[SpongeG]

:haha: :rolleyes: how embarrassing and does the city not want consumers to have the choice to dine and wine as they choose to? one step backwards

New city liquor bylaw to limit sale of fine wines in Vancouver restaurants

VANCOUVER - Imagine this: Out for a meal in a Vancouver restaurant, you spend $30 to $40 on entrees. But when you order a $45 bottle of B.C. wine, your waiter says: “Sorry, this is Vancouver; you’ll have to buy something cheaper.”

That’s exactly what could happen after Jan. 1, when the city’s new liquor licensing bylaw comes into effect.

An obscure subsection of the bylaw casts a regulatory net — intended to nab restaurants that are all bar and no food — that snares just about every other restaurant with a wine list aspiring to offer more than bulk wines. Under the bylaw, approved by city council Oct. 8 and coming into effect Jan. 1, the food portion of all restaurant receipts must account for at least 50 per cent of all revenues over any eight-hour period.

The city is imposing an annual $3-a-seat tax on all city restaurants, raising money to hire food police who will make sure restaurants comply.

That’s the death knell for upper-end wine sales at all but the more costly restaurants in town, says Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Services Association.

“We are going into the Olympics; we want to showcase British Columbia; we want to showcase B.C. wines and B.C. wines are not known for being inexpensive so that could kill it. The waiter could end up saying ‘Sorry, I can’t sell you that $45 bottle of wine.’”

Wine lawyer Mark Hicken said in an interview the effect on fine wine sales could be dramatic. “If the manager for the night notices that the restaurant is running 50/50, then theoretically he or she should prevent customers from ordering expensive wine because that would throw the restaurant off for the 8-hour period,” he said in his blog Winelaw.ca. “As the Olympics approaches, this is a huge backward step for the modernization of wine laws in Vancouver.”

The new law is aimed at restaurants that operate as bars, contrary to the licence bylaw, which separates food establishments from bars. The city conducted an undercover operation to see how bad the problem was and found in once instance, a police officer was served six drinks and no food at a licensed restaurant.

“What the city is interested in is: a restaurant is in the business of selling food and liquor but a handful of restaurants have apparently been acting more like bars than restaurants. That’s what everyone wants to avoid here,” Tostenson said in an interview.

Tostenson is to meet with city officials soon over the issue. He believes the city will rewrite the bylaw. “It’s the unintended consequence of the city trying to do the right thing,” he said. “But it needs to be rejigged.”

The issue flared up when James Iranzad, of Corkscrew Entertainment, started organizing restaurateurs to fight the bylaw. In an e-mail, Iranzad said it’s impossible for restaurants to meet the new bylaw. Corkscrew operates three restaurants in the city: Hell’s Kitchen, Abigail’s Party and the Flying Tiger.

Iranzad declined to be interviewed, but a glance at the company’s menus shows entrees typically range from $12 to $21. Most wines are in the $30 to $60 range. But a bottle of B.C. red Nota Bene, at $78, would require a couple to also eat two orders of B.C. halibut at $21 each, plus one order of Moroccan chicken at $21 and three desserts to be within the bylaw.

ghamilton@vancouversun.com

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/city+liquor+bylaw+limit+sale+fine+wines+Vancouver+restaurants/2148148/story.html

[Yume-sama]

Oh God. Nanny state here we come.

[Metro-One]

:previous: This is retarded! Honestly, I have gone to restaurants many times for an appetizer and a beer! What us going to happen to the Japanese and Korean restaurants where their entire premise is appetizers with beer/spirits? Those are the most fun places in the city IMO. Hopefully those places are listed as bars!

This is way to silly, sometimes the more by-laws and rules a place has the weaker it becomes.

[giallo]

sometimes the more by-laws and rules a place has the weaker it becomes.


Indeed.
One of the reasons I love China's nightlife so much is because there is so little red tape when opening restaurants, pubs and clubs. With that comes the occasional sketchiness like bad food, fake liquor and poor services, but more times than not this is self correcting. A place that serves bad food, cheaply made liquor etc. will not last long due to quick word of mouth thanks to the internet.

Why does Vancouver insist on wrapping more red tape around the city when there is more than enough already. This law seems so bizarre. How are you supposed to convince customers that their bill must have an equal monetary value of food and liquor on it? Ridiculous!

[Metro-One]

Before you know it they will introduce another by law that will take into consideration % alcohol on the drink you buy and then there will be some ratio calculation of % alcohol vs. quantity vs. price of drinks vs. price of food vs. calories and weight of food dictating what you can buy and then you will have to spend an hour of calculations before you order!

I just realized how bizarre this law is going to be to all of the people traveling here for the winter Olympics, especially for the Europeans and East Asians.

Oh well, good thing Vancouver is only a part of Greater Vancouver and if planning a fancy dinner where we will want to drink expensive liquors and for those occasions for a quick pint and snack I can still go to restaurants in every other corner of the metro area.

[raggedy13]

I agree this is retarded. I hope the City does rewrite it soon as the article suggests may happen.

[Yume-sama]

I just don't even understand how you come up with this crap, to be rewritten.

Who thinks of writing it in the first place? Honestly.

[quobobo]

"The city conducted an undercover operation to see how bad the problem was and found in once instance, a police officer was served six drinks and no food at a licensed restaurant."

Wow. That's the best use for a police officer's time?

Seriously, I can't believe the priorities at City Hall some days. The micromanaging of restaurants, bars, and music venues is killing a lot of what makes Vancouver fun (and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, take a look at what happened to Hoko's and what's currently happening to the Biltmore).

[nova9]

This plus any increase in taxation (HST) will drive me away from but the most elite of restaurants.

Seriously, it's like 2 steps forwards, 4 gigantic, idiotic leaps back.

[Metro-One]

Seriously, I can't believe the priorities at City Hall some days.

Amen! Could you imagine if they were this attentive towards the homeless problem or gang problem? Rules like these choke off the life of a city and as others have said our bar/restaurant scene is far to restricted. Especially for a city with such great food and provincial pride in our spirits/beer! We should be embracing our bars and restaurants, not red taping them.

[Rico Rommheim]

This is absolutely retarded! Man I love Vancouver but I get a feeling its nigh life and general sense of fun is being bastardized by a bunch of prudish puritans!

[CanadianCentaur]

*whistles in astonishment*

This stinks worse than bad booze. Even the timing really stinks - especially with the Winter Olympics just around the corner. Wait until you start to get a lot of international visitors coming in and people wanting to order the good stuff to impress their hosts or friends.

[GeeCee]

This is really really stupid. What the hell, CoV?

[EastVanMark]

Welcome to nimby, good time stifling, Vancouver. And then they wonder where Vancouver developed this "no fun" image?:koko:

[biketrouble]

Finally, something I can agree with you all on... does anyone know which councillors voted for this nonsense?

[Mininari]

This is absolute rubbish.
City council *needs* to be held accountable for this ridiculousness. So a few restaurants are selling mostly booze... is this really worse than say... ganglang style drive-by shootups, or known gangsters living 4 doors away.

Lets get that cop to police toy stores too... better make sure those toy stores are selling at least 50% of their toys to boys and 50% to girls.

[jlousa]

Going to play devils advocate on this. This will not prevent anyone ordering a $40meal from ordering a $45 bottle of wine. There are plenty of people that don't order liquor which buys leeway for those that would go reasonably over. This is for food primary establishments only, there is no doubt there are numerous places that are currently taking advantage of it and acting as liquor primaries. The complaints were coming from the liquor primaries as they had to jump thru all the legal loops and pay an arm and leg to get licensed only to see some cheaters acting the same with only a food primary license, which is quite easy to obtain.
This new bylaw isn't meant to stop a place like Guu which probably hovers right along the 50% range or might even be in breach right now. It's meant as a tool to shut down the obvious cheaters. I'm fairly positive that is how we'll see it enforced.

[djmk]

This plus any increase in taxation (HST) will drive me away from but the most elite of restaurants.

Seriously, it's like 2 steps forwards, 4 gigantic, idiotic leaps back.

HST will lower alcohol prices. Currently the SST for on booze is 10% plus GST of 5% (total = 15%). This gets lowered to 12% with HST

[BCPhil]

I don't mind the city cracking down on Restaurants that are actually running as bars, but coming up with rules that punish everyone trying to enforce that ideology is pathetic. Can't the city just fine places that are breaking the "spirit" of the law (no pun intended) by being bars instead of restaurants and then let a judge decide. Last time I checked this is a tort society, not a code civil one, we don't need laws mothering every aspect of our lives. It should be a simple mater to bring an offensive restaurant before a judge and let both parties plead their case instead of using draconian methods on everyone to enshrine a principle.

[LeftCoaster]

Can't the city just fine places that are breaking the "spirit" of the law (no pun intended) by being bars instead of restaurants and then let a judge decide. Last time I checked this is a tort society, not a code civil one, we don't need laws mothering every aspect of our lives. It should be a simple mater to bring an offensive restaurant before a judge and let both parties plead their case instead of using draconian methods on everyone to enshrine a principle.

That was my first impression of this new by-law. it seems like a justifable ends but the means to this end is simply asinine.

[Metro-One]

I also have to agree with BC Phil on this, the means of this approach does not justify the ends and I feel it was ill conceived.

[rather_draconian]

Even though this won't really impact me personally, this bylaw is just stupid and is a waste of everyone's time. It really makes me question the priorities of the councillors.

Hopefully, the restauranteurs will fight for an amendment that makes it more reasonable.

[officedweller]

There must be some control freaks at City Hall (is it being run like a strata council?)

Going to play devils advocate on this. This will not prevent anyone ordering a $40meal from ordering a $45 bottle of wine. There are plenty of people that don't order liquor which buys leeway for those that would go reasonably over.

Maybe the restaurant servers won't snear at people who don't order booze.

Wonder if this'll affect participation in Dine-Out Vancouver or cause restaurants to raise their price category for the event?

[mrjauk]

What is the rationale behind making it prohibitively difficult and expensive to get a liquor license in this town? Are the bylaws similar on other Canadian cities? I've lived in a few European cities and liquor laws/bylaws were seemingly non-existent. You want a shot of brandy with that morning espresso, your nearest cafe will be able to provide it for you.

Once again, what is the city's rationale for limiting the number of liquor establishments?

[EdinVan]

I don't mind the city cracking down on Restaurants that are actually running as bars, but coming up with rules that punish everyone trying to enforce that ideology is pathetic. Can't the city just fine places that are breaking the "spirit" of the law (no pun intended) by being bars instead of restaurants and then let a judge decide. Last time I checked this is a tort society, not a code civil one, we don't need laws mothering every aspect of our lives. It should be a simple mater to bring an offensive restaurant before a judge and let both parties plead their case instead of using draconian methods on everyone to enshrine a principle.

The court system is already backed up as it is dealing with more serious matters. The time and cost involved in bringing such matters before a judge is prohibitive, and any wise judge would easily get fed up and tell the City to deal with these problems on its own (eg, by changing by-laws). Also, I don't think that the councillors themselves are to blame for any of this. They're simply responding to concerns from City staff, who are in turn responding to the complaints from business owners (ie, primary liquor establishments).

[duener]

What is the rationale behind making it prohibitively difficult and expensive to get a liquor license in this town? Are the bylaws similar on other Canadian cities? I've lived in a few European cities and liquor laws/bylaws were seemingly non-existent. You want a shot of brandy with that morning espresso, your nearest cafe will be able to provide it for you.

Once again, what is the city's rationale for limiting the number of liquor establishments?

Exactly. The only reason some restaurants are acting like bars is because the city is making it so difficult to obtain liquor licenses for bars to open. There's obviously a demand for more bars in more locations.

The province requires only that food primary establishments sell 50% food in 24 hours. So breakfast and lunch sales increase the food total. This new city bylaw sets the period at 8 hours - only dinner sales. It's just more puritan BS culture left over from the 1930s.

[nova9]

HST will lower alcohol prices. Currently the SST for on booze is 10% plus GST of 5% (total = 15%). This gets lowered to 12% with HST

Oops, you're right. But there are still reasons to be annoyed I guess.

Aren't laws meant to be interpreted? :shrug:

We should really try to give it a bad moniker for use in the public sphere - sorta like how certain groups branded the 'death' tax for the proposed estate tax in the U.S. What stupid name should this law/rule have?

[johnjimbc]

Personally, I'd recommend we not adopt political practices from the US . . . it has a tendency to lead to the worst kind of exaggerations and half-truths or whole-untruths. Couldn't we just argue factual data instead?

;)

[zivan56]

The idea of a "license" to sell liquor is ridiculous in the first place. Especially the idea that some local bureaucrat can nitpick who they want to allow to open a bar and who they don't.
If someone buys/leases a commercial unit that has all the amenities required to be a resturant/bar/lounge, they should be able to just start a business of their choice and serve what they want. After all, we are in a democratic/free market country.

[Distill3d]

Honestly, I have gone to restaurants many times for an appetizer and a beer!

Same here, especially during the hockey season.

This is the stupidest law I've ever, especially considering the cost of a salmon or steak is minimal compared to Batasilolo La Corda Della Briccolina or Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin.

[nova9]

Interestingly, I was at the Wine Room at the Fairmont Chateau Whistler this past weekend to try their Fall prix fixe menu. The 3-course dinner is $39 but if you have the wine pairings, it would be $79. The 3 glasses of wines (amazing btw but besides the point) is more than 50% of the bill - just barely though.

This whole thing really frustrates me as my bottle of malbec usually is more than my meal and all restaurants!

[kylemacmac]

If it was up to me, you'd be able to buy COLD beer and coolers in every corner store and grocery store in the Province....tomorrow.

BC needs Bring Your Own Wine licenses for restaurants.

Also, yeah, this law is mega stupid.

[giallo]

What is the rationale behind making it prohibitively difficult and expensive to get a liquor license in this town? Are the bylaws similar on other Canadian cities? I've lived in a few European cities and liquor laws/bylaws were seemingly non-existent. You want a shot of brandy with that morning espresso, your nearest cafe will be able to provide it for you.

Once again, what is the city's rationale for limiting the number of liquor establishments?

Vancouver lawmakers, and BC lawmakers for that matter, seem to be terrified of alcohol and/or an inebriated public. I think its this remaining residue from the days when BC was a frontier region full of hardcore lumberjack alcoholics. My dad, although never one himself, would tell me stories of his friends that would go up to Prince George or Squamish for three week periods, work and then come back drunk with pockets full of cash ready to kick the shit out of whatever city they returned to.

I blame my parents generation for this current nanny state. ;)

[Distill3d]

BC needs Bring Your Own Wine licenses for restaurants.

Alberta has them, I don't see why BC doesn't, especially given the number of vineyards in this province.

[LeftCoaster]

I thought corking fees were legal in BC?

[SpongeG]

yeah you can bring you own wine to a restaurant in BC a few years now

[GeeCee]

yeah you can bring you own wine to a restaurant in BC a few years now

You sure, sponge?

Article in the globe (yeah, yeah, I know..) from last year:

Banned in B.C. Most provinces, including British Columbia, do not permit patrons to carry their own wine to restaurants. Of the progressive four that do, Quebec and New Brunswick permit it only at restaurants that do not already have liquor licences. The only jurisdictions with licensed restaurants that also allow BYO are Alberta and Ontario.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/bring-your-own-wine-just-dont-forget-your-manners/article1234183/

Also

Corkage (the fee that a restaurant charges if you bring your own wine) is not permitted at all in British Columbia even for wine that was acquired by the customer from a BC Liquor Store. As noted above, the LDB views any wine in a restaurant that was not acquired by the restaurant from the designated government store to be "illicit". There would seem to be absolutely no justification for this rule.

http://www.winelaw.ca/cms/index.php/legal-info-for-the-public/15/24-bc-wine-distribution-part-2-bars-a-restaurants

[nova9]

Except I have brought my own wine and have had them charge me a corkage fee.

Hmmm...

[SpongeG]

yea i've heard that too - they charge you a fee to bring it

I don't drink wine or drink much at all so none of this really bothers me

[raggedy13]

How much is the typical corkage fee?

[nova9]

How much is the typical corkage fee?

I've seen $15 at an average restaurant. Probably more so at higher ones but you wouldn't do it at a higher-end restaurant as they take great care of their wine selection anyway.

[kylemacmac]

City reconsiders liquor bylaw that would have hurt Bono's party

By Gordon Hamilton, Vancouver SunNovember 2, 2009

Diners may not have to worry about being denied a $50 bottle of wine in Vancouver because they only ordered a hamburger.

The City of Vancouver has withdrawn a bylaw that contained a provision limiting alcohol sales to no more than 50 per cent of overall receipts, NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton said Monday.

She said councillors received an e-mail from city staff informing them the bylaw would not be on the agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting. Withdrawing the bylaw means that council will have time to re-consider it, she said.

“Clearly it needs to be re-considered and this gives us the opportunity. I am guessing not too many people are going to want to shut down a restaurant for serving a cheap hamburger and an expensive bottle of wine.”

The bylaw would put virtually every high-end restaurant in the city at risk of being shut down for violating the law. It limits the value of alcohol sales to no more than 50 per cent of all sales over any eight-hour period. The eight-hour limitation would mean lunch sales, where alcohol sales tend to be lower, could not be included to average out dinner sales, where diners might choose a bottle of wine that costs more than their meal.

And dinners like the one rock star Bono held at Vancouver’s Coast Restaurant after U2’s concert here last week, would be illegal.

“Let’s say Bono were to come in and he were to celebrate because it’s the last concert of the tour and he were to order several very expensive bottles of champagne for him and the 12 other people he brought into the restaurant. If the liquor inspector came into the restaurant at that time, then we would have a problem,” said John-Paul Lamb, vice-president of marketing the Glowbal Restaurant Group, owners of the Coast.

Bono’s party was drinking vintage champagne, which generally sells in the $700 to $800 a bottle range.

“You cannot consume that much food to cover it. That’s what everyone is up in arms about,” Lamb said of the bylaw.

Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Association, applauded the decision to reconsider the bylaw. “I think it is bold of them to reconsider it,” he said.

The bylaw prompted a storm of angry reaction after articles in The Vancouver Sun described its potential impact. Anton said the provision slipped by councillors when the new licencing policy for restaurants was approved Oct. 8.

It was to be made law Tuesday. She described the clause restricting the value of sales as an “unintended consequence” of a bylaw that generally was supported by stakeholders for other provisions, such as extending the hours of alcohol service in restaurants. “In this case immediately after the policy was passed it was apparent there was a serious problem with it that no one picked it up on; not industry, not staff and not council,” she said.

ghamilton@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[kylemacmac]

I've seen $15 at an average restaurant. Probably more so at higher ones but you wouldn't do it at a higher-end restaurant as they take great care of their wine selection anyway.

$15 for a bottle of wine? You might as well just buy a bottle of wine at the restaurant. I'm talking about another level of liquor license where the restaurant doesn't serve liquor, but allows people to bring their own. In between unlicensed and licensed. Why not? Many places around the world have restos like this. At a bring your own wine/beer restaurant you never have to pay a corkage fee, and it usually makes for a cheap, drunk, night out.

[delboy]

City reconsiders liquor bylaw that would have hurt Bono's party

By Gordon Hamilton, Vancouver SunNovember 2, 2009

Diners may not have to worry about being denied a $50 bottle of wine in Vancouver because they only ordered a hamburger.

The City of Vancouver has withdrawn a bylaw that contained a provision limiting alcohol sales to no more than 50 per cent of overall receipts, NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton said Monday.

She said councillors received an e-mail from city staff informing them the bylaw would not be on the agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting. Withdrawing the bylaw means that council will have time to re-consider it, she said.

“Clearly it needs to be re-considered and this gives us the opportunity. I am guessing not too many people are going to want to shut down a restaurant for serving a cheap hamburger and an expensive bottle of wine.”

The bylaw would put virtually every high-end restaurant in the city at risk of being shut down for violating the law. It limits the value of alcohol sales to no more than 50 per cent of all sales over any eight-hour period. The eight-hour limitation would mean lunch sales, where alcohol sales tend to be lower, could not be included to average out dinner sales, where diners might choose a bottle of wine that costs more than their meal.

And dinners like the one rock star Bono held at Vancouver’s Coast Restaurant after U2’s concert here last week, would be illegal.

“Let’s say Bono were to come in and he were to celebrate because it’s the last concert of the tour and he were to order several very expensive bottles of champagne for him and the 12 other people he brought into the restaurant. If the liquor inspector came into the restaurant at that time, then we would have a problem,” said John-Paul Lamb, vice-president of marketing the Glowbal Restaurant Group, owners of the Coast.

Bono’s party was drinking vintage champagne, which generally sells in the $700 to $800 a bottle range.

“You cannot consume that much food to cover it. That’s what everyone is up in arms about,” Lamb said of the bylaw.

Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Association, applauded the decision to reconsider the bylaw. “I think it is bold of them to reconsider it,” he said.

The bylaw prompted a storm of angry reaction after articles in The Vancouver Sun described its potential impact. Anton said the provision slipped by councillors when the new licencing policy for restaurants was approved Oct. 8.

It was to be made law Tuesday. She described the clause restricting the value of sales as an “unintended consequence” of a bylaw that generally was supported by stakeholders for other provisions, such as extending the hours of alcohol service in restaurants. “In this case immediately after the policy was passed it was apparent there was a serious problem with it that no one picked it up on; not industry, not staff and not council,” she said.

ghamilton@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Thank god! It does appear that we have more sensible people on city council these days. A few years ago this would have been approved. Given how expensive booze here, it would be difficult to keep evening sales of food and booze on par. If my wife and I have a couple of drinks each with dinner, it's not uncommon for the bill to be more booze than food. Especailly if places are open later, people are more inclined to order a couple of appies with drinks rather than big meals.

[nova9]

$15 for a bottle of wine? You might as well just buy a bottle of wine at the restaurant. I'm talking about another level of liquor license where the restaurant doesn't serve liquor, but allows people to bring their own. In between unlicensed and licensed. Why not? Many places around the world have restos like this. At a bring your own wine/beer restaurant you never have to pay a corkage fee, and it usually makes for a cheap, drunk, night out.

I imply that I only do it at restaurants where I know I wouldn't want to order their wine, there are plenty of them that have really inadequate wine lists.

But this rarely occurs. And NEVER at a high-end restaurant or at regular service (or at a chain restaurant, that's just douchey). I'm not that person but sometimes, you just have your own favourite that they don't have or you are honoring someone with their favourite wine. It happens.

I've also had cake cutting fees if you bring in your own cake. That's pretty standard.

[SpongeG]

good news

[kylemacmac]

I've also had cake cutting fees if you bring in your own cake. That's pretty standard.

Seriously? Is the cake cutting fee taxable?

[officedweller]

I know - it's brutal - like $3.00 a slice or something like that.
If there are 20 people there for the party, it gets way too expensive - may as well just buy one slice from the restaurant for the birthday person.

[SpongeG]

thats crazy

I also heard that the 1 hour extension the city approved is now on hold too? thats no good

[rather_draconian]

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20091102_220543_7116

It sounds like the food/wine proportion was a bylaw that was somehow affiliated with the one to extend liquor hours, and since they have cancelled a meeting to discuss the former, the latter won't be passed?

This city is so retarded...in quite a literal sense.

[nova9]

I know - it's brutal - like $3.00 a slice or something like that.
If there are 20 people there for the party, it gets way too expensive - may as well just buy one slice from the restaurant for the birthday person.

what i've never dared to ask though is if i could pre-order their desserts so when they bake them, they'll just keep one or 2 full non-sliced cakes. has anyone ever done that?

[delboy]

Looks like we are good to go without the 50 50 rule. Thank god!

http://www.straight.com/article-270301/vancouver/protest-alters-liquor-bylaw

[GeeCee]

The dumb 50% bylaw is out, the extended hours is in!

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20091124_013138_6632

[Yume-sama]

Hmmm, why does it frighten me that common sense is prevailing?

[raggedy13]

Great news!

[giallo]

Hmmm, why does it frighten me that common sense is prevailing?

Hehe, yeah. Talk about a 180.

[ozonemania]

The dumb 50% bylaw is out, the extended hours is in!

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20091124_013138_6632From the above article: "under the new rules restaurants must offer the full menu while booze is being served"

Wow, I love this. Common sense. And Simple.

[Robynobotica]

I apologize if I missed it earlier, but why was the 50/50 rule created in the first place? Whose brilliant idea was it? What was their reasoning, anyway? Because places like Section 3 feel more like bars than restaurants after 11pm? Liquor laws in Vancouver are so archaic, everyone agrees on that. However, why do the archaic liquor laws still exist if the general public disapproves? Who are they pandering to? Police or vocal citizens?

[Hed Kandi]

Temporary bylaw would expand liquor hours, ban some ads during Games
Proposed changes, made after public backlash to original plan, go to city council Tuesday
Kelly Sinoski

Sun



Olympic spectators will be able to drink alcohol at pubs and on patios late into the night seven days a week, make more noise and take a rickshaw down pedestrian corridors during the 2010 Olympic Games.

But those hoping to make a buck during the Games with illegal commercial advertising, street-vending without a permit in Olympic zones or sharing single-room hotels, will face a minimum $250 fine as the city ramps up its municipal ticket enforcement.

Those are just some of the temporary changes being proposed by City of Vancouver staff in a revised 2010 Olympic Winter Games bylaw that will go before city council Tuesday.

The bylaw, initially approved in July, proposes temporary adjustments to 10 city bylaws during the Games, including relaxing noise and liquor service hours and cracking down on illegal commercial advertising, graffiti and littering.

The changes arose after a public backlash over concerns that the bylaw would unfairly restrict freedom of political expression.

To resolve this, the city proposes to crack down only on commercial advertising.

It would have the power to remove illegal commercial signs -- or ambush marketing -- in as little as one day, if it has the owners' consent or a court warrant.

The aim is to have the fines act as a deterrent to keep the city attractive to tourists and investors while ensuring the value of Games sponsorship.

"Someone can make a lot of money selling advertising for five days during the Games," said Coun. Geoff Meggs.

"We want to make sure they won't profit."

Illegal non-commercial signs -- including ones containing negative messages about the Games -- would be removed under the existing bylaw process, which could take up to 30 days, unless they pose a safety risk.

Meggs said the initial bylaw was passed as an "insurance policy" but people were not satisfied with the city's explanation at that time.

"Our intention is to be a good host for the Olympics. We have to be proactive in managing the Games properly," he said.

"The city was never intending to kick down a door and take down a fridge magnet ... or tear off their T-shirts. But obviously there was a concern."

The proposed changes would see weekend liquor services for bars and restaurants seven days a week, meaning pubs and restaurants could be open until 2 or 3 a.m. from Feb. 8-28, although licensees will still need approval from the provincial liquor control branch.

The city has also proposed to amend the daytime noise bylaw between Feb. 11 and 28, coinciding with the torch relay and increased activity downtown, and to put into place a plan to quickly eliminate graffiti in high-visibility locations -- at taxpayers' expense -- between Feb. 1 and March 28.

Twenty rickshaws would also be allowed on pedestrian corridors as an "additional sustainable transportation option," complementing 60 pedicabs.

But they, along with the pedicabs, must have a permit or risk a fine.

About 60 city engineers, park rangers, fire officials and community service workers will be deployed to enforce city bylaws, including street advertising, street-vending without a permit and failure to clear snow and ice off the streets.

"The speed with which the city addresses bylaw violations during the Games will be critical to ensure safety and enjoyment of the residents and visitors," according to the city report.

Meanwhile, the city suggests restricting the area of the security zone in Coal Harbour and increasing security around Robson Square, now the official provincial government venue. It will also permanently increase the fine for violations of the fire bylaw to a maximum of $10,000.

David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Society, said he's pleased with the changes although he's concerned about the potential impact on street vendors and those setting up shelters along Hastings Street, which has been dubbed an Olympic zone.

"What we're concerned about is the ability of people to hold signs and chant," he said. "The Olympics are like any other day in Vancouver."

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[SpongeG]

i wonder how many street vendors will show up in town hawking useless crap

[Yume-sama]

or sharing single-room hotels

How exactly do they intend to police this :P? I don't really see a problem with it...

"Someone can make a lot of money selling advertising for five days during the Games," said Coun. Geoff Meggs.

"We want to make sure they won't profit."

Because God forbid someone try to profit on the back of the Olympics?

Twenty rickshaws would also be allowed on pedestrian corridors as an "additional sustainable transportation option," complementing 60 pedicabs.

Sustainable until the poor guys knee gives out from carting tubby tourists around.

"What we're concerned about is the ability of people to hold signs and chant," he said. "The Olympics are like any other day in Vancouver."

Because God forbid somebody try to use free speech? :P

I don't know, this is one where I'll semi-agree with the protesters that they are taking the police state a bit far.

What will they do when someone hangs a large anti-Olympic banner off of the balcony of their own condo? Burst in, jail them, and remove the banner?

[flight_from_kamakura]

my friends and i are looking at hosting a bunch of dance parties and gallery events during these two weeks, and there's some worry that the city will bust them all up for whatever reason. i just hope you don't have people getting fined for otherwise legitimate postering or handing out bills or whatever, and i especially hope that they don't try to shut down one-off events to 'protect the value' of these corporate folks' investments (considering there's nearly no risk of client overlap).

[Yume-sama]

I don't think you're allowed to be handing out things. This is why those people won't be allowed to badger you with their newspaper at every second corner.