Changing the liquor laws to shorten the distance is a move in the wrong direction. Our town is oversaturated with licenses compared to the current population in our township. We currently have 30 licenses with a population of under 30,000 residents. The state law states we should have one license per 3,000 people. We have three times the amount of licenses that our township should have figuring in our current population. The proper move for the township is to eliminate the pocket licenses which are not being used. That is also the law but is not being upheld. Instead we are going to change the laws to shorten the distance and create new locations for licensing. Liquor industry is struggling. Local bars and restaurants are struggling to keep the doors open. In the past five years, I experienced zero growth in revenue. This means I'm selling less product considering increases in goods. Now the town council wants to change the liquor laws to accommodate one individual who has never been in the liquor business before.
Quotes from the recent paper talk as if this individual is going to run and operate the liquors establishment. However they are just going to be the landlord. Originally boats were stored on the property and advertising signs were placed. Then they were removed over zoning and use issues. Opening a bar/restaurant seems to be plan B. Does the property owner want to stay or sell everything if the liquor transfer is successful? This is by no means a hardship case. Tony from the country kettle did have a hardship case and wanted to use this location but was turned away by the town. If you want to have a burger and a beer while boating on the lake, go to Latitude 41. Jay and his wife run a fine establishment and look to improve their investment.
Don't create a hardship on them by squeezing in a license.
I became a licensee in 1988 when I was 21 years old. I also owned and operated my own pizzeria style restaurant since I was 18 years old while still in high school. I followed in the family footsteps which made a claim on Greenwood Lake in the mid 1950s at my location. We had the first pizzeria and bar that catered to package goods sales in town. The licensees in the immediate area are struggling. Squeezing in a new license is not the right way to go. The right way to go is what happen with Jesse Kettle immediately following the fire he experienced at his location. There were two bars right next to one another. The one at the end of a Awosting Road changed so many times it never was a viable business. After the fire, the two bars combined and made one really nice place. Why would a licensee make significant renovations/investments if the town law allows a competitor to open up right next to your establishment?
The current distance ordinance insulates any potential licensee from coming next to the establishment you worked so hard to build. Shortening the distance law will open the door way to a future competitor coming in and threatening their business.
As a township, do we want to have a glut of licensees and dive bars struggling for a very limited amount of business? Or do we want to have better places and keep the current laws the way they are? Ordinances are made to protect 30,000 residents, not the profit of one!
Another concern is the residents at Cottage Cove. These residents had to endure a hardship from the previous bar business. Drunk, lewd behavior made their lives miserable as patrons would pass their properties into the middle of the night. The stories these residents have told me are so disgusting that they are unfit for print.
Jim Aiello
Greenwood Lake Liquors
Hewitt