Thursday, August 27, 2009
City Tom Carr Considers Appealing Liquor License Following an Effort to "Intimidate" Him
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM
After The Stranger wrote about City Attorney Tom Carr's overheated crusade to block the hard-liquor license of the Faire Gallery Cafe, a tiny art and performance venue, Capitol Hill Community Council president Jen Power called on her blog readers to phone and email Carr with complaints. Well, it appears that Power's mother got into it with Carr, and now the entire exchange has been posted online. Elise Power first complains, then Carr argues that it's his job to consider objections and he was concerned about complications with a 2006 misdemeanor conviction, so she replies:
Raising the questions about one of Faire's owners was/is indeed, your job. However, having heard all of the circumstances, the Board ruled in favor of Faire's hard liquor license.Your intent to appeal then takes on the appearance of being merely an obstructive delaying tactic, and thus punitive in nature, even spiteful.
Carr replies:
I have not decided to appeal. The clerk in the department of executive administration routinely checks the appeal box to preserve our rights. The appeal deadline is September 9. What really bothers me is that the Faire Gallery’s lawyer is making this a political issue when In fact it’s a real public safety question. There is a clear effort to intimidate me. I wonder did anyone tell you the basis for our objection?
Carr says he has not decided to appeal, which sounds like he's decided not to appeal—but he's actually saying that he might. When Carr made his original complaint, he checked a box to say that if the liquor board approved the permit, he would demand that the case go before a judge.
Washington State Liquor Board Control spokeswoman Anne Radford confirms that "September 9 is the deadline for the city of Seattle to request a hearing." A hearing could last six to nine months, preventing Faire from serving hard liquor during that period, she says.
I've emailed Carr to confirm the authenticity of the exchange. He has not yet replied, but I recommend reading the entire thing over here.
It bears pointing out that Carr—the city attorney, chief prosecutor, a man with gobs of discretionary power—feels intimidated by some widdle emails. But of course the owners a little art gallery weren't supposed to feel intimated by Carr—the the city attorney, chief prosecutor, and a man with gobs of discretionary power—who clearly had a vendetta against them.
1
You know, NYC used to pull this shit with performers who couldn't get a cabaret card to work in the city's clubs if they'd ever had a run-in with law enforcement. Billie Holiday was probably the most famous recipient of that stupid-assed and cruel policy (long since abandoned). She's was restricted to concert halls and was barred from the city's night clubs because she couldn't get a cabaret card severely limiting her ability to work and make money.
Why would someone's past be a danger sufficient enough to restrict a business from being able to pour a customer a drink? Seems like that same old extortionist carrot-and-stick crap to me. I mean, what is this? 1918 Kansas City?
Why would someone's past be a danger sufficient enough to restrict a business from being able to pour a customer a drink? Seems like that same old extortionist carrot-and-stick crap to me. I mean, what is this? 1918 Kansas City?
2
"There is a clear effort to intimidate me."
Oh no, not public discourse! Surely we must remain gentlemen and never speak up outside of the official bureaucratic channels, which offer so much opportunity to question decisions and reconcile concerns.
Oh no, not public discourse! Surely we must remain gentlemen and never speak up outside of the official bureaucratic channels, which offer so much opportunity to question decisions and reconcile concerns.
4
"Why would someone's past be a danger sufficient enough to restrict a business from being able to pour a customer a drink? Seems like that same old extortionist carrot-and-stick crap to me. I mean, what is this? 1918 Kansas City?"
I don't know if it's extortionist as much as the guy believing his job is to be punitive as opposed to managing *tangible* concerns for public safety.
I don't know if it's extortionist as much as the guy believing his job is to be punitive as opposed to managing *tangible* concerns for public safety.
6
Wow, my mom is going to be surprised and probably thrilled that this went all the way to the Slog. Anyway, I wrote a second post with the continued saga of my mom vs. Tom Carr...he just kept writing back. http://comradebunny.blogspot.com/2009/08…
The whole thing is ridiculous...I just hope continued letter writing to Mr. Carr will convince him that Faire is a community asset that's just trying to stay in business.
~ Jen Power
http://comradebunny.blogspot.com/
The whole thing is ridiculous...I just hope continued letter writing to Mr. Carr will convince him that Faire is a community asset that's just trying to stay in business.
~ Jen Power
http://comradebunny.blogspot.com/
7
The one thing I found really surprising about the exchange was how much time Mr. Carr was dedicating to writing about the issue. It's the kind of thing I would expect him to fob off on an assistant (he certainly didn't bother to meet with Liz and Matt in person) and have them write a form letter of their position. How does he have time to do this? Why is he taking the time to do this? It makes him look awfully defensive.
~ Jen Power
http://comradebunny.blogspot.com/
~ Jen Power
http://comradebunny.blogspot.com/
8
I just received a link to this posting and the website.
Tom Carr is confusing advocacy with intimidation. My intent is to encourage him to follow the law, instead of his personal biases.
While I am on clearly the record as being horrified at the decisions he has previously made surrounding Seattle nightlife, this issue is straightforward: the law and WSLCB are on Faire Gallery's side.
Tom Carr is confusing advocacy with intimidation. My intent is to encourage him to follow the law, instead of his personal biases.
While I am on clearly the record as being horrified at the decisions he has previously made surrounding Seattle nightlife, this issue is straightforward: the law and WSLCB are on Faire Gallery's side.
9
I wonder what the voters will think?
We got rid of one martinet already ... even if Ed's trying to get a write-in to continue the dynasty for that.
We got rid of one martinet already ... even if Ed's trying to get a write-in to continue the dynasty for that.
10
Aside from the contact with his Assistant City Attorney, who told me that they would probably lose on the objection, but preferred to "take their chances," I have had no communication with Mr. Carr on this issue. My correspondence has been limited to the Liquor Board.
As for typo in previous post: D'oh!
As for typo in previous post: D'oh!
11
Tom Carr is intimidated by someone's mother writing him an email in regards to the denial of an application for an enhanced liquor license? Not exactly the thin you want to admit in an election year.
13
wow! I wish I had the time to have pointless encounters and conversations about relatively minor matters via email and the Internet. Where do I get a job like that?!?!
oh, wait...
oh, wait...
14
Ya know, if we were a Theocracy like the Birthers want us to be, this wouldn't be a problem, cause they'd have Church Police making us do penance for even thinking of taking a drink with the opposite gender (or the same gender for gay bars) if we weren't "married in the eyes of the Lord".
Think about it.
Think about it.
15
What's with Carr's crazy claim that criticism and advocacy are really just attempts to "intimidate" him? Or complaining about things being turned into a "political" issue?
Carr seems to have fogotten that he's an *elected* official. No matter, he won't be for much longer.
Carr seems to have fogotten that he's an *elected* official. No matter, he won't be for much longer.
16
Carr is showing himself to be what he is - a poor attorney. No good attorney would respond the way he is.
Considering he's running for office currently, he's also showing himself to be a poor politician.
Maybe he needs to adjust his meds. Or maybe he's just stressed to know that he's botched his term as City Attorney so bad that when he loses his job in November he'll also have to move out of the County to find another one. Moving is stressfull, maybe we should give the guy a little slack.
Considering he's running for office currently, he's also showing himself to be a poor politician.
Maybe he needs to adjust his meds. Or maybe he's just stressed to know that he's botched his term as City Attorney so bad that when he loses his job in November he'll also have to move out of the County to find another one. Moving is stressfull, maybe we should give the guy a little slack.
17
Dominic, please try to be a reporter here and not a blogger...
1) Tom says I have not decided to appeal. The clerk in the department of executive administration routinely checks the appeal box to preserve our rights.
If this is true, then he/his office really hasn't made a decision. And people really are trying to make a scandal out of nothing. If you don't believe Tom, then do some reporting and find out if, in fact, the clerk regularly checks the box to give the City Attorney's office some room to decide or not.
2) There is a clear effort to intimidate me.
Tom didn't say he's "scared" of e-mails. He seems rightly concerned that supporters of his opponent are trying to turn this minor issue over a single license into a huge political scandal of a powerful politician picking on some poor, defenseless business owner.
Bloggers stir up traffic and chatter by posting quick rumors or unresearched facts. Please don't. Report on the story instead.
How about asking Tom why he took the time to engage in this e-mail exchange. Does he regularly do such things? Has he been particularly involved in this threat to appeal the license, or was it a routine move out of his office?
1) Tom says I have not decided to appeal. The clerk in the department of executive administration routinely checks the appeal box to preserve our rights.
If this is true, then he/his office really hasn't made a decision. And people really are trying to make a scandal out of nothing. If you don't believe Tom, then do some reporting and find out if, in fact, the clerk regularly checks the box to give the City Attorney's office some room to decide or not.
2) There is a clear effort to intimidate me.
Tom didn't say he's "scared" of e-mails. He seems rightly concerned that supporters of his opponent are trying to turn this minor issue over a single license into a huge political scandal of a powerful politician picking on some poor, defenseless business owner.
Bloggers stir up traffic and chatter by posting quick rumors or unresearched facts. Please don't. Report on the story instead.
How about asking Tom why he took the time to engage in this e-mail exchange. Does he regularly do such things? Has he been particularly involved in this threat to appeal the license, or was it a routine move out of his office?
18
@17, in order to get around those pesky things known as journalistic ethics, Dominic is clearly listed on the masthead as a "Staff Writer". There's no conceivable way he could call himself a reporter without feeling a profound sense of shame given his blind advocacy for certain causes and candidates.
He actually almost makes me pine for Erica's ability to withhold facts & never issue corrections, which is something.
He actually almost makes me pine for Erica's ability to withhold facts & never issue corrections, which is something.
19
@17:
You are right that Dom has some growing to do as a journalist.
However, harassing drinking establishments has been the central focus of Tom Carr's career as city attorney, and indeed, here he goes again. Whether or not he decides to appeal in September, he's still holding up a neighborhood business for no good reason right now. Get out of these people's way, already.
Tom has carefully nurtured his reputation as an incompetent, obsessive prude without any help from Dom. It was Tom's choice to spend 50k of our money going after, bizarrely enough, bar tenders (?), and then packaging up his circus for media consumption as "Operation Sobering Thought."
Hey, Tom, here's a "sobering thought" for you - unemployment.
You are right that Dom has some growing to do as a journalist.
However, harassing drinking establishments has been the central focus of Tom Carr's career as city attorney, and indeed, here he goes again. Whether or not he decides to appeal in September, he's still holding up a neighborhood business for no good reason right now. Get out of these people's way, already.
Tom has carefully nurtured his reputation as an incompetent, obsessive prude without any help from Dom. It was Tom's choice to spend 50k of our money going after, bizarrely enough, bar tenders (?), and then packaging up his circus for media consumption as "Operation Sobering Thought."
Hey, Tom, here's a "sobering thought" for you - unemployment.
20
"I wonder did anyone tell you the basis for our objection?"
No, Tom, why don't you tell us?
I would support harsher penalties for intoxicated driving. I would support denying the DUI dude in question any right to be involved with this enterprise. But, like Jen's mom said: insofar as public safety is concerned, Faire already has the ability to serve people enough alcohol to make them unfit to drive.
Dear Tom Carr: I can respect your wish to help repair a broken and ineffective system. But harassing people whose court cases are behind them doesn't help. The real deterrants to drunken driving will be lobbying for increased penalties along with law enforcement agents who are capable of reliably building solid cases against suspects.
No, Tom, why don't you tell us?
I would support harsher penalties for intoxicated driving. I would support denying the DUI dude in question any right to be involved with this enterprise. But, like Jen's mom said: insofar as public safety is concerned, Faire already has the ability to serve people enough alcohol to make them unfit to drive.
Dear Tom Carr: I can respect your wish to help repair a broken and ineffective system. But harassing people whose court cases are behind them doesn't help. The real deterrants to drunken driving will be lobbying for increased penalties along with law enforcement agents who are capable of reliably building solid cases against suspects.
22
Mr. Carr,
It's to your credit that you take the time to personally answer criticism. But it is not to your credit that you conflate widespread criticism with intimidation.
This chorus of disapproval, which you richly deserve, does not amount to a threat against anything except your future employment as City Attorney.
It's to your credit that you take the time to personally answer criticism. But it is not to your credit that you conflate widespread criticism with intimidation.
This chorus of disapproval, which you richly deserve, does not amount to a threat against anything except your future employment as City Attorney.
23
Are there just not enough serious things to deal with? Every time law enforcement asks for more money, we need to take a close look at their priorities
24
"Tom didn't say he's "scared" of e-mails. He seems rightly concerned that supporters of his opponent are trying to turn this minor issue over a single license into a huge political scandal of a powerful politician picking on some poor, defenseless business owner."
This is the tip of the iceberg. This particular case is very public because of the nature of the case. Many other people are being bullied by Carr that either can't speak or don't want the publicity.
Nerf ball assault guy hasn't gone public with his and his lawyer's exchanges with Carr. The victims of Sobering Thought that plead out didn't put their communications online. Those that beat the charges have put limited information online.
Mickymse - it should be a major political issue that we have an elected City Attorney that uses his office to punish people who's lifestyles he doesn't like.
This is the tip of the iceberg. This particular case is very public because of the nature of the case. Many other people are being bullied by Carr that either can't speak or don't want the publicity.
Nerf ball assault guy hasn't gone public with his and his lawyer's exchanges with Carr. The victims of Sobering Thought that plead out didn't put their communications online. Those that beat the charges have put limited information online.
Mickymse - it should be a major political issue that we have an elected City Attorney that uses his office to punish people who's lifestyles he doesn't like.
Comments (24) RSS