On the next ATC permit hearing agenda: Mesa: A Collaborative Kitchen and Match Cigar Bar.

Local board hearings for Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission business (for the most part, new permits and renewals) are held on the first Tuesday of each month to 1:00 p.m. The hearings take place in the 3rd floor meeting room at the City-County Building.

The next Floyd County hearing is April 4, and so far there are two items of interest on the agenda. Both pertain to riverfront development area (three-way) permits.

Match Cigar Bar has been mentioned previously here. The space at 216 Pearl Street, longtime home to Petery-Hedden Co., has been under construction for a few weeks.

Puertas Abiertas, LLC
RR2233203 Beer Wine & Liquor - Riverfront
DBA: MESA A Collaborative Kitchen
216 Pearl Street
New Albany IN 47150

That's all I have on Mesa, and I'm just as curious as you.

(Thanks to Jeff F. for this update)

FROM LINKED IN: COMING SOON...MESA is a state-of-the-art collaborative kitchen, featuring demonstrations by established and aspiring chefs from Southern Indiana and Louisville. The collaborative space offers cooking demonstrations and also houses a bookstore, to-go cooking dinners and a boutique filled with kitchen essentials. With the emerging and dynamic restaurant scene in the area, MESA will become the culinary hub for Kentuckiana’s highly talented chef population to come and share their love for food with the public — and each other. Guests purchase seats to the respective classes online. During each class, they are provided with beverage pairings by MESA that complement the chef’s menu. Chefs prepare and demonstrate 3 to 5 courses in front of the guests, all the while explaining the process, answering questions and engaging with guests.

ON THE AVENUES: Key events in the New Albanian rebirth, but first, a piccolo of grappa, per favore.

ON THE AVENUES: Key events in the New Albanian rebirth, but first, a piccolo of grappa, per favore.

A weekly column by Roger A. Baylor.

In a recent piece about forward progress in downtown New Albany, the Courier-Journal’s Bailey Loosemore makes an attribution, and with the reader’s forbearance, I’d like to begin today by offering a gentle corrective to what strikes me as a significant omission – actually, two of them.

“Five years after the commission's creation, (David) Barksdale and commercial realtor Mike Kopp approached the city with an idea for attracting new restaurants to those now preserved buildings.”

Specifically, the idea in question refers to the Riverfront Development District, a concept minted by the state of Indiana, and conveniently defined by our compatriots in South Bend.

I hear that it is possible to apply for a 3-way license in parts of Downtown South Bend that only costs $1,000. Is this true?

Yes, within the boundaries of the defined Municipal Riverfront Development District.

What is a Municipal Riverfront Development District (District)?

A district where 3-way licenses are made available to eligible establishments for $1,000 as a way to spur development near a river.

How did South Bend find a way to create this District?

A piece of state legislation made it available and the Common Council approved the District and with the goal of spurring development in the District.

When I first read Loosemore’s piece, something quickly began nagging at me, but I couldn’t pin it down until a good friend reminded me that Paul Wheatley was New Albany’s economic development director in 2006. These days he’s a private development consultant.

I wrote to him seeking clarification.

“Paul, I was thinking back to 2006, when you were still in New Albany and the riverfront development district was passed. Obviously, those alcohol permits have been crucial. Was this something with which economic development guys like you were widely familiar at the time? I'm curious as to how the process got started. Ten years later, I remain shocked that our city council at the time passed it unanimously. It may have been that particular group's single greatest achievement.”

Wheatley’s reply:

“If you want to know the truth, I patterned it almost 100% off the district that Dave Duggins and Phil McCauley set up in Jeffersonville. We used the TIF District and the Historic District as the boundary area (which had to stay within 2500 feet of the river). It’s been really neat to see all the entrepreneurs take advantage of this incentive over the years. The special district + YMCA + Steve Resch (and others) has really turned the tide.”

Mind you, I’m not suggesting that the impetus for the riverfront development district didn’t emanate in some fashion from Barksdale and Kopp, only that Wheatley deserves his measure of recognition for drafting the legislation and leading the effort to get this measure through the under-achieving labyrinth of a council often hostile to any initiative undertaken by Mayor James Garner.

This is the second point of importance.

In 2006, Garner was this city’s mayor. Because the riverfront development district didn’t come into wide use until 2008 and beyond, casual observers tend to associate it with Doug England, but while England certainly supported the district once he returned to office, the commemorative plaque in this instance must go to his predecessor.

Facts are pesky little critters, aren’t they?

---

Frankly, it’s astounding that Loosemore was able to write an article about New Albany without serial photo-bomber Irv Stumler inviting himself into the narrative – tossing his own peculiar word salad, pontificating about city life from Peterbilt’s unique perspective, and positioning himself in direct chronological contrast with the story's header: New Albany's rebirth attracts young residents.

I’ve been speculating about what Irv will do when the streets finally run both directions. Will he accept the will of the voters (on the Board of Works, at least), and make a clean, orderly transition to two-way traffic, or continue to drive as before, eastbound in the westbound and down, attired in camouflage, one hand on the wheel and the other shaking a grubby penciled–in petition from the driver’s side window?

But I digress.

Loosemore identities "three key events in the city's history that most New Albanians agree led to the downtown's rebirth," and let me be the first to congratulate her for using the term New Albanian.

Gee, I wonder who coined it?

• 2000: The creation of the New Albany Historic Preservation Commission.
• 2006: David Barksdale and commercial realtor Mike Kopp's idea to establish a riverfront development district, "which allowed restaurants within three blocks of a waterway to purchase three-way liquor licenses for $1,000."
• 2008: The Floyd County Family YMCA opened its doors.

Assuming most New Albanians agree on these key events, which almost certainly isn’t the case, it is noteworthy that the first one occurred on Regina Overton’s watch, and the other two as a result of Garner’s advocacy.

In turn, this is why the gauging of legacies can take a little time.

There’s something else: The most recent “key” event occurred eight years ago. Hasn’t anything of importance happened since then?

I’ll nominate three; feel free to disagree.

1. Two-way streets. They’ll have been stripped of many potentially valuable features and taken far too long to implement, but at this point anything will help.

2. The sale of Floyd Memorial Hospital. While this has nothing whatever to do with city government, county government receiving nutrients again after a decade-long, self-imposed starvation diet is bound to affect the city. The outcome might even be positive.

3. Matt Chalfant’s new building at 137 East Spring. It is small, and the palatial “luxury” pressboard of Break Wind Lofts at Duggins Flats will get all the ink, but Chalfant’s unsubsidized infill is a far better measure of success in terms of market forces and entrepreneurial flair.

I tried fitting the dog park in there somewhere. Square pegs, round holes – you know.

---

As I write, the election is 19 days away, but it’s the third Tuesday in November currently holding my rapt attention.

The Green Mouse has been told by multiple sources that the most likely date for a final Board of Works vote on whether to accept Option B – the return of two way traffic on Bank, Pearl, Market, Spring and Elm – is Tuesday, November 15.

(Warren Nash wants us to know that just because the federal money is in the bag, bidding dates set and construction schedules carved on a stone tablet, it’s an insult for Irv to suggest the decision has been made. Couldn’t we trade both Warren and Irv to Birdseye for a Bud Light Lime-powered canine shampooing station to be named later?)

It’s all fairly clear to me: If my karma will indulge me, Trump will lose, two-way streets will win … and then we'll go to Sicily over the Thanksgiving holiday to clink wine glasses and devour the grilled sardine pasta I mentioned last week.

The respite will be short, but no less appreciated for its brevity. By January, the coffee break will be over, and we'll be back on our heads.

---

October 13: ON THE AVENUES: They're coming to take me away.

October 6: ON THE AVENUES: His nose knows tolls and polls (2010).

September 29: ON THE AVENUES 3-PK, PART THREE: Survey says … Irv’s street grid agitprop won’t be putting Diogenes out of work any time soon.

September 29: ON THE AVENUES 3-PK, PART TWO: Inkem binkem notamus rex, protect us all from the city (still) with the hex (2014).

Bob Caesar: Opposes traffic calming, but wants to see kids "walking out on the street."

Way back in August of 2011, we were graced with one of those cherished reminders that Bob Caesar's thinking trends inexorably toward sheer befuddlement.

Expansion could lead to more liquor licenses in New Albany

 ... Councilman Bob Caesar said he will likely vote in favor of expanding the district, but added city planners and officials should be wary of the state’s intentions for approving the riverfront licensing program. He added that while he’s not opposed to patrons safely enjoying an alcoholic beverage, he believes the “city wants to see families with their kids walking out on the street.”

Concurrently, then as now, Caesar opposes two-way streets, which among other positives act to calm traffic, making it safer for ... that's right ... for families and their kids walking out on the street, though perhaps he meant "on the sidewalk."

That's because Caesar's jollies derive from traffic merrily racing from one side of town to the other, better to make it out the opposite end before their texting session concludes. The hypocrisy probably hasn't occurred to him, not even once.

Then again, confusion is Caesar's default condition.

“The need here is restaurants, not more bars,” Caesar said. “This was done so that restaurants could serve liquor, that’s what you want. It does no good at all to have bars that can serve a bratwurst.”

Bars without food? Even a drunkist like me finds this notion bizarre. Perhaps it depends on whether the bratwurst is locally sourced.

Random 2013 Platform Goals 4: Incentivize diverse grassroots design, not top-down beige-think.

Roughly a thousand years ago at NAC, we started talking about measures aimed at making New Albany a more appealing place to live, both for those already residing here, and for others who might choose to relocate.

Of course, the very first task required of us was to disregard the nattering nabobs of naysaying, those lifelong local residents convinced that since they, themselves, have been congenitally incapable of accomplishment and unable to articulate substantive differences, no one else should be permitted to try to do so, either.

Ideas we’ve floated have ranged from a political culture capable of grasping basic scientific principles, to taking seriously the city’s own rules that pertain to human habitation. They’ve included notions like complete streets and clear structural support for bikes and walkers, public art and the insanely simple suggestion that having garbage cans available to receive trash just might keep some of it off the street.

What I’ve come back to repeating over and over during recent years is whether any active measures pertaining to a contemporary aesthetic, i.e., the nature or art, or designs for public spaces, can be entrusted to anyone who already is convinced that he or she is a community pillar.

Quite clearly, the answer has been no, because from the discredited plan for River View to Caesar’s Folly (Rent Boy Park, et al), we’ve seen a stunning absence of creativity among those with post-war childhoods. White bread might be ideal to construct a PBJ for a five-year-old, but it has no place in community space.

For instance, consider New Albany Clean & Green’s plan to place identical planters on multiple downtown street corners, and then, having imposed a specific design blueprint like this on the varied downtown streetscape, turn next to business owners and mercilessly hector them to help maintain placements they had no say in designing.

As we’ve asked again and again: Why must things like this always be applied top-down by folks who otherwise claim to support individual initiative?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to consider a proven and successful idea like the Urban Enterprise Association’s façade grant program and apply its 50/50 principle to beautification?

Why not let businesses come up with their own plan for flowers, trees, planters or other “green” applications, and have Clean and Green coordinate a bundle of grants to help with costs? Wouldn’t this allow for more individualized design flair, and also provide the businesses with an incentive to maintain their own placements?

Arguably the most successful act of downtown revitalization to date was the city council’s enactment in 2006 of the riverfront development area, enabling a less restrictive regime of state alcoholic beverage permits, and resulting in a diverse downtown “food and drink court” of international flair, which in turn has provided impetus for building restorations and hundreds of visitors more than before.

Note that this measure appealed to entrepreneurial self-interest and provided a solid reason to invest without once stipulating which beers were to be poured or the type fish destined for frying. The same principle might be leveraged to promote more retail, loft housing, public art and … yes … even beautification.

The key? It’s prying design considerations from the leaden hand of the “father knows best,” beige-rules crowd.

Anyone with ideas about how to do that? Let us know. It’s actually rather important.

The nightmare scenario: Weapons of mass pub grub destruction.

(Feast BBQ is going into the old Shirl-Ray's spot across from the YMCA. To learn more, visit their Facebook page)

If you derive a sense of hope or contentment from downtown New Albany's burgeoning concentration of restaurants, it helps to understand that these considerable investments so very crucial to revitalization probably could not have been leveraged without the "tool" of specially designated, off-quota, $1,000 three-way (beer, wine, spirits) alcohol permits.

In turn, these have been made possible by the city's establishment of a riverfront development district, the mechanism described in Daniel Suddeath's piece below. As a more specialized brewery-restaurant, Bank Street Brewhouse certainly could have made do with a two-way (beer and wine) permit, but for other eatery start-ups, a riverfront three-way might easily be the deciding factor in whether to invest or invest downtown -- and the city need not spend $12-18 million in encouragement.

The city council is being asked by the city to expand the size of the development district, extending it into the west end. All along, the Green Mouse has said that the prime reason for the proposal was to enable an inexpensive three-way for the Holiday Inn Express, which Dan Coffey (among others) has been wary of facilitating, but now it appears that the hotel has its own means of exemption from the quota. As it stands, the district's widening could lead to greater start-up possibilities in an area that needs them.

Now, the case in opposition is being made by Jack Messer, outgoing council member and mayoral hopeful. Frankly I find Messer's position, as stated here, to be confusing (at best) and caterwauling (at worst). For starters, in a legislative sense, exactly how do we distinguish between "just pub food" and the presumably superior grade of food served at a "real" restaurant? Yes, I surely believe in varying grades of culinary attainment, but gazing upon the faces inhabiting the current council, is it a judgment any of them are qualified to make?

Furthermore, it seems we've already covered this ground: Believe it or not, the state of Indiana already has considered the issue of permittee cuisine, and one cannot possess a "by the drink" alcohol permit of any sort without agreeing to have foodstuffs on site, ready to prepare and serve. As you can see, the state's definition of food is poetically minimalist:

The Commission will, hereafter, require that the retail permittee be prepared to serve a food menu to consist of not less than the following:

Hot soups.
Hot sandwiches.
Coffee and milk.
Soft drinks.

Hereafter, retail permittees will be equipped and prepared to serve the foregoing foods or more in a sanitary manner as required by law.

Given these considerations, what is Messer trying to say? For the purposes of any potential permittee seeking his or her license according to the stipulations of the riverfront development district, what is the difference insofar as policing ramifications between the beverage alcohol served at La Bocca and Hugh E. Bir's?

And, if there is a difference, hasn't the state already ruled in detail as to the legal requirements of a permittee? What does this have to do with policing? Obviously, the state clearly has made this determination, and accordingly, isn't it Messer's responsibility to explain what further safeguards he personally requires in order to vote in favor of the district's expansion, and not City Hall's job to somehow "prove" to him that it's a good idea?

Jack, if you're reading, can you explain? Thank you.

Do you lose with more booze? ... Messer, Coffey wary of impact of more liquor licenses

A proposal to extend the city’s riverfront development district to allow more liquor licenses to be sold will likely be weighed in committee at least one more time before the New Albany City Council takes final votes on the measure ...

... In September, the proposal passed the first of three votes by an 8-1 count before it was tabled for committee review. Messer voted against the ordinance, as he said some assurances need to be made to ensure a slew of bars don’t open.

Quality restaurants can benefit a community, but allowing multiple bars to open downtown under the guise of selling pub food can be detrimental to public safety and create a “nightmare” for police, said Messer who is a New Albany policeman.

“I’m not open to expanding what we’ve got until we find out what benefit it’s going to produce,” Messer said last week.

Hey, bartender, how old is that bean soup in the freezer bags?

The lawyers can correct me on this one, but my reading of Indiana's ridiculously huge collection of statutes pertaining to beverage alcohol -- regrettably, soon I'll no longer be able to compare it to a phone book because phone books are becoming as obsolete as Indiana's approach to beverage alcohol regulation -- uncovers only two sections pertaining to food on licensed premises.

This matters only because last night, New Albany's city council voted 8-1 in favor on the first reading of an ordinance to expand the boundaries of the city's riverfront development area westward. Think of it as the Holiday Inn Express Law, and note that I'm in favor of doing it, and furthermore believe the scope of the state's enabling legislation should be expanded to require inexpensive three-way permits be issued to any acreage adjacent to a church, without exception.

In short, riverfront development areas constitute exemptions to the quota, and make possible inexpensive three-way permits. In the run-up to last evening's vote, there was much discussion about booze versus food, and the desirability of restaurants as opposed to bars. Council member and mayoral candidate Jack Messer voted against the expansion, citing public safety concerns relating to the fearsome possibility that dive bars will proliferate.

But as the Indiana State Police already has proven with its incessant poaching over the past few years, the availability of food at targeted establishments makes no difference whatsoever.

In fact, all licensed establishments are compelled by law to offer food. As I suggested earlier this week, past judgments by visiting ATC officers have included the advice that an unopened package of weenies in a freezer compartment is sufficient to meet the requirement. Whether this is right, wrong or indifferent, it's still a matter for the ATC to enforce, and not local cops. I doubt the constitutional veracity of any city council effort to add food requirements to those already in existence, although I'd cherish the sight of council members with clipboards poking their noses into kitchens.

I cannot find any reference to food sales percentages, which I believe formerly were part of the system when it came to Sunday opening hours, and later were discarded when regulations were made slightly more reasonable (Hoosier fundamentalism precludes universal reasonableness owing to something Moses once said). There remains an obligation for some licensees to report food/alcohol percentages on the annual renewal application, although my understanding is this applies to the existence of separation in barrooms and family rooms, i.e., how under-21-year-olds and over-21-year-olds co-exist (or do not) in proximity.

However, I'm a publican, not an attorney, and surely I'm missing an esoteric something or three here, so please correct me if you find it. Following are the two ATC regs I found mentioning food:

IC 7.1-3-20-9
Restaurants; general requirements
Sec. 9. Restaurants: General Requirements.
In order to be considered a "restaurant" within the meaning of this title and to be eligible to receive an appropriate restaurant permit under this title, an establishment shall meet the following requirements: (a) It shall be provided with special space and accommodations where, in consideration of payment, food, without lodging, is habitually furnished to travelers; and, (b) It shall have accommodations at which at least twenty-five (25) persons may be served at one (1) time.
(Formerly: Acts 1973, P.L.55, SEC.1.)


905 IAC 1-20-1
Minimum menu requirements
Authority: IC 7.1-2-3-7; IC 7.1-3-24-1
Affected: IC 7.1-3-20-9
Sec. 1. Under the qualification requiring that a retail permittee to sell alcoholic beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises must be the proprietor of a restaurant located, and being operated, on the premises described in the application of the permittee; and under the definition of a "restaurant" as "any establishment provided with special space and accommodations where, in consideration of payment, food without lodging is habitually furnished to travelers,"–and "wherein at least twenty-five (25) persons may be served at one time;" the Commission will, hereafter, require that the retail permittee be prepared to serve a food menu to consist of not less than the following:

Hot soups.
Hot sandwiches.
Coffee and milk.
Soft drinks.


Hereafter, retail permittees will be equipped and prepared to serve the foregoing foods or more in a sanitary manner as required by law.

(Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; Reg 36; filed Jun 27, 1947, 3:00 pm: Rules and Regs. 1948, p. 58; readopted filed Oct 4, 2001, 3:15 p.m.: 25 IR 941; readopted filed Sep 18, 2007, 3:42 p.m.: 20071010-IR-905070191RFA)

Riverfront three-ways: Alcoholic beverages vs. square meals?

Earlier today, the discussion turned to legal esoterica, and as I should have known, it wouldn't be simple.

CeeSaw whiffs on a fat pitch as council considers expanding the booze zone.

Having now received a copy of G-06-15 from the city attorney, I may need help from a legal mind (not Legal Bagel, mind you).

I recall at the time of G-06-15's passing in 2006 that council members mentioned "50% food sales" language in the ordinance as making it difficult for those seeking a riverfront area three-way permit to run a booze-only joint (bearing in mind that all permit holders must have foodstuffs available at all times), as opposed to a restaurant dedicated primarily to meals.

Disregarding how convoluted these variations of "bar" and "restaurant" can become, such language is not stated in the ordinance passed by the city council, although reference is made to following the procedures and stipulations included in the state of Indiana's legal playbook:

IC 7.1-3-20-16
Airport restaurants; restaurants in certain economic development areas; redevelopment projects or districts, historic river vessels, cultural centers, historic districts.

However, the only mention I can find of 50% food sales comes under the heading of "service bars" at IC 7.1-3-20-17, which does not seem to apply to the topic at hand.

And yet I trust my memory, and recall council members assuring themselves that the legal language therein would preclude evil dive bars from brandishing cheap three-ways. I'm throwing this out for discussion and clarification, because I'll be tied up with work most of the day:

Exactly what, if anything, exists to prevent a special riverfront three-way permit holder from operating a gin mill, wherein the bare minimum foodstuffs required by the state (and seldom witnessed by customers) are theoretically available, and practically all revenues come from liquor?

CeeSaw whiffs on a fat pitch as council considers expanding the booze zone.

In today's One Southern Indiana Newspaper*, reporter Daniel Suddeath provides coverage of a proposed amendment before the city council. The amendment to G-06-15, which established the Riverfront Development Project Area's boundaries five years ago and made possible the issuance of special three-way licenses, would expand the area as pictured and described above.

We all agree: Apart from developer/builder Steve Resch, G-06-15 is the primary reason for a downtown dining district evolving in New Albany.

“Let’s make no bones about it — the riverfront liquor license program has been an excellent, effective incentive for New Albany to establish what we’re now referring to as our downtown dining district,” (Carl) Malysz said.

Not unexpectedly, councilman Bob "Downtown by Accident" Caesar, while expressing tepid support for the expansion measure, displays confusion as to the reasoning for it:

Councilman Bob Caesar said he will likely vote in favor of expanding the district, but added city planners and officials should be wary of the state’s intentions for approving the riverfront licensing program. He added that while he’s not opposed to patrons safely enjoying an alcoholic beverage, he believes the “city wants to see families with their kids walking out on the street.”

“The need here is restaurants, not more bars,” Caesar said. “This was done so that restaurants could serve liquor, that’s what you want. It does no good at all to have bars that can serve a bratwurst.”

Perhaps I might begin dispensing professional advice about diamonds, seeing as I comprehend so little about them. Let's go down the list ...

First, not only does G-06-15 contain language about food sales percentages at establishments using the special three-way (I'll provide exact wording once I've located the ordinance, which does not seem to be on-line), the state of Indiana always has stipulated that permit holders, including bars, must have foodstuffs available at all times. Given that these mandated edibles might constitute a moldy package of bologna, having bratwurst available would be a giant leap forward for foodie (and New Albanian) civilization.

Second, while it is touching to note Caesar's concern for families, I'm not sure that "kids walking out on the street" has as much to do with three-way alcohol permits as with the overall state of the street grid in the context of systematic traffic control and calming, which of course would be greatly facilitated by two-way streets -- and (surprise) Caesar has yet to publicly clarify his oddball, self-aggrandizing position on such matters as it applies to his own commercial interests versus the remainder of the city's.

Third, rather than Caesar resorting to perpetuating the stereotypical teetotaler's notion that bars somehow are guilty of malicious intent from inception, while steadfastly refusing to define his terms (i.e., are we talking dive bar or specialty martini bar?), Caesar might ask harder and better questions: With an ongoing shortage of housing conversions and retail, do we really need more restaurants downtown?

If so, why, and for what purpose? Suddeath's article provides a hint from the mouths of City Hall:

" ... There are some projects in the works that would benefit from having liquor licenses at the ready."

Sounds to me like a follow-up question waiting to happen, one that Mike Kopp would be able to answer -- and I'll wager Dan Coffey asks it come Thursday evening's meeting.

*Over the years, NAC has directed a huge volume of web traffic toward OSIN's web site via links, but this morning, feeling surly, I don't feel like providing a link that will result in the reader being afflicted by a pop-up ad.

Today's Tribune column: "Downtown upsurge causes conjoined heartburn."

Evening News columnist Debbie Harbeson offers a neat bookend today: Maintaining misguided laws not the answer for alcohol licenses. I have a few "right on" thoughts about her piece, which can be read here.

BAYLOR: Downtown upsurge causes conjoined heartburn

Accordingly, the riverfront redevelopment district is an incentive for entrepreneurial food, drink and entertainment purveyors to come downtown and do their bit to reuse the city center in precisely the way it was intended. We’re now seeing the result take shape. It’s an organic, local, homegrown restaurant and bar quarter, one made possible largely without the far more expensive expedient of paying the Cordish Company to import cookie-cutter chains ...

... New Albany’s most prominent of nattering and negativistic nabobs ... whisper that there are too many restaurants, bars and entertainment venues downtown, and that the new businesses are bound to fail, but what Dan Coffey, Steve Price and their squalid platoon of acolytes really are saying is that since they, themselves, cannot fathom success, then no one else should be permitted to rise above their self-imposed limitations, either. To justify their doomsday pessimism, we all must fail just as profoundly as them.

Wick's debut in New Albany to be slightly delayed.

An extended excerpt, and for one reason only. See below.

Wick’s Pizza opening in New Albany pushed back to fall, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

The owner of Wick’s Pizza Inc. said it will likely be the end of September when the Louisville-based restaurant chain opens its New Albany location.

Getting a state liquor license has been the holdup, according to owner Michael Wickliffe, as he originally eyed a late summer opening date for a New Albany Wick’s.

The restaurant will fill the former Speakeasy bar and jazz club building at 225 State St. Located within a historic district, Wick’s is eligible for alcohol permits designated for the riverfront area, of which there are only a certain number allotted for New Albany.

The Speakeasy’s permit was voided after it closed. The permits cost $1,000 plus an annual renewal fee.

Mayor Doug England said administration helps restaurants seeking permits by petitioning the state on behalf of the establishment.

“What we’re trying to do is spur the economy,” England said, adding that when New Albany’s permits run out, he plans on asking the state for more than what was originally portioned, similar to Clarksville.

Here's the confusing part for me: I spent a good twenty minutes this morning reading the Indiana code (something I wouldn't recommend to anyone interested in preserving his or her sanity), and I still cannot see the relationship between the number of permits (10) permitted in a historic district defined by fairly esoteric criteria (the presence of an opera house?), and the subsequent passage detailing the riverfront development area guidelines.

The riverfront development passage does not refer back to the historic district description, and by my reading, I can't see that there is a limit on the number of three-ways. But I don't doubt that City Hall is on top of it, either. Perhaps this is the reason why the Brewers of Indiana Guild retains an attorney to interpret, although I don't want to squander the retainer asking him the answer because it doesn't matter that much.

It's my guess that by autumn, downtown is going to somewhere near a practical limit for establishments vending alcoholic beverages. Maybe not, and there's still room for a martini bar and port lodge.

I know we have lawyerly readers, and if you're one, are you reading the Indiana codes the same way as I am?

These seem to be the relevant passages:

IC 7.1-3-20-16
Airport restaurants; restaurants in certain economic development areas; redevelopment projects or districts, historic river vessels, cultural centers, historic districts

IC 7.1-3-20-16.1
Municipal riverfront development project; alcoholic beverage permit requirements

ATC hearings: Steinert's to Redmen Club, Redmen to former B & B, and Wick's not yet on the docket.

Wondering when Wick’s Pizza will be coming to the former home of the Speakeasy?

Me, too.

Taking a glance at the schedule for the next two local alcoholic beverage board hearings (July 7 and August 4), which take place for the purpose of issuing final approval on permit applications, Wick’s isn’t yet on the docket for either of them -- yet.

This implies an answer of “September at the earliest.” They'll also presumably need an Indiana resident to make it happen, which I'm assuming will be the building's owner unless another local partner has come on board.

But here’s the answer to another pressing question, also gleaned from the local board’s published agenda for August.

SMOKEY BEAT INC
RR2226083
221-3 Historic River Vessel
New
DBA: STEINERT'S GRILL & PUB
401 E MAIN ST
New Albany IN 47150

IMPROVED ORDER OF REDMEN 276
RC2203244
211-4 Fraternal Club
Transfer
DBA: REDMEN CLUB
211 E MAIN ST
New Albany IN 47150

And so the declining Redmen hastily vacate their shiny new building for the tiny former home of Ermin’s and B & B (adjoining Studio’s), while the name attached for generations to the historic Charlestown Road building destroyed by fire last year resurfaces on Main Street.

Also, to R: There appears to be no limit to the number of “riverfront” three-way permits allowable within the delineated geographical boundaries, and subject to the usual considerations of proper distance from churches, which I view as a violation of church-state separation.

Downtown's getting crowded.

Who'd have thunk it?