What happened at the Liquor Board on April 13, 2017.

Mr. Peter Prevas proffered that his client has been in business for nine years without a liquor license and is now requesting a new Class B license with outdoor seating and live entertainment. The BMZA has already approved the outdoor tables and live entertainment. The restaurant owner has owned the building for eighteen years and lives above the restaurant. The live entertainment plans range from open mic poetry nights to jazz to fundraisers. After the liquor license is approved, the applicant plans to expand and change the menu. Mr. Dickson testified that the establishment, years ago, was called the Red Door, and they hosted jazz nights, which excluded non-white patrons; now, Mr. Dickson says, everyone is welcome.

The applicant submitted some articles about his restaurant and the various community outreach initiatives he has participated in. He also submitted petitions with written and online signatures in support of his application as well as some letters of support.

Mr. Dickson testified that he met with the Old Goucher Community Association as well as the Charles Village Civic Association. CVCA, through its president Sandy Sparks, requested that Mr. Dickson sign a Memorandum of Understanding, but he did not agree to the terms of the agreement. After some questioning, he testified further that he did not agree with the suggested hours restrictions and believed that the businesses in his area had not been treated fairly, compared with the businesses further north.

Commissioner Greenfield told the applicant that he needs to make sure to follow the rules with respect to keeping employee records, buying from wholesalers only, and avoiding sales to minors. Mr. Dickson replied that his business has always primarily served a mature crowd.

Commissioner Moore asked whether Mr. Dickson understands and is willing to abide by the restrictions placed on the live entertainment by BMZA, and she reiterated the underage drinking concern.

The commissioners, as in this case, never refer to this section of the code, much less cite it during the hearings or read it out loud to try to apply it to the situation before them.

Violation of Rule 4.14(a): Live Entertainment without Authorization- March 18, 2017- At approximately 11:11 pm Officer Timothy Haefner of the Baltimore City Police Department conducted a routine business check of the establishment. At this time,Officer Haefner observed the liquor license and noted that the establishment was not authorized to provide ulive entertainment.” After review the license, Officer Haefner observed a live Disc Jockey playing music within the establishment and approximately 10-15 people dancing to the music played by the Disc Jockey. Officer Haefner informed the manager/bartender of the violation and left the establishment.

Chairman Matricciani noted that this licensee has been cited for this violation before. Kodenski replied, “you know that saying, once bitten, twice shy? Well now it’s twice bitten… not shy anymore.” Mr. Karelas testified that they had eliminated the DJ, which helps to discourage people from dancing. The licensees have had this license since around 2010, with one prior violation.

Baltimore Police Officer Rico Perry then testified to the same information already presented by Greenhill. He exited his patrol vehicle after noticing several individuals at the side entrance: some were running out, some were running in, and he heard shouting. He saw the fight, including punches and thrown chairs. The dispatcher couldn’t raise Officer Perry on the radio, when he was inside the bar, because of the commotion, so the dispatcher issued the Signal 13. Perry discharged the pepper spray, and the bar cleared out and people calmed down. Under questioning by the licensees’ attorney, Perry testified further that he didn’t make any arrests, because he was by himself and the fight was out of control.

Liquor Board Inspector John Chrissomallis then testified that, when he arrived, he asked the bartender whether the bar has security. She laughed and said that they didn’t. He then told her that the bar owner should consider hiring security to prevent and/or address fights and loitering.

The bartender, Jennifer, testified that one of her patrons that night has “been having problems with the girls in the neighborhood.” The patron who started the fight drank two Malibu and pineapple juice mixed drinks that night, but, according to the bartender, was not drunk. There were two families involved in the fight, which happened after last call, and there were too many people to break it up. Jennifer said that the bar hasn’t really had an issue with fights, and that “they usually go outside and I call 911.” There are a lot of drug dealers, she explained, in the neighborhood, and sometimes they come inside and start problems, so you have to call 911 to have them removed. They were closed after the incident for almost a month. There is no plan to get security for the bar. All of the women involved in the fight were banned from the bar.

Commissioner Moore noted that calling 911 when troublesome people come in to the bar is not a sustainable strategy. “That’s not why the police department is here,” she added.

Mr. Popa, the licensee, then testified that there aren’t too many issues with fights in his bar. Popa stated that at the time of the incident, “my security was sitting at the curb, right in front of the door: an armed police officer. This police officer was overwhelmed, to the point that he had to use pepper spray to get these people under control. The people that were outside are not my customers. I don’t allow them in my bar. The bar holds 30 people. I haven’t had 30 people in my bar in the last five to six years, because of drug dealers, who infest Curtis Bay and chase them all away. They hang on the corner – I have a record book here of how often I call 911, because that’s the only thing I can do. I spoke to the last four commanding officers of the Southern District; they’ve all told me the same thing: “don’t put yourself in harm’s way; call 911.” It makes sense to me; that’s what I pay taxes for. So we call 911. Now I did inquire one time about hiring an off-duty police officer. … It didn’t go nowhere at that time. … I had to stop cashing checks because I could see what was happening to the neighborhood. It’s infested by drug dealers. Throughout our nation, these drug dealers prefer the corners to do their business. They particularly like mine because they have a sight line for 10 blocks down Pennington Avenue where they can see any police car coming. … I need this business. … It is of diminishing value as long as I am plagued by these drug dealers. … They’re like roaches. You turn on the lights, they scatter. You turn off the lights, they come back. … I’m the victim here. Not the perpetrator.” He added that the police officers provide enough security for his business, “within the limits of what Baltimore City can afford to spend.” Later, he added that politicians refuse to do what needs to be done to address the drug problem, “because it harms their constituents.”

Commissioner Moore noted that there is a significant history of violations, including multiple sales to minors, charter not in good standing, and gambling. She noted that this is a very troubled business. Mr. Popa interrupted Moore many times throughout her statement, in a combative tone of voice, insisting that he had no control over any of the violations or situations that she listed from the file.