[UC] Zoning and the proposed liquore store on Walnut Street

2007-03-01 Thread Vincent/Roger
Kathleen Turner wrote:
"If the State Store system is trying to create a more "upscale" store, that 
should include a commitment to deal aggressively with illegal behavior."
In the midst of a bunch of holier-than-thou messages, I really believe that 
Kathleen has stated the case for or against the liquor store in the most 
logical way.

If the Zoning process and subsequent enforcement are done properly, then a new 
establishment should always be required to conduct itself responsibly.  My 
understanding is that property owners/tenants (depending on how a lease is 
written) are responsible for the sidewalk out in front of their premises and 
any parking areas under their control.  This includes keeping the surface in 
good repair, snow shoveled, trash picked up, etc.  Plus I take it to mean that 
if there are panhandlers, loiterers, prostititues, drug dealers, vagrants on 
these premises, it is the property owners/tenants responsibility to deal with 
it.  By the way, we at Abbraccio have to deal with this type of issue 
freqently; sometimes it means calling the police.   

The main argument AGAINST the liquor store, in my opinion, is their past 
failure to take any responsibility for outside of their premises.  If someone 
really wanted to fight the proposal at Zoning, I recommend taking a videotape 
of a few hours of the front of the current store at 41st and Market.  The front 
of store itself looks like an uninviting hellhole; it seems almost barricaded, 
as if it belongs in Baghdad.  And then of course there are the panhandlers 
normally found all over in front. 
Meanwhile, if the liquor store folk wanted to make a case FOR the move to 
Walnut Street, then I think the best case would be a written ironclad 
commitment to maintaining the entire premises, inside and out, in a responsible 
manner.  A senior LCB should be held accountable for any problems.  (In other 
words, not like at the current store.)

Perhaps you might note that I am not a big fan of the State Store system.  It 
is my opinion that the worse liquor store in New Jersey is still better than 
the best liquor store in Pennsylvania.

Roger


Re: [UC] Zoning and the proposed liquore store on Walnut Street

2007-03-01 Thread MLamond
 
 
Roger, you make good points about exterior maintenance.  The landlord  at the 
new location would be Daniel DeRitis whose company is Apartments at  Penn.  
He is a capable and hands-on person who has long been involved  in University 
City clean & safe initiatives, and I believe he will be  able to hold the PLCB 
to their promises to do a good job at the new  location.  It looks like the 
41st & Market landlord didn't care one way  or the other.  We can get one clue 
about the new landlord based on the  maintenance of the location while it was 
Rite Aid.  Though we don't know  the specifics of the lease, it was well cared 
for - an indication that the  landlord either had a lease requiring that, or 
stepped up to the plate when  maintenance was needed.
 
Here's another clue.  Go to the Penn OCL website to see how tenants  have 
rated Apartments at Penn:
_http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~consumer/_ (http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~consumer/) 
These are apartments, not commercial spaces, but you'll see that for the  
three years OCL has ratings, Apartments at Penn has almost entirely As and Bs,  
which is impressive.  
 
While you're on that site, you can also check out Al Krigman's KRF  
Corporation's ratings.  Also mostly As and Bs, but also some Cs, more than  
Apartments 
at Penn has.
 
By the way, it has been pointed out to me that Al's opposition to the new  
liquor store location just MIGHT have something to do with who the landlord is, 
 
since Danny DeRitis is a big supporter of the UCD's NID project.
 
Melani Lamond
 
 
In a message dated 3/1/2007 12:40:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
Kathleen Turner wrote:
"If the State Store system is trying to create a more "upscale"  store, that 
should include a commitment to deal aggressively with illegal  behavior."

In the midst of a bunch of holier-than-thou messages, I really believe  that 
Kathleen has stated the case for or against the liquor store in the most  
logical way.
 
If the Zoning process and subsequent enforcement are done  properly, then a 
new establishment should always be required  to conduct itself responsibly.  My 
understanding is that  property owners/tenants (depending on how a lease is 
written) are  responsible for the sidewalk out in front of their premises and 
any  parking areas under their control.  This includes keeping the surface in  
good repair, snow shoveled, trash picked up, etc.  Plus I take it to  mean 
that if there are panhandlers, loiterers, prostititues, drug dealers,  vagrants 
on these premises, it is the property owners/tenants responsibility  to deal 
with it.  By the way, we at Abbraccio have to deal with this type  of issue 
freqently; sometimes it means calling the  police.   
 
The main argument AGAINST the liquor store, in my opinion, is their past  
failure to take any responsibility for outside of their premises.  If  someone 
really wanted to fight the proposal at Zoning, I recommend taking a  videotape 
of a few hours of the front of the current store at 41st  and Market.  The 
front of store itself looks like an uninviting hellhole;  it seems almost 
barricaded, as if it belongs  in Baghdad.  And then of course there are  the 
panhandlers normally found all over in front. 
Meanwhile, if the liquor store folk wanted to make a case FOR the  move to 
Walnut Street, then I think the best case would be a written ironclad  
commitment to maintaining the entire premises, inside and out, in a  
responsible 
manner.  A senior LCB should be held accountable for any  problems.  (In other 
words, not like at the current store.)
 
Perhaps you might note that I am not a big fan of the State Store  system.  
It is my opinion that the worse liquor store in New Jersey is  still better 
than the best liquor store in Pennsylvania.
 
Roger
 




 
Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye,  Realtor
3529 Lancaster Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone  215-356-7266
office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113
office fax  215-222-1101
2005 recipient of the Greater  Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards:
- Diamond award for over $8  million in sales, and
ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards:
- Top  Lister
- Top Seller
- Top Overall Combined Volume
- Top Listing Units  by Area
- Top Selling Units by Area
- Top Overall Combined Units by  Area
** AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.