Liquor License Issues
The other day, my city councillor, Joe Pantalone, emailed me (and a bunch of other people) out of the blue.
He emailed me to let me know that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had pushed back a public hearing from February to April. The hearing was to be about a bar called West Side BBQ, and whether it should keep its liquor license.
Why did my councillor email me about this? What's up with West Side BBQ, a bar that - apparently - is not too far from my house? Why was the hearing being pushed back? Why does my city councillor - who is very possibly the city councillor for the patrons and owners of West Side BBQ too - want to ruin their business? These were the questions I had. So I emailed back:
Dear Councillor Pantalone,
Thank you for keeping me up-to-date with this. I very much appreciate that you want to keep your constituents in the loop.
I would welcome any emails on any other initiatives you are taking part in or leading.
Nevertheless, I do not in principle support the regulation of alcohol sales, thus would like to speak against the revocation of any liquor license at any time.
I am not sure what the background issues are in this particular case, and would be happy to better inform myself if you would be so kind as to forward me more information.
With thanks,
-Andrew
His assistant wrote back promptly. He said that West Side BBQ was "a hotspot for criminal activity". He noted that this activity has included "violence, prostitution, [and] drug dealing". He then mentioned that "Over the years the bar has also violated the terms of its liquor license many times".
He wrote that "the situation at West Side BBQ is out of control".
This was how I responded:
Dear [assistant] and Councillor Pantalone,
Thank you for this response; I was so glad that you got back to me with useful and pertinent information (as an aside - I write to politicians often, and I find that you and your fellow Toronto city councillors are always the most prompt and helpful - the Prime Minister's Office could learn from you!).
I suspected that there were other issues at play aside from liquor license violations.
I would still argue that using liquor license violations as a means to shut down a bar that is problematic for other reasons is not ok. That is how police have historically harrassed the queer community in this city: shut down "undesirable" businesses by over-enforcing Ontario's (rather puritan) liquor laws. Definitely not ok.
I don't know what kind of drug dealing and prostitution are going on there, but many of Canada's drug prohibitions are unnecessary and counterproductive. Likewise, prostitution itself is not inherently problematic. By criminalizing prosititutes and recreational drug users, we create a socio-economic situation that breeds violence and "undesirable" businesses. These are the problems, and attacking these problems by harping on liquor license violations is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion: you just redistribute the problem to the next bar, the next "criminal", or the next neighbourhood. And that isn't very neighbourly.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my views; I hope that you will take them into account in the way you pursue this matter.
Yours,
-Andrew
I'll let you know when I get a response.
The other day, my city councillor, Joe Pantalone, emailed me (and a bunch of other people) out of the blue.
He emailed me to let me know that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had pushed back a public hearing from February to April. The hearing was to be about a bar called West Side BBQ, and whether it should keep its liquor license.
Why did my councillor email me about this? What's up with West Side BBQ, a bar that - apparently - is not too far from my house? Why was the hearing being pushed back? Why does my city councillor - who is very possibly the city councillor for the patrons and owners of West Side BBQ too - want to ruin their business? These were the questions I had. So I emailed back:
Dear Councillor Pantalone,
Thank you for keeping me up-to-date with this. I very much appreciate that you want to keep your constituents in the loop.
I would welcome any emails on any other initiatives you are taking part in or leading.
Nevertheless, I do not in principle support the regulation of alcohol sales, thus would like to speak against the revocation of any liquor license at any time.
I am not sure what the background issues are in this particular case, and would be happy to better inform myself if you would be so kind as to forward me more information.
With thanks,
-Andrew
His assistant wrote back promptly. He said that West Side BBQ was "a hotspot for criminal activity". He noted that this activity has included "violence, prostitution, [and] drug dealing". He then mentioned that "Over the years the bar has also violated the terms of its liquor license many times".
He wrote that "the situation at West Side BBQ is out of control".
This was how I responded:
Dear [assistant] and Councillor Pantalone,
Thank you for this response; I was so glad that you got back to me with useful and pertinent information (as an aside - I write to politicians often, and I find that you and your fellow Toronto city councillors are always the most prompt and helpful - the Prime Minister's Office could learn from you!).
I suspected that there were other issues at play aside from liquor license violations.
I would still argue that using liquor license violations as a means to shut down a bar that is problematic for other reasons is not ok. That is how police have historically harrassed the queer community in this city: shut down "undesirable" businesses by over-enforcing Ontario's (rather puritan) liquor laws. Definitely not ok.
I don't know what kind of drug dealing and prostitution are going on there, but many of Canada's drug prohibitions are unnecessary and counterproductive. Likewise, prostitution itself is not inherently problematic. By criminalizing prosititutes and recreational drug users, we create a socio-economic situation that breeds violence and "undesirable" businesses. These are the problems, and attacking these problems by harping on liquor license violations is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion: you just redistribute the problem to the next bar, the next "criminal", or the next neighbourhood. And that isn't very neighbourly.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my views; I hope that you will take them into account in the way you pursue this matter.
Yours,
-Andrew
I'll let you know when I get a response.
Labels: letters, puritanism, Toronto
posted by Andreus @ 12:24 PM
3 Comments:
At 2:30 PM,
Shaw/Ossington resident said…
About West Side BBQ you wrote:
"I don't know what kind of drug dealing and prostitution are going on there, but many of Canada's drug prohibitions are unnecessary and counterproductive"
Sure, that may be true when it comes to pot and other recreational drugs, but not CRACK. If you had bothered to ask, you would have learned that West Side BBQ is ground zero for the Bickford Park/West Annex CRACK trade.
Do you think we should just allow crackheads to shoot up, and allow the crack industry to proliferate, and with it allow a concomittment increase in sexual assault, burglary, violence, poverty, littering....all things associated with the crack industry?
Maybe you should think a little before you shoot off your anarchist mouth. Or maybe you should think about moving to the United States where your libertarian views will be better received.
At 11:12 AM,
Neighborhood Watch said…
The resident is right on the money. West Side BBQ is a haven for drug dealers and drug deals.
Today, it has finally closed down. Thanks to the RESIDENTS of the community for this action, NOT politicians.
This was the PERFECT example of a neighborhood standing up and saying NO MORE to intimidating crack dealers and the businesses that support them.
At 7:51 PM,
Andreus said…
Hi shaw/ossington resident!
First I'd like to thank you for your comments; I think that discussion of these kinds of issues is important and I'm glad you do too.
Thanks too for letting me know more about what kind of drug dealing is going on at the West Side BBQ; as you know, my first letter to Councillor Pantalone included a request for more information about the situation (quod vide; doesn't this count as "bothering to ask?"). The response, some of which I cited on my blog, was appreciated but vague. I am certainly willing to admit the possibility that crack dealing should be dealt with differently than, say, dealing pot.
You asked if I think "we should just allow crackheads to shoot up, and allow the crack industry to proliferate, and with it allow a concomittment increase in sexual assault, burglary, violence, poverty, littering....all things associated with the crack industry". I think that's a very complicated question and I know that I don't have a satisfying answer.
As for what should have happened in this particular instance, this is what I think. If crack is the problem, then deal with the crack problem. As you have gleaned, I'm not the biggest supporter of the idea of government, but if we're going to have laws then I think it's only fair that we apply them evenly and without prejudice.
So...do I want crackheads hanging out in my neighbourhood? Or all the problems that go along with having crack in the neighbourhood? Not really. The implication of my second letter to Councillor Pantalone is (and I feel this was clear) that we should attack these problems. But, I still feel that "attacking these problems by harping on liquor license violations is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion: you just redistribute the problem[s]".
I do not think it's appropriate for the police and government to take the view that any means are suitable if they achieve the desired end. And that's effectively what's going on if you're shutting down a business for "liquor license violations" because that business is a platform for other undesirable activities. (Besides, it's not like there aren't laws against crack posession & dealing.)
Anyways, I hope this serves to clarify my position a little for you.
Yours,
-Andrew
PS If you're interested, almost any dictionary will help you distinguish between libertarianism (which might go over well in the States...) and anarchism, which doesn't seem to me to be very American. My Shorter OED indicates that libertarians are concerned with "liberty" and "freedom of the will". These are very individualist notions. Anarchists don't necessarily hold libertarian views (although I'm sure many do...). Anarchists, once again according to Oxford, are into "absence of government" or "authority in any sphere", which merely indicates an aversion to coercion and hierarchy. At least the way I see it. And this distinction makes etymological sense: pro-liberty vs. anti-hierarchy. Here are a couple of quick links:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism
Enjoy!
Post a Comment
<< Home