How The Government's Arbitrary Alcohol Rules Killed A Knoxville Club
Here's the letter to customers from The Valarium. I've italicized some of the most disgusting conditions they were unable to meet under the new Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission rules:
Dear Friends and Patrons,
The Valarium and CiderHouse will cease operation on November 25th. The last event will be Taboo on November 24th.Due to new rule changes from the TN Alcoholic Beverage Commission concerning the minimum percentage of food an establishment must sell in relation to its gross sales, our venues will be closing. We also cannot comply with the minimum number of days they require us to be open per week. Since we cannot meet their requirements, we will relinquish and not renew our ABC license when it expires November 24th, 2012.
We have never received any citations for over serving or serving an underage. However, we have been told we will be fined, prosecuted, or subject to revocation procedure for not serving enough food. They do not recognize the fact that we are a big, fast-paced venue where people come to see shows, dance, drink and socialize on a large scale, not to eat dinner. This is as unreasonable as them passing a law stating that all restaurants must install a stage and dance floor.
Also, we cannot comply with the minimum number of days they require us to be open. Good business practices dictate that you don't open when it's not viable. Opening for the sake of just being open forces you to offer drink specials, steep discounts, ridiculous contests, and promotions that may encourage over serving. If the primary mission statement of the TN ABC is to promote temperance, what could be more temperate than not opening on off nights? We are not aware of any other state that has these rules.
As it happens, the timing of our license renewal date puts us in the forefront of any enforcement action. Our attorneys predict that a large portion of the nightclub venue licensees in TN will not be able to comply with these regulations. However, on their advice, our only recourse is to relinquish our license when it expires on November 24th, 2012.
We would like to thank all of our friends and patrons for supporting us and allowing us to bring such amazing national, regional, and local musical talent to our stages. We would also like to thank our employees who made it all possible.
Good luck to everyone as you move forward out in the world.
Sincerely,
Valarium and CiderHouse Management
Nick Gillespie notes at reason:
And so dies a joint that was named Best Rock Club and Best Dance Club in the 2011 Best of Knoxville listings by the alt-weekly Metro Pulse.
via @walterolson and @reason
Well, then. That Knoxville club will not be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in TAXES to anyone. Cue the officials whining about not having enough money.
They are clearly ignorant about what constitutes good business practice. The club owner isn't going to starve, but a bunch of the little people will.
Radwaste at November 30, 2012 7:55 AM
Sigh. Another victory for the neo-prohibitionists. We will never be rid of these people, unfortunately.
MikeInRealLife at November 30, 2012 8:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/11/30/how_the_governm_3.html#comment-3495033">comment from RadwasteGreat point, Raddy. Death to business by regulation has expensive side-effects.
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2012 8:27 AM
Or maybe not...
http://www.metropulse.com/news/2012/nov/14/down-law-tabc-says-valariums-closure-not-related-a/
Clunky at November 30, 2012 9:04 AM
Or, maybe not...
http://www.metropulse.com/news/2012/nov/14/down-law-tabc-says-valariums-closure-not-related-a/
(Not that I'm in favor of strict liquor laws.)
clinky at November 30, 2012 9:16 AM
Lol @ clinky .. these organizations never, ever admit to any negative side effect of what they do.
Lobster at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM
We'll probably soon hear a politician bragging that those greedy home insurance companies will no longer be able to deny home owners the insurance they need just because they have preexisting condition such as their house is already ablaze. Then agencies will be baffled at the number of insurance companies going bankrupt, while claiming regulation wasn't a factor.
Related as government never sees the.consequences of tomorrow. Just the votes to be bought today.
Trust at November 30, 2012 11:26 AM
That a bar is required to serve food is stupid in the first place. Most neighborhood bars I know will have a mini-pizza maker or some things, frozen, that can be nuked. The amount of food inventory they have on hand is probably worth about $75 at wholesale prices.
The other thing is if I'm going to see a band, I'm probably going to eat elsewhere first. This is forcing the bar to depend on the patrons to eat there. A 1% of receipts as food can be too high depending on the drink prices.
Jim P. at November 30, 2012 2:06 PM
So the law was changed? What is the actual need for such a law in the first place?
The law is:
If you own a bar, it's not a bar, it must be a restaurant and 15% of sales must come from food. And you must be open at least three days a week.
This is an idiotic law. That would be like telling a record store that 15% of their sales must come from non-music items.
Or that Amy's column must have at least 15% non-advice.
Can someone explain why such laws get on the books in the first place?
DrCos at November 30, 2012 2:13 PM
"Can someone explain why such laws get on the books in the first place?"
I dunno. Maybe so certain government entities can justify their existence?
Meloni at November 30, 2012 2:27 PM
"Can someone explain why such laws get on the books in the first place?
Sure, someone else didn't like the competition from the bars, so get your paid-for politician to write laws to put them out of business.
Or someone else doesn't like bars; so get your paid-for politicians to write laws to change them all to the business types that you like.
Happens all the time.
Charles at November 30, 2012 3:38 PM
I lived in a small town part-time a few years ago. The council members were also the business owners. They made it pretty difficult for competition to get in.
Meloni at November 30, 2012 4:01 PM
Seems the club's management have been using too much of their product.
According to clunky's link, the new rule changes make it easier to serve liquor. And a new club is opening in the same place. The city isn't losing anything to temperance or gov't alcohol laws. Businesses serving beer and wine aren't required to serve food.
Jason S. at November 30, 2012 8:41 PM
Jason's right. This is actually a new law that lowers the required percentage of food sales and minimum number of days open: from 50% to 15%, and 5 days a week to 3 days a week, per the TABC. Their lawyer does say (in the link above) that there was some language changed to that law that would not have had any effect on the closing of the bar, though she doesn't say what that new language is. From my limited research here, it sounds like the owner was getting a pretty sweet deal that actually wasn't in accordance with the law (like that beer sales counted toward food sales, which was never allowed). Not that I agree with what definitely look like arbitrary alcohol laws, just that this doesn't seem to be the whole story.
Not surprisingly, my home state can be pretty screwy about alcohol, even though the major cities have fantastic music and bar/club scenes. My dad's hometown, an hour or so from Nashville, just voted on whether to even sell alcohol to take home (still not allowed in restaurants there). And the Jack Daniel's distillery in Lynchburg is in a dry county.
NumberSix at November 30, 2012 9:34 PM
What does serving food have to do with serving liquor?
Jim P. at December 1, 2012 5:31 AM
What does serving food have to do with serving liquor?
Exactly my point.
DrCos at December 1, 2012 1:01 PM
What does serving food have to do with liquor?
Good question, Jim. It probably has something to do with Tennessee's antediluvian views on alcohol, as NumberSix describes above.
You're right. Why would a liquor business need to serve any percentage of food?
I was just struck by the conflicting facts from the newspaper report compared to the club's statement. If the the business was closing due to arbitrary alcohol laws, that's worth a protest. This is a different story, evidently.
Jason S. at December 1, 2012 1:37 PM
Reminds me of a bar / restaurant that closed in a nearby college town a few years back. It was a restaurant with a liquor license, thus pretty high food sale requirement. Of course, when most of your biz is from the college kids drinking on FRI & SAT nights, that's hard to maintain. The happy by-product, until their compliance utterly failed, was crazy cheap cigar dinners where we got awesome gourmet meals, several nice cigars, and a free open bar - every month. [sigh] ... too bad they didn;t keep it together ...
Mr_Teflon at December 1, 2012 9:04 PM
I know that many clubs and restaurants in Texas have gone to BYOB. As long as the business doesn't handle or provide the alcohol, they don't require a liquor license. And frankly, doing it that way eliminates the liabilities associated with serving alcohol. Seems really silly that it has to go that far, though.
Julie Chris at December 2, 2012 8:26 PM
This reminds me of how the Diamond's Cabaret private club came into existence.
It first started as a go-go club (tops and bottoms). Then the state (because of city complaints) cracked down on them for who they were serving, and how much. So they restricted the clientele and watched for over-serving. They also went topless. The city/state came down harder. So they gave up there liquor license, became a private club, became BYOB, free ice and low prices for permanent membership. They now have totally nude strippers.
The city/state can't do shit about it without killing the VFW/Legion and other private clubs.
I love it.
Jim P. at December 4, 2012 9:09 PM
Leave a comment