So, About That Early Sneak Peek at Proposed Lower Greenville Ordinance ...

By Robert Wilonsky Tue., Jul. 13 2010 at 6:00 PM

Categories: City Hall, News, Real Estate

Pin It

Travels.com

... turns out, it was already out-of-date.

Council member Angela Hunt just sent us the latest iteration of the proposed ordinance that would turn Lower Greenville into a Planned Development District. And though much of it's the same as Avi's copy, which dates back to April, the new version (so new it's dated tomorrow) has one rather significant change. As in: The section outlawing "alcoholic beverage establishments" and businesses with "commercial amusement (inside)" even if they have specific use permits has been eliminated.

Says Hunt via e-mail, "Eliminating all bars is not the purpose of this ordinance -- it's to have input into the businesses operating after midnight."

Also gone: that part about needing "double doors for restaurants and late-hours establishments." Why? Why not. The new version follows. Revised Lower Greenville Ordinance Proposal

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

I understand the worries about the crime and thug crowds that have crept in to the area. I've been a bartender at the Winedale Tavern for the last two and a half years. The problem I have with this proposal, is how difficult it is going to make business for us and the handful of others who do NOT contribute to the problems in the neighborhood. Our occupancy is 49 for cryin out loud! Nobody offered us an option to acquire a "special use permit" to allow our patrons to smoke in the bar when the initiative came down..even though we and those like us are not restaurant style places. Say what you want about the old, semi dusty dive bar down the street..but we are certainly NOT your destination if you plan to have a tofu burger and be in shape for your yoga class the next day. If this proposal, as is goes into effect, it will make operating in this neighborhood nigh upon impossible. And for those critics who would say "So what? Just another old dirty bar down the drain that contributes nothing to our way of life." I would like to point out that we have faithfully gathered donations from our customers to benefit active duty soldiers over the last year and a half. As covered in the article... http://www.redongreenville.com/2010/04/neighborhood-bar-supports-neighborhood.html I am going to post the letter than my lovely fiancee (who is mentioned in this article) wrote to the council members just today.. Ms. Hunt: I live in a Lower Greenville neighborhood and though I am currently a legal professional in North Dallas, I worked on Lower Greenville off and on for 6 years. The neighborhood is very near and dear to my heart and I completely respect the businesses that operate within the area. I am writing because I believe, though I'm sure created with honorable intentions, the Ordinance you and Pauline Medrano have proposed to the rezone the neighborhood in order to "fix Lower Greenville" is misguided and will only prove to be harmful to the establishments that are already struggling due to the economic downturn. Requiring additional permits and fees will surely add to their financial burdens and, for many, lead to the demise of their long time businesses. In addition, in these tough financial times that have led to employment reductions and furloughs, I cannot imagine the City of Dallas and the State of Texas would benefit from the loss of revenues should bars and "late night establishments" have to shut their doors. As any local resident, I am concerned about crime and property damage and would support proposals to address the occasional rowdiness associated with particular late night establishments. However, I do not believe that imposing blanketed pressure and sanctions on every bar, due to isolated incidents at a few locations, will not rationally solve the issue you seek to address, and will only hurt the local economy. There are already many locals who are out of jobs due to the fire at the Terilli's block. I would hate to see many more unemployed and long time businesses fail in our wonderful, historic entertainment district. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing your ideas and the ideas of the public at the meeting on July 29. Sincerely, Cynthia M. Olson Resident of District 14
Jay, I don't know. I don't know how somebody can make those two contradictory statements; I certainly didn't. I didn't say that LG is "more dangerous" than Uptown. The statistics (as posted by Jim S recently) bear out that Uptown is more dangerous, at least per acre. What I did say is that LG has become a a magnet for a criminal element. It creates an atmosphere of menace and high-decibel hooliganism that you simply won't find in Oak Lawn or in Uptown. That last paragraph is strictly subjective, of course. I'd be delighted to switch houses with you some Saturday night so that you could bring some solid mathematical reasoning to bear on the matter. Hey, Cam can come too, I've got two crappers. Let's do it real soon!
Daniel, Jay's got a point. your statement doesn't make you sound very bright at all. Just prove your point ..that's all we're asking
How can someone say that they don't care about the number of crimes committed per acre on Greenville vs. Uptown/OakLawn etc...then go on to say that Greenville is "more dangerous" regardless of what this number might be? (by the way what is it? I don't know) I don't get it. It either is, or isn't more (or substantially more dangerous). Your feeling that it is doesn't contravene facts and crime statistics...Just because you call the patrons "thugs" doesn't mean you get to ignore statistics showing those thugs are/aren't actually committing any crime... @Daniel - please explain I don't understand how that makes sense in your head.
There are several spots along Ross where it would not be next to a house...BTW I have a longtime friend on Euclid.
Hey Lakewooder - Let's put a parking garage in front of YOUR house. Not mine.
Heres the thing w/ Lowest Greenville: It's become what Deep Ellum was around five years ago, which is to say thug clubs opening up in existing spaces and bringing in the hoods. The sad thing is, unlike Deep Ellum where the both us neighbors and business owners joined forces to ask for SUPs to be enabled and enforced, is that people like Avi has griped, alienated and pissed off quite a few of the club/business owners, who understandably would decline to work with him or others on LGNA/Belmont. While I respect Avi's right to his opinion, I have to question if his and others actions and rhetoric brought us to this point accordingly...
If the city or some beneficent organization built a parking garge west of Lower Greenville around, behind or near the old Arcadia location it would also serve Henderson Avenue. We could kill two birds with one stone (this might also be accomplished with a trolley/party bus making a loop from Mockingbird Station). Any parking solution for Greenville should also take Henderson into consideration since they are merging into one entertainment district near Ross Avenue.
I submit that cars parked on residential streets is not the problem per se. Rampant drunkenness and crime is the problem. People congregating, en masse, in what few parking lots there are and having a Gangster Wannabe party -- complete with blaring music, reliable fistfights and periodic gunplay -- is the problem. I don't care how many crimes per acre are committed in LG as compared to Uptown. The fact is, LG has become the weekend destination for an unmistakably criminal element. (And the inevitable asshole who will post a comment claiming this observation stems from my being nervous around non-whites can kiss my ass; I've lived in minority-white neighborhoods most of my adult life, by choice. You?) I thought Avi A was way out of line ten years ago (and I was living in the area, no less, then as now), but I've come more and more around to his point of view. Whether he's a jerk or not is immaterial -- he may be, but he's also right for the most part.
So, DallasM, the real choice is: do I want bars in Greenville or do I want even more cars parking on the residential streets off Greenville?
I've been out of the loop for a while, but who is asking for this? Is there something wrong with Lower Greenville? I kind of like it just the way it is, with police pepper spray and all.
to DallasM I think you have your timeline backwards. The parking requirements were imposed in the late 1970s, way before there were any bars. The problem with the bars is that they are NOT bars. They claim to be Restaurants, which has a specific parking requirement which is achievable since the use of the property from the 70s (for the majority) has not changed in legal terms. If they filed as bars, they would never get a CO or meet the higher parking standard for the area. Parking is golden down here - that's why $50 to park is getting to be the new normal.
DavidWilson, Right now, the Lower Greenville parking requirements are the worst in the city. You're right that it's the building owners who manage the parking, and that is where the problems start. All of the bars were grandfathered into the plan before the parking requirements were set. If a building owner wanted to kick out the bar and lease out his building for another use, like a restaurant or a store, the owner would have to supply the full parking requirement for the new use. That would mean, demolishing the building next door and paving the lot. That is far too expensive. It makes far more sense for the building owner to just keep the bar there with the parking it has. If the city dramatically lowered the number of parking spaces required for a business in lower Greenville, then the owners could kick out their low rent paying tenets without fear of loosing their parking "delta credits". Nothing else would change, there would still need to be valets, but there would be fewer bars -which would mean fewer motorcycles and fewer drunk SMU students.
To DallasM Why or how would changed parking requirements make a difference? Very few businesses control their own parking lots (eg own the space). The parking is controlled by the valets, who are owned by the property owners. Every space is really parked times 1.5 cars. All of your suggestions would require free parking spaces, none of which exist in such large numbers as to make any difference in what happens on Saturday night. And the city already requires landscaping - but it's not ever been enforced and probably won't be anytime soon.
I would still like to see parking requirements dropped significantly for Lower Greenville. Right now, Greenville has the most complicated parking requirements in the city. That is why there are so many bars on Greenville. All of the bars were grandfathered into the code. If any new business or restaurant wants to come in, they have to meet the cities full parking requirements, which is just impossible. Dramatically drop the parking requirements, remove the pull in parking spaces and replace them with parallel parking, set a standard width for the side walk, and require landscaping. Then you will see the area get better as more building owners will now be able to lease to more profitable businesses without having to buy 10 additional acres to pave a parking lot.