Just to follow up on my post regarding After Hours Bars, here is an open letter to council
Although I'm pleased to see that the after hours issue will finally be dealt with, I am saddened that it will be done in a very political climate where there is a possibility for an over reaction to an complex issue that is not black or white but grey.
I propose the following solution in order to continue flexibility.
Whatever gets proposed for closing times should have an exemption process similar to the noise bylaw.
Applications for exemptions on specific nights by specific establishiments should be brought before the Hospitality Resource Panel (HRP) Made up of administration, police, industry representatives and residents. At this time a report should be sent to council recomendding for or against. If required, the HRP can work out conditions for that establishment whereif ignored will constitute cause for not recommending future exemptions (staggered closing, drink prices, controls on drink contests or any other tool of responsible management)
At that point the recommendation of the HRP can be put on the consent agenda with no need to politicise these requests.
The HRP should be instructed to facilitate exemptions for all responsible owners so that we do not end up curtailing the chance to lure world class entertainers to our city. This is a way to reward responsibly run establishments while controlling those who do not manage their locations responsibly. Please, we have one chance to get this right. Get it right.
Mark Boscariol
P.S. When can we get massage parlors on the agenda? We have the solutions, we just need to get them before council. It's astonishing that our democratic right to get an issue before council can be denied
63 comments:
Add to the list.... Clean up the disgusting City parking lots/Garages. The safety in these lots is very questionable as well. I always see people drinking in them. I've also been approached by drug dealers in them. If we are going to rid the downtown of crime and questionable activity the City need to look no further than its own back yard.
You are sucking and blowing.
Mark, Windsor doesn't want to take on the massage parlours due to a possible lawsuit by said "establishments". Even though a couple of cities (I beleive Kitchener to be one and Brampton another) have already bylawed them out of their city.
This is very strange considering how much "The King" Eddie spends on lawyers currently. One would think he would love to take them to court and spend even more money ala The Capitol Theatre.
As for parking garages what ever happened to the security in them?
Whats funny about the legal concerns is that when we talk about legal concerns with the border, the conversation always goes to "we have to do whats right at any cost".
As far as the security in the garages, the city has camera's up in them.
The only way to increase security is to clear downtown at 3am or to increase costs with patrols. I'd like to see it done in a cost neutral way.
I'd like to see bylaw officers, or other municipal employees patrolling them as they cost far less than police.
The DWBIA was never allowed to use the hosts to patrol, when the hosts became a tourism body instead of a security body the DWBIA cancelled them.
BTW, to be clear, I have been called several times and blamed for talking out of both sides of my mouth and wanting to delay the closing of after hours bars.
I don't want the after hours bar bylaws to be delayed for exemptions. They should put the controls and closures in place now and the exemptions take place when they get the HRP set up.
Mark Boscariol
No sucking and blowing here. Want them after hours bars closed between 3 and 5 with exemptions. Just like the municipal noise bylaw.
Some star shaped pegs just don't fit into the square holes we try to make for them
Sorry...No exemptions. If you have it any other way you are just sucking and blowing.
Seems like the system works pretty well for the noise bylaw.
Film festival applied for exemptions for that, so did many other events.
This is not George Bush's world of being either with or against.
What's frustratign is many will agree with vagabond's assertion because they must view everything so simplistically.
Remember F. Scott Fitzgerald's measure of a true intellect is the ability to hold two opposing premises in your head at the same time while still retaining the ability to function.
You can want afterhours bars closed at 3am while at the same time wanting exemptions for some to stay open. If people dont' get that it says something about them.
What sort of criteria would be used to decide who gets the exceptions and who does not?
Noise bi-law, film festival? These are singular events. Apples to oranges. F. Scott Fitzgerald was thinking too hard. Allowing exemptions just leaves a large loop hole. This is why no half measures can be applied. Not because common sense views everything so simplistically but because the answer really is that simple. On, off or fuzzy logic? Most people do get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose wisely: Suck or blow?
Great Question Alert!!!
'What sort of criteria would be used to decide who gets the exceptions and who does not?"
First off, It should not be I who determines the criteria, it should be a Hospitality Resource Panel made up of City Administration, Police, Residents and Industry Veterans.
I can onl give examples of what other cities use as criteria.
#1. No outstanding offences with the AGCO
#2. No practices that encourage irresponsible drinking including but not limited to:
a. contests that encourage irresponsible drinking
b. Drink specials or cheap drink prices that encourage irresponsible drinking
c. an environment that allows activities other than binge drinking. i.e. only standing room with no tables to set your drink on encourages binge drinking, no games or activities encourages binge drinking. etc.. etc..
#3. offering a reason for being there other than drinking. Even the adult entertainment clubs at least are selling sex. Boom Boom Room offers world class DJ's and other entertainment.
This is an uninformed opinion of some examples. If we had an HRP they have a system whereby our police can talk to police in other cities to compare, residents can talk to other residents in other cities to compare. City officials can network with other cities to compare.
The answers they will give you will be that much better than the few suggestions I give.
As to Vagabond. You should try to get out of our city once and a while. Your myopic solutions have been tried and failed again repeatedly. There are enough proven strategies out there that have can be used to create environments where residents issues have been solved.
I'd be happy to meet with you to discuss this further or put you in touch with trusted police or residential experts that can alleviate your concerns. Just email me a time and place and.
January 6, 2008 11:55 AM
vagabond said...
Noise bi-law, film festival? These are singular events. Apples to oranges. F. Scott Fitzgerald was thinking too hard. Allowing exemptions just leaves a large loop hole. This is why no half measures can be applied. Not because common sense views everything so simplistically but because the answer really is that simple. On, off or fuzzy logic? Most people do get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose wisely: Suck or blow?
Oh, forgot to mention the paramount criteria for an exemption would be support from adjoining or very nearby residents.
But you have to ensure that support is reasonably given or withheld. Noise complaints or litter could be an example of reasons for objection.
Mr. Boscariol...You are resorting to bad manners and name calling which is uncalled for here. Your last argument confirms that an absolute level playing field has to be established. A very fair way to deal with exemptions wouldn't you agree?
As far as your unqualified prescription for my vision is concerned fear not. I have lived in Spain, Germany, Italy and Sao Paulo and have visited countless places in between. For business and pleasure. And...I might add...On my earned dime. I speak three languages. You are right. It has affected my sight. I don't think it is me who has to learn to look outward. Especially since I do not live in the forest. Why are you so hell bent on sucking AND blowing? No conviction or do you prefer the absence of clarity?
You don't think that when you become a broken record after several explanations that it is not going to get frustrating. You've not even acknowledged anything I've said, so if we're talking about rude behaviour...
I've laid out a well thought out working plan that would allow our cities to bring in entertainment of the caliber of the other cities you have mentioned. All this while creating a buffer between the daytime and nighttime uses
Toronto is allowed to stay open during film festival and other special events. Not just open but serving alcohol. Nightclubs in Windsor have already demonstrated they can bring world class entertainment such as DJ Ritchie Hawtin who is live telecasted across Canada from Windsor on the CBC.
All the places you have mentioned have justifications for staying up all night on special occasions. I dont understand why Windsor should form policy in a bubble
Mark...This debate wouldn't be happening if I didn't acknowledge your thoughts. There are only two points of view on the table here. Mine which requires a simple "yes" conclusion and yours which calls for a "yes/except for" conclusion. "Yes close them down" or "yes close them down except for". I suppose that after repeating those arguments several times it might sound like a broken record. Perhaps you see a less tedious way of communicating those notions.
I admire your bravado for smithing your thoughts into a business plan but that would have no impact on this issue what so ever. I also don't know how you rationalize a "day and night" Windsor. Is there such a thing as a day and night Mark Boscariol? Can some sort of buffer make that transformation happen? A bit dissociative wouldn't you agree? I also wouldn't recommend a Jekyll and Hyde branding option for any city.
Yes, Toronto does permit late hours and drinking for certain occasions. (and the rest of the world does too) "Ocassions" being the operative word. Windsor can also do the same. Why not. Richie Hawtin is a no brainer. This is his home town and Detroit is where he cut his teeth. I'm all for world class entertainment. Go for it. Make it happen. I'm sure that no entertainer cares if their last set ends with last call. Been that way for hundreds of years. Once again, this has little bearing on the core issue here. As far a Windsor and a "policy bubble" is concerned so what? Windsor is not Toronto, New York, or even Chatham. "Toronto does it so why can't we?" is a childish argument. Best medicine applies here Mark. You can't get rid of half of a fever.
In my last reply I brought up "forest for trees". You own several entertainment concerns downtown. Is arguing for more "open time" really worth it in your book? Can you step outside of that box for a couple of minutes and look from another vantage? What will bring more and higher caliber clientelle to Windsor? Less "open time" or spilled fruit juice and spent bullet casings? Can you rationalize this at all or are you sticking to suck and blow?
if you want establishments closed at 3am, does that not mean the casino should close too? i mean it does serve alcohol and is open at all hours. all i am saying is there should be an even playing field and there shouldn't be a set of standards for one group of people and then a second set for another group.
its all about proper management. shut down irresponsible bar owners. if they realize their bottom line will be affected, they will conform to the rules set in place. can you not set something in place that charge owners with the policing fees that are a result of their establishment?
Going after the bars is impossible so that is moot. Besides, these episodes usually happen outside of the bars and typically after 4:00 A.M. You won't find any homies in the casino at that time anyway. It is also self contained. The truth is that council will probably buckle to similar arguments but effectively nothing will change. And the revenge killings haven't started yet either. There were no angels in the last killing.
STREET:
I don't know if you could classify Casino Windsor as different. They serve alcohol, they obviously offer gambling which can affect people’s behaviour, they provide entertainment. They may have their own security, but so do other establishments. Also, to say that no "homies" are in the casino that late indicates you are for profiling certain establishments based on the appearance of their customers.
All I am saying is that a level playing field is needed. Allowing one group to operate a certain way and not another creates a slippery slope, one that has a slight chance of creating a legal fight if business owners notice large profit losses and group together. That’s all I am saying.
As far as it being "impossible" to go after bar, I would beg to differ. If legal action can be taken by a customer if an incident happens as a result of alcohol served at a bar (drinking & driving) whether it happens at the bar or not, who is to say it can't be held responsible for other crimes?
Fire departments can charge for false alarms because you were using up their resources, so why not charge an establishment if it is constantly using up police resources?
We have discussed before in this blog that properly managed establishments have not had many problems at all. It is only a select few; one in particular. Why punish good owners and push away the only sector in Windsor that is holding it's own, hospitality & tourism?
Everyone will have their chance to discuss this at council on January 14. Coun. Halberstadt brought it up tonight and it will be coming back next week.
Sharpen those pencils, folks, and hone those arguments. Something has to be done to make our downtown safer and more appealing to investors and patrons.
Thank you vagabond for expanding on your statement.
Great comment
" Is there such a thing as a day and night Mark Boscariol? Can some sort of buffer make that transformation happen? A bit dissociative wouldn't you agree? I also wouldn't recommend a Jekyll and Hyde branding option for any city. "
The Responsible hospitality institute addresses this problem. In downtowns the various uses are always referred to as "Mixed Use"
The responsible hospitality INstitute agrees with your assertion that this is an incorrect term. The Uses simply don't mix. They claim that the proper terminology is "Split-Use" district.
They have researched proven examples of successful "Split-Use" Districts. They said the most important factor is creating a BUFFER between the uses. Closing the after hours bars creates that buffers.
I know it sounds a bit generic but I believe that the buffer can be created through either or both space or time
Any exemptions for after hours should not be awarded to bldgs that actually touch and adjoin residential bldgs. There needs to be some space.
Exemptions for bldgs in the cities "Entertainment lounge" zone that have managed their establishments and the area nearby responsibly will not interfere with this buffer.
There are all sorts of other restrictions you can put on exemptions such as putting a cleaning person on the sidewalks when you close so that you clean up before the "Daytime" uses.
P.S. There is a day and Night Mark Boscariol. Both want to ensure that they have a downtown that accomodates their needs and desires
Who pays for all of this? Hospitality Resource Panel,extra policing required? Is it the bar owners? NOOOOOO ....its the tax payers. So who is really benefiting here? Me the average citizen who wants nothing to do with the crazy crap that happens in the downtown? The person who will never partake in a event at 3:00 am in the morning in the downtown? Or the bar owner turned downtown champion? See Mark the only person I really see benefiting is you and others like you. While my taxes go to pay for your dreams. So whats the big deal if we make all the bars close at 3:00am. Maybe I save a little on my taxes and I gain something for a change.
Relax dude, the lights are so much brighter there, you can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares...
My interests outside of downtown far outweigh my interest in downtown, especially a 25% stake in a nightclub which closes at 3 all the time anyways. I'm only doing whats right.
First off the HRP should be able to save the city a tremendous amount of enforcement costs.
HRP's are proven tools to lower incidents related to the hospitality industry. That frees up resources that can be used elsewhere
Secondly, The Hospitality industry in WIndsor employs approximately 20,000. The vast majority of people around will find their first entry into the workforce will be a job in the hospitality industry.
Other cities such as San Diego have realized that if this industry is fostered and treated as a career instead of a stepping stone it can yeild more and better jobs.
HRP's are not relegated to dealing with After Hours or enforcement issues. They deal with how to hold more successful events and festivals. How to promote the industry so that it yeilds economic benefits to our city
The DWBIA has agreed to fund much of the costs, we just need to organize the industry and then get the city officials to meet with us.
P.S. With respects to the families of the victim.
What do you think that murder is going to cost in higher vacancy rates yeilding less revenue to the city?
You're paying a lot more for not having an HRP right now
To ac: Your reference to the casino is the chink in the armour isn't it? It is the only self defined exception but downtown business operators shouldn't get caught up in that for a couple of reasons: It's really not a threat to downtown venues, it is professionally and internally policed, and the bulk of it's early morning patrons will head upstairs to retire for the evening/day. Also, it's not the same playing field because it's a whole different league. I won't argue beyond this because it's one of those "continuous loop" things. It won't come to any resolve.
I also have to agree with "Street" about closing bars down. Very difficult task. Sets the stage nicely for litigation issues. Can you recall of one single bar closure that wasn't infraction related? It even takes a ton of time and a few hundred thousand dollars in back taxes to shut a bar down. We have two examples of this in the last couple of months. More policing of bars won't work in their favour anyway. It will only be cause for geese and gander.
Poor "Street". Racial profiling? I think he was only making an observation. Be careful with that.
Nobody is suggesting to "push away" any business or business sector. The issue is about closing down one hour earlier. How much money could be made in that one hour? Does juice and water with whatever margin you put on it justify the real cost of staying open? Some thought has to go into this.
And now for Mark:
First let's clarify. I never said anything about "mixed use" or your famed institutes re-coin "split use" (???). Let's stay on the page here. What you are really referring to is your own notion of "day and night Windsor" as if downtown Windsor is (shout this out with baritone voice) "Office by Day...Kiddie bars by night!" Dissociative identity disorder written all over it.
As a matter of fact I'm glad you brought "mixed use" up. It is a VERY correct term. In my book this is the crux of downtown's problem. There is not enough mixed use. For downtown to become a viable and cherished destination a stronger mix of retail, and commercial aspects need to be added. Adults have no use for the downtown as it exists today. Especially after the senseless murder that sparked this debate. History tells us over and over that these are the things that made downtown work in the past and they are the things which spark activity in any city core today. Lots of retail, lots of commercial and lots of entertainment. The "urban" context of this blog continually harps reference to that. What seems to be always standing in the way are bar owners who want to control the core on their terms. Here's a news flash: There is no need for that. All businesses in the downtown will benefit more from a healthier mixed use. Entertainment and otherwise. Night and day. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Once again let's get back on topic. This is not about adding HRP's, added police presence, extra street cleaning or self professed saviours of the city. Why add all of this bulk, cost and confusion.
"Street" made a very important observation. The murders are not happening in any given bar. They are happening in the streets and typically after 4:00 A.M. Time and place are both identified. Shut the bars down earlier with no exceptions. Smaller cost, much better value. Nobody gets accused of sucking and blowing.
Sure John sing your song at 3:00am while dodging bullets. Or maybe at the funeral of the next victim.
My point is allot of my taxes paying for the privilege of a select group to decide when and why bars or festival (and what festival needs to be going at 3:00 in the morning?) should get to stay open or close at ungodly hours of the night. You want to clean up the downtown but you want to have your cake and eat it to. (Which goes right back to sucking and blowing.)
Instead of trying to get rid of our sin city image, you are now promoting it with late night bars. Please tell me how does this encourage more people to move downtown? Don't bother, you can't because it doesn't, it has just the opposite effect. The bottom line in there is no reason for it except for an exclusive group to make money. So let the exclusive group pay for it not the tax payer. And let the downtown continue to die for the sake of a few bar owners. I want the police in my neighborhood at 3:00 in the morning, not downtown babysitting a bunch of thugs so bar owners can make an extra buck.
There is one common thread which gets repeated by all here. "Level Playing Field". Given that people are dying in the wee hours (and they never used to) I would suggest to err on the side of caution. Close the after hours operations down. Let's play on that field.
Maybe you don't understand that it was Me, I, Mark who was the original guy calling for after hours bars to be closed.
I sent the email to councillors and the media before the murder to expose this issue being snuck through council.
The only reason Horwitz and others talked about this was because I exposed it.
I called for after hours bars to be shut.
But because I want the same exemptions that apply to the noise bylaws which works perfectly fine. You're trying to paint me as some pro after hours bar.
Please get it straight whose side I'm on
Just in case you're doubting me, here's my original email detailing the fight for this. Check out the date on it!
From: Mark Boscariol [mailto:markboscariol@hotmail.com]
Sent: December 6, 2007 3:41 PM
To: Dilkens, Drew; Halberstadt, Alan; Marra, Bill; Postma, Caroline; Brister, Dave; mayoro; Valentinis, Fulvio; horwitzwolf@aol.com; Gignac, Jo-Anne (Councillor); Judith veresuk; Lewenza, Ken; Hatfield, Percy; Jones, Ron
Cc: Virginia Pizzuti; Ron Balla; dhall@thestar.canwest.com; GHenderson@thestar.canwest.com; jmoore@am800cklw.com; rstang@am800cklw.com; windsornews@achannel.ca; jcoleman@thestar.canwest.com
Subject: After hours bars monday night
Finally, an opportunity to make a difference about the criticisms that downtown is all bars. Monday night a report by our administration goes to council and if we speak up we can make positive change and ask that bars not be allowed to operate between 3 and 5 am. We can put an end to destructive after hours bars like they did in Kitchener. Anyone who truly wants to make changes should register to speak at city council on Monday night or express your opinion to your councillor. Your councillors will listen if they see you there
I have been calling for an end to after hour’s bars and massage parlours to be zoned out of downtown for years. Our licensing department and our city leaders have not thought to date that these changes are warranted. Below is a letter that details the complaints about lack of transparency and being shut out of the process that Larry Horwitz and I faced when we tried to lobby for these changes. We were denied the input into this report that we were promised and we were individually told to leave the meeting. A meeting where the licencing committee comprised of Councillor Ron Jones and Jo anne Gignac became party to this flawed report.
First, we hear that downtown is dangerous, that is not the whole truth. The whole truth is that when we read and hear about shootings and knifings over 90% take place after 3am. The whole truth is that two of these shootings happened outside the same after hours club on the corner of Pelissier and Wyandotte. I am absolutely dumbfounded that the police have not called for these establishments to be closed down. We all know that policing costs are high downtown and this is one way to reduce them. If you claim to care about high taxes then here is another way to control city costs. I respectfully question the reasoning behind our police’s silence over this issue and whether there has been pressure to not rock the boat.
Secondly, if you want to lure retail downtown you need a buffer between the day time and a night time clientele. The term mixed use is not proper to describe the relationship between nightclubs, retail and office. The uses simply don’t mix. The more proper term would be “split use” and to make an effective “split use” district you need a buffer between the nightclubs and the retail/office. That buffer is needed for the Entertainment lounge owners to clean up before the retail/office opens.
There are many other reasons in addition to this that after hours clubs should be restricted, I’m sure many of you have your own valid reasons as well. You want to attract residents to downtown; these clubs are also an obstacle of that goal.
Now, other than the proprietors themselves, most people in the city will agree with me about after hours clubs. Where I disagree with many is the need to curtail the nightclub industry. We don’t need to stop them we need to manage them responsibly. That can be done by supporting the Hospitality Resource Panel that is inching its way forwards. More can be learned about this at www.responsiblehrp.org
The only controversy here is whether to close places that provide food between 3 and 5am. If you ask the president of the Responsible Hospitality Institute he will say that these places create lineups made up of intoxicated people put in closed quarters. Thats a fight waiting to happen. The Responsible Hospitality Institute advocates for practices that allow patrons to leave downtown in an orderly manner. It is a fallacious argument to think that if a drunk person has something to eat before he drives home he somehow becomes safer. Food doesn't sober you up, it only slows down how quickly alcohol enters the blood. It will not make a person that is over the legal limit go under. Even if you disagree with this point call your councillor and ask them to close entertainment lounges, public halls between 3 and 5am
It also is the source of much of downtowns garbage. Other cities
Kitchener did that and zone any new massage parlours out of downtown. When asked how they got the existing ones to move out of downtown they simply responded, we told them to go that they were not wanted downtown. action can happen if the citizens of our city demand it.
Please register to speak or show your support Monday Night at council, write, email or call your councillor. This is the type of positive change that we can make that I’ve been talking about. Here’s a chance for the naysayer to put their money where their mouths are.
Below are excerpts from Kitchener's municipal code which prevent after hour bars to open. After that is a description of how our city's administration is behaving on this issue. P.S. this will only be announced on Friday which gives the public virtually no notice or time to prepare. If it moves from Monday, I would question whether this post which I am making very public has caused a change that results in no public debate on the issue.
Public Hall
583.1.1 Public hall - defined
“public hall” means a building, including a portable building or tent with a
seating capacity for over 100 persons that is offered for use or used as a place
of public assembly, but does not include a theatre within the meaning of the
Theatres Act, or a building, except a tent, used solely for religious purposes.
583.2.6 Operation - hours prohibited
No person shall operate a public hall between the hours of 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.
each day except the first day of January in each year.
583.3.1 Fine - for contravention - person
Every person other than a corporationwho contravenes any provision of this
Chapter and every director or officer of a corporation who concurs in such
contravention by the corporation is guilty of an offence and is liable, upon
conviction, to a fine not exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000).
583.3.2 Fine - for contravention - corporation
Every corporation that contravenes any provision of this Chapter is guilty of
an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000)
Place of refreshment
584.1.2 Place of refreshment - defined
“place of refreshment” includes a restaurant, ice cream parlour, dairy bar, tea
room, sandwich shop, lunch counter, hot dog and hamburger stand, peanut
stand, fish and chip shop, refreshment booth, refreshment stand and a place
where refreshments are sold from a vendingmachine, but does not include a
refreshment vehicle
584.2.7 Class A licence - hours of operation
Every premises for which a ClassAplace of refreshment licence has been issued
under this Chapter shall be closed between the hours of 3 a.m. and 5
a.m. each day except the first day of January in each year.
584.3.1 Fine - for contravention - person
Every person who contravenes any provision of this Chapter and every director
or officer of a corporation who concurs in such contravention by the
corporation is guilty of an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not
exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000).
584.3.2 Fine - for contravention - corporation
Notwithstanding Section 584.3.1, every corporation that contravenes any
provision of this Chapter is guilty of an offence and is liable, upon conviction,
to a fine not exceeding Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000).
Good Morning Councillors:
I have reviewed the Council Report 13049 regarding After Hours Clubs. As this is a “Note and File” recommendation, we were informed by the City Clerk’s Office that delegations will not be heard on the issue.
As such, the DWBIA requests that Council direct Administration to work closely with the DWBIA in researching this issue and that the DWBIA be included in the discussion from the beginning through to the end of the study.
As an FYI – the Licensing Commission met on October 9th, 2007. I was informed by a person in the Licensing Department that this meeting was open to the public, however when two of my Board Members tried to enter the meeting, they were told to leave. I was assured by Licensing that we would be involved in this process, yet this Council Report has come forward without consultation with the DWBIA.
Judith C. Veresuk
Executive Director
Downtown Windsor Business Improvement
Mark,
I don't understand your argument. If you are calling for a 3:00am closing,
who is calling for exemptions? And why does there need to be exemptions?
I'm calling for exemptions just like the noise bylaw can have exemptions.
We need exemptions for when a nightclub brings in world class entertainment for events that naturally occur late.
Boom Boom Room is touted as the prime example. They brought in a DJ Ritchie Hawtin. The event was broadcast live on CBC radio across Canada.
The exposure and attention that this brought to Windsor justified an exemption as the norm and industry standard for this type of entertainmen is late.
The fact is that this type of exemption would not lead to problems as the patrons actually have a purpose for being there other than drinking water and energy drinks
The fact is that this exemption process is no more confusing than the noise bylaw exemption which allows Film Festival to show an outdoor film on the waterfront past dark
The fact is that if you want to foster this industry, it cannot be done with a stick alone. You have to hand out carrots that encourage responsible management.
The only complaint I've ever gotten about the Boom boom Room is that sometimes their patrons have left garbage outside their door. That problem happens at all hours, not just late night
Could you imagine giving them the exemption in return for having a staff member pick up after they close?
That would do more to benefit downtown.
This,Your blog posting stated where you were coming from Mark. That's why we are all here. You said right from the get-go that you wanted the after hours bars to be shut down. This debate has not been about that. This debate has always been about you wanting exemptions for some but not all after hours establishments. You're rationalle based on very flimsy criteria and whatever white noise you can toss in to keep the issue muddled. This is why you are charged with "Sucking and Blowing". You can't have it both ways. Even if you do think that you can keep your own establishments under control there are a thousand holes to be shot through your diatribe. For brevity, lets just stick to a couple.
Starting with your Richie Hawtin example there is no reason why he wouldn't play at 8:00 P.M. as opposed to 3:00 A.M. This goes for any performer for that matter. I myself have been to several televised and recorded nightclub shows for PBS and the like. They all went down during normal club hours. What you are verifying then, is that after hours clubs DON'T make any money selling juice and water. There's no incentive to stay open for that. The clubs, in fact, stand to make a ton of money by charging hefty cover for a second bar shift (starting after hours)plus peripherals. So why have them play during your normal operational hours when you can get twice as much bang for your buck with a second shift. It's about money! Not safety or violence in the streets; just money. Also...Who defines and chooses "world class acts" and when and where they can perform? How about "Shyne"? Let's listen to him here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW1lMHihXTk
And you know that during the Ritchie Hawtin gig a lot of kids were fuelling with ecstacy. Tell me that their judgement would not be impaired. Easy to take and easy to carry undetected. Adults and parents would like to look at this link:
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=b7cc03d9-dbfb-42a4-a6e1-2e7d5f72e08f
Back to "Mixed Use". It means exactly what is says. Some people go downtown to shop, some go to the doctors office, some talk to their lawyers, some go banking, some go to the drugstore, some go to the coffee shops, some go for ribs, some go for lunch, some go for supper, some go for theatre, some go for the arts, some watch the river and some go for entertainment. Geese...Some go for all of it. Whats so hard about that. Mixed use is mixed use. These types of businesses have always lived side by side in all cities and towns. The questionable term which you are flaunting is "split-use" which implies that the downtown will comprise of several segregated uses. You yourself have devised and promoted the plan for the downtown core to be sliced up into several distinct and physical districts: "An Arts district, a red light district, a business district and an entertainment district" to name a few. Isn't this why YOU espouse that Quellette Avenue will be THE "Entertainment District"? Not a very universal or fair cut of the downtown pie wouldn't you say? Isn't this also what you are setting up with your new brand "The Downtown Mosaic"? Isn't that why it's logo is made up of rectangles emulating the downtown district map? This is all way too self serving and not conducive at all to a proper and balanced downtown life and reclamation. All it does is say that if you don't like "Kiddie bars" or "red light" operations then stay away from those districts. Absurdity built on greed.
I just want to close by acknowleging Larry Horowitz, President of the Downtown Windsor Business Association, for piping up about after hours establishments both before and after the recent fatal downtown murder. He seems to have a very logical and independant head on his shoulders which I think will bode well for the core. A good spokesman for sure.
I think Mark that you are too economically tied to this thing. If you were a City Councillor you would have to excuse yourself from such debate for conflict of interest reasons. You don't seem able or willing to distinguish between sucking and blowing.
Firstly, I give my apologies if I offended STREET or anyone else. However, I only meant to state that his comment could insinuate profiling.
Second, VAGABOND states: “The issue is about closing down one hour earlier. How much money could be made in that one hour? Does juice and water with whatever margin you put on it justify the real cost of staying open?”
It really is not as simple as saying ‘It’s only one hour’. An establishment like the Boom Boom Room brings in internationally renowned musicians to play until past those hours on an almost weekly basis. These events bring in a full house on almost every occasion. People come from not just Windsor, but from across Southwestern Ontario, all over Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and even other states to visit Boom Boom Room on these nights. These people usually stay in our hotels, spend in our shops and restaurants and explore what we have to offer. Cities that tourists like to frequent are usually ones that are active 24/7. With the decline of our manufacturing industry and everyone saying we need to diversify, placing restrictions on our hospitality industry is, in my opinion, not the best move. I know Mark Boscariol is for early closing times and, while I have plenty of respect for what he has done and continues to do for this city and for putting his money where his mouth is, there has to be another solution. Closing down problem establishments should be the focus or at the very least persuade the AGCO to revoke the liquor license of these particular establishments.
I still stand by what I said about the casino. VAGABOND also stated the casino is “really not a threat to downtown venues, it is professionally and internally policed”. That basically stems from proper management, which is what I have been saying to encourage since the beginning. Also, again, the casino is an entertainment venue that serves alcohol, and that is very much a competitor. Allowing one business to have it’s own set of rules does not create an image of good business. Investors see this and it does factor in when looking to invest in certain areas. Who is to say certain rules wouldn’t be put into effect that would affect them but not their competitor?
I understand VAGABOND’s point of view in wanting all clubs/bars closed at 3am. I just think for a city that is losing jobs at a fast rate, should we not be nurturing one of the very few business sectors that is holding its own and employs so many? If certain rules and regulations could be put in place that nurtured good management and made it near impossible or at the very least very expensive for poor management to survive, would that be a good solution? I asked a question in a previous post hoping someone could provide an answer (Mark?): Fire departments can charge for false alarms because you are using up their resources, is it possible for a municipality to charge an establishment if it is constantly using up police resources? If it is possible, could this not help cover some policing expenses? I’m just thinking aloud and trying to think outside the box.
PS. Great discussion by everyone in this post! Whether we agree our disagree is irrelevant as good debate almost always comes up with great improvements and solutions.
AC, there is no mechanism for charging for bars for policing.
Everytime the issue comes up, people throw out huge costs numbers that even if divided between the entir bar industry would be more than my sales let alone my profits.
Its really a non starter especially in an industry that employs 20,000 people.
As for Vagabond. You are actually the one sucking and blowing. You say that my evidence is flimsy. Yet you offer nothing other than your opinion. If the case that I believe has been thoroughly vetted and thought out is not good enough then I would ask you to present the evidence beyond your opinion that a total ban will not harm our economy.
Every city in Canada other than Kitchener and most in the U.S. allow entertainment beyond 3am. I think I'm being extremely progressive in my proposals to responsibly manage this
There is no evidence that the boom boom room staying open late has ever done anything to harm our downtown or make it less liveable.
If you say my case is flimsy, then make your case or any case other than your opinion, or are you sucking and blowing now?
You cannot expect industry cooperation when you only give them the stick. If you want industry cooperation you need to encourage and reward responsible management practices.
Thats not an opinion, thats common sense
Actually Ouellette is divided up into two districts, the avenue and Avenue South. Avenue South actually is the city's own entertainment lounge zone.
I didn't devise this plan. It was recommended by both an International Downtown Association Panel and a merchandising expert who said it was the best way of recruiting businesses to the downtown.
You're funny, you accuse me of being insulting but you have just called me and others greedy, absurd etc...
You kind of sound like the moral majority, Betcha windsor essex would be better off if we were a dry county? Close down all those nasty nightclubs. C'mon, you know thats what you would like
Why don't we ban dancing too, we could recreate the fabled town in the movie footloose with Kevin Bacon?
The only absurdity here are your wild accusations and the wreckless impugning of the motives of those trying to solve problems. I stand on my record, I know what I've donated and contributed which Far more than I'll ever get as a return on my investment.
Your accusations of Greed are extremely offensive. Who started a film festival? who paid for a projector to show movies on the riverfront free of charge?
Who proposed an HRP in the first place in our city? Who proposed reasonable controls on after hours bars? Who donates 400 hours per year to committee meetings trying to come up with solutions? Who spent hundreds of hours researching this issue talking to law enforcement officials and experts in many other cities?
Yeah, Please remind everybody again why we should listen to you and ignore my recommendations?
Mark the metaphore...
I'm going to give you one today Mark. There is some probable doubt in my choice of the word "greed". Let's look at it's context:
I was mentioning how the downtown is getting carved up and doled out by bar and nightclub owners (yourself included)like a bunch of imperialist henchmen hunching over the globe with carving utensils. I said this:
"All it does is say that if you don't like "Kiddie bars" or "red light" operations then stay away from those districts. Absurdity built on greed."
I don't wish to offend so I retract. My sincerest apologies. Please substitute the word "greed" with "profiteering".
Let's stay on track Mark. I never offered an opinion. I made a statement:
"Close the Bars down at 3:00 A.M. with no exceptions."
The only evidence and fact which I need to support that is that children are getting murdered in downtown Windsor when these institutions empty out. No random skip survey needed for that. No sucking and blowing here. That's your position. Interestingly enough, in your last comment I noticed that you have changed your footing. Previously in this thread "Confused" made this comment:
"Mark,
I don't understand your argument. If you are calling for a 3:00am closing,
who is calling for exemptions? And why does there need to be exemptions?"
You replied with this:
"I'm calling for exemptions just like the noise bylaw can have exemptions."
Nothing really new in that. You've been honest about that since the beginning and that's where we are divided isn't it? In your very last comment, the part where you were foaming with your own contributions, you altered your position. Here's what you said:
"Who proposed reasonable controls on after hours bars?"
YOU DID! RIGHT ON MARK! Reasonable controls? What are those? And guess who gets to pick and choose what they are and how and when they're applied. You Mark! You and your new committee, the HRP. Comprised in your words of:
"made up of City Administration, Police, Residents and Industry Veterans."
Does this mean Mark that if the City administration or the Police, or the residents of Windsor want after hours bars to shut down at 3:00 am that it's good with you? If only residents want the bars closed down at 3:00 A.M. is that good with you? Are residents really going to have some say? Who picks the residents and how? Oh yes...and before I leave this topic two questions:
Industry veterans are the bar owners are they not?
Who pays for all of this?
A couple of other clarifications:
Your words:
"I would ask you to present the evidence beyond your opinion that a total ban will not harm our economy."
Once again I only made a statement (close after hours operations at 3:00 A.M.- No exceptions). Once again... Children are getting murdered in downtown Windsor when the afterhours crowd disperses. What's it going to be Mark? Loss of life or loss of revenue?
I never mentioned or eluded to anything about responsible management. That's your phrase. I would hope that this is naturally every business owners fundimental duty.
You blurted this about me:
"You kind of sound like the moral majority, Betcha windsor essex would be better off if we were a dry county? Close down all those nasty nightclubs. C'mon, you know thats what you would like"
Mark, Mark, Mark...I am one of downtowns beloved patrons. I've been sipping single malt long before it was popular and I've been eating and entertaining at most eateries including yours (even when it was Paul's)since long before you made the downtown scene and even long before your inheritance. Now that I think of it, I am a first hand witness to downtowns legacy.
What's wrong with Kevin bacon?
Best for last. You closed with this:
"Yeah, Please remind everybody again why we should listen to you and ignore my recommendations?"
This is a debate Mark. People will read into it and get out of it what they want. They don't have to listen to either of us. They will form their own conclusions. You have to admit though that you have been loading this argument with a bunch of "me" and "I" ism's. As though downtown Windsor is Mark and Mark is downtown Windsor. Quite the metaphor.
Accusing those trying to help of profiteering is extremely offensive. The DWBIA put residential recruitment as one of its main priorities.
Its that simple we need customers to profit, those residents need to be here because every day its less likely they will drive in for a variety of reasons.
It comes down to the fact that my solution will prevent future murders while fostering a successful downtown. It will foster responsible management by seeing operators invest more into their businesses increasing their desire to want to protect their investment. It will see the industry evolve.
Your proposal will simply close downtown at 3am. You have not made the case that your proposal will result in one less violent incident than mine
I conclude that you have not made your case.
So Mark is this YOUR solution or the DWBIA's solution?
To Mark Boscariol: Just wondering. Are you the official spokesperson for the DWBIA? I rarely hear anything from any other member including the DWBIA's President Larry Horowitz. Is your agenda here the oficial agenda?
past chair of the dwbia, not a spokesman in any way. My views are my own. Only the chair and the vice chair can speak on behalf of the organization
So if anyone from the DWBIA is reading I would like to know what the DWBIA's stance on the closings is. Also does anyone know if there is a DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD or RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION that will speak on behalf of those living in the downtown?
Policy motion approved at last meeting
the DWBIA recognizes downtown Windsor as a “split-use” district whose success requires a buffer between daytime businesses, residents vs. the night time businesses. That the DWBIA supports policies that would create a buffer through either time or space meaning either or both hours of operation and distance between. This can include but not be limited to closing after-hours clubs in appropriate areas between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. but providing periodic exceptions to be determined later
That sounds very complicated and abstract. I think Vagabond's right about "Mixed Use". It's plainly a natural tendancy. Ownership will, in the end determine our downtowns future. Who owns what and for what purpose.
So what is proposed for the senseless after hour killing?
Look, I think the DWBIA is pretty darn progressive as a Business Association for the gumption to stand up to its own members to make things better for the whole.
This type of initiative is normally lead by residents. I'm proud the DWBIA stepped up
The main thought was that the DWBIA did not want to paint itself into a corner with one solution.
The DWBIA welcomed any option that solved the problem. Part of me hoped some of the nightclub owners would offer their own solution that was even better, but they didn't . Monday night you'll here them claim that this is somehow onerous, draconion and unreasonable. Then you'll hear me cite examples of many successful entertainment districts that face the similar if not identical restrictions
Man Oh Man. So Mark. You are on the DWBIA but you don't speak for them correct? Yet the policy you have been touting is really the DWBIA's which you just happen to agree with. Fine. But you are a bar owner correct? So obviously you support this. But what about the rest of the business owners Downtown? Are they all on board to?
Who is representing the people who live downtown? I have have to tell you as a lay person the policy description you gave sounds like smoke and mirrors and that in the end the only people who will benefit are bar owners. Which again goes right in the face of trying to entice more residences downtown.
If a bar owner is responsible and doesnt' present a danger to downtown, why on earth wouldn't you want to see them benefit?
Just as much as safety is a prerequisite, vacant storefronts aren't going to contribute to safety. This industry needs to be fostered and managed responsibly, not shut down.
No one represents downtown residents. Again the DWBIA is being progressive in trying to represent their interests as part of a residential recruitment priority.
Downtown Windsor is the largest downtown in North America without an organized residents association.
This is just getting repetitive now. See you all on Monday, Register to have your say.
What you clearly don't see Mark is what you have just said. There is NO residential representation. The bar owner takes priority over the residence. Yet in another posting you go on about CIP incentives for housing. Which is opposite of what you are saying here. Here you are saying business rules and you have the right to make money. Clearly you have your own agenda. The more I look at it I question who is really in charge of the DWBIA? I'm pretty sure by your postings I know how this is working. You pull the string and the DWBIA does the dance. And the residence in the downtown pay the price for the show.
Who is this guy? Sounds like Eddie Francis. "My way or the Highway." Can he be serious about all of this? Go downtown any weekend and in the wee hours the population mix looks as if it's 50% kids and 50% police. and he's suggesting that the police can do more?
OK, Clear, or Confused, or whatever. You obviously don't know Mark nor the rest of the DWBIA. Mark pulling the strings as the DWBIA dances? Come on. Go suggest that to Larry Horwitz and see his reaction. You're showing your ignorance now.
I am not, nor do I have any stake in the success in any individual business in Windsor's core. As a resident and taxpayer in this city, I do have a stake in the overall success of our downtown. What I see Mark doing, and the DWBIA doing, is trying to affect a deep-set apathy downtown. Nobody believes that we can do any better than kiddie bars, Rub N' Tugs, and the Windsor ballet. They are trying to push a 10 ton boulder up the Cabot Trail. Very difficult indeed, without all the backseat drivers telling them they're idots for even attempting.
The DWBIA has in it's mission statement that it wants to encourage the formation of a residents association. When I approached Mark to see if he would be interested in writing for Scale Down, one of the first things he said he wanted to do was use this website as an organ to promote and build a downtown residents association. Do you think they would be doing so if they wanted to perpetuate this supposed fiefdom they have downtown. No, they wouldn't.
It will take all kinds of different people with all sorts of different expertise to strengthen and build Windsor's core. And, it is in every resident's best interest to do so, whether you call the core or the suburbs your home. I applaud all the work the DWBIA is doing and I hope some of their policies and enthusiasm trickles east to my neighbrouhood of Walkerville, because you can't have a strong city if it doesn't have a strong heart.
"You cannot expect industry cooperation when you only give them the stick. If you want industry cooperation you need to encourage and reward responsible management practices."
And shutting down an after hours is not a stick? What happened to encouraging and rewarding responsbile management practices?
Yes, this is getting wayyyy too personal.
If certain peoples' only purpose in this discussion is to break Mark's balls and not bother to offer an alternate solution, then fine, but at least stick to the subject. This started to be about downtown, but has turned into a forum for someone's personal hangup with Mark's high profile as DWBIA's most well known voice in the local blogosphere.
As far as the nature of the solution city council choses to implement, you say it's "My way or the highway" with Mark/DWBIA. But what's stopping you from registering and exercising your democratic rights Monday night? For that matter, no one is stopping anyone from forming a downtown residents alliance either. It isn't Mark's or the DWBIA's fault no one has formed such a group. Are they suddenly at fault for others inability to organize and speak for themselves (outside of heckling on blogs)?
No wonder very few want to stick their neck out and speak out for Windsor. Too many others are sitting in the cheap seats and do nothing but attack those who are at least trying. And when I say this, it isn't because I think Mark's proposals are perfect. Far from it. They need fine tuning. But at least they are at least a step in the right direction.
I look forward to the day when downtown again because a place where everyone can go and enjoy - not just those who are well heeled in blocking a punch. ;)
Wow! Whats going on here? I see others have chimed in. Obviously I'm way behind here so I'll just keep conversing with Mark.
I'm answering to your comment starting with "Accusing those..."
You said:
"The DWBIA put residential recruitment as one of it's main priorities."
Question:
What are the criteria for residential recruitment?
You said:
"It's that simple that we need customers to profit, those residents need to be here because every day its less likely they will drive for a number of reasons"
Question:
If you need customers to profit then wouldn't it stand to reason that any resident of the City of Windsor can and should be recruited? Not only are we all potential customers but we all have an inherent stake in our downtown.
Question:
What do you mean when you say:
"it's less likely they will drive for a number of reasons?" Does that mean that South Windsor residents are going to start walking downtown or does it mean you only want downtown residents for your profit?" A bit confusing that one.
You said:
"My solution will prevent further murder while fostering a sucessful downtown."
Question:
What is your solution and how will it prevent further murders downtown? Do you know something that the Police don't?
You said:
"It will foster responsible management by seeing operators invest more into their own businesses, increasing their desire to want to protect their investment. It will see the industry evolve."
Question:
Will operators not invest in their own businesses if they aren't allowed to operate after 3:00 A.M.?
Can they not invest in their own businesses to make them more profitable during normal hours?
If you could take a reasonable shot at these questions it would be most appreciated.
To conclude I will once again reiterate what I have said since my first comment: Close the bars down at 3:00 A.M. with no exemptions. The bars will still thrive and survive and all who are putting in such tremdous efforts for the downtown can keep doing just that along other channels.
Now lets see what the rest of these comments are all about.
Fine. No attacking Mark. Then Mark should stop using statements such such a I and Me. When referring to DWIB matters. And according the the DWBIA white papers... Mark must first clear any discussions or postings referring to DWBIA matters with the board first. You see the confusion here is just who Mark wants to represent.
1) Mark the bar owner
2)Mark the DWBIA rep. or
3)Mark the guy who is professing to do what the residences want(through the DWBIA) on behalf of the residences....WITHOUT TALKING TO THE RESIDENCES.
How do you know Mark won't take input from residents?
I'm a resident. Not even a downtown resident at that. Just a stranger to him. I expressed issues with him regarding downtown and he both acknowledged my concerns sincerely and promised to forward them to the board. I believe him.
BTW, the fact you bothered to look into that white papers matter and tried to nail him on that tells me you have a political agenda. Your target is Mark, not his thoughts.
John. Clearly without a voice the residences can't be heard. If Mark is so concerned for the residences then.... Close all establishments at 3:00am no exceptions. Then establish a residential group (as he states he wants ). Once you have the residential group then they will have a say. Come back and make the same proposal. I'll bet the world it wouldn't be as easy to say let's have exemptions. The way Mark is currently doing it is to have the bars get what they want first at the cost and safety of the residences. So its clear the residence are taking a back seat.
You have a voice. Monday night. Council. I think you get five minutes, just like everyone else. Furthermore, why is it Mark's responsibility to establish a residents group?
Because thats what MARK said MARK wanted to do. But instead of taking
time on this issue. THE DWBIA is doing what the DWBIA has to. Looking out for its own interest. MARK is the one who is playing both sides. And I believe this whole debate was started because GOD forbid we don't all just follow.
Ummm, no... you are now putting words in his mouth.
You (or whoever that is using all those different names) are the one who was worried about the residents of downtown getting the short end of the stick in these matters. In response, Mark merely acknowledged that their interests are taken into consideration as well, but stated quite clearly: "No one is representing the residents."
For arguments sake, even if he DID attempt to officially represent the residents and formed some kind of organization, you'd be right here again accusing him of conflict of interest, playing for both teams, yada yada. He's damned either way, far as you are concerned.
Of course the DWBIA's first obligation is to its members - the business community of downtown. But one of the cornerstones of good management is being a responsible corporate citizen. They are aware of that - arguably moreso than DWBIA boards in decades past.
it's residents...RESIDENTS!!!!
R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-S!!!!!!
Gawd! Learn how to spell.
Ahhh...That would be YOUR kindergarten teacher. Thanks for the correction(residents).
Look, I want to see a residential association formed, but that doesn`t obligate me to do so by myself. I`m spread a bit thin as it is. However I did volunteer my time to create a residential recruitment slideshow that I will post Monday. Its a bit amateurish but I like it
Some good questions
What are the criteria for residential recruitment?
Currently there has been no adopted criteria. just an adoption of this as a priority in November for 2008. The first item in this priority was the lobbying to close bars at 3am in the first place (with those controversial exemptions)
I can tell you what the IDA recommends as a strategy.
1. First Inventory available residential units and the exact number of residents in the downtown boundaries
2. Set an attainable specific target of how many new residents you would want for that year in existing spaces
3. Set an attainable specific target of how many new residential units you want to see built.
4. Lure residents to the area with a marketing campaign consisting mainly of residential testimonials.
5. Lure developers to the area with development incentives that can be attained through completion of the CIP`s
as for any resident, we`re talking apples and oranges. We need a neighborhood association of stakeholders who have an investment. Separately, We also need the rest of Windsorites to take ownership of their downtown.
Question:
What do you mean when you say:
"it's less likely they will drive for a number of reasons?" Does that mean that South Windsor residents are going to start walking downtown or does it mean you only want downtown residents for your profit?" A bit confusing that one.
I`m saying that South Windsor and Tecumseh are getting more of their own shops and restaurants and are finding less and less of a need to come downtown on a regular basis. From a marketing standpoint you want to devote more resources to those already downtown and adjacent to downtown simply because its the best bang for your buck.
Question:
What is your solution and how will it prevent further murders downtown? Do you know something that the Police don't?
All 4 shootings and a baseball bat beating occured at 4:30 in the morning within a couple of hundred feet of one location.
Question:
Will operators not invest in their own businesses if they aren't allowed to operate after 3:00 A.M.?
The Boom boom room will invest more into their entertainment and facilities if they can stay open past 3am. Either way they have and still will invest. But giving them exemptions that do not endanger anyone will benefit our city
Can they not invest in their own businesses to make them more profitable during normal hours?<
They nature and type of entertainment they provide is late night. This is according to them, not me, I never understood that entire DJ scene. They`ve always been straight with me and I have no reason to doubt them.
Even the film festival needed exemptions to the noise bylaw to screen outdoor movies after 9pm and 11pm. It is reasonable to think that it might want those same exemptions if we get to the level of a major tourism draw like Toronto film festival that sees late night establishments open until 5-6am. Toronto FIlm fstival has an entire segment called
`Midnight Madness`
The DIA also opened up for 48 hours straight during its grand opening. Whats so bad about that
BTW vagabond, I kinda think your questions are meant to try to trip me up so you can use my words against me.
But I am hoping that people will understand, any mistakes and missing info is due to sloppiness from trying not having enough time to do my job and respond to so many posts.
No Mark...Not trying to trip you up. Changed my approach because if you go right back to the beginning of this thread and if you look at most of the things you have said or proposed, you have not qualified or substantiated anything. Nor have you really addressed a whole lot of other's concerns. More later.
Specify what you believe I need to substantiate and I will within 10 hours of your post
Hopefully your criteria for substantiation will be of a reasonable nature.
I plan to substantiate with examples of working models in other successful downtowns with large residential populations, recognized experts and widely accepted studies. If you require anything more than that, You might actually have me.
Post a Comment