Shooters In Hilo Denied A Liquor License

[Konaguy]

I would not be posting an article like this on here. Except I swear I read our own TimeKona is quoted in this article. He bashed the surrounding residents,claiming they are crybabies for protesting the renewal of Shooters liquor license.I wonder if he would feel differently if he was living nearby and drunks were defecating in his laundry room.

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/07/06/local_news/local02.txt

"Tim Bates, who said he was at Shooters at 1:30 a.m. Thursday morning eating chili fries and drinking Coors Light, said the security guards and employees of Shooters should be able to take matters in to their own hands when patrons get out of control. He called the protesters "crybabies that spoil it" for patrons of the bar.

Bates said he was speaking for "the working man" and that people who work should be able to drink at night if they want.

"Don't close this bar down," he said, adding that as a father and businessman, he sometimes needs a place to relax and unwind."

[scrivener]

I wonder if he would feel differently if he was living nearby and drunks were defecating in his laundry room.
Tim and I disagree on almost everything, but I'm pretty sure we'd agree on this one. No, he would not feel differently if he were living nearby, and neither would I. If a bar is allowed legally to exist where Shooters exists, and if the neighbors don't want a bar legally to exist in that spot, citizens can try to enact rezoning initiatives to change the law that permits the bar to be there.

In this case, the residents seem to dislike the patrons of this particular bar or the way this particular bar is being managed. That shouldn't be part of whether or not an establishment is granted a liquor license. If there were a candy store in that same spot, and if it were kids who were the nuisance, should the neighbors try to get rid of the candy store, or should the community work toward teaching people not to be assholes?

I've met Tim, and he's not an asshole. As he says in the article, if he wants to have a drink, and if the drink is in a legal establishment (another issue entirely, but let us not go there), he should be allowed to.

Crapping in someone's laundry room is already illegal. Enforce that law, or take measures as a property owner to ensure that your property is not treated that way. We don't need more laws when current laws already exist.

[Konaguy]

Well I take the side of the residents on this one. Why should the police have to waste their time trying to enforce the rules outside this bar. When it is already obvious where things are out of control. The police have far better things to do than playing babysitter to these drunks.

Yes the residents should try to ban such establishments in this area. To me it is totally inappropriate to have a all night bar on Banyan drive. On the other
hand, it would be more appropriate to be in the Kanoelehua Industrial Area.

Lastly it is offensive to me he calls the residents crybabies. I betcha he'd change his tune when his car gets broken into or worse yet he gets assaulted by one of these drunks.

By the way, I wasn't trying to imply that Tim is an asshole. Please don't try to stick words into my mouth that I didn't say.

[scrivener]

Well I take the side of the residents on this one. Why should the police have to waste their time trying to enforce the rules outside this bar. When it is already obvious where things are out of control. The police have far better things to do than playing babysitter to these drunks.
Because it's their JOB to enforce the law. I'm not saying the bar shouldn't be involved in keeping its patrons in line, but ultimately there's a line beyond which each citizen is responsible for him- or herself. There is nothing wrong with a bar. There IS something wrong with a guy who goes onto private neighboring property and commits vandalism. Punish the guy who does the crime, not the bar that drew him into the neighborhood.

Yes the residents should try to ban such establishments in this area. To me it is totally inappropriate to have a all night bar on Banyan drive. On the other hand, it would be more appropriate to be in the Kanoelehua Industrial Area.
That industrial area is no good for tourists. I used to live in Hilo and never felt safe in that area after dark. Banyan Drive is PERFECT for a bar! When I travel, I look for a good, clean bar near enough to my hotel that I can walk back.

Lastly it is offensive to me he calls the residents crybabies. I betcha he'd change his tune when his car gets broken into or worse yet he gets assaulted by one of these drunks.
Yes, well, if this is the same Tim, we know he can lack a certain amount of tact, but at least there's no miscommunication on his part. My car was broken into while parked in front of a restaurant. I don't blame the restaurant, I blame the jerks who broke into my car.

By the way, I wasn't trying to imply that Tim is an asshole. Please don't try to stick words into my mouth that I didn't say.
I apologize if you thought I was implying that YOU said that. The point I was trying to make is that if the bar is frequented by people like Tim, it sounds like my kind of bar and I'd welcome it in my neighborhood, just as I'd welcome Tim at the barstool next to mine. Don't get rid of the whole bar and make nice guys like Tim have to find somewhere else to go: Encourage the patrons to model more considerate behavior instead.

[tikiyaki]

Lastly it is offensive to me he calls the residents crybabies. I betcha he'd change his tune when his car gets broken into or worse yet he gets assaulted by one of these drunks.
.


LOL...."Change his tune"....Aaron...is this the same TimKona we're talkin about ?....The LAST thing HE would do is protest if he got assaulted by a drunk bar patron.
I'd hate to be the criminal that gets caught breaking into HIS car....and one thing TimKona AIN'T, is afraid to get into a scuffle. Those guys would most likely get issued a good old school South Kona beatdown.

That being said, I stayed at Country Club Hawaii (right upstairs frm Shooters) for 5 days and didn't really notice anything crazy going on...then again, I Live in LA, and Crazy is the MO here...I'm kinda used to it.

[timkona]

I own a Condo upstairs from Shooters. Much of the decision to buy in that particular building was founded upon the idea that you can't get a DUI while riding in an elevator. Shooters serves food late into the night. I had Chili Fries and a Beer at 1:30 am on Wednesday Morning.

The area is zone Resort, which allows for bar/restaurants with cabaret licenses. When I am on vacation, I certainly appreciate a watering hole in my hotel. And folks who have stayed in my place appreciate Shooters being downstairs. All of the people living in the area knew it was zoned as such when they moved in. No surprises.

The folks making all the protest are just more of the same old Politics of NO that permeates this island like a disease. For 35 years liberalism has watered down the law to a point where the criminals have more rights than the bouncers. So if the bouncers "control" a trouble maker the right way, they run the risk of being sued. Now those same liberals complain about the out of control late night crowd. Do you see the circular ignorance????

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Cognitive Dissonance is the root of liberalism. And generally speaking I am a nice fellow, until provoked.

[pzarquon]

Yes the residents should try to ban such establishments in this area. To me it is totally inappropriate to have a all night bar on Banyan drive. On the other hand, it would be more appropriate to be in the Kanoelehua Industrial Area.This makes no sense to me at all. Banyan Drive? That's the best place for establishments like this, or of any nature that draws the "nightlife" crowd. Isn't that where the hotels are? Isn't it zoned "resort"? Isn't that where we want more business, commerce, activity?

If you don't want to live near where visitors and locals mix it up, don't live on Banyan Drive.

This reminds me of the periodic dust-ups over noise and crowds and crime in Waikiki. I used to live in Waikiki, and I can say first hand that a lot of the things that come with a resort area is a serious pain in the ass. Every other weekend was a parade, buses would idle and blow soot literally five feet from our window, drunks would get into fistfights in front of our building. But it's Waikiki. All kinds of things come with the territory. And proximity to beaches, attractions, and the like are among its many benefits.

Scrivener's spot on. The business isn't the problem, people -- in general -- are. If we shut down every spot where people did stupid things... well, everyone would be out of business. I'm sure that sounds like nirvana to some NIMBY folks, but... not everyone wants to be a hermit.

[Konaguy]

I brought up Kanoelehua Industrial Area because there is an establishment therein the final stages of getting (now) the island only cabaret license.Thus allowing it to serve liquor pretty much all night. To me, that area is far more appropriate for bar like Shooters.

I don't see this a politics of No issue. It is an issue of what is appropriate for a certain area. I wonder if these condo owners were informed when they purchased their condos that a all night bar was legal to operate in this area ?

If I had a condo down there, I would be fighting to A) change the zoning to block all night bars from establishing down there B) I would be fighting to revoke any liquor license of establishment which had patrons who caused problems.As it would piss me off if my car was broken into, or these idiots were defecating in my laundry room.

Like I said, the police are not babysitters. They have far better things to do than chase down drunks coming out of Shooters.

[timkona]

Why would a prospective condo purchaser not avail himself of the PUBLIC DATA concerning the specific zoning, and the uses allowed? Sounds like a buyer not doing his homework very well. Zoning, and permitted uses, are clearly explained in a document that can easily be found at the County's website.

Mixing business with residences, and apartments, with renters AND owners, mixed with offices, some retail, and residential uses upstairs, is the very essence of Smart-Growth principles. To place the residences in one part of town, the businesses in another, schools over there, stores over here, and nightclubs over there is the way we started doing it after we invented the automobile. Used to be, before the auto, all the buildings were taller, the uses were mixed, and everybody lived much closer together since they were limited primarily by their feet for transportation. In the same building you would find several residences with businesses downstairs along the sidewalks.

The problem at Shooters is people based, not policy based. Screening folks better on the way into the bar would help a lot.

[Konaguy]

The problem at Shooters is people based, not policy based. Screening folks better on the way into the bar would help a lot.

That has been an ongoing issue with previous and current management of Shooters, it seems like.

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/06/28/local_news/local01.txt

It didn't seem the previous/current owners took the community's concerns seriously (and they are certainly valid concerns).

Like I've said repeatedly in this thread, the police are not babysitters. Why do they have to be ones at Shooters. When there is much more important things they should be doing.

[SusieMisajon]

They'll have to change their name to 'Shot'.

[scrivener]

Mixing business with residences, and apartments, with renters AND owners, mixed with offices, some retail, and residential uses upstairs, is the very essence of Smart-Growth principles.
Oh, Tim. If you were female, I'd want you to have my baby.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

a long time ago there was a ragin' bar known as "Pau Hana Lounge" in Hilo, above Hilo Lunch Shop, which qualifies as the industrial area. It got run out by nearby neighbors who live in the houselots. It was the most happenin' place in Hilo back then; lots of bands came and rocked that joint. The vibe was kinda like Jubilee's off of wherever it was in HNL (Dillingham? Something like that).

[craigwatanabe]

I kinda agree with both sides. On one side Aaron does make a point that residents shouldn't have to tolerate unruly behavior in their neighborhood and I'm sure the cops don't need that kind of late night action either.

When a certain night club opened up in the old Kodak Bldg on Kapiolani and Kamakee back in the 90's the result was drunken patrons having sex on our (The Gas Company) stairwell, condoms littering the frontage of our establishment and drunk patrons leaving their cars in our employee parking stalls the next morning. Complaints leading to the club changing their hours of operation from 4am to 2am resulted in pissed off patrons who in turn smashed our plate glass windows of our offices with beer bottles by the same drunk patrons.

But in the case of Shooters, it's another establishment that has had their liquor license denied lately due to public pressure on the County Council. There seems to be a precedence forming here and pretty soon every late night bar serving alcohol will be put to the same scrutiny like some kind of witch hunt.

There needs to be some kind of compromise before all drinking establishments including reputable clubs are affected.

[Konaguy]

It seems if all these late night drinking places were located in an appropriate location there shouldn't be a problem. Like right in Kanoelehua Industrial Area.
There is already an establishment there called Detour Drinking Station. It seems they won't have issues in getting their all night license. They are located away
from any homes on Makaala Street. http://www.detourdrinkingstation.com/

Craig, one tiny little technical note, it is the Hawaii County Liquor Commission,not the county council that decides on these licenses.

[craigwatanabe]

Thanks for the correction. One issue with Shooters is that it's in a resort zoned area where night time activity is the norm, just like Waikiki. The noise and night time activity comes with the turf.

And because of the zoning, the same zoning that allows a caberet establishment to exist in a resort zone would also prohibit that kind of establishment in an industrial zone wouldn't it? Unless a variance is allowed.

[SusieMisajon]

Thanks for the correction. One issue with Shooters is that it's in a resort zoned area where night time activity is the norm, just like Waikiki. The noise and night time activity comes with the turf.

And because of the zoning, the same zoning that allows a caberet establishment to exist in a resort zone would also prohibit that kind of establishment in an industrial zone wouldn't it? Unless a variance is allowed.
Maybe it's the same as over here? And depends on who you are, and if you are from the town, or not.

I seem to remember several stories about this kind of thng in Hilo, way back when...like the ginger growers' never like anyone else in their 'club' and so all other ginger never went pass the produce inspections...and some poor haole guy with beautiful cerlery that he could only sell at the farmers' market...and anyone who had the nerve to try to elbow in on Mr Koi the tomato grower.

Hilo is still a small town, with small town alliances, and small town mentality, ya? Not that this is always such a bad thing, but 'old boy' networks exist all over the world.

[MixedPlateBroker]

"Appropriate location?"

Isn't that how apartheid and Kalaupapa got started? :eek: I think that the liquor commissions' ability to arbitrarily revoke liquor licenses is just another example of momona government. That kind of power just opens the commissions up to corruption (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4c976d11-a4eb-4663-bcad-b9ef22cf2cb0) and shady dealings.

Accountability. That's the bottom line. It's ridiculous to expect any establishment to take responsibility for its customers' actions outside said establishment. Go after the law-breaking individuals themselves. They're the ones who should be taking personal responsibility for their actions, intoxicated or not. And I dare someone to ask a police officer which they would prefer: Relaxing with a hot cup of Kona's best at Ken's Pancake house waiting for that call from Shooters to come round up a half dozen people causing a disturbance, or driving to six different locations around Hilo rounding up the same six hooligans who were drinking at home?

So yeah, I say let Shooters keep its cabaret license. Until they do something stupid like serving alchohol to minors on three seperate occassions, they should have the right to pour.

And to the person who watched as someone defecated on their property ... a carefully aimed CO2 fire extinguisher would have frozen the turd tramp in their tracks, literally. Not that I would ever advocate such a thing. :cool:

[Konaguy]

MixedPlateBroker, I would bet you'd change your tune if you lived by Shooters.As far as I read these drunkers have been terrorizing the surrounding area. Thus causing problems for the adjoining condo residents.

No one should have to deal with idiot drunks. Before anyone says, well they could always move elsewhere. Well the same argument that some of you have said that drunks have rights can be flipped that these residents have rights too. A right to live in safe and clean environment.

[GeckoGeek]

In watching this thread, it seems there's little to no discussion about if Shooters should have been allowed a different liquor license. The one they had kept them open 'til 4am. Which of course attracted the hard-core drunks from the other bars when they closed at 2am.

[MixedPlateBroker]

Hawaii's red tape catacombs ensure that Shooters cannot simply be downgraded to dispenser status (2am). They would have to apply for the lesser license just like anyone else. But why should Shooters have to lose their cabaret simply because a minority of the area voters don't like them?

When I lived in Makiki, my residence was within 500 yards of four bars, one 24hr Korean restaurant, a youth detention facility and a relaxation center. It was great. Rent was cheap and everything was within walking distance. Quiet and secure it wasn't though. I knew that going in. Park in my spot? I'd have you towed. Poop in my laundry area? I'd rub your face in it and make you clean it up. You get the idea.

If you don't want to live near a bar, don't move next to one. And if you don't want one opening in your neighborhood, go to the commission hearings. *sigh* I need a beer now.

[Ms_Aloha_Nui]

So now that I've read through all these 'opinions' here's my 2cents worth....so Shooters has been denied a liquor license...now patrons can take in their own liquor AND still drink till 2 a.m....how much control does management now have????? Here's what I saw at another establishment on Oahu....family restaurant, no liquor license, community members are very vocal and participate actively at Neighborhood Board Meetings, supprots local area businesses.....group of 8 construction workers working in the area decide that they want to 'relax' after work, have some pupus and some beers....they enter the restaurant with a 'full-size' (about 3 feet long and a foot or so wide) cooler filled with a couple cases of beer....they pay the 'corkage' fee of $1 per person.....they proceed to sit, order pupus and enjoy their beers....NOW WHO'S RESPONSIBLE OR WHO WANTS TO BE THE ONE TO TELL THESE BRADDAS WHEN THEY'VE HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK???????? Luckily, these braddas handled their beer responsibly.....but every now and again you have those who can't....If an establishment had a liquor license it might be that much easier to have the waitress, bartender or manager to tell them that they've had too much to drink and offer something else instead....it's all about control - for both the patron and the establishments' POWERS that BE....so in Shooters case, patrons can enter Shooters with their own liqour and drink all they want - until 2 a.m....who's going to them when to stop??????
It's also up to the establishments owners to make themselves VISIBLE and AVAILABLE to the neighbors in the area.....Here's what I read in the Tribune:

"He said he was unaware people living in the area had major concerns with his establishment.

"I am a little surprised that they are addressing it in this way instead of coming to us," he said. "I didn't know it was this bad."

Nakagawa said he would be willing to work with the community, but didn't know what could be done to address their concerns if they had already made up their minds to protest the transfer."

How available did Nakagawa make himself????? I don't know the answer but did the neighbors know who the owners were/are? Or did they know who the managers were/are? Did they know who to address with their concerns??????Maybe if had made himself more available Shooters might have had a chance to work with Reed Bays residents and find a 'win-win' solution for all concerned....

[craigwatanabe]

One of the problems with local folks is that we don't want to bother so we don't act up until its too late and a precedance is set.

It's that "Two Face" attitude I see a lot here in Hawaii mostly among us Japanese ancestry. You know, no means yes and yes means no.

For Shooters many were probably frustrated at what was going on but few probably spoke out when they should have. I can't blame the owners of Shooters to wonder after all this time very little complaints were lodged against them from neighboring residents, that how come only now the opposition or even anger against this establishment came out.

Maybe residents waited for the opportunity when the license came up for renewal? Too late in my book because past precedance dictated that since no complaints (or too little complaints) were filed against Shooters in the past there shouldn't be any problems in the future. Plus there wasn't due process for the owners of Shooters to address these issues in a responsible time period before the vote to renew the license came up for review.

You simply cannot change the rules of conduct then make past practice relavent in the issuance of a new permit and not allow the establishment to rectify the situation before they break the law under the new rules.

[cynsaligia]

i have a wee bit of experience regarding this type of situation.

some years ago, i worked for an attorney whose clients included the owner of a nightclub called...oh...umm..."blue pinto" *winkwink*. blue pinto was at the edge of waikiki near another nightclub called...oh...um...the tsunami.

anyway, some residents complained to the liquor commission about the unreasonable noise levels and rowdiness of the patrons of the blue pinto. they claimed they lost sleep and called the police multitudinous times. they even brought in a petition signed by a couple hundred residents of the area in support of shutting the pinto down.

if i remember correctly, the LQ temporarily suspended the pinto's license while it conducted an investigation. of course, the owners of the pinto had our office hire noise experts, etc to measure the noise levels within and without the club at various hours (including when the bottles would get tossed out, bcs one of the complaints was that the bottle crashing was exceedingly loud). additionally, we scrutinized every signature on the petition and cross-referenced it against the list of property owners within 500 yards of the premises. we even asked HPD for a report on nuisance calls to the police regarding the club.

the noise levels were all within legally accepted levels. there were not a significant number of calls to the police within a one year period that could definitively be tied to the pinto and its patrons. additionally, many of the signatures on the petition were found to be fake or ineligible (such as those by owners who lived outside the 500 yard radius). oh, three of the fake signatures supposedly belonged to senator daniel inouye, who owns a condo apartment in the neighborhood. we called his office and checked if he were even in town at the time the signatures were collected, and his office said he most assuredly was not.

result? the liquor commission fully reinstated the pinto's cabaret license, and the complainants were scolded severely for forging a congressman's signature. :D

**note: if you've read a certain post in a thread eric started, i just confirmed here, in this thread, what i wouldn't say outright there. ;) **

[craigwatanabe]

Oh the legalese of it all...I can most definately say that my statements are approximately 100% accurate:rolleyes: most of the time:D