29-Sep-2009 (Tue)
Wherein GAMH gets some good news, but not as good as it sounds.

The good news is that ABC has dismissed their case against the Great American Music Hall! However, this headline, while hiliarious, is a bit misleading: "San Francisco Nightclub Beats the War on Fun".

ABC's press release (PDF) about the dismissal says this:

An Administrative Law Judge has recommended dismissal of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) disciplinary action against the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco for changing its operation without obtaining approval from the ABC.

The Administrative Law Judge held that while Great American Music Hall had in fact changed its operation, the regulation relied upon by the ABC was ambiguous. While ABC does not agree with the Administrative Law Judge's ruling, and has not accepted the proposed decision, it has decided to dismiss the action against the Great American Music Hall. This decision does not necessarily affect any other pending cases.

To address the issues raised by the Administrative Law Judge, ABC will engage in the rulemaking process through the State Office of Administrative Law in order to clarify the regulation.

What this says is, "We intend to go make up a new rule, then turn right around and come after GAMH again. And we're still going to continue attacking the other clubs, because maybe whatever judge we get on those cases will let us get away with it anyway."

So please, don't let anyone tell you that the fight is over, or that GAMH (or any of us) are out of the woods. GAMH fought ABC to a standstill in this skirmish, but the War on Fun continues apace.

Keep the pressure on! Don't think this is over.

In case you've forgotten, ABC's accusation against GAMH is that they don't serve enough food. An important detail here is that, unlike some other venues, GAMH's liquor license does not include any particular food sales requirement. ABC would like to hold every under-21 nightclub to the standard that you have to make 50% of your revenue from food sales.

3 Responses:

  1. vordark says:

    You know, I understand the basic reasoning that says in order to be a "bona fide eating place" you need to get 50% of your sales from food. I don't have any objection to that.

    What I object to is the lack of a license that has no food requirement but still lets you sell alcohol and admit under 21 if you can show that you can keep the booze out of the minors' hands. That this doesn't exist is just madness.

    I don't live anywhere near the west coast, but I'm glad the good fight is being fought, just on the off chance that my own state might someday try to go down this road and re-consider because of your own war on fun. "Whoa! Remember what happened when they tried this in San Francisco? Yeah, let's not do that."

    Well, it's a theory anyway. I can dream.

  2. rodgerd says:

    ...is so bizarro land to me. Perhaps it wouldn't be if I'd actually spent any time in San Francisco, but it's so at odds with everything I associate with the place. "Come to San Francisco, home of live-action fun!"