New Haven Independent

Posted by: ilikebeer | January 15, 2008 1:00 PM

I'm boycotting the Wine Thief!

Posted by: on whalley | January 15, 2008 1:01 PM

Seriously, why would some uppity wine shop catering to Yalies and yuppies be so concerned with a shop that caters to those panhandlers who have gathered enough change to choose the quart of Bukov over the half gallon of Listerine for a night? If the two shops patrons should intermingle perhaps the free-market can do it's job and both the yuppies and the vagrants can benefit from some price drops or quality of service increases.

Though I am always glad when a government gets called out on breaking it's own idiotic rules that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Remember kids, the government is special, magical even, and we're all a bunch of useless feeders.

Posted by: Esbe | January 15, 2008 1:40 PM

I buy wine from Karl Ronne and he seems like a very nice guy. And in keeping with being a nice guy, he ought to lay off of poor Mr. Patil. The stores don't compete and Patil was downtown first, anyway. And putting something that is not an ugly tattoo parlor in that important Chapel street storefront is important to the city and downtown. Karl: cut us all a break. We'll drink to you when you do.

Posted by: charlie | January 15, 2008 2:36 PM

You reap what you sow. If Patil really sued first back when the Wine Thief first opened, Karl has every right to sue in retaliation. If Karl is really just being a pain, he is going to have some bad karma to overcome.

Posted by: king james v | January 15, 2008 2:44 PM

two things
first, i've had the pleasure of knowing karl since his days on dixwell ave in hamden, and he is neither petty nor exclusive to yalies or yuppies.
Karl spent a lot of money opening the crown street store after he was courted by the city and local developers to move to the location he's at(which by the way, if you think about the lack of parking / colesium & macy's demo delays and sub-prime spot for walk in traffic - why else would he have opened there) and was told by the city no other liquor stores would be opened near him.
second - does new haven want a liquor store on it's marque stretch of street front? arent' there enough panhandlers and drunks already on chapel street & the green? ever gone to richters, zinc or even blockbuster and waited outside for, oh, ten seconds? try it, then make a decision about the chapel st. liquor store. what's next, porn shops (remember nu-haven books) yet another second rate tatto shop, or maybe more wig shops (since the traditional "wig district" has had a big fire). no thank you. perhaps the guy can open up a liquor store in the train station, like the places in grand central that sell beer for the ride home.

Posted by: robn | January 15, 2008 3:18 PM

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If Mr. Patil dropped the gloves when the another wine shop moved in, he shouldn't be too surprised that the otehr shop does the same for him.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 15, 2008 3:58 PM

Wow! I am taken aback by the greed and audacity of Karl Ronne and his silent partners. They basically made out like bandits when the zoning board allowed them to open up a new store so close to the existing College Wine. Isn't that enough?

Now it seems Karl is literally trying to put his lone competitor out of business, such that he can profit from a monopoly on the area south of Chapel Street.

Shame on him! As a community member I'm deeply offended. The suit Mr. Ronne has filed runs counter to basic human decency. What is Sanjay Patil supposed to do? Abandon his livelihood?

Anyway, we all should come to realize the genuine appropriateness of the name of Ronne's store! Karl is indeed "The Wine Thief", trying to steal College Wine's business via zoning shenanigans. Unless he quickly drops his avaricious suit, there is no way I will ever spend any money in his store, and I will urge all my neighbors to do the same.

Posted by: edsicle | January 15, 2008 4:30 PM

Boycott the wine thief!! Competition is good for business. Let Patil move. Snotty is as snotty does.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 15, 2008 5:33 PM

Let's be clear. If College Wine tried to block The Thief from opening up a new store a scant block away, -- that was by right and in complete accordance with the "1500ft rule". Any existing liquor store would have done the same thing. Really, who of us would not have done what Mr. Patil did in trying to protect his business?

On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone I know being so greedy or opportunistic as to attempt to block the FORCED RELOCATION of an existing competitor. Sheesh!

College Wine is not moving in on the Wine Thief's business. There is no moral comparison between the two actions. None whatsoever.

Posted by: Monopolies suck! | January 15, 2008 8:17 PM

What's wrong with a little competition?

Posted by: king james v | January 15, 2008 9:50 PM

trueblue, edsicle, & ilikebeer, go ahead and display your selfimportant (real name withheld) - mine is Eli Antonio Bradley by the way - agashness. Karl was promised a specific situation for entering into a deal with the City of New Haven and the managment of what was the old Chapel Sq. Mall. Mr. Pati got screwed. I used to frequent his store (of course the only reason i did was because i was underage and international liquor (now gag jr's) wouldn't serve me. I don't want a liquor store on the green. I'd like to hear from someone who would liike a nips & singles package store on our green, and the reason for it.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | January 16, 2008 7:28 AM

Another example of how the Wine Thief caters exclusively to yuppies are these Wine Dine Design events sponsored by the Town Green. For a mere $60 you can drink some wine and sit through a lecture on the future of New Haven by a local architect. Maybe the architect will kindly explain how the high-end condos driving Patil out of the neighborhood were established to house the Wine THIEF clientele.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | January 16, 2008 7:44 AM

Melissa didn't even try contacting Karl Ronne for his side of the story. What's this piece all about, then? [Ed: As the story notes, I left a message at his store that was not returned - M.B.]

Posted by: on whalley | January 16, 2008 8:33 AM

@ King James

I would love a nips and singles package store on the green! Everyday I have to live surrounded by shops like this with clientelle like this panhandling, becoming aggressive, chasing you for blocks, passing out on the sidewalk, shouting "you straight" because they figure the only reason you'd be in that area is to buy drugs etc...

Let downtown have it. Let the green have it. Let's all watch and see if the cops ignore it there among the yalies and yuppies as well as they ignore in my neck of the woods.

All of these transient young professionals and students and tour groups don't care one way or the other what happens outside of the downtown area and these same people waste no time in calling me an intolerant hate-monger for my wish to not live with such a mess.

I'm curious to see how well they'll "tolerate" just a portion of it. While we're at it lets prop up a few of these shops, a no-name shady chicken restaurant that never seems to have any chicken a funeral parlor and a half dozen barber shops that also sell bootleg movies, pawn electronics and will airbrush any recently shot-to-death family member onto a t-shirt in time for his funeral for you right in DeStefano's neighborhood.

Just because I can't afford a $750,000 home on Orange St. doesn't mean I enjoy answering my door with a pistol in my waistband, keeping a loaded shotgun in the bedroom, chasing crackheads off my front steps and constantly explaining to the kids that it's not because the neighbors are black that they behave this way. Talk about learned racism. Maybe it would just be easier to send some white drunks and criminals my way so the kids can witness some diversity?

That's why I want a nips and singles shop on the green.

Posted by: i live downtown | January 16, 2008 12:47 PM

i was really disappointed to read that the wine thief owner plans to fight mr. patil. i live on the block in between both stores and i am also a patron of both. the service at the wine thief is awesome. they have such a great microbrew selection and the girl who pimps it is knowledgable and friendly. it's a great place. not just for yuppies and snobs- it's for people who really like to learn about and enjoy their booze. i also like mr. patil's store. the employees there are really friendly too. i go there when i want a 12-pack of regular beer or need to spend a little less. they each have a niche, so i think karl's actions are totally unnecessary. next time i stop in the store i will be sure to voice my concerns.

also folks... didn't you read the last installment on this issue? nips and single beers won't be permitted at the new college liquor store.

Posted by: DowntownGal | January 16, 2008 2:06 PM

I hope Mr. Patil and College Wine don't go out of business.

Why is the Wine Theif doing this? It just seems so very wrong.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 16, 2008 10:44 PM

Prohibition has be repealed for 75 years, folks.

Stop vilifying the vagrants, and let Mr. Patil run his own business, as he sees fit.

Does anybody honestly think that moving an existing package store one block closer to the green is going to substantially disrupt the quality of life in downtown new haven?

Posted by: Down Town | January 17, 2008 12:46 AM

I'm not sure I understand the logic of some of these postings. To suggest that Mr. Patil is aggrieved and will lose his livelihood if he doesn't rent this one, sole, solitary space is just too simplistic. The fact is, it's bad urban planning to permit the clustering of liquor stores. Period. Mr. Patil has many, many options for relocation, including a slew of spaces that are well within the city's very logical and purposeful ordinances. The real story here is that Mr. Patil got a variance from a Board of Zoning Appeals that was asleep at the wheel. I think if we all agree that the Green is one of our most important community spaces--an icon and a symbol of our city--our community could do a lot better than siting a liquor store across the street from the historic and elegant Trinity Church. No one with a shred of pride in his or her house sticks a liquor cabinet in the foyer; if we have any pride in our city at all, we should think the same way about the Green and hold it to a higher aesthetic and economic standard than what we see there today. That property owner should be ashamed that the building at the corner of Chapel and Temple looks so horrible, and even more embarrassed that the next tenant is a booze purveyor.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 17, 2008 9:52 AM

I didn't realize that it was morally wrong to locate a liquor store across the street from an historic church. Let's get some new blue laws on the books!

This local businessman has be thrust been thrust into quite a position -- across the street from his current address some moral historians tore down an 'actual' historic building, to locate a high school smack in the middle of a raucous club district.

Pride?
No, just more New Haven Bullies.

Posted by: i live downtown | January 17, 2008 10:41 AM

I emailed The Wine Thief (thewinethief@usa.net) to express my concerns regarding the lawsuit and got a personal response back from Karl Ronne. He invited me to call him anytime, and said he would "love to have the opportunity to explain" his position. I may just bring it up the next time I stop by the store. But I'm convinced he's a decent person, so I think it would be nice (and good journalism...) if the Independent would call him up to hear his side of the story. Karl provided the following phone numbers: 203-772-1944 and 203-865-4845.

Posted by: Down Town | January 17, 2008 10:54 AM

No one said anything about a moral crusade against liquor. But cities all over the world have iconic places--whether you want to call them important, sacred, valued, symbolic, or whatever term you choose--where citizens and government feel a particular duty to foster aesthetics and development that speak to the achievements and aspirations of the people who live there. The Green is just such a space, and one of the few--maybe the only--place in Connecticut with such iconic status.

No, selling liquor isn't morally wrong (although it's ethnocentric to fault people for believing that drinking alcohol is wrong--plenty of cultures believe deeply in abstinence). But it is wrong for New Haven to have such a dilapidated building become the home of a Subway, a Dunkin' Donuts (the other new tenant), and now a liquor store that had to be CONVINCED in a lease agreement not to sell nips and singles to customers. Yes, Mr. Patil had to be TOLD not to sell those, and if you speak with anyone who works in social services agencies treating people suffering from substance abuse, they will tell you that selling nips to self-medicators is just profiting from other people's addiction--an unconscionable kind of opportunism.

As someone who loves downtown, I think we can do better than chain restaurants (Subway, Dunkin Donuts) on the Green, and I think there are better places for Mr. Patil to reopen--spots that aren't literally around the corner from an existing wine shop. In a neighborhood where you can't buy a pair of underwear, a stick of furniture or even some basic pots and pans, I think we should all exert pressure on property owners to find and rent to tenants that truly sere the needs of the community. We all may need a drink now and then--especially after reading some of these posts--but I don't believe a liquor store on the Green truly serves the needs of our community.

Posted by: Kyle | January 17, 2008 2:40 PM

Will they be removing the Black Mask of Death from the façade of the tattoo parlor?

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 17, 2008 3:20 PM

The attempts to make this a debate about whether a package store belongs next to the Green on the same block as a Subway and Blockbuster, -- well, they seem disingenuous at best.

The real question is whether The Wine Thief is trying to put a competitor out of business in order to achieve a virtual monopoly on south of Chapel Street residents.

And this issue is also about the peril to the livelihood of a community member, (and family man), brought on by the frivolous and greedy lawsuit being pursued by Karl Ronne and his silent partners.

Mr. Patil has paid his proverbial dues, and should not become the victim of New Haven elitists, nor zoning and legal shenanigans.

Posted by: robn | January 17, 2008 5:49 PM

I think that there are several legitamate that the Wine Thief may be asking..

1) Why was the Wine Thief courted downtown by the city and not given a primo spot right on the green?

2) Why is that highly advantageous spot being given to another liquor store?

3) Is the Wine Thief's business model really so creative that it can't be copied?

4) Can anybody say with confidence that Mr Patil or his successors intend to run that business exactly as before or that he doesn't intend to emulate the Wine Thief model?

Chapel Street residents and adjacent businesses may also be asking questions like...

1) Why is the ZBA giving special exceptions to rules for the purpose of compensating one aggrieved business owner...as opposed to giving exceptions for the purpose of improving the general welfare of the public?

Posted by: Steve Bradley | February 5, 2008 1:33 PM

I think Mr Ronne suffers from an ailment common to his type. Its a combination of arrogance and ignorance. And his type is the uppity yuppy, how dare he invade someone else's space who has been downtown nearly 20 years and then proceed to sue.
If patrons boycotted his business it would simply be capitialistic justice...the nerve.