300 East In Review

I had the first opportunity to watch the December 6 MDC hearing on the 300 East zoning variance to allow a restaurant/bar in the Julia Carson Government Center. Let me say that the Commission members questions of the petitioner were generally irrelevant and left me wondering whether any of them had bothered to read all the history behind this controversial project. I think any readers of this blog would have been better informed of the issues than the Commission members were.

Tim Ochs' presentation on behalf of the petitioner was misleading to say the least. He led off his discussion by attacking opponents of the proposal for saying things that were "not accurate." He didn't identify what those inaccuracies were. He couldn't answer why the bar's investors had gone ahead and built out the space before it had bothered with obtaining a zoning variance, other than to say they had obtained an early permit with the understanding they would remove the improvements if the zoning variance were denied.

When Clark Kahlo, who remonstrated against the proposal, observed that construction had taken place before the permit was acquired, Commissioner Bob Kennedy challenged him on this point, saying that what happened in this case happens all the time with developers. But Kahlo countered Kennedy with a letter from Ice Miller requesting the early permit, which was dated June 9, 2006, at which point the construction had pretty much been completed. A stop work order was soon issued later that same month by the DMD based upon an anonymous tip. Bob Kennedy's understanding of the facts were absolutely wrong. Kahlo also noted the City has no formal rules for the so-called "early permit." I would note Ochs never attempted to rebut the assertion that the construction had already been completed by the time the "early permit" was requested. I was also disappointed to see the DMD staffer mislead the Commission on this point as well. She knew damn good and well the early permit was not requested until after the construction had already commenced, but she led the Commission to believe otherwise.

On the issue of the former Polin Park, which was initially demolished to make way for a parking lot for the bar, Ochs said their was a misconception it was a park because it was on land designated for park use. He said playground equipment was installed there to serve the former daycare center in the Carson Center, and it was never a park. He also claimed the playground equipment was removed because the daycare center had closed. The fact is that the playground equipment remained there long after the park closed. And it is a fact that the land was zoned and named by the city parks department as the "Al Polin Park." That's a park by any other name in my mind. He knew of no plans to restore the playground equipment now that the parking lot was no longer planned.

Ochs, relying on the testimony of Claire Warner and Al Polin, insisted the neighborhood supported the proposal, although both of those individuals refused to allow the neighbors to vote on the proposal at two separate meetings prior to the December 6 hearing. Warner represented that "everybody is excited about having a new restaurant in the neighborhood." Anyone who watched the television coverage of the October Mapleton-Fall Creek meeting knows that she patently misrepresented neighborhood support to the Commission--a point made by Kahlo. Ochs attacked MCANA for remonstrating against the proposal because he claimed the organization had never spoken to him about their concerns.

The remonstrators insisted the Commission look at what had happened with the Savoy nightclub in evaluating the 300 East petition because of the overlapping common ownership of the two bars. The remonstrators reminded the Commission that the Savoy's owners had forged signatures of neighbors in order to misrepresent neighborhood support for the club. Ochs said, "I could care less about the Savoy." Unfortunately, the Commission members didn't see the obvious connection, and the public is the big loser there.

Ochs went to great lengths to assure the Commission that it would be primarily operated as a "family restaurant" not unlike an Appleby's and only secondarily as a bar. Under the approval sought, the bar will have to derive 60% of its gross sales from food sales, or have sales of food worth $200,000 annually. I'll be surprised if 300 East becomes primarily a restaurant as the petitioners claim. Time will tell.

I would observe that City-County Councilor Jackie Nytes submitted a letter in support of the variance. This is the second occasion where Nytes has ignored the concerns of her constituents to back the good ole boys. I've been told by several members of the gay community who have had it with her because she won't offer any assistance in getting the illegal peashake house operating in their neighborhood near 34th & Central Avenue closed down. The illegal gambling house is drawing drug dealers and prostitutes, not to mention all the cars parking up and down the streets in the neighborhood. Several have told me they will never support her for public office again because she has ignored their concerns, notwithstanding her sponsorship and support of the HRO. It's something she might want to think about.