their neighborhood.



But it seems strange that 7 people decide whether or not a store goes in.

Its the way the law works that has me dumbfounded. I can understand th eneed for the law - but it should include a way to overide the neighbors' protests. In a situatioon like thsi - where the entire neighborhood wants the store save five people .... can't we get an aldermanic overide or something.



like i said - we physically take private property against the will of its owner when its in the "community interest."

The warehouse occupies a square block with Jefferson on the east and Missouri on the west, Allen on the south and Geyer on the north. The space Randall had leased was in the northeast corner of the warehouse at Geyer and Missouri. It wasn't on Jefferson at all. And yet, that was its legal address. The last company that had used that space had used the 1910 South Jefferson address. In fact, all the businesses in the warehouse have addresses on Jefferson.

None of this would have mattered except for the liquor license. The circle is supposed to be drawn from the center of the front of the premises. The city's legal department decided the correct address should be either 1900 Missouri or 2300 Geyer.

Geez, I'm not even a clever lawyer, and even I can see two or three really easy solutions to this. Too bad George Randall isn't related to Scott Schnuck.

bonwich wrote:
Geez, I'm not even a clever lawyer, and even I can see two or three really easy solutions to this. Too bad George Randall isn't related to Scott Schnuck.

i haven't explained my position on this very well and for that I apologize. I'm just really busy at the moment. I suppose I should just ask this question:



does anyone know if there is something I can do - or something that other nearby property owners can do - to help Randall overcome this licensing problem? Would it help if we all signed a petition or attended the appeal? IS there ANY WAY to override the objections of this neighbor (I believe it is only one neighbor with three property "votes" that is against the liquor license). You would think that there has to be some sort of override clause - but who do we have to lobby? The mayor? Barbara Giesman? The aldermanic counsel?



if anyone know the answers to these questions I would appreciate the help. alternatively - if anyone knows where I can find the law at issue that would help as well (I can look it up and research it myself).

Has Randall tried bribing the dissenting neighbor?

I went by there last weekend and there was a big sign hanging from the north facing wall saying "coming soon." has that always been there or have things been resolved?

That's been there for at least 4 months.

Doug wrote:I am tired of buying my wine at Schnucks or Trader Joes. I would be willing to drive 5 minutes down to this place. Desco is evil.



The law is the law, however since zoning regulations are changed at will, can't this go through as well? The red tape to sell liquor in this City is a bit excessive, and this situation is testimony to that reality. The temperance movement is dead and lets drink to that.

I hope he can at least find another location. The original location would have been great though - unbeatable visibility. We need a place like this somewhere in the city.

If I were Randall, I'd wait and open the store in the new Georgian Square strip center.

Matt wrote:If I were Randall, I'd wait and open the store in the new Georgian Square strip center.

With help from the people on this board it won't be a suburban-designed strip center.