Raleigh Council Softening Stance on Drinking Ban | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Kari Travis, who is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

Protests from restaurateurs, patrons may ease proposed patio restrictions

    RALEIGH - Amid protests from restaurant owners and patrons of downtown dining establishments, a committee of the Raleigh City Council seems poised to ease proposed restrictions on patio dining and outdoor imbibing in taverns and eating establishments along the Fayetteville Street corridor downtown. The Law and Public Safety Committee will meet today at 3 p.m. to discuss changes to the ordinance affecting "private use of public spaces."

    Recent controversies surrounding alleged overcrowding, lack of pedestrian access, and excessive "vibrancy" along Fayetteville Street came before the council on June 1, when members proposed banning sidewalk patio dining permits to establishments that make less than 30 percent of their sales from food. The change, according to WRAL News, was proposed by Assistant City Manager Marchell Adams David, though she would not confirm to Carolina Journal where the idea originated. Even so, several owners of downtown pubs said the ban would have threatened their ability to stay in business.

    That proposal was delayed when it faced opposition from restaurateurs, private club owners, and patrons across the city, who expressed objections directly to the council and started a "Save the Patios" campaign on change.org, Facebook, and Twitter.

    Along with an outright ban on patio dining at drinking establishments and private clubs, the committee will consider two alternatives that would limit outdoor drinking space based on the number of patrons, the amount of space available for pedestrians, the level of pedestrian traffic, and the use of stanchions to separate drinking areas from public space.

    Dan Lovenheim, owner of Capital City Tavern on Fayetteville Street, says the alternatives are much better than revoking patio rights for private clubs and drinking establishments.

    "The problem is, once you take away our outdoor dining, I no longer have the legal ability to regulate that space," Lovenheim said. "And the truth of the matter is, if you just take away the outdoor dining, you're going to have even more people out there in an unregulated manner, and you've just exacerbated the problem."

    The proposal stemmed from concerns that were brought to the attention of the city in mid-May, David said.

    The city's primary focus is public safety, and its goal is to make sidewalks more accessible to pedestrians during both city festivals and hours of heavier foot traffic, David said. While noise issues also have entered the "vibrancy" discussion, those concerns are not central to enforcing the ordinance, David added.

    "I think this is going to end up being a great clarification ... for the city, for us, for everybody, and [we can] basically try to put this issue to bed," Lovenheim said. "The way I feel about it is that if the city needs [the sidewalk] for the day, or for an event or two, I'm not adverse to talking about it and working it out."