Answer to Liquor Store Blight?
By Akilah Bridgeford
One’s thirst for an alcoholic beverage could never go unquenched in the Tenderloin. Like many disenfranchised communities, the Tenderloin has more than its fair share of liquor stores. A small community that covers about 60 square blocks, it houses more than 60 liquor stores.
Grand Liquor and Sundries at Turk and Taylor streets is a hub for loiterers. A proposed city ordinance would hold liquor merchants accountable for activity in front of their storefronts. Photo: Craig Young
These types of establishments sometimes become a gathering place for loiterers – drug dealers, alcoholics, drug users, and gang members. In response San Francisco Board Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has introduced legislation that would make storeowners responsible for individuals loitering outside their establishment.
Under this new legislation the city of San Francisco will be allowed to fine storeowners up to $1,000, regulate their hours of operations, or be stopped from selling single cans of beer if they do not make an effort to keep their storefronts free of loiterers. Currently the state Department of Alcoholic Beverages controls how liquor stores are allowed to operate. The city of Oakland has a similar ordinance in effect and has so far closed down five liquor stores that have not complied.
Many merchants do not think the legislation is fair, and say it should not be their responsibility to man the streets outside of their store where they say people are often aggressive towards them. Jim Bantisi has worked at Grand Liquor and Sundries at Turk and Taylor for 14 years, where he has installed two loud buzzers that sound at the press of a button to deter people from hanging out.
On a cold Sunday afternoon there are four people standing outside of his store. Inside, it is busy with people coming in and out buying pints of liquor and single cigarettes. His interaction with customers is quick and when too many people come into the store he constantly glances at the four monitors that survey the store.
“I get into altercations with customers who yell obscenities at me when I ask them to move from in front of the store. I pay taxes like everyone else,” Bantisi says.
Just then a customer walks in and starts yelling racial slurs at him. The two go back and forth, the man accusing Bantisi of cheating people out of their change when he thinks they’re drunk. But even in his fit of anger the man goes on to purchase a bottle of liquor and a single cigarette for a quarter.
“You see, very disrespectful, they should be happy we are here to serve them,” barks Bantisi. “I pay my taxes like everyone else, and I expect police to do something. I shouldn’t be fined,” he says.
A woman sits in front of the New Princess Market at the corner of Eddy and Hyde streets. Many merchants believe a proposed ordinance would place an undue burden on them. Photo: Craig Young
Mike Davis who stands directly outside of Grand Liquor says the proposed ordinance is a little unbalanced. “People have a right to protect their business, but on the flip side people have rights to stand where they want to stand under the First Amendment,” he says.
Davis says it should be an effort between the police and the storeowners to work out the problem. “Police should ask question and find out what needs to be done, they should ask ‘What do I have to do to get you to leave,’ then work out a solution.”
Storeowner Bob Fragajis says it’s like talking to a brick wall, when asking people to move from the front of his store. “People are very aggressive, they don’t move. I call the police about the problem and sometimes it takes them two hours to get here,” says Fragajis who has owned the store for 30 years.
“As for liquor storeowners not feeling that they are responsible for people loitering at their store front, we disagree,” says Sarah He, an aide to Maxwell. “Just as home owners are responsible for the sidewalk in front of their property, so are business owners.”
According to He, under the state laws of alcohol and beverage control, business owners are already responsible for keeping the areas in front of their business clean of things like graffiti, prostitution and public drunkenness.
“Without the cooperation of the business, the police and community are limited in their abilities to abate these nuisance issues,” she says.
The merchants hold a little bit of the responsibility and the police have the responsibility according to San Francisco police officer Michael Simmons. Simmons says he’s often called to situations to handle loitering problems and aggressive people outside of liquor stores.
“The real question is, why are there so many people hanging out in front of liquor stores, there are so many liquor stores in theses communities because the people allow them to be there. You don’t see them in neighborhoods like Diamond Heights because the people who live there wouldn’t go for it,” he says.
Chet, an employee at Imperial Liquor at Mason and Ellis agrees that too many liquor stores do not help the community. “One liquor store in a one block radius is fine, it helps the community because it’s convenient, but three 3 on the same block is a nuisance,” he said. “Liquor stores have been established for a long time. It’s not the store’s fault. I blame the city supervisors. The city should have zoning laws about where and how many liquor stores occupy an area,” says Chet, who didn’t want to give his last name.
Liquor store merchant Omar Gaudem thinks the problem lies within the city’s government and has deeper roots than liquor stores.
“If people had jobs they wouldn’t have time to stand out in front of liquor stores and cause problems. They’d be too tired,” he said. Gaudem says the city is too charitable and does not help the situation surrounding the Tenderloin. “They shouldn’t just be giving people handouts,” he says, speaking of the various programs that help support the poor. “When you have to work hard for money, you think twice before you go and spend it on liquor.”