ABC imposed stricter rules on Broad Appétit
72 hours before Broad Appétit began, organizers of the event were told by ABC that they had to cordon off the sidewalks.
Update #1 — June 6, 2013; 4:41 PM
In our efforts to connect the dots and add context to this story, we overstated the connection between ABC, Shamrock the Block, and Broad Appétit. ABC’s Carol Mawyer would like to reiterate that ABC did not place stricter rules on Broad Appétit based on what occurred at Shamrock the Block. ABC evaluates each application on a case-by-case basis and considers many past events when making recommendations to the licensee applicant.
— ∮∮∮ —
Original — June 05, 2013
Judging by the mass of Instagram photos and bulging waistlines, the 30,000 attendees of last Sunday’s Broad Appétit enjoyed themselves. But unknown to the attendees that casually strolled the four blocks of W. Broad Street while sampling food from over 60 Richmond chefs, event organizers had, mere hours before, hurried to comply with new restrictions imposed upon them by Virginia ABC.
— ∮∮∮ —
On Friday, May 24th (just before Memorial Day weekend) organizers of Broad Appétit submitted an application for a Special Event Banquet license to ABC officials, 10 calendar days before the event.
But according to ABC, applications must be submitted 10 business days (PDF) prior to the event. ABC spokesperson, Carol Mawyer, said that, because of the Memorial Day holiday, it wasn’t until Tuesday, May 28th that “our agents got the application in hand.” That left only six days to review, discuss, and approve the permit application. “That’s not a lot of time,” Mawyer said.
On Thursday, May 30th, ABC agents informed Tracey Leverty of Echelon Event Management and other Broad Appétit organizers, that ABC would require barriers to run the length of both sidewalks on either side of Broad Street. These barriers would block off the sidewalks to Broad Appétit goers. That surprised Leverty, and for good reason: the ABC had never required a cordoned off section in the five years of Broad Appétit.
“We are not permitting you to have alcohol on the sidewalk,” Leverty said, recalling what she was told by an ABC agent. She said that an agent informed her that the changes were being made in light of the recent events at Shamrock the Block. “There was no real correlation or understandable link between what happened at Shamrock the Block…and what they were telling us what to do with the sidewalks,” Leverty said.
Shamrock the Block—a St. Patrick’s Day festival— is known for attracting a younger, raucous crowd. While Broad Appétit—a food festival—caters to a more placid, subdued demographic. Both events serve alcohol, but attendees at each event behave in much different ways. “[ABC agents] don’t know how apple and oranges our event is to Shamrock the Block,” Leverty said.
Due to the lack of time to work with Broad Appétit to develop a mutually agreeable security plan, ABC opted to impose different restrictions–including the sidewalk barrier. The barrier, as they saw it, served three purposes:
- Kept people consuming alcohol in a designated area
- Cleared paths on the sidewalks for emergency personnel (i.e. police)
- Created a buffer between Broad Street businesses and Broad Appétit
Leverty was surprised by that last concern. Among the eight businesses that were open along the stretch of Broad Street that comprised Broad Appétit, only three were restaurants with their own ABC permits. In years past, restaurant patrons taking alcoholic drinks into Broad Appétit (and vice versa) has “never been a problem,” she said. Restaurants knew that ABC violations during the event would bring trouble, so they self-policed. To Leverty, the barriers seemed unnecessary, but ABC held firm on the requirement.
When asked why ABC required the blocked off sidewalks this year, and not in the previous five years that Broad Appétit has operated, Carol Mawyer said, “We don’t look at the past five years. We don’t look at the past year. We look at each individual event separately.”
She said that events like Broad Appétit “are good for RVA, but we want to make sure that they’re safe as well.”
— ∮∮∮ —
On Friday, May 31st, the discussion between ABC and Broad Appétit organizers grew to include members of the Richmond Police and even the Governor’s Office, according to Leverty. A compromise was reached. Instead of Broad Appétit organizers needing to block off both sidewalks on either side of Broad Street, they would only need to block off one.
Leverty said organizers purchased roughly 2,000 ft. of snow fencing to block off the sidewalk. “At the end of the day, we ended up spending just over $5,000,” Leverty said, which includes the snow fencing material, as well as paying additional staff. “In my mind it feels like flushing money down the toilet.”
Leverty’s most upset that the changes did little, if anything, to ensure safety–and at a cost of $5,000. But she doesn’t see that additional cost coming out of her wallet, so much as it coming out of the wallet of local anti-hunger organization, Feedmore, for which Broad Appétit raises money. “That’s $5,000 less dollars that I can give Feedmore,” Leverty said. Money that would otherwise fund FeedMore during months when they often need it most.
— ∮∮∮ —
Some attendees were confused by the new layout. One attendee complained that the sidewalk blocked off access to businesses that would have otherwise been visited:
This was the first year they had the sidewalk fenced off and it made no sense. All it did was block people off from visiting local businesses…I went in Pibby Bikes and Quirk and they were both empty, meanwhile there were 35,000 people on the other side of a fence outside the front door. You had to walk to the end of the block then all the way back down the middle of the block. Completely absurd.
Leverty thinks ABC’s treatment of Broad Appétit may set a troubling precedent for organizers of other events. “It didn’t accomplish anything in my mind, safety wise,” she said about the extra restrictions. When she thinks about the extra cost for virtually no added safety or security, she shakes her head. “That doesn’t make any sense to me.”
— ∮∮∮ —
Corrections
- The original version of this article overstated the connection between the incidents that occurred at Shamrock the Block and the new restrictions placed on Broad Appétit (see first update).
photo courtesy of Richmond Magazine
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Nathan Cushing
Nathan Cushing is a writer, journalist, and RVANews Editor.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
While it may not make sense to the organizers, the regulatory environment which exsits is consitent regardless of wheather the attendees are “younger, raucous crowd” or “a more placid, subdued demographic.” as editorialized by the writer. While I would generally agree, the application of state regulations most likely can take these considerations into account but why the organizers of the even would have any expectation that the ABC would do so is beyond me. Furthermore by their own admission they failed to submit the required paperwork in a timely manner as required for a banquet permit which implies that ABC staff actually exceeded their responsibilties and overlooked this when processing the application for Broad Appetit. While I agree only having the barriers on one side of the street seems to put businesses on that side at a competitive disadvantage, the concern of the ABC is access for emergency personel, not who has the best location. Conversely, if the event did deteriorate into a shambles as it did at Shamrock the Block for exmaple, the businesses who are cordened off would then be at the best location for access by emergency personel so then would it be the opinion of the author that the ABC failed to cordon off both sides therfore jepordizing the safety of businesses on the other side?
All in all, I hate to sound unduly harsh but the event organizers admitted failure to file the necessary paperwork in time and even the remote possibilty of danger to the public are the overarching concerns of the ABC staff. While the author seems to be an apologist for the event for some reason, disregarding the regulatory environment, particularly in light of recent issues at other events, however unrelated they are, doesn’t seem like prudent public policy in my eyes. All in all, I chalk this article up as Sour Grapes.
The regulatory environment which exists is inconsistent as the ABC board makes up the rules as they go. RVA is a festival laden town with very few instances that would require the extra precautions that were put in place. ABC has a tendency to over react, require one thing for one event, and yet something else for another. While I agree someone dropped the ball with the application, I don’t think the ABC needs more than a day to submit a permit for an annual event. ABC didn’t seem to be concerned with emergency personnel at any other events that happen around town, why is this one any different? All events are not equal. Holding this event responsible for the lack of control shown by binge drinking idiots at an unrelated event, shows lack of leadership at the ABC.
Good reporting Nathan-
Great reporting, ABC has distinguished themselves for bureaucratic leadership. Not to be confused with real world leadership.
I don’t understand why everyone is piling on the ABC for this. In other festival laiden cities, where beer or wine is sold as part of outdoor street festivals , it’s common to have the drinking sections fenced off beer garden style.
It’s a shame that the $5,000 had to be diverted from charity: but that’s the responsibility of the Event Planners who didn’t get their paperwork in on time. And if the ABC is so notorious for being sticklers: wouldn’t you triple check to make sure you got your paperwork in on time ?….
@Joey- Don’t be obtuse….the ABC doesn’t make up the rules as they go. They are located right here:
https://ebusiness.abc.virginia.gov/eLicense/controller
And in the code of Virginia right here:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+4.1-206
There are no “extra precautions” as you state. The public safety agencies responsible for enforcement establish the framework in which these events occur. If you are dissatisfied with that be upset with the poor management of other events in the town and the piss poor behavior of some of the attendees at Shamrock the Block. The term is selective enforcement. The police don’t go around arresting every person who jaywalks but if it were to be an issue they would step up enforcement as needed to ensure public safety. The same is true here in regards to the ABC and the application of the law. There were issues at events in the city, the public was upset as evidenced by news reporting here:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/crime/police-probe-scuffle-at-shamrock-the-block/article_ca668ff7-201f-563f-85da-7f2138b8efc9.html
http://wtvr.com/2013/03/18/richmond-police-shamrock-the-block-video/
and citizens have a reasonable expectation that the letter of the law will be more rigorously adhered to in light of the failures at other events.
What do you expect the police and ABC to do? Be lax and get dinged again for excessive force because they didn’t take the necessary precautions for the event? I’m sure Richmond copwatch would be right there to film the excessive force exhibited by poor planning and lack of leadership that would be instantly cited if things were to deteriorate in this manner.
Secondly, if we can all go around and make up what time frames we think agencies need to perform their duties I’m going to just start filing my taxes when I feel like it, speeding as long as no one gets hurt, and making additions to my house without the proper building permits until something collapses.
If you think the law is wrong, contact your elected official, start a movement, and get it changed, but critiquing the enforcement agency for doing their job is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of public administration.
I’m not saying that it’s not unfortunate that we can’t have nice things because of a couple idiots at another event, I’m saying that by holding a higher standard across the board we set an example for how these events are handled in the future to prevent incidents like the ones we saw in Shockoe Bottom. With greater freedoms comes greater responsibility and we all need to live up to that.
Thanks for covering this story, Nathan. My perspective as the owner of Pibby’s Bicycle & Skate was that the snow fencing was a real disappointment. Broad Appétit is an event I look forward to being open for every year and in years past, sales were good. This year, sales definitely suffered. That being said, had I not been following the event it could have passed me by on a day that the shop is normally closed. No one from the event; the City; the police or the ABC came around to see if I would be open for the event. I just showed up on Sunday with snow fencing in front of my shop and a sign that read, “No Alcohol May Be Brought Into Or Taken Out Of This Establishment” taped to my door. One of the police Lieutenants I spoke to felt like the snow fencing was a safety hazard for them should there be a problem in the vendor area of the event. The police would be unable to move people out of the street and onto the sidewalks (read: a fire breaks out from a cooking device). In the end, I’m glad to have a big event right outside my business’ front door. It’s good exposure, I can’t complain too much.
@Willis – spoken like a true bureaucrat. This is an example of what is wrong with having such a powerful ABC agency. They should abolish the ABC and allow the local city officials handle security and concerns over events. They fact that they say that ABC treats every event as a new event and does not take into account that this is an annual event proves that they want to exert their power in every way and in every instance that they can. They are a building full of bureaucrats waiting for good people to come in with applications for new businesses to hire people and events to raise money for the charity, just so that they can exert their power and authority and collect a tax payer paycheck. We need less of these bureaucrats not more. It will be nice when the general assembly old stodgy conservatives retire and then we will finally be able to Abolish the ABC.
The event was good. The barriers made navigating around the event a little bit of a challenge since there were so many people there. I am sure next year that the ABC people will pretend like this event never happened and find new ways to impede it’s success, since that is what they are there to do.
Comment to “Willis”…Well stated.
@Willis: Well said, again!
@RajunCajun: I hate to break your heart, but every city , county, state has some sort of alcohol regulation. If your dream comes true and the ABC is abolished: there will some other regulating commission.
Like I said in my earlier post: other cities have beer gardens in order to contain the drinking. Oh, and they’re regulated either by the ABC or whatever the other local regulatory agency is responsible for it. And the beer gardens work really well.
Cajun you just don’t seem to have a grasp on how the establishment is organized. I know your feel bro, but you’re directing your energies at the wrong people. If you want to see a change talk to your representation as I stated in an earlier post. The ABC doesn’t really make the rules, just enforce them.