New Haven Independent

Posted by: Dominic | January 18, 2008 8:49 AM

Was the old tattoo parlor with it's hideous facade and tinted windows that much better than a liquor shop? I must agree that I'd rather see some other kind of retailer in the space, but with the restrictions that are being imposed on Patil and some attractive signage, this is definitely a better alternative than a tattoo parlor or an empty storefront.

Posted by: Da Hill | January 18, 2008 9:17 AM

"selling opportunistically nips and single beers to people who are addicted to alcohol."

There is no difference from an alcohol addiction to cheap nips versus a bottle of wine. A drunk is a drunk is a drunk...no matter how much the hooch cost. Those Yuppies that Consume bottle after bottle of Merlot are no better than Peety that drinks bottle after bottle Wild Irish Rose...Give me a break. Don't get so full of yourself that you ignore the fact that during downtown festivals the patrons are drunker than skunks walking around downtown...lets not forget the city sponsored booze tent last year...I guess if you are able to afford the addiction, then its a lot more palatable. Be consistent...I dont think you all would care if this place was to open up shop in the hill...they would not even be a blip on your pretentious little map. They can come to my neighborhood and sell whatever they want...Right Scott? Sure sounds like classism to me.

Posted by: Our Town | January 18, 2008 9:27 AM

While I in part agree with Scott Healy about the spot not being right for a package store, I am more upset about the Wine Thief's position. This business has benefited from the magnificent manipulations of the administration to allow his business in an area where Patil's business was established first. Now he has the audacity to claim the area as his own. I don't buy his statement that he objects only to the Chapel Street location.

Posted by: king james v | January 18, 2008 9:51 AM

you people don't get it. karl was wooed by the city to move into his current spot as a way to anchor that area and bring a certian, well hell, element is the word. he only agreed to move there because he was promised he'd be the only game around. if you want to get mad at someone, ask the good people at city hall if there was an agreement. ask them about the money he was given for frontage.
just as you wouldn't put a 99 cent store next to urban outfitters or cutlers, you don't put a liquor store on the green.
and, if mr. pati's store isn't going to be selling 40's and nips, then it is in fact morphing more into a store like the wine thief, which does reduce the value of his store.
mr. pati shouldn't be put out of business, but he should be somewhere else, and the city (and board of ed, which ultimately signed his store's death warrent) should help him find and appropriate new location. i know that downtown is prettty much saturated with liquor stores, and pati's gotten the short end of things, but karl did not get him kicked out of his old spot, and the city made a promise to karl, otherwise i don't think it would have made sence to risk the money he spent moving there.

Posted by: on whalley | January 18, 2008 9:57 AM

@ DA HILL

City sponsored booze tent? Keeping everyone drunk is intentional. You think the police and administration could get away with half of what it does if its population were actually sober?

There's a reason the most adamant defenses for how wonderful things are in New Haven never fail to include the presence of clubs and bars as a selling point.

Keep them drunk and you keep them happy enough to tolerate anything.

It's no coincidence the USSR crumbling occurred at the same time Gobachev tried to ban vodka.
The people can be dirt poor, hungry, homeless and physically beaten but if you keep them drunk they wont mind their other hardships half as much.

BTW, I'm by no means a prohibitionist. I'm anti bans of any kind. Legalize crack for all I care. I'm just saying self-medicaters are generally complacent sheep. Until you take the drug away.

Posted by: i live downtown | January 18, 2008 10:26 AM

da hill. I agree-- a drunk is a drunk is a drunk. Especially on Crown Street from the intersection of Church up at least 4 blocks. Sure there are some good restaurants, but really, business in the area centers around getting people drunk. They just prefer young people, college kids, and folks who can afford the more expensive restaurants. (An argument for another day-- why would they plunk down a high school in the midst of it?) At any rate, I think a filled store with attractive signage would be better than an abandoned store front. I also don't really see how Patil moving 1 block is going to change downtown community dynamics. People seem to be presenting this as a store that caters to bums, but really, it's just a regular old packy, nothing special and the guys that run it are decent people. In my own experiences, I have NEVER encountered anyone in that store that seemed like a shady bum-- I've seen young professionals, construction workers, and mostly, people like myself (kids in their 20's, maybe college students) stocking up on mix packs of sam adams, or cases of beer on a Friday night. I could maybe see the validity of the argument *IF* and only *IF* Patil's store was a brand new place trying to get established downtown. But it's not... it's been a part of downtown for while now. I don't understand why people would say, "Oh just pick another place, no big deal!" He has an established business, likely with regular customers and has been successful in the niche he has occupied. They are saying they don't want to run him out of business, but who's to say Patil will enjoy the same successes several blocks away with a totally different group of clientele? The whole situation seems really unfair. And I love(d?) the Wine Thief.. :(

Posted by: dwightstreetrenter | January 18, 2008 10:48 AM

forget the former Edge storefront; what about the former Imagin Cafe/Camera Shop next door? Its broken windows and "under construction" insides makes that part of the block look really awful. Do the people at Ahimsa still lease that space? They should at least paper-up the windows!

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 18, 2008 11:01 AM

"I'm not trying to put Mr. Patil out of business," said Karl Ronne.

"It's not snobbery, it's not classism," Healy said...

I'm going to have a more substantial comment later, but people need to ask themselves if Karl Ronne and Scott Healy are being truthful with themselves and the public. (to me, they clearly aren't.)

Also, readers should be aware that The Wine Thief and Healy's Town Green organization are currently partnering on a very high-brow Wine, Dine, Design initiative. ($60/ticket.) Check it out at www.winedinedesignnh.com .

Finally, missing from this article are the names of Karl's silent partners. Who are they, and what are their insider connections? I mean no one else would have been allowed to open a new store, downtown and within 1500ft of another establishment.

Posted by: curiousgeorgina | January 18, 2008 11:06 AM

I'm confused. Doesn't Mr. Patil and his family own multiple liquor shops around New Haven and West Haven? So the representation that this is his only livelyhood is not accurate.

Also, hasn't the Wine Thief's position been that he's not against Mr. Patil moving--just not to the Edge's former location? Scott Healy seems to be saying the same thing too.

If Karl opened his Crown St. location because of a loophole, can't Mr. Patil do the same? Why not explore the vacant Quizno's location or the empty store next to Sprint?

Posted by: Cheri | January 18, 2008 11:33 AM

The Wine Thief is truly exceptional (in downtown N.H.)for what it does in the area of selling fantastic wines, with knowledgable staff. They have nothing to worry about. However, it is utterly uncreative for the city to agree to put a trashy package store in this Chapel location, as it was also a tragedy to see the beautiful old jewelry store on the corner of Temple and Chapel turned into a Subway.

Posted by: downtownGal | January 18, 2008 12:16 PM

You'd like to think that the City wasn't plotting with Yale to put family businesses like College Wine out of business all in the name of gentrification, but when you read ex-Yalie Scott Healy's snobby remarks, one has to wonder.

If Healy really wants to make downtown over into a snooty version of, oh say Princeton, maybe he ought to work with Yale to do something about the vacant storefronts the University owns on that same block of Chapel Street. The former comedy club site next to Richter's has been boarded up for fifteen years, and the large retail space next to that has been empty for five years or maybe even twice that.

But whoops, that's Healy's alma mater. Could it be that Mr. Patil's problem is that he didn't go to Yale. Or is it that he isn't white? You do have to believe that if Patil travelled in Healy's social circles, the Town Green would treat him differently.

Posted by: curiousgeorgina | January 18, 2008 12:25 PM

To imply that Town Green and the Wine Thief are in cahoots is unfair. The Wine Thief is constantly donating to area non-profits and businesses for their events - I've seen them do wine tastings with BAR, Zinc, CHOW, Scoozi, Lorcio, Ibiza, the New Haven Symphony, and the Red Cross.

Lashing out at an event that is trying to engage people in New Haven is not helpful either. How is $60/ticket high-brow when it is a wine tasting, lecture and a full meal including beverages, tax and tip? Especially when it gets anyone who wants to attend the event [or their blog] talking about New Haven's development?

Again, aren't Scott and Karl both saying that Mr. Patil--or anyone else--can open a liquor store on the very same block as the Wine Thief according to the terms Karl was given and they are not opposing that?

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | January 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Beyond hiring those "Ambassadors" to wander around downtown looking bored, I have never understood exactly what the Town Green Special Services District does or how it is funded. It has always seemed like a dubious "community" organization, but more so now since it is clearly working on behalf of the Wine Thief. And what is Healy and Ronne's relationship? They parrot each other to such an extent that in the post it is hard to keep straight which one is speaking.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 18, 2008 3:05 PM

TGSS is funded by a 1.85 mill rate assessment, levied across 380+ buildings in the "district".

They are not an 'official' arm of City Hall -- just another quasi-governmental Good Citizenship Shop with no statutory authority.

Posted by: Da Hill | January 18, 2008 3:08 PM

curiousgeorgina,

Are you kidding? Seriously...."How is $60/ticket high-brow when it is a wine tasting, lecture and a full meal including beverages, tax and tip?" Your Joking right?

In case your not...What about the other 75% of new havens population, that would probably find 60 dollars spent on one person for a snooty discussion drinking wine and eating cheese, outrageously expensive. I can stop laughing...Thank you for that one.

(Why spend 60 bucks when I can get a nip for $3 and a pack of cheese crackers for .75 cents and a conversation about whats really happening in the city right on the corner...that leaves 56.25 to be used on...rent, grocery's, etc.)

But your perspective probably represents a majority of the downtown thought process. that everything downtown is for Yale and the upper crust and the rest of the city is for you commoners.

Posted by: Scott Healy | January 18, 2008 4:50 PM

Wow. I'm floored by the tone of these comments. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I wonder: would people say the same things to me in person if given the opportunity? The anonymity of online postings sure seems to give people license to say some pretty nasty stuff.

For those who think my Yale education makes me pretentious and snobby, I'm not sure I can convince you otherwise. But you might want to grab a beer with me before making such knee-jerk judgments about who I am and what I value just because of where I went to school.

My parents both were the first in their families ever to go to college. They put every dime they had into sending me to Yale, and as hard as I work for the rest of my life, I'll never be able to repay their generosity. I live on Dwight Street, and I thank a higher power every day for putting Miya's and Rudy's right around the corner from me. I play trivia on Tuesday nights at Anna Liffey's. I wash my own clothes on Howe Street. I usually get home from work really late and I fall asleep in front of the tv watching reruns. I sometimes forget to brush my teeth or iron my shirt. And more than anything else, I love this quirky, fascinating, and sometimes unforgiving city where I've made my home for 17 years--more than half of my life.

For the person who wonders whether I'd oppose an irresponsible liquor store in the Hill, of course I would. I served for years as either the chairman or vice chairman of the Dwight Central Management Team, and when I moved to Dwight one of the first things I did was join the community effort to close down a problematic liquor store at the corner of Edgewood and Orchard. I've fought more neighborhood battles than I care to remember, and I even got arrested for standing in front of a bulldozer. Why? Because I thought that Yale shouldn't have torn down an important New Haven landmark.

To clarify what I said here to the NH Independent, I think there's a big difference between selling liquor and selling liquor responsibly. Yes, alcoholism is terrible, and it can affect anyone regardless of income. But when a store chooses to sell nips and loose singles--especially to people on the street who already appear inebriated--no good can come of it. Say what you will, but nips and loosies often target people who desperately scrape together change to get a hit--people who are addicted and in personal crisis. If we aspire to be a caring, inclusive, and compassionate community that protects and nurtures even the most vulnerable among us, then we need to make sure as a community that we're careful to choose responsible sales policies. Even when those policies boil down to protecting a person from his or her own personal demons. It may sound heavy handed, but that's what compassionate community members do to help each other.

Our organization, the Town Green District, is deeply committed to hiring people (as Ambassadors, Clean Team members, and administrators) who live in Empowerment Zone neighborhoods and who may themselves be recovering from addictions or returning from incarceration. Say what you will about our programs, but we hire responsibly and have often helped people without hope turn their lives around. Our jobs may be a stepping stone to better compensation and hours elsewhere, but our organization is adamant about providing strong opportunities to people who deserve them. Period.

As for this particular dispute, talk to Karl. Talk to Chapel Street business owners. Do the research. Karl didn't have to get a zoning variance to locate The Wine Thief where he did, and he's been incredibly generous of his time and energy on New Haven's behalf. He's a family man, just as Mr. Patil is, and both men are honorable, good people. No one should vilify either one of them. Just because Mr. Patil's real estate broker has aggressively pushed this site, it doesn't mean it's the best place for his business. There's a whole lot more that goes into choosing a location beyond whether or not it's on the Green--though that's an important consideration for anyone who wants to ensure that Downtown New Haven features places that sell not only liquor, but also furniture, pots and pans, and maybe even a decent pair of affordable underwear.

If Mr. Patil wants help, it's here for him, and we hope to continue working with his business. Until then, can't we all just get along?

Posted by: JT | January 18, 2008 5:09 PM

If we want to attact better stores along the main avenue of our downtown, it will not be done with low ranking package stores on the main strip. That's just plain and simple. When are we going have have people in decision making positions with any sense of vision???? John's plan for the rt 34 connector was the first true vision I have seen come out of his administration. The bar has been raised, lets work towards it.

Posted by: robn | January 19, 2008 10:20 AM

as I've said before, the character of our city's downtown is obviously unimportant compared with uninhibited commerce so why don't we just generally allow the over-the-counter sale of :

loosies, nips, porn, spray paint and brown paper bags for huffers, meth factory supplies, carbon credits for polluting companies, assault weapons, depleted uranium ammo, child slaves, "bad" cholesterol, phthalate laden baby pacifiers, voting vouchers for the deceased, original and replica corvairs, gang color bandannas....am I forgetting anything?

... coal burning power plants, uncensored internet access for children, exceptionally coarse toilet paper, posterboard and tempera paint supplies for white power marchers, gas guzzling SUVs, nuclear weapon blueprints, fireworks for toddlers, pesticides, loud pipes for Harleys and Japanese compact cars, hormone injected chicken meat...

...GHB laced Chinese toys, faulty wiring, marked cards, malt liquor, desk name plates that say "Big Kahuna", lock-pick tools, computer hacker manuals, electric ambulatory devices for the non-disabled, high VOC paints, two stroke leaf blowers, elevator music CDs, synthetic Christmas trees, loaded dice, static-y megaphones for panhandlers...

...melamine laced dog food, silly string, William Shatner dramatic readings, canned saturated fat, postmodern architectural plans, bottled tap water, paperless voting machines, dioxin, Bill O'Rielly books on tape, cheap handguns, $1000 toilet seats, imitation crab meat, garbage barges, admission to exclusive clubs, fertilizer and fuel oil, surveillance cameras....

...Al Caiola records, mops with no absorptive capacity, Donny and Marie Show boxed sets, expired white out, violent video games, Ford Pintos, short-life light bulbs, upside down bifocals, driftwood sculpture, software with profane autotype function, warmed-over raw shellfish, salacious innuendo handbooks, leaded gasoline, too tight sans-a-belt trousers, expired cheese, Patchouli oil, jagged edged drinking glasses...

...monochrome Hawaiian shirts, leftover political campaign signs, surplus radiological supplies, colorized versions of Citizen Kane, bent-wheeled unicycles, scratched 45 rpm's of Innagaddadavida-continued on other side, road salt, electronic devices with unclear directions, leaky faucets, boneless fish with some bones still in it, vinyl siding, stick-your-head-through photo backdrops of places you can't afford to go to, Viagra antidotes, yard furniture which breaks as soon as you get home, mime recordings...

wouldn't it be nice???

Posted by: Da Hill | January 19, 2008 7:01 PM

Scott,
Your response was rather touching...(no sarcasms). Your attending Yale and the accomplishments after graduating are both major milestones and certainly should not be used against you in this discussion. Sometimes when one engages in dialogue in this type of forum, it commonly allows for accusations to run rapid.
That being said...let's get back to the point of my original post.

Personally, I have patronized both establishments downtown...which have included purchasing a loosely sold cigarette because a whole pack was more than I wanted or needed. I take issue with the nature by which these arguments are presented. If the goal is to take a moral social responsible stance against the abuses of alcohol, then both are going to fail this test. This in fact becomes an issue of classism, due to one's ability to afford booze at one location versus the other.

Patil has been a small business in downtown new haven for a very long time, and that should count for something. The reference to package stores located in the hill (substitute any lower class neighborhood) is to represent how downtown becomes more important to preserve and protect versus surrounding communities. (Once again classism.) I applaud your efforts to stop Yale developments, going to Jail, and shutting down a nuisance package store...but you're only remembered for the last battle in life. I can save a hundred lives, but the one I take becomes my legacy.

"Say what you will, but nips and loosies often target people who desperately scrape together change to get a hit--people who are addicted and in personal crisis. If we aspire to be a caring, inclusive, and compassionate community that protects and nurtures even the most vulnerable among us, then we need to make sure as a community that we're careful to choose responsible sales policies."

As to selling alcohol to patrons who are visibly intoxicated...well I am not sure that is a battle you should take. Any given night of the week you can find individuals selling booze to visibly intoxicated patrons. So the scope of this argument seemingly comes down to classism...right? If you can afford to pay then you can play. If we are going to engage in the business of saving the souls of the most vulnerable among us then certainly we should protest the night clubs, restaurants, and bars located downtown.

Honestly, I could care less where this place opens or if it opens at all. I don't like the disproportionate application of rules and regulations based on what certain folks want. I certainly don't like to half assed reasons given as to why it should be acceptable. This city is made up of a very diverse population, I am sick and tired of over concern and investment in downtown when the rest of the city falls apart. I am intimately familiar with how development takes place in the city, too familiar. I know how relationships get you more opportunities than the one with none. So Scott, it is Classism.

Unfortunately, New Haven will not be known for anything other than restaurants, Yale, "future projects" for a long while. The attitudes of the city is based on the leadership of the city.

I WILL NOT PATRONIZE THE WINE THEIF...I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET DRUNK DOWNTOWN JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE...NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY I MAKE!!!

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 19, 2008 10:45 PM

If Mr. Healy wants to salvage his reputation, he should talk to his good friend Karl Ronne and convince him to drop his greedy and ridiculous suit. (and Karl, no one likes a monopoly. What happens to your reputation if you put College Wine out of business?)

Frankly, I can hardly imagine that Scott is speaking for the Town Green District when he talks down to a long-standing neighborhood establishment in such an elitist way. Who is he to label Mr. Patil's business "shameful? Then he calls him irresponsible, even though Mr. Patil gladly acceded to his request that nips and singles not be sold at the new location.

Further, why is the Town Green taking a position on where College wine should be "allowed" to relocate? I walked down to Blockbuster tonight, and there are no less than five empty store fronts on that block! It's laughable that Healy is making such a big stink about College Wine relocating into a space that used to be a tattoo parlor, and one that sits in between China King and a Subway!

Also laughable is Mr. Healy's assertion that "he is here to help". Good grief! Why on earth would Sanjay have anything to say to the Town Green District and Czar Healy, when, despite his eighteen years as a responsible neighborhood business, the Town Green has treated him with such utter disdain?

Look, most everyone in the neighborhood wants to "just get along". But given the Wine Thief's greedy attempt to gain a monopoly by putting Sanjay out of business, that's just not possible. What Karl is doing is simply wrong, and just as wrong is the Town Green supporting his legal shenanigans.

P.S. -- What was the Wine Thief's side of this story? Karl contends he isn't suing Sanjay to drive him out of the neighborhood, but b/c he cares so deeply about the New Haven Green? Yeah, right.

Posted by: robn | January 20, 2008 12:24 PM

da hill,

Criticising easy access to addictive substances, convenient to the point of a one hitter, seems to me to be more a criticism of exploitation than and expression of classism. And as far as 40s, they have artificially increased alcohol content (2x) and are therefore more addictive. They're advertising and sales are targeted towards african americans who consume 75% of production. That exploiutative attitude is exactly why Chuck D came out against malt liquor companies and also sued St Ides. But I suppose Chuck D is the lilly whitest, merlot drinking classist cat in town..dig?

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 20, 2008 3:09 PM

True Blue -- Trailblazer will be moving out of its prime, downtown, corner store in upcoming months to make room for a (rumored) new bank. Add that to the list of vacancies on this blighted block of chapel street. (Richter's seems to be the only business that has been able to hold its own in that prime location, over the last twenty years). One could surmise that the City of New Haven isn't particularly interested in developing this block as it has newer, bigger developments to fry.

Scott - All moralism aside --

1) In terms of historicity & local iconism, the New Haven Green is ALREADY a protected landmark, by virtue of it being a recognized NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, with oversight from a secretive, non-elected, pseudo-local board of governors.

If you feel that the Town Green needs protections that extend beyond its legal boundaries, perhaps it would be better to achieve this end LEGALLY (rather than arbitrarily), by proposing a historic overlay zone, specifying allowable businesses on the greens perimeter. Given the looming economic climate, I don't see that flag flying.

2) While your passion is appreciated, as Executive Director of TGSSD, aren't you stepping well out of your job description and your organizations stated purpose (as well as exposing yourself to some possible legal liability) by publicly taking sides in a legal dispute between two businesses in the very district which you pledge to serve? (Silence would have been the more appropriate tact.) Who are you acting on behalf of in this role? (The Wine Thief, The Town Green Board of Governors, the Mayor's Office). Remember, your organization is not Town Green Mediation Services. Stick with the programs that you do effectively administer per your charter/mission. There are other checks and balances, and entities in place to (supposedly) insure everyone is held to the same standard (which, thankfully, does not include personal taste)

3) It is ALREADY illegal to sell loose cigarettes in the state of CT -- there is already statutory authority to crack-down on this sort of (predatory?) vending -- the lease provision Mr. Patil agreed to is arbitrary overkill. Will the menthol-sniffing dogs be out in the near future, keeping our city KOOL-free? Will TGSS be holding the leashes?

Posted by: its a dump | January 20, 2008 9:13 PM

Scott as someone who lives downtown and pays for the TGSS i just wanted to say i think your doing a great job. I don't think you are elitist at all and i believe you always have what's best for the city at heart. Even if I don't agree with your decisions like letting bars open in the 9th square or allowing that guy on chapel to sell incense and oils on the sidewalk or letting bikers park on the sidewalk in temple square.

I however am an elitist and just thought I'd chime in. I paid over half a million dollars for my slice of downtown and I'm sick of all the crying going on here. I pay for your kids schools, your roads, the city busses, your police and your fire depots. In return I get your kids tagging my place, pissing on my front door, shooting local store owners, and breaking windows. Elitist like me even put up with going all the way to Hamden or amity to a supermarket.

I think its a fair trade Ill continue to pay to put a cop on every corner so your kids don't kill each other, building new schools so your kids stop dropping out, ill even subsidize your bus fare since you can afford a car. All I want is 9 city blocks of upper class yuppie elitist overpriced high end uppity living. Feel free to open as many wig, gun, liquor, pager, tattoo, check cashing, and hair braiding shops in the rest of the city as you'd like.

Deal?

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 21, 2008 12:14 AM

Its a Dump --

Sorry you believed the myth of over-valued Downtown Real Estate, while making some charlatan wealthy in the process. If you weathered the 90's real-estate crunch, you might have thought twice about dishing a half-million on your yuppie digs. Those times may very well be reappearing, so I hope you are in it for the long haul.

But just remember, your 'right' to uppity living doesn't extend much past the walls of your over-priced condo.

Posted by: robn | January 21, 2008 9:26 AM

Is BS preaching Reaganite deregulation? An unrestrained free market? No community standards?

...and aren't community standards just a collective version of self-expression? Where's our hero, Little Miss Mess-Up, when you need her?

Posted by: Da Hill | January 21, 2008 9:33 AM

Robn,

I am not in disagreement about the addictiveness of 40's or the fact that they are targeting african americans...Chuck D is a great advocate, despite his driving a pink saturn...another story all together. My issue is how we decide to challenge this store, versus challenging all the other 40 ounce selling establishments that plague the neighborhoods outside of downtown. Keeping our discussion focused on this particular store and whats appropriate for downtown, versus the same energy and concern being focused on the CITY. If Yalies wanted 40s and loosies then we would not be having this discussion. So yes it is classism.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 21, 2008 11:52 AM

Robn,

None of those sermons are in my Mass Book.

What I am preaching is:

a). In the absence of statutory regulation to the contrary, personal taste/preference cannot be the adjudicating factor with regard to land use.

b). If these concerns of ruining the Green are indeed founded, there are legal means to ensure uniform enforcement of community standards.

c). There are always remedies if things go veeringly out of control. We don't need to live in a pre-emptively enforced, Philip K. Dick dystopia.

And as for Little Miss Mess-Up -- I just got too fat for the dress...... or maybe she just got too big for my britches.

Posted by: robn | January 21, 2008 1:28 PM

da hill,

Every neighborhood in the city sets the standards for what it will accept or reject and although you're terming it classism, its really just judgement and the protection of ones environment.

Residents of East Rock said no to a a school housing kids with severe disciplinary problems because it was generating a crime wave.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/06/_superintendent.php

Residents of Newhalville filed a petition with city hall to close Taurus Cafe becuase of noise and violence.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/01/post_313.php

Residents of the Hill asked for the city to enforce a law already on the books and shut a convenience store after midnight that was supposedly attracting a criminal element.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/11/city_cracks_dow.php

Besides all this, I've gotten trash talked by kids with 40s and hit up for change by drunks with cheap whiskey and vodka, but I don't recall ever being harassed by some old fart with a bottle of vintage LaFite Rothschild (sp?)...so I guess my point is, my opinion is based on the best evidence available to me and is based upon the purchasing habits, not the purchasing power, of a particular consumer.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 21, 2008 2:57 PM

Robn--

Unluckily, the Town Green District didn't ask the neighborhood before turning its back on College Wine. If you ask around, people who actually live downtown hold Mr. Patil and his business in high regard. Except for Scott Healy and the Wine Thief Karl Ronne, no one wants to see College Wine forced to close.

Posted by: joshua jones | January 22, 2008 8:01 AM

Mr Patil lose his shop cos some connected rich man gets city help to push him out for new condos.
So city then helps Patil. That Fair. But other connected rich man wine dealer gets pissed. He realize that Patil now have differnt type of custumers. Patil shop will not be skid row no more on green. He now become competition.

So ho win. All the rich people drink wine. 2 shops selling good wine price go down. Mr Patil do better from new flashy wine shop. Mr condo man.

Ho lose. The man ho the wine thief.

That justis.

Posted by: robn | January 22, 2008 8:57 AM

trubluect,

I'm looking around and all I see at this point is a couple of things..

1) a very strangely conduited quid pro quo from city hall to a guy who, I admit got screwed by eminent domain. whether the zba should be this conduit is questionable becuase they're for the good of the public as a whole, not one business owner.

2) a lawsuit supposedly involving a broken promise from the city to the wine theif. its yet to be determined if a promise was made.

3) so far no live public downtown opposition or support for the new wine shop yet. ...i'm not counting the Independent becuase the location of commenters can't be determined until people speak in a live public forum.

Posted by: i live downtown | January 22, 2008 1:12 PM

ROBN-- I've actively voiced my opinion (and disappointment with litigious actions of The Wine Thief) and like others here, I'm a patron of both shops. On a forum like this it doesn't much matter because one can't prove identity, but I have maintained throughout that I live on the block between the two shops. As truebluect has suggested, the only opinion I have heard from my neighbors (in this forum and in the real world) is that they would like nothing more than success for both shops... and that despite any arguments about the character of the green, it isn't up to the Wine Thief to make that call. I've temporarily stopped visiting the Wine Thief, but hope that the suit will be dropped so that I may return.

Posted by: Scott Healy | January 22, 2008 2:11 PM

For all the harsh words and occasional name-calling here, this message board proves why the New Haven Independent is so important to our town. I really love that I live in a place that values public debate as much as New Haven does. And you all bring up very important points that New Haven's community leaders should keep in mind whenever development opportunities arise.

I need to clarify a few things, though.

a. The Town Green District does not want to see Mr. Patil close his store. We've never advocated for that, and we never would. As we do for all businesses located Downtown, we've offered to help him negotiate leases in other spaces that fall within New Haven's ordinances--locations that are still within Downtown and that might be more lucrative, or in better-maintained buildings where there isn't direct, established competition around the corner. Mr. Patil's broker has pushed the space on Chapel Street, and we're not certain why other locations have not been considered.

b. I never called College Wine's business "shameful," and I regret that Melissa's article above implies such a context. I said that the exploitative sale of nips and single beers to a vulnerable population is a "shameful business practice." And it is.

c. When I said "loose singles," I was not referring to "loosies" or cigarettes but to beers split from a six pack, marked up and promoted in a predatory way. Bill's right that there are cigarette laws on the books governing the sale of "loosies," but I wasn't talking about cigarettes.

d. Taking this space is not an all-or-nothing proposition for College Wine. Logically, I don't understand the notion that occupying this one, single space is the only way for Mr. Patil to stay in business.

e. The mission of the Town Green District is "to enhance ownership values and the urban appeal of Downtown New Haven for the betterment of greater New Haven." As an interested party that has implemented a retail recruitment and retention plan for Downtown, our District was therefore asked to provide testimony on the zoning variance requested by the owners of the buildings at the corner of Temple and Chapel Street. Providing this kind of testimony is standard for a decision of this kind, and our District is well within its mission to do so.

f. The Wine Thief did not require a zoning variance to locate where it did. Ever since the City's redevelopment of the Chapel Square site, storefronts located on the Chapel Square block have been exempt from the City's 1,500 feet rule. Although Mr. Patil did not have legal standing to oppose the location of the Wine Thief to Chapel Square, those who are interested in the whole story should ask Mr. Patil what his formal response was at that time.

g. By granting a zoning variance to Mr. Patil, the BZA has now set a precedent--a precedent that The Wine Thief did NOT set because of Chapel Square's unique zoning overlay. Regardless of how you feel personally about the owner of any liquor store, and regardless of how you feel about Chapel Square's exemption from certain City zoning ordinances, New Haveners should be very skeptical of any public agency that allows such a questionable precedent to be set for the benefit of one particular business. For anyone who wants to protect his or her neighborhood from the future clustering of liquor establishments, the BZA's confusing decision spells trouble.

h. Preferring that business owners adhere to existing zoning ordinances is not a matter of personal taste. It's a matter of allowing laws to continue to protect the public good.

i. Having said f., my organization would very much prefer to see a store on the Green that serves a broader market of people who live and work in New Haven; as I've said, stores that sell furniture, kitchen supplies, and even a decent pair of cheap underwear would be a good start. And I'm not talking about "high end" stores--our retail recruitment program is meant to bring in stores and services that are affordably priced and appeal to all New Haveners, not stores that exclusively target suburbanites or college students.

j. If you think that our District is in the business of gentrifying and recruiting only high-end chain stores and ignoring long-time business owners, you might check into our track record. We all love a good conspiracy theory, but to assume our District's got a plan to replace all our local merchants says more about your own bias about "ex-Yalies" like me--and doesn't show much faith in the economic viability of the locally-owned stores and restaurants that we all know and love. There's a reason that our most beloved Downtown businesses have thrived over multiple generations, and our District works to keep it that way.

k. The stretch of Chapel Street between College and Temple does need some work, and we're trying hard to work with property owners to improve it. But let's not oversimplify. Trailblazer is moving out for reasons that have nothing to do with sales figures--the store has done quite well in that location, and it's inaccurate to suggest that Trailblazer's move is emblematic of the block's economic conditions. Although the block struggles aesthetically (let's face it, the buildings near Temple Street have the worst-maintained facades in all of Downtown), cleaning up this area may be a matter of just getting property owners to be more responsive and responsible.

l. Speaking of property owners, there's another significant, behind-the-scenes story here. If you talk to the business tenants in the buildings owned by the Malley's family estate, you hear the same concerns expressed over and over: poor maintenance, neglect, no heat, no air conditioning, collapsed ceilings, leaks, delays, no snow shoveling...the list goes on and on. The building where College Wine hopes to relocate is owned by this estate, which pays a private management company from Milford for (severely limited) upkeep. The Malley's estate has consistently underinvested in the site, ignoring unsightly scars and leaving tenants to their own devices to deal with the disrepair. The estate's family investors live far and wide--everywhere except in New Haven--and seldom come to town except to request free money from the City to fix up their facades. And unlike other property owners, who use façade money as a matching incentive, the Malley's estate has put very little money back into its property, and far less than the City has given out. When Mr. Patil moves into the Malley's building, he'll therefore be ignoring the countless other businesses that have steered clear of the site because of its long, unbroken pattern of neglect. He will have to pay every dime of his build-out with little or no financial help from the property owner, which will put him even further behind in making up for lost business during his move. So let's not mythologize what's happening here, imagining a rosy picture for Mr. Patil and his business at this particular spot on the Green. He's got a steep, uphill battle ahead of him to succeed under these circumstances, and the last thing we want is for College Wine to go the same way as Casita, DelMonico's, Quattro, The Edge Tattoo, Photos Plus...all businesses that once occupied the same building. At the risk of inviting a lawsuit, I don't think it's sheer coincidence that the Malley's estate buildings have arguably the highest tenant failure rate in all of Downtown.

m. I completely agree that if we're going to "protect" the perimeter of the Green, leaders should adopt a zoning overlay, as Bill has suggested, to ensure that the businesses that locate there adhere to a particular plan of development. But until such an overlay is adopted, it does not break any law for interested individuals or organizations to make public statements about appropriateness. If New Haveners aren't allowed to speak their minds because it might offend someone else, or if organizations are not allowed to weigh in on development proposals because doing so might invite a frivolous lawsuit, then we all should pack it in and go home. The right to speak out to encourage the City or a business to do the right thing is not a one way street, reserved only for one side of any given dispute. Organizations like mine, which don't own property and are not government agencies, depend on the right to free speech to mitigate market-driven or municipal policies that we feel could be detrimental to the health of our neighborhood.

n. Bill: I'm a fan of yours, and I deeply respect your courage in calling out bad policy-making that ignores responsible public input. I respect that you have the courage to use your real name on this message board, which leads to more responsible, forthright dialogue. I admire that you're outspoken, thoughtful, and present intelligent, well-considered arguments. I even forgive you for putting on a dress that no man with as much hair as you should ever have worn (in fact, let's find you a dress that fits, perhaps one from a Downtown store). I do encourage you, though, to become more familiar with our District, and better understand our governance, our policies, priorities, and our history of community involvement. A frank discussion of who we are and what we do might clear up some misperceptions--misperceptions that I know you've carried like an axe ready to grind from the early days of Ideat Village at Temple Street Plaza. I know you're staunchly anti-establishment, and our District exhibits some establishmentarian tendencies, but our history proves that we're more often on your side of the public debate than not. It's why the City sometimes wishes we'd be less outspoken and critical--just like you, we have a track record of making certain decision-makers uncomfortable. And that's exactly what our constituents expect from us.

o. Finally, I agree with Da Hill that Downtown does receive a disproportionate share of attention in New Haven. As much as I understand that Downtown is the one neighborhood that belongs to everyone, and as much as I realize that almost 50% of the city's taxes are generated here, no healthy city should put all its eggs in one basket. It's a missed opportunity not to focus on the health of many, many other New Haven neighborhoods that need the attention. But Town Green is just one organization, paid for by a tax on the properties that lie within our 27-block geographic area, so I need to stay focused on the part of Downtown that taxes itself to take care of itself. At the same time, our organization realizes that any Downtown is only as healthy as the neighborhoods that surround it, so years ago, we began a campaign to help surrounding communities create their own Special Services Districts. For three years, we've received a grant from the City to send Clean Team members to Grand Avenue to maintain a long commercial stretch in Fair Haven. We're about to create a similar program on State Street, and we've had conversations with Dixwell Avenue merchants about establishing a District there. The idea is simple: since we already have the Clean Team infrastructure and staff, we can offer cleaning services at a deeply discounted rate to surrounding neighborhoods--much more affordably than if they tried to hire a private cleaning company on their own. After local merchants see the benefit of working together to keep the neighborhood clean, our staff then volunteers its time to train community members to establish their own Districts, helping them set up their own independent management structure and self-sustaining finances. This effort goes a long way towards creating closer ties between Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, and ensures that the Downtown of the future will never been an isolated island aloof from the challenges and opportunities in the rest of our incredibly vital city.

Posted by: Scott Healy | January 22, 2008 2:35 PM

p. One last clarification, in response to a newer posting: Mr. Patil was not displaced through eminent domain. He's being displaced due to the private purchase of the parcel where he's currently located, on the west side of College Street. The Shartenberg site, on Chapel and State Street, was owned by the City and recently sold to a developer, but this College Street development is a private transaction outside of the City's control and jurisdiction. Although the site across the street was acquired by the City for a high school, this is not the site where College Wine has operated. Due to zoning ordinances that prohibit opening liquor stores near schools, the construction of the new school would have made it difficult for College Wine to reopen in a new building at his current site, but it's unclear whether the College Square developer would have been willing to rent to a wine store anyway.

My point is this: eminent domain for "economic development" has certainly been abused in Connecticut, but this is not a case of such eminent domain abuse.

Posted by: David Streever | January 22, 2008 4:21 PM

Scott,
ultimately, the most shameful thing here is the pathetic way that people are attacking you and Karl Ronne on this--insinuating secret deals & agendas when the truth is rather more obvious.

If people would rather make uneducated statements & then cling to them, that is certainly their right. However, it seems to me that you provided enough information much earlier in the comments: if people were willing to approach this without bias, they'd probably have apologized by now.

I don't think either Scott or Ronne are trying to make this Princeton. The real question is why do all of you want this to be a slum?

Study after study shows that the increased availability of inexpensive, small servings of alchohol increase violence. I really disagree that it's a classist disagreement: there is a huge difference in walking away with a single-serving of beer in your hand, and carrying a bottle of wine which has to be opened with a cork-screw.

Drop the rabble-rousing & poorly hidden accusations of racism for a moment, "Dahill"! You know it to be true. A 40 vs a bottle of wine--at any price--is not an issue of "class" and the "right to drink". When something is more expensive, it is indeed a leisure item: leisurely becoming intoxicated in your own home is very different from spending 99 cents on a miniscule, environmentally unfriendly bottle of straight booze that you use to get trashed as you walk away.

If that isn't what those are used for, then why would anyone buy them? If you just saved up 10 dollars, you could get a larger, more cost-efficient bottle.

Those miniscule bottles of booze actually prey on the poor & the lower-class--they cost more by quantity, & are effective ways at getting people to waste money as they earn it, instead of saving it.

Dahill: your populism on this subject is misguided at best.

Posted by: Da Hill | January 22, 2008 6:50 PM

David,

The higher the price for booze does not equate to more responsible behavior. There are a couple of spots downtown that allow for you to bring your own liquor with you to dinner. I have witnessed patrons consume two sometimes three bottles of wine and then jumping behind the wheel to leave. So, the social responsibility argument does not cut the mustard.

Secondly, the availability of single bottles of beer and nips dont necessarily equate to violence neither...the liquor store on Wooster Street offers all of the above and I dont recall any violence...so as a final farewell to the subject, David...I dont find the points made in this forum misguided at all, I believe that there is a genuine concern about how we treat businesses downtown. There is also a concern that the cost of playing downtown is becoming increasingly unaffordable for New Haven Citizens. If package stores like this one is a source of so much violence and crime and all things bad with the city, then we should ban them all. As for the notion of racism, I feel you are desperate in your attempts to discredit discussion...but as for classism, well your arguments have yet to prove otherwise...peace

Posted by: elmcity69 | January 22, 2008 8:15 PM

Mr. Healy, you note that "our retail recruitment program is meant to bring in stores and services that are affordably priced and appeal to all New Haveners, not stores that exclusively target suburbanites and college students."

Actually, that is EXACTLY what has happened downtown in the last few decades. Seychelles? Elm City Stationers? Urban Baby? What about the Broadway triangle....Urban Outfitters, J. Crew, Origins....all places where you definitely can't buy cheap underwear or even a sweater less than $50.00. The aforementioned boutiques are nice to look at, and there is clearly a market, but that surely isn't anyone BUT suburbanites and college (read: Yale) students. We need more variety downtown. Au Bon Pain was a great change from horrid Demery's, for example.
I never patronized the Wine Thief, thinking it all a bit much anyway, but I will surely spread the word about Karl Ronne's actions and urge folks to read this article. My husband doesn't know it yet, but he's going to boycott this store too, like it or not.
If it's alcohol you're looking for, forget the Wine Thief: Gary and Tommy over at Orange Street Liquor are great(corner of Cottage/Orange).Stop in - you won't be disappointed.

Posted by: robn | January 23, 2008 1:28 PM

All good points NHI readers...The question of store quality and vision from downtown are interesting, and its been amusing and informative to discuss them, but they aren't the issue. Posters who are judging and or boycotting should reconsider because whatever the WT's reasons, they are just asking for the law to be upheld. You can better judge by observing four very simple legal (zoning) questions.

1) Is it an "unreasonable hardship" for Mr P. to find a location that is 1500 ft from the Wine Thief as is required by zoning? (instead of the proposed location which is 1000ft from the WT)

2) Is the BZA's decision "in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance"? (not to be too crass, but what part of 1500 ft don't they understand?)

2) Does the BZA have the authority to consider Mr.Patils displacement when considering a zoning variance? (usually, zoning appeal boards are limited to discussing the immediate locational substance of an appeal, although this is CT and towns do vary.)

3) Does the BZA have the authority to consider the welfare of Mr.P, but ignore the welfare of the WT? (Hmmmm?)

Zoning Regs below

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=19969&sid=7

Section 63. Board of Zoning Appeals.
(c) Variances.
(1) Basis. Where there is difficulty or unreasonable hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the zoning ordinance, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall have power in a specific case to vary the application of any provision of the ordinance, if such variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and if the public health, safety and general welfare will be served and substantial justice done.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 23, 2008 3:29 PM

Good zoning quiz, Robn

Mr. Patil earnestly dealt with the public health/safety/welfare concerns by the agreed upon lease restictions regarding singles, nips, cigarettes, lottery tickets.

It all gets pretty convoluted after that.

I hang my hat on "and substantial justice done" clause. Given the real, conflicting, and ironic circumstances of this unique case, it seems like a fair clause to invoke to stop this snakey process from devouring its own tail.

It would be interesting to read the transcript from the ZBA hearing.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 23, 2008 7:22 PM

Robn--

Incredible that you can argue the "1500ft rule" as a reason why Mr. Patil and his neighborhood customers should get screwed over. (particulary after New Haven's Board of Zoning appeals decided otherwise.)

When Karl Ronne was allowed to open a second store, just a block away from College Wine, it was ruled that the "1500ft rule" didn't apply, b/c the old Chapel Square Mall blocks were their own zoning district.

That it should now apply conversely to College Wine's forced relocation is ludicrous. College Wine and Mr. Patil aren't moving in on an established business. No, the exact opposite happened! (even if you and Scott Healy can't grasp basic fact and logic.)

The BZA ruled very fairly, and Karl's frivolous and greedy suit will ultimately get tossed. What is happening is that Mr. Ronne is trying to tie Mr. Patil up in the courts, hopefully long enough that Mr. Patil will lose his new leasehold.

Again, when the "1500ft rule" didn't apply to The Wine Thief when it opened up downtown, how can you suggest it should fairly apply now?

Posted by: robn | January 23, 2008 10:30 PM

BS,

Read the law again my friend....it doesn't say variences can be issued if there is "harmony with intent....OR...justice" . It says variences can be issued if there is "harmony with intent....AND...justice".

I don't think theres the former and we both don't think theres the latter, and since, along with "hardship" the BZA needed both harmony and justice, the varience appears to have been improperly granted.

Posted by: i live downtown | January 24, 2008 9:16 AM

true blue-- i think i love you

Posted by: robn | January 24, 2008 12:05 PM

trueblue

I can't argue with you that MrP's ejection from his site is a bummer, but its the product of the private market, not a city decision.

As far as his relocation issues, whether or not you think its fair, zoning regs are laws and they apply to specific zones of the city ...thats why they're labeled "zoning". The WT is in a zone that allows them to be less than 1500 ft from other liquor establishments. MrP wants to be in a location which is less than 1500 ft from the WT but that location is in a zone that doesn't allow him to be less than 1500 ft from other liquor establishments. MrP has many options that will allow him to follow the law. In granting the varience, the ZBA exceeded its authority in two very clear ways.

1) MrP hasn't exhibited hardship.
2) The BZA hasn't made a decision in "harmony with the intent" of the law, which is very specific.

If you don't like the law, lobby your aldermen to change it...otherwise respect it.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | January 24, 2008 12:27 PM

Again, not to question your judgement over that of the Zoning Board. It sounds as if you know what you are talking about, and maybe the fix is in.

I still think Karl is making a huge mistake by pursuing this suit. Maybe we need to turn the heat up a bit?

Posted by: robn | January 24, 2008 4:54 PM

trueblue,

Seriously...you sound very passionate about justice and also the vision of what the Green should be like. Instead of turning up the heat on a business owner whos just asking the BZA to obey the law, you should turn up the heat on your alderperson and try to change the law that you feel is unjust.

Posted by: david streever | February 4, 2008 10:00 AM

right on robn: this isn't some backroom board deal, this is a public law. If people don't like it, instead of making faceless, anonymous attacks on community members like Healy who have done quite a bit for the city & small businesses, they could just contact their alderperson & their representatives.

I know that isn't as much fun as subtly accusing Healy of being a classist yalie, but really, it'd probably be more productive.