Connect with us

Opinions

Planned #DachaOn14th needs your licensing support

Convoluted D.C. liquor licensing gives small groups big powers to fight new venues

Published

on

Dacha Beer Garden, gay news, Washington Blade

(Image courtesy of Dacha)

The bustling commercial junction at 14th and S streets in northwest D.C., two blocks south of U Street in the amenity-laden MidCity area, is blighted by a barren vacant lot and streetscape eyesore.

It’s a jarringly unattractive and incongruous corner spot, one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels along the mid-town thoroughfare and currently used for commercial parking. Nestled amid an array of retail stores and plethora of restaurant, bar and nightlife establishments, this void is a paved pockmark.

That empty space has been an ugly sight for as long as anyone can recall and, due to zoning rules limiting development options, is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Unlikely, that is, unless the city approves a planned $3 million investment by a local small business to transform the location with a brand-new building.

Dacha Beer Garden proprietors and gay business partners Dmitri Chekaldin and Ilya Alter hope to contribute a community enterprise offering an innovative neighborhood socializing option. They have operated the popular outdoor seasonal Dacha Beer Garden in the adjacent Shaw neighborhood, at 7th and Q streets, for the past four years.

It would be one of less than a handful of new-construction dedicated-use full-service D.C. restaurant-bar structures built from the ground up during the past five decades.

The business duo’s plan for an additional venue with both indoor and outdoor space enabling year-round operation has been laboriously winding its way through the city’s convoluted liquor-licensing system for months.

Alter and Chekaldin face opposition from both an ad-hoc license protest by a small “group of five or more” and two long-notorious inter-related “civic associations” with few members and even less community support.

These objectors are pressuring the three area Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to recommend that the D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board either block the business from opening or restrict operating hours and reduce guest capacity to an unsustainable level in an effort to halt the project. Because the property is located near the boundaries of two adjacent ANCs, a total of three commissions are allowed to “weigh-in” with the Board.

These so-called “citizens” groups, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association and its spawn-like cohort bred from among DCCA members forming an adjunct Shaw-Dupont Citizens Alliance, reflexively oppose new hospitality establishments. Their shameful legacy includes waging an infamous eight-year battle against gay-owned culinary standout Hank’s Oyster Bar along Dupont’s 17th Street commercial strip.

Five years ago, both of these symbiotic naysayer gaggles pushed to impose a total moratorium on all new liquor licenses throughout the entire MidCity area of Logan, Shaw, 14th and U streets and all nearby business zones.

Overwhelming numbers of area residents, however, fought back and successfully derailed the attempted prohibition. Had the community not done so, none of the new bars and restaurants that have sprung up since 2012 would have been allowed to open.

The majority of area residents need to make their voices heard again.

On Wednesday, Dacha unveiled a revised building design and site layout that fully resolves the claimed worries of opponents regarding potential external noise. The number of outdoor seats, now within a small courtyard surrounded on three sides by both an L-shaped new building and adjacent existing business, has been reduced to only one-third of occupancy.

All other seating and service is inside an expanded interior with a 20-ft. building elevation serving as a sound barrier along an adjacent alley and the property-facing side street. There will be no DJs, live music or other performances – only low-volume background music. Dacha is also working with sound mitigation specialists to continue a perfect record of compliance with D.C. noise regulations.

Dacha this week launched an online community effort asking local supporters to “send a message” urging the ANCs and D.C. Council representatives Jack Evans and Brianne Nadeau to endorse ABC licensing for the new venue.

To support #DachaOn14th, go online to “sign and send” a message here.

Mark Lee is a long-time entrepreneur and community business advocate. Follow on Twitter: @MarkLeeDC. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading
Advertisement
10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. Popeye

    July 22, 2017 at 10:07 am

    “The bustling commercial junction at 14th and S streets in northwest D.C., two blocks south of U Street in the amenity-laden MidCity area, is blighted by a barren vacant lot and streetscape eyesore.”

    Oh please. It’s a parking lot. Hardly “blighted.”

    And concerns about Dacha are not remotely the same as the attempted moratorium on new bars in the neighborhood. False equivalence.

    “Dacha is also working with sound mitigation specialists to continue a perfect record of compliance with D.C. noise regulations.”

    Wow. Are you on the PR team? That is some serious (and false) spin. Their record in Shaw is FAR from perfect.

    • lnm3921

      July 25, 2017 at 9:16 pm

      Most if not all of Mark Lee’s articles are serious and false spin to push his agenda!

  2. Mark Lee

    July 22, 2017 at 10:42 am

    [In reply to “Popeye”]

    FACT CHECK: The Dacha outdoor beer garden in Shaw has never been cited for a D.C. Noise Control Act violation during inspections by MPD, DCRA, or ABRA.

    I stand by the observation made in my column as true and correct.

    – Mark Lee, Washington Blade contributing columnist

    • Dodo_District

      July 23, 2017 at 11:00 am

      This report sounds very one sided. No input or comments from the next door neighbors Protesting this establishment? Dig a little deeper it’s not about blocking bars or alcohol. Try speaking to Jack Evans too.

    • Popeye

      July 24, 2017 at 10:39 am

      I’m OK with Dacha existing on 7th or coming to 14th as long as noise and security issues raised by neighbors are actually addressed but you’re about as “fair and balanced” as Fox News with your cherry-picking of facts.

      “Never been cited” for noise isn’t the same as never had a complaint. There have been many, and they HAVE been cited numerous times and fined for being over capacity – which is directly related to noise volume but easier to prove.

      https://www.borderstan.com/2015/11/06/dacha-agrees-to-42-5k-fine-in-battle-over-beer-gardens-capacity/

      https://www.borderstan.com/2015/07/08/shaw-anc-votes-to-protest-dacha-expansion/

    • tassojunior

      July 25, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      Technically true. Not even sure if there are noise violations for human voice.
      But….Dacha holds the DC record for adjudicated violations in one two-year license. 21 confirmed infractions in their last 2-year license, including serving to minors and over-capacity. One serious enough for a $42,000 fine.

      • Popeye

        July 28, 2017 at 2:27 am

        Waiting for your reply, Mark Lee. Tell us more about Dacha’s perfect record.

  3. Chris

    July 23, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    Generally, their proposal seems reasonable from the looks of it with the outdoor area on 14th and the walls/roof closer to the residential areas. I do want to take issue with some of your characterization, however. Equating the DCCA and SDCA overstepping boundaries of the past (+ the Wallach Place crew) isn’t exactly apples to apples. And, a lot of that overstepping resulted in revisions to the ABRA protest law and eventual rolling back of or decisions not to move forward with moratoriums.

    Additionally, I think it is dishonesty by omission when you note that they have never been cited for a noise violation. You know as well as anyone, they got in some serious trouble with ABRA about over capacity and other issues and had to serve a 21 day license suspension and pay a $42,500 fine (rare and stiff by ABRA standards). They were most certainly NOT the greatest neighbors in Shaw, so I’ve have no problem with DC citizens ensuring some accountability from high profit businesses with shady pasts. In diverse neighborhoods with residences and businesses, it is a fact of life that we have to have some compromises in the city.

    https://www.popville.com/2015/11/dachas-liquor-license-suspended-through-the-29th-expect-a-few-more/

  4. tassojunior

    July 25, 2017 at 11:21 am

    What all these immature uber-libertarians miss is that often these projects turn out 100 times better because of “opposition”.

    This new plan in response to the opposition is terrific compared to the original plan of a bunch of tables for beer drinking by 600 people on a vacant lot.

  5. kjnisamutt

    July 27, 2017 at 10:05 am

    Yes, yet another noisy bar is the most serious issue facing the LGBTQ community in DC at this time. Why is the Blade offering a platform for this obvious corporate shill? This is the kind of stuff that belongs in a business rag, not the local voice for LGBTQ issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Opinion | U.S. senators: It’s time to act against anti-LGBTQ discrimination

Draw your inspiration from past bipartisan consensus

Published

on

(Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Georgia has had the eyes of the nation on it for some time now. It’s just over five years since people across Georgia braced themselves as lawmakers sent sweeping anti-LGBTQ legislation to the desk of then-Gov. Nathan Deal. The LGBTQ community feared for the potential harms that the broad “license to discriminate” bill could bring. Business leaders feared billions of dollars being drained from the state’s economy as major players from Hollywood, the business sector, and even the NFL threatened to pull investments. 

But after thousands of calls, meetings, and letters, Gov. Deal, a Republican and devout Evangelical Christian, ultimately did the right thing. He vetoed the bill, saying, “We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody.”

At the time Gov. Deal’s veto was heralded as a radical move for a Republican leader. But the truth is that Republican lawmakers faced with bills targeting LGBTQ people frequently take action against these measures. We saw it last month in Arkansas as Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed a draconian anti-transgender healthcare bill. Earlier this year, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox teared up while condemning an anti-trans bill, saying, “These kids are just trying to stay alive.” Prominent Republican leaders in South Dakota, Texas, South Carolina, and Arizona have vetoed or moved to block anti-LGBTQ bills. Stalwart Republican senators from Alabama and Iowa have passionately supported open military service for transgender people. 

There are plenty of examples of Republicans supporting LGBTQ people, but they’ve often been lost in the headlines stoking the so-called left-versus-right “culture wars.”

In my home state of Georgia, Gov. Deal’s action inspired further evolution on LGBTQ issues. In the five legislative sessions since Gov. Deal’s veto, Georgia’s legislature has not passed a single anti-LGBTQ bill. Republicans and Democrats alike have defended LGBTQ Georgians from discriminatory measures. And so many Georgians across the political spectrum – within families, friend groups, and workforces – have had conversations about what dignity for LGBTQ people looks like.

Now it’s time for the members of the United States Senate to build on that consensus by taking the most important and critical step yet for LGBTQ Americans. It’s time for senators on both sides of the aisle to come together and enact equality legislation that would establish concrete, enduring nondiscrimination protections for all LGBTQ people in areas like housing and public spaces, including restaurants, stores, and hospitals. LGBTQ people in too many states – 29 nationwide – remain vulnerable because of a lack of explicit nondiscrimination laws at the state and federal levels.

Polling consistently shows that a wide majority of Americans of both political parties strongly supports protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination. More than eight in 10 Americans support LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination laws, including 62% of Republicans. We cannot let the loudest voices of a fringe minority hold our country back from delivering the promise of liberty, security, and equality for all people, no matter where they live. 

Because really, we are so close to passing federal LGBTQ protections – closer than ever before. Nearly 50 years after its first introduction in Congress, the Equality Act passed with bipartisan support in the House, and received its first-ever Senate hearing. Republican senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced empathy for the harms that discrimination has caused LGBTQ people. They also expressed a willingness to finding a path to protect us. And there is more than one bill proposed to address the inequity that LGBTQ people are subjected to. The Senate judiciary committee opened a door to the long overdue conversation.

Now it’s on us to hold that door open and guide all of our senators through. Democratic senators must reach out to their Republican colleagues and address concerns. Republicans must draw on the many recent examples of conservative leaders working to protect LGBTQ people. 

We can’t afford another 50 years of federal inaction on our protections. We can’t afford for the two parties to keep butting heads in a bitter stalemate. For the first time in history, we have a real opportunity to secure protections for LGBTQ Americans.

We must seize this opportunity, seek common ground and find a solution that works for everyone. It’s essential that right, left, and center come together, reach consensus, and do the right thing. At last.

Jeff Graham is executive director of Georgia Equality. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Opinion | Why LGBTQ people should fear new Texas abortion law

Slippery slope measure turns private citizens into enforcers

Published

on

Texas State Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

I worry about everything from climate change to violence against transgender people to racism to reproductive freedom for women. But, until recently, I didn’t have to worry that a “$10,000 bounty” could be collected from me if I helped a woman to have an abortion.

Yet, this is now a terrifying concern for abortion providers, advocates of women’s reproductive rights and those who value civil liberties. Especially, for people in Texas.

If you value the right to privacy and are LGBTQ or a queer ally, you should be terrified.

Here’s why everyone with a sense of decency should feel the hair standing up on the back of their necks: It’s no secret, that the Supreme Court, more conservative since the court of the 1930s, is likely eyeing the chance to overthrow or gut Roe V. Wade.

In May, the Supreme Court said that, in its next term (beginning in October 2021), it would consider an abortion case involving a Mississippi law that would prohibit most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy (about two months earlier than permitted by Roe v. Wade).

The Court’s decision to consider this case gives hope to anti-abortion activists seeking the overthrow of Roe v. Wade.   

States with Republican-controlled legislatures, aware of the make-up of the Supreme Court (with its conservative 6 to 3 majority), have acted quickly to severely weaken abortion rights. This has been especially true this year.

“More abortion restrictions — 90 — have already been enacted in 2021 than in any year since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973,” according to a Guttmacher Institute report.

On May 19, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed a draconian abortion bill into law. This measure, known as a “heartbeat law,” bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

Many women, at the six-week point, have no idea that they’re pregnant.

This is bad enough. Other states, including Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina have passed “heartbeat” laws banning abortion (when a fetal heartbeat can be detected).

But the legislation signed into law this spring by Gov. Abbott is even more insidious.

The legislation, scheduled to take effect in September 2021, gives private citizens the right to sue doctors and abortion clinic employees.

It doesn’t stop there. The new law permits a private citizen (from a pastor to an Uber driver to a friend, family member or perfect stranger) to sue anyone who performs or helps anyone to get an abortion. Even private citizens not living in Texas could sue people performing or helping someone to get an abortion.

Each private citizen could potentially be awarded $10,000 for every illegal abortion.

The law doesn’t allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. Though it would permit abortions in rare medical instances. Thankfully, on July 13, a coalition of abortion rights and civil liberties advocates, including abortion clinics, doctors, clergy, filed a federal lawsuit to challenge this new law.

Six-week abortion bans passed by other states have been successfully challenged because abortion rights advocates sued government officials.

But Texas’s new law prohibits state officials from enforcing it. It’s set up to be enforced by private citizens.

“We had to devise a unique strategy to fight this subversive law,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “We will pursue every legal avenue we can to block this pernicious law.”

This new law sets up a dangerous slippery slope for LGBTQ folk.

If a private citizen is allowed to sue anyone assisting a woman having an abortion, what, for example, would prevent anyone (from a minister to a friend to a cab driver) who helps a queer couple to adopt a child? Or suing anyone helping a transgender person to get health care.

Let’s do all we can to support the effort to block this dangerous law.

Kathi Wolfe, a writer and a poet, is a regular contributor to the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Opinion | LGBTQ victories are largely legal, not legislative

Leading lobbying groups ineffective as we face hostile Supreme Court

Published

on

anti-discrimination laws, gay news, Washington Blade
(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The recent conclusion of last month’s Pride month celebrations marked an annual milestone in both the history and advancements of rights for the LGBTQ community. The progress for LGBTQ rights over the last two decades has been groundbreaking – oftentimes described as an exemplary movement obtaining rights for a marginalized community. It was less than 20 years ago the United States Supreme Court struck down the country’s first real gay rights test in Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing “homosexual conduct” among consenting adults. 

Even in the most recent years, we all recognize how major achievements like marriage equality to the protection of gay adoption – to the recent action ensuring a fully inclusive military with transgender service – have benefited the community. But with new attacks arising daily in state capitals around the nation, like transgender sports becoming the new “bathroom bill,” LGBTQ future generations are counting on the leading LGBTQ rights and legal organizations to secure more equality.

Almost unanimously, these groundbreaking rights – while being achieved at almost lightning speed (although not fast enough for the millions of LGBTQ Americans whose lives have been, and still being impacted) – have been won in American courtrooms, not the halls of Congress. 

While the first federal LGBTQ rights bill was introduced in Congress in 1975 by former Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.) making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, it was simply referred to the Judiciary Committee and died. Forty-six years later barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, part of today’s Equality Act, has still not been passed into law by the LGBTQ lobbying organizations – and faces a similar fate this year in the U.S. Senate. 

The Equality Act, the chief legislative target for Washington, D.C.’s LGBTQ lobbying organizations is dead in Congress despite the ripest political environment with a Democratic House, Senate and White House. The Senate’s filibuster and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are major structural problems for the legislation, but there is not even serious discussion or demands from the LGBTQ lobbying community to insist on passage through filibuster reform.  

Must we automatically presume the LGBTQ community is so low a priority we are essentially beholden to prejudice of the minority in the Senate? When, therefore, can we ever expect any action? If not now, then when will gay lobbying succeed?

As an LGBTQ researcher at the University of Sydney in preparation for a new academic piece, I wanted to find out how groundbreaking LGBTQ rights could be won in courtrooms while lingering in Congress for half a century. The central question this research tried to answer was, “what factors contribute to LGBTQ lobbyist and advocate perceptions of movement success by LGBTQ organizations?”  The answer became pretty clear when surveying the top LGBTQ lobbying and government affairs professionals, the ones with the most intimate, front-line view of congressional outreach. 

Overwhelmingly, the research concludes the leading mainstream legal organizations have been primarily responsible for the community’s progress – not the LGBTQ organization’s lobbying efforts. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the wealthiest LGBTQ organization with a $48 million a year budget based in Washington, D.C. and founded 41 years ago, was ranked 10th most effective out of 17 organizations ranked. Since 2018, HRC has fallen six additional positions since the original research was published. In contrast, Lambda Legal, the LGBTQ community’s foremost legal rights organization, followed by the legal powerhouse, the ACLU, have moved ahead of them ranking as the most effective LGBTQ organizations.

The research clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the LGBTQ lobby, which has largely focused on gaining access to power structures instead of winning legislative victories.  Fundraising models of these organizations, built largely around monetizing their access to power, has left little evidence of their effectiveness and in turn, has strengthened systems of oppression against an overwhelming number of LGBTQ people of color, transgender individuals and lower-income members of the community. The “access to power” model of LGBTQ lobbying has essentially commercialized gayness (white, cisgender, English-speaking, middle and upper class gayness) as a consumable product that most often benefits those in power. It’s a “scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” system of lobbying that shuts the door on the most marginalized LGBTQ people – those most in need of legislative victories to protect their lives.

Today, regardless of all of the progress in LGBTQ legal victories over the last two decades, the community is in the most dangerous place it has been in 25 years. LGBTQ lobbying does not work, and LGBTQ legal avenues have catastrophically changed. The 6-3 Supreme Court is poised to undermine Roe, which some say undermines Lawrence, which undermines Obergefell (the groundbreaking 2015 marriage equality decision). A house of very successful, but delicate legal cards, may begin to fall. The LGBTQ community is holding its collective breath against an anti-LGBTQ Supreme Court majority, and the spotlight is now shining brightly on the LGBTQ lobby and their ability to produce legislative success. 

Unfortunately, the organizations responsible for shaping the community’s relationship with states and the federal government are largely seen as ineffective and oftentimes harmful to progress. This ineffectiveness leaves the LGBTQ community in a dangerous and perilous moment in the movement’s history.  

To be successful, a radical transformation of the movement’s lobbying must happen immediately by shifting to a much more state-based movement, where anti-LGBTQ opponents are already attacking the identity and existence of transgender people with the introduction of more than 100 bills aimed to curb the rights of transgender people nationwide. Secondly, the danger to the lives of LGBTQ people from these legislative harms must be amplified and ready to be fought against. And lastly, a new model of investment is required that prioritizes the lives of transgender individuals and people of color and embraces an intersectional approach to lobbying. 

The LGBTQ movement is about to face darker days ahead. Leaders in Washington’s premier gay rights groups, including their lobbyists, must figure out how to protect our children, protect the poor, and lift up the marginalized or face disastrous consequences in the next few years in legislative bodies from city halls to the U.S. Capitol. Otherwise our hopes to tackle issues like transgender sports and equality will rest solely on the LGBTQ legal apparatus.

Christopher Pepin-Neff, Ph.D., a senior lecturer in Public Policy in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, is the author of ‘LGBTQ Lobbying in the United States.’

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular