Campos talks through the liquor moratorium


[pic by Hélène Goupil]

Mission Local has a write up about last night’s meeting with Supervisor David Campos, local business owners and residents. The owner of La Victoria Bakery wants to turn it into “a Latino-themed lounge and a coffee bar,” and Elixir’s owner wants to expand the 150+ year old bar into a space next door.

There are a whole lot of places to go to in the Mission if you’re looking to get drunk. Would a few more really make more people drink more alcohol? Maybe they would, and for many people from other neighborhoods an evening in the Mission means they’ll be staggering home by the end of the night.

Why is it so crucial to so many businesses that they be able to sell alcohol? Besides the markup, wouldn’t it be nice to think that there could be a thriving restaurant, bakery or foods store that just didn’t happen to have any alcohol? Dosa claimed that they needed to have hard liquor to stay in business on Valencia, and the city agreed. In the case of the corner stores, it really just seems like booze is what drives people in and makes sure they spend a lot more than if they just wandered out with a pack of gum. Considering the high rents in the neighborhood it makes sense that you can’t run a business on gum sales.

Are these businesses offering good enough times without alcohol? Or maybe the question is do they offer something that is greatly enhanced with it, and missing something without it? Would you go bowling if there was no liquor or even beer? Oh, and by the way, have you ever seen a movie . . . on booze?! You would probably go eat a dinner without alcohol, but probably spend at least a third less.

The business owners may have a good point, but in the end I think the biggest issue is that nothing loosens a grip on the wallet like liquor. People will pay more for anything when it’s part of the package, and they’ll do it with much less hesitation. Just throw on some fancy words like “muddled” and “artisan” and you’re in business.

28 Responses to “Campos talks through the liquor moratorium”

  1. Hater says:

    For the record up into the mid ninties when Elixer was still going by the name Jack’s Elixer they were only claiming being open since 1933. Funny how a name change can go back in time and open your bar 70 years earlier.

    For the record if the year 1933 sounds familiar it’s the year that prohibition ended and no bar in San Francisco can claim an earlier opening date.

  2. kevin says:

    The people want to drink. Let them drink. Why do we need to have a committee on this?

  3. God forbid anyone wants to open or expand a business in this neighborhood. Let’s all join together to make that as difficult as possible! With your help and solidarity, we can preserve the historic blighted empty storefronts of the Mission for our children and grandchildren to treasure forever.

  4. Julio says:

    Liquor licensing is one of the ways those in power control who can open a successful business in any given city. Liquor licenses are crucial to run a successful full-service restaurant because they are usually the highest margin items on a menu (they provide the profit that lets the restaurant survive). Why should one business owner get that advantage over another because they have more friends at city hall? Or got there first? Or paid exorbitant fees to take over someone’s license? This is SF, not a dry county in North Carolina. There shouldn’t be heavy restrictions on liquor licenses and anyone who passes the state’s background check requirements should be able to get a license in SF. One more bar or restaurant with alcohol isn’t going to change the place.

  5. scum says:

    We need more obnoxious drunk white people running around in the neighborhood.

  6. Janet C says:

    The WTCU still exists if you want to get them involved. And yes, I’m being sarcastic.

  7. GG says:

    As someone who used to drink plenty I can tell you that (1) anyone who wants a drink is not going to NOT have one just because they have to go down the street to get it, so a ban accomplishes nothing and (2) plenty of people — myself included — enjoy a tasty meal, bowling, a game of pool, etc. etc. at places that serve liquor WITHOUT DRINKING IT. Just because it’s available doesn’t mean they’re pouring it down your fucking throat. If we get a more vibrant business community that’s partly funded by heavy markups on cocktails paid by willing volunteers, how is that hurting anyone?

  8. Old Mission Neighbor says:

    The post on Urban Almanac about this is 10x better
    http://uptownalmanac.com/2012/06/why-we-have-15-burgers-missions-liquor-license-ban

  9. Terry Baker says:

    impose higher tariff on these bottles and see how many more are willing to shell out.

  10. I would like to thank you for the efforts you’ve put in writing this site. I’m hoping to check out the same high-grade content by you in the future as well.
    In fact, your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my own,
    personal site now ;)

    Feel free to surf to my website; Louella Kinsler

  11. Hi there, all is going well here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s in fact excellent, keep up
    writing.

  12. Hi there, You’ve done a great job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends.
    I am confident they’ll be benefited from this web site.

  13. Its such as you learn my thoughts! You appear to grasp a
    lot approximately this, such as you wrote the e book
    in it or something. I believe that you just can
    do with a few % to pressure the message home a
    little bit, but instead of that, this is magnificent blog.
    A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.

  14. my website says:

    But there can be considered a downside you potentially turn out borrowing a lot more than you need, while a nasty debt accumulates for the graduation that can take years to settle my website even though your wallet is beyond money then you need to select pay day
    loans same day which can assist you from all financial troubles without delay.