New Haven Independent

Posted by: My Word! | January 4, 2010 3:28 PM

...
Pena must think we all are idiots. How can he peddle this made up version of what a service bar actually is?

Posted by: Chicken Lover | January 4, 2010 3:51 PM

So much for stereotyping Mr. Pena...“As a black crowd, they eat a lot of chicken.”

Posted by: Pedro | January 4, 2010 4:24 PM

His novel reading of the law and thoughts as to what a service bar is are pretty dismaying, and he surely did himself no favors with the chicken comment.

Posted by: The Professor | January 4, 2010 4:38 PM

Saying that "these people" is tantamount to referring to blacks and minorities is ridiculous, kudos to Goldfield for calling Peña out on the absurdity of his allegations. When neighbors refer to "these people," they aren't referring to minorities, they are referring to precisely the kind of people who were responsible for the New Year's shooting--people with no intention of simply going out, having a couple of drinks with friends, and having a good time. They are referring to people who create problems and who do not hesitate to turn violent, pull a gun, and shoot somebody. "These people" unfortunately come in all hues; whites are just as capable of turning violent as blacks, Latinos, and Asians.

Peña's comment is insulting to minorities, and especially to those who have fought prejudice in order to create a better life for themselves and their families. Using that struggle and the difficulties that people have faced ruing it as a shield for his shocking lack of desire to run a safe establishment is despicable. There seems to be an unsettling pattern these days of people invoking the specter of racial prejudice in order to get their way, but this goes far, far beyond any example I've seen in recent memory. Tying the systematic denial of rights based on race and ethnicity to a bar's efforts to make an end run around liquor law and a neighborhood's efforts to keep out a magnet for illegal and violent behavior is insulting.

Posted by: streever | January 4, 2010 4:51 PM

The public is entitled to listen to the tapes of the meeting. No one in the City referred to "THESE PEOPLE": No, the number one issue was that Pena had promotional materials saying, "Walk here, STUMBLE HOME" and was aggressively marketing to southern students.

No one in the neighborhood wanted to host a loud college bar. There was no reference to african-americans of any sort--especially not by the african-american chair of the BZA--the only issue was that historically this building has been difficult to police, as the District Manager of the NHPD said, due to it's location.

Pena aggressively marketed this as a place to get stumbling drunk. I don't know who he thinks he is fooling now--anyone can go to City Hall & listen, word for word, to the testimony.

Pena assured everyone that he would only allow drinks WITH FOOD at SIT DOWN TABLES. He was told he was not allowed to have a bar of any sort.

What outrageous behavior.

Posted by: what? | January 4, 2010 4:55 PM

Typical views from the liberals in New Haven....we like blacks because they vote for us - we just don't want to see any of them. ...

Posted by: Bruce | January 4, 2010 5:34 PM

"Yes, they drink stuff that you and I probably wouldn’t..."

What the heck are they drinking?

Posted by: jawbone | January 4, 2010 6:21 PM

Pena didn't need a full physical bar, that one could pull up a stool to, in order to have a small service bar for the waitstaff to get drinks for seated patron.
The city could have added this as a condition of approval. No physical bar, man. Period.
Did the past establishment leave behind a bar? Then the city could have made Pena tear it out.

Its the blind leading the naked around here.

Posted by: Most Concernded | January 4, 2010 6:22 PM

I am MOST CONCERNED with this issue. Obviously, the murder most likely could of been prevented if MR. PENA WOULD OF ACTED PROFESSIONALLY AND DID WHAT HE PROMISED and hire off duty police officers to provide security for SPECIAL EVENTS. Number two, Mr. Pena's comments regarding liquor law as it applies to HIS LIQUOR LICENSE is absurd to say the least. For a person, Mr. Pena, to hold a liquor license and NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF "Service Bar", exemplifies why he is NOT FIT to hold a liquor license and operate such an establishment. His own comments show that he tries to circumvent the law where he sees fit. The NERVE of him to say that if you peered in his windows, you would see stools at his bar but they are only there because the staff uses them after hours to hold meetings! BS! Mr. Pena, stand up, face the music (rather the choir) and see your wrongs and somehow work, very hard, to make them right! In my opinion, his liquor license should at the least be suspended for a time so that he can correctly learn the Connecticut Liquor Statues, the New Haven alderman's conditions against him and ABIDE BY THEM!

Posted by: Sunday | January 4, 2010 6:51 PM

Mr. Pena I am one of "those people" that live in Beaver Hill who opposed your establishment.It had nothing to do with race it was the violent element that 50 Fitch was associated with in the pass.Black people eat other things beside chicken such as lobster, steak oh yea pig feets,etc. I am offended by your statements such as they don't drink what other people drink. What drink black people drink that white's don't? A drink is a drink unless you have created one that is unknown to the public, if that's the case you should market it. By your statements in this article you are "pimping" those people to keep your business afloat.

Posted by: Morris Cove Mom | January 4, 2010 7:15 PM

So am I understanding this? He was allowed a liquor license if he promised to only have a bar and grill type establishment? Then he didn't keep his word? Was that really too hard to imagine, a bar owner aiming for profits, and not conscience? Smarten up! He should have never been granted the license.

Posted by: Lifer | January 4, 2010 7:50 PM

"Yes, they’re black....Yes, they drink stuff that you and I probably wouldn’t,”

Wow. If I were black I'd boycott this joint.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 4, 2010 9:35 PM

So, this same behavior happens in downtown New Haven all the time. People get sloppy drunk and some of it goes very bad or at very least, is pretty objectionable. I seem to be missing all the outrage. Are we saying downtown sloppy drunk is good; marketing drinking establishments to Southern, Yale and elsewhere is ok if it's on College, Chapel, Crown, Temple, just not any closer just not any closer to my backyard. And by the way, just as a point of interest, where this bar/restaurant is located is not in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Posted by: NINJAZX | January 5, 2010 3:35 AM

who ... cares how you recive your drinks??? so at the end of the night your drunk does it matter if you were at the bar or the waitress brought you your drinks ??? and mr pena is right you cant prevent these fools from shooting each other. i saw a guy get shot at vandome in front of atleast 5 cops . so let the guy run his business and stop nit picking at him ...

Posted by: DKR | January 5, 2010 6:59 AM

to most concernded...

hire extra duty police officers..??? you mean having a cop work at a "bar" which would mean he/she might be tempted into all the temptations and corruption that come with working at such type of establishment,..you mean the same type of "HOLD DOWN", the city is tryng to take away from us (the police). or perhaps i may not understand the city correctly when it doesn't consider shaw's, or walgreen's or walmart or tweed airport a "HOLD DOWN", because of their hiring of extra duty police officers, who could also be exposed to said same temptations etc...??? hmmmm,. and i missing something here???

Posted by: notimon | January 5, 2010 8:01 AM

Ok, I have to agree with the commenters that said what difference does it make whether you serve a drink at a bar stool or a table, does that mean that if you drink an entire bottle of Vodka you will not get drunk and exhibit bad behavior because you were sitting at a table drinking as oppose to a bar stool. Cathy Weber, and the BZA please give me a break. Who cares, Mr. Pena has ran a great business at 50 fitch along with his partner Ed and they have supported community events, unlike 5 senses and Sinery, If you guys at the BZA really want something to do, shut down the pimps who are telling our children its ok to come downtown and blend in with ADULTS by having teen parties in a bar, setting our kids up to think the bar life is ok, in hopes of indoctrinating them to get their business when they turn 21. Mr. Pena as an African American and one with power to push to shut your business down i am a bit offended by your comment of we eat a lot of fried chicken, and we drink different drinks than the rest of society, but I have been at your establishment and enjoyed the atmosphere, i would only encourage you to choose your words wisely.

Posted by: Streever | January 5, 2010 9:43 AM

Morris Cove Mom:

As I pointed out, the law does not support that.

Regions are "zoned" for certain businesses. There was no reason to suspect that Pena would not--as many other restaurants do--serve liquor with meals but not at a bar. To vote on an issue you must be impartial, and not approach a case thinking, "Oh this guy will just lie"--no. That's never appropriate.

you may think we are naive, but we acted within the letter of the law, allowing Mr Pena, who by all accounts was an honest & trust-worthy man, to operate a restaurant that served alcohol. Restaurants with alcohol are popular all over the world--there are some in my neighborhood and even in Morris cove--and most of them do not induce college students to get stumbling drunk & operate as a club in a quiet residential neighborhood, which is the issue.

Westville is home to several very nice family restaurants that you can bring children to. Mr Pena was given the chance to operate such an establishment, in a legal, non-biased way.

This is the foundation of the Zoning Board--that decisions are made impartially and with regard only to the zone & the proposed use. I wish the public understood that this is a legal requirement. We can't deny something because we don't like a person, or we don't like a type of business.

Imagine if you will that you need a variance, but one of the members of the BZA just hates the type of business you want to run. That's not fair, and you would be upset about it. That's what I think about when I vote--decisions must be impartial & unbiased, and based PURELY on the evidence entered into the public record. When your variance is denied, you should be able to look at the minutes from the meeting & deduce exactly why it was denied, even if you disagree with the rationale.

The same issue came up with the laundromat: some neighbors did not want one, but they failed to conclusively prove that their was an issue with the parking, which was the only variable we had a legal right to consider. Then they came on the NHI and attacked us. The reality is that we are making decisions based upon legal requirements which are spelled out at every meeting. We can not deny or approve based on personal interest/design/aesthetic opinions/etc. We can only deal with each case impartially & as written in the zoning ordinance, which is available for free online. I strongly recommend anyone planning to speak at a meeting check the applicable ordinance and then come out with facts & knowledge.

Posted by: Streever | January 5, 2010 9:49 AM

City Hall Watch:

You are correct in some ways, but mostly incorrect. BZA does not make decisions based on precedent, but on TYPE OF USE as it pertains TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD:

so, a neighborhood zoned for certain types of residential use would not allow a loud club. People who own homes there have a reasonable right to assume that it will be quiet. The clubs on Crown street are all in commerical districts where they have a reasonable right to assume they can operate.

Zoning is the practice of dividing land into parcels based on expected use. So yes, some areas have been defined as being OK for more intensive uses.

This is a fair and reasonable practice, and one thing that government needs to do well & do better, because it prevents disputes between neighbors and makes places better to exist in. Zoning provides a fair and unbiased manner to give you a reasonable expectation of what your environment will be like.

Posted by: Pedro | January 5, 2010 10:07 AM

Something doesn't compute in this whole fiasco. 50 Fitch has been known as a trouble spot for quite some time. A new restaurant opens, but the owner says that it's not how his operation runs that has caused this most recent shooting. Fair enough.

So does this mean that the 50 Fitch street parking lot is to blame? If it's not the restaurant, then people must be just hanging out for whatever reason in front in this parking lot and not in front of any other parking lot, because, well, this is the parking lot to hang out in on New Years Eve.

Seriously for a minute, if this is a well known hangout for whatever reason, then clearly the police should be all over this. However, if this evil parking lot is probably not to blame for attracting the kind of trouble that happened then, I think the argument starts to look a little less in Mr Pena's favor.

For me the issue is that he's clearly trying to wise-ass us and skirt the regulations that BZA put up due to neighborhood concern. The fact that he's so willing to do that and so flagrantly market his restaurant as a full-on bar only lessens his credibility further.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 5, 2010 11:16 AM

Streever:

This is a largely commercial/industrial area. There is a cemetary across the street with other commercial buildings; commecial next door and it's in a development of commercial uses. If it is zoned for something other than commercial, it shouldn't be. Fitch is heavily traveled and aside from a couple of rentals a half block away, this is not a residential neighborhood. And while downtown is largely commercial, it is also home to a growing number of residents on lower Chapel, Chapel Street, 9th Square, the old Chapel Street Mall and certainly on Crown. I don't see the difference and quite frankly, I think the idea of banning a bar with seating was done precisely because the BZA wanted to encourage dining vs. drinking and because it didn't like his "Drink here, stumble home" slogan. By the way, anybody know if his chicken is any good?

Posted by: jawbone | January 5, 2010 11:32 AM

The city probably approved this whole mess so that the kids would stay up in the SCSU area and fewer would make it downtown to drink.
There, I said it.

Posted by: streever | January 5, 2010 12:06 PM

you may think that was our reasoning, but as one of the people who voted, I can tell you that we made our decision based on the neighborhood's concerns. I love food & cooking & really enjoy eating a home-made meal then joining a friend at a bar--I like bars--I like barstools--and I prefer sitting at a bar to sitting at a table. I would love a moderately priced bar in my neighborhood, even. My personal preference did not come into play on this vote. My vote was entirely based upon the zone, the allowed usage, and the neighborhood's desire. To the best of my knowledge no one on the board is a teetotaler who has a puritanical viewpoint against alcohol consumption.

The site was reported to be difficult to police by the District Manager. All of the elected officials--who represent their constituents--opposed it. The neighborhood had a huge petition and a bevy of residents who came out who live close by and did not want a loud club to operate.

The original proposal was for live entertainment, late hours on weekdays, and being focused on college drinking. The neighbors who are not college students were concerned about an influx of people from outside the neighborhood & loud noise late at night.

Many properties use the road and are close to the bar. The neighbors had problems with crime with the last bar--and the police said it was a difficult location to respond to--and all of the neighbors experienced an immediate drop in crime when the last bar shut down.

This was the basis of their concerns. There was nothing pejorative about the way we considered this case, nor do you have any first-hand or even second-hand knowledge, so you are merely making a personal judgment on people you do not know.

City Hall Watch, I try to be careful about logical biases & watch out for assumptions I may make that may color my thoughts--I suspect you don't, because you've made a pretty big leap in logic here without knowing any of the people involved. You assume that we'll be offended by drinking establishments . The "stumble home" marketing does not offend me, nor did it "offend" anyone else, but it struck us as a dangerous proposition, to encourage college students to get so drunk they can't walk. You start off with the proposition that all government is bad government, so I'm not sure if it's meaningful to have this conversation with you, but I'm trying to explain our point of view and point out your own logical failings so you can hopefully understand that your point of view is not the one that needs dominate the public sphere.

Posted by: Jay | January 5, 2010 1:18 PM

I'm disappointed I missed out on $2 top self till 11.

Posted by: shwee | January 5, 2010 2:17 PM

Forget the rest of the controversy... I'm bothered by the typos in his New Year's Eve ad. Come on, out of a total of thirty or so words, how do you spell three of them incorrectly?

Posted by: teewee | January 5, 2010 2:32 PM

I think what is going on in this city with all the shooting and murders something has to be done now.it's gonna get out of control if the situation doesn't get dealt with asap. The rate that the shooting are going and the two homicides we have all ready we're on pace to have at least 40 homicides by December 2010. Come people lets get it together you know whom I'm talking about We're the only ones beefing with each other, why can we come together and have a peaceful 2010 It's the New Year and we already have two murders it's ridiculous,The shooting Aren't even @ night anymore there in broad daylight when our own children are coming home from school or people are getting off of work.

Posted by: Local resident | January 5, 2010 2:37 PM

Everyone is acting like there was a huge opposition against this bar opening, letters were sent out to 1000's of people in the area stating that SoCo'S would be opening and if you had any objection to come to the hearing. And lets talk about how many people actually showed up, 30 maybe less, doesn’t seem the town was really very opposed to its opening, just that the only people there were opposition. But since it’s been open 1000’s of people have been through its doors which leads me to believe there are much more people for SoCo’s then against it. And let’s be realistic who’s going to come fight to get a place open that they’ve never been to or know anything about, so obviously only the opposition would come out.
Also when someone says they are opening a bar restaurant they mean just that, a bar and a restaurant meaning u can come sit and eat or come for a drink at the bar, or maybe even do both. The points being that u want to sell as much food and drink as u possible can without over serving them. U can’t control what your patrons decide they want when they get there you sell them what they ask for sometimes more food sometimes more liquor obviously the bar would be busier then the restaurant at 11 at night that goes without saying, but that’s the point have a busy restaurant during the day and bar at night. If I recall even on the NYE flyer wings and breakfast was being advertised.
And People seem to be confusing bars and night clubs, night clubs don’t serve food don’t have tables and chairs everywhere and don’t have pool tables and darts, bars do. People seem to like to play with these words to make it fit their point. SoCo’s opened and did exactly what every bar and restaurant does food early and entertainment late, it’s just they were given unfair rules to follow which made them different. Every bar restaurant in new haven even in the country can operate the way they did except them that really doesn’t seems fair and just to me. I feel like yes they may have broken the rules, but rules they should never have been given.
And the only reason were having this debate is because of the murder, does anyone really think that if the bar wasn’t open this murder wouldn’t have happened? Yes it wouldn’t have happened there, but it was happening either way, its amazing people make the decision to kill each other, and the place they happen to do it outside of is punished, once again doesn’t seem fair. Hope over 10 years there doesn’t happen to be 2 shootings outside your business and u closed get down, That would be horrible wouldn’t it.

Posted by: sam | January 5, 2010 5:19 PM

A few months ago i went to soco order my drink at the bar.The bar was so dam crowded i was being push around. I saw a few prominent people at soco. I stayed there ten minutes i kept thinking when a problem breaks out how would i get out of the parking lot....

Posted by: Jo | January 5, 2010 7:11 PM

No it's not the Fitch parking lot to blame. It is cultural.

It is cultural.

That bar had problems in the past.

So did Owl's Nest, nearby.

My guess is if Owl's Nest didn't also cause problems, the neighbors sandwiched between wouldn't be so vocal.

Also, the prior bar at 50 Fitch was on former PD chief Frisco Ortiz's list of bars to hit because of the number of calls to them. (I think)

All I can say, is it is cultural, crime culture. The current bar apparently attracted a clientele that was at least peripherally associated with the business that engages in this kind of thing in New Haven. It is still just too cool to live a life of downward criminal spiraling and the rest of us are supposed to be cool with that.

We know what it is, so we target it. The problem is that those engaging in it don't seem to know we know and seem to think they have currency to burn on this still.

Obviously, the city needs to finish persuading them that it's culturally bankrupt and uncool. the gig is up, or should be. Throwing your life away is not cool. There's nothing cool about it.

The kids sitting in NEw Haven public schools on ADHD and anti-pyschotic drugs need to wake up and have the absolute foolishness to study their way out of the hell hole and off the stupid medication that they are offered to make a kind of life for themselves - study their way out of it, disbeleive absolutely everyone (who says they are garbage) get a trade as a way out of it. Anything, because this is garbage. It ain't a thing.

Posted by: Jo | January 5, 2010 7:44 PM

PS, I want one of these mysterious Black Drinks!

They aren't like us! They eat chicken and drink mysterious drinks atphantom bar stools that aren't really there.

My goodness.

Isn't it the fact, that the most mysterious, most egregious, most heartbreaking thing is how cool it is among Black men to shoot each other dead?

And when is that going to go out of fashion? Try as everyone might, those who oppose this shooting aren't persuaded yet that it is cool.

When are these young men going to say no with no support, no one to tell them they are worth it?Talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

Yale law school doesn't have your interests at heart - they care about taking care of the law.

Yale Med is going to feed you anti-psychotics and diagnose you with ADHD when you are 10. Like they care.

The politicians on your side, "your" aldermen, are going to apologize and minimize your crimes.

There isn't soul looking after your soul.

To the super cool african american men in new haven with rap sheets a mile long at age 25. It is up to you. It is up to you.

Posted by: Mister Jones | January 6, 2010 10:29 AM

I sat at the bar, on a bar stool, when I went to Soco's about a year ago soon after they opened. Mr. Pena's service bar explanation is disingenuous at best and wrong on the facts based on my experience. There's a disconnect here between the BZA and Liquor Control. Having seen how picayune the liquor agents can be, I just don't understand how he got a liquor permit for a full bar when zoning only approved a service bar. Everyone but Mr. Pena knows the difference! Whatever the merits of his original application, it's pretty clear he was approved for a restaurant with only a service bar, and he opened a regular bar.

Neighborhood activists opposed the bar's opening ostensibly because the owner was going to market it to rowdy, binge drinking college students but likely because of the site's history of trouble. Even though it's an industrial/commercial block with no apparent residences, and the same neighbors don't seem to oppose new bars on Whalley. Pena claims it will be an upscale family restaurant, gets service bar approval, and trouble comes to his front door. I'm still trying to figure out why his bouncers frisk everyone if his place doesn't attract trouble?

Posted by: Norton Street | January 6, 2010 4:41 PM

JO,
I pretty much was with you until
"Obviously, the city needs to finish persuading them that it's culturally bankrupt and uncool."
It is every United States citizen's job to solve the problems that are so deeply embedded in so many communities across the country. Everyone is either hurting and helping the problems based on where they choose to live, to work, to shop, to congregate and to relax. When the overwhelming trend for six decades is to not invest in places where problems are seen as nonexistent, then the places where the are problems because places with increasingly worsening problems that eventually lead to sub-cultures through segregation and isolation from 'mainstream society'.
Chatham Square in Fair Haven, for example, used to be heavily trafficked by drugs, prostitution and the proliferation of crime that usually comes from these activities when made illegal. Today, it is a much safer neighborhood; it has a beautiful park, beautifully restored homes, young families, small business and mom & pop stores within walking distance and basically an entirely new personality than it had just 10-15 years ago. It is due to the investment of a handful of homeowners and responsible renters who took pride in a place that needed investment, but had lacked it due to decades of neglect from inaccurate perceptions.

Streever and others,
Since zoning has come up quite a lot in this discussion, are any of you familiar with the SmartCode, and form-based zoning? A lot of the separation of land uses that currently result from our zoning practices and the codes that dictate how buildings can physically perform on a given site in a given zone are completely unnecessary and ridiculous. The issues in this situation that the article describes are social and cultural, not zoning and usage. Bars, restaurants, pubs, and clubs have existed next to housing, shopping, work places and recreation places for centuries in human habitats of every density and demographic all over the world. That the restaurant/bar was near residences is not the issue at all. The social and cultural conditions that exist and result in crimes like this are the issue.
There may be short-term solutions that can address some problems immediately and effectively (which may be the point Streever was trying to make), but to address trends and movements-which this incident is a part of-we need much larger solutions than shutting down a bar because it didn't follow the ridiculous, unnecessary and arbitrary zoning and code requirements that most places in this country follow. And actually, part of the problem is the zoning and the codes that separate buildings based on uses instead of integrate them and allow social responsibility (along with many other actions) to influence behavior.

Posted by: Norton Street | January 6, 2010 7:13 PM

::Edit::
Those nonsensical sentences are supposed to say:

"Everyone is either hurting OR helping the problems based on where they choose to live, to work, to shop, to congregate and to relax. When the overwhelming trend for six decades is to invest in places where problems are seen as nonexistent, then the places where there are problems become places with increasingly worsening problems that eventually lead to sub-cultures through segregation and isolation from 'mainstream society'."

Posted by: Mary | January 8, 2010 10:08 PM

I have the solution to the problem, all bars in the City of New Haven have had some sort of problems rather it was with black or white people, city hallers, police officers, young males, southern or yale college students. Now all of these people have caused some sort of problems ... let's not forget about the police officer pee peed on the bar bathroom flood and then spit on the bar counter, all of these things so far are violations of the law.

My point is that crime is crime and people that consume hard bar drinks ( to put it lightly)where they can not control themself not to drink pass the legal requirement of consumption.

So the solution to the problem is that we need to be examples to the youth and since we just built a new school downtown, I will be the first to sign a petition to close all city of New Haven Bars starting with the ones downtown on Temple Street, College Street, Crown Street, Church Street, Wooster Street and Chaple Street. I believe what's good for Westville Soco's is good for downtown New Haven.

Please sign this petition with me. Let's be an example for the magnet school students.

1. Mary Flucker