Home » Downtown »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

Judge Rules Against Lure Nightclub

September 21, 2010 Downtown, Politics/Policy 7 Comments

lure-5069Yesterday a Judge ruled against downtown’s Lure Nightclub.

“St. Louis Circuit Judge Margaret Walsh signed an order this afternoon that revokes Lure’s liquor license effective October 17. The club has 30 days to appeal.” (KSDK)

I first blogged about Lure last Fall when I wrote about the problem of cigarette smoke choking the private resident lobby at the rear of the building

Lure was represented in court by former mayor Freeman Bosley Jr.  The owners have stated they will appeal. I personally love living downtown with restaurants and activities, quite a departure from the weekend-only no-resident club atmosphere of 12-15 years ago.

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "7 comments" on this Article:

  1. Jeremiah Russell says:

    What is the reason for the revocation of their license? Was it previously granted under some provision?
    The smoke filled residential entrance is a problem no one should have to deal with. The club should take steps to minimize their impact on adjacent developments, in my opinion.

     
  2. JZ71 says:

    The smoke-filled residential lobby is either a design issue and/or a shared-space issue (to be resolved in civil court), not a licensing issue. The license revocation ruling is based on a cause-and-effect analysis between an increase in illegal behavior outside the club and the hours the club is/was open.

    One, it's not over until it's over – the club has said that it will appeal the ruling. Two, the judge's ruling creates an interesting precedent, since it appears to place additional responsibilities on the license holder, without, apparently, identifying how those responsibilities can/should be met.

    Current practice has been that a licensed liquor establishment is responsible for what happens inside its premises – that's why bouncers typically “escort” problem patrons outside the facility. This ruling appears to expand the area of responsibility by some undefined amount. Is it 200'? 500'? 1000'? A mile?

    It also creates a much-more-muddy situation if you have adjoining licenses. Are they jointly responsible for what happens on the public street? Or is just the “worst” club “responsible”? Who decides? It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out over time . . .

     
    • theotherguy says:

      Current practice has been that a licensed liquor establishment is responsible for what happens inside its premises —

      I don't think that is totally true. It is responsible for that plus what its patrons do before and after going to your establishment. It can be subjective and arbitrary, but judges are granted that latitude.

       
      • JZ71 says:

        Agreed. The dram shop law is pretty clear about overserving patrons, and the liability associated with it. My concern is what responsibility does an establishment now have if a drunk and/or angry yahoo is walking down the street and does something illegal without ever stepping foot inside the establishment? Are they expected to hire off-duty police (who have the authority to deal with these idiots)? Will the private security guard laws (which cover bouncers) be changed to give them authority to detain non-patrons on public property or other private property? Do we really want to grant them that authority, given their limited training? The reporting on this ruling seems to make Lure culpable for the actions of both patrons and non-patrons, alike. Admitedly, most (but probably not all) likely ARE Lure patrons, but this ruling does seem to break new ground.

         
        • Jason says:

          From the comments I don't think the history of the situation is being taken into account. Sure, there might be some guy somewhere causing trouble outside some bar. If that happens once, even twice, harm is not likely to come to an establishment that happens to be in the “wrong place at the wrong time”. However, as we can see by the fact Steve had made a post about problems related to this club nearly a year ago, there is clearly a historical pattern of disregard or irresponsibility in play here.

          I can't imagine Club Lure hasn't had a bunch of chances to clean up its act. Establishments don't end up in court if they are really trying to be a decent organization. Other than Club Lure, what other establishment can you think of that made news headlines about getting its liquor license taken away???

           
          • JZ71 says:

            Obviously / apparently, Lure has a history as a bad actor. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be sanctioned. My concerns are bigger picture. Do we want private establishments (“good” or “bad”) in charge of maintaining order in the public realm as a condition of maintaining their liquor licenses? Maybe I see how well that has worked when it comes to valet parking. Do we want private security guards, aka boiuncers, aka mall cops accosting people walking down the street?! I don't . . . .

             
          • A. Torch says:

            This has happened BEFORE. When Wash Ave was flying in the early years many clubs lost their liq-license, sometimes several lost it in one month. Nothing new if you have followed the area's history.

             

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: (#10) This endpoint requires the 'manage_pages' permission or the 'Page Public Content Access' feature. Refer to https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/review/login-permissions#manage-pages and https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/review/feature#reference-PAGES_ACCESS for details.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 10
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe