Letter to Commissioner Gretchen Dykstra Regarding Proposed Changed to Regulations Governing Sidewalk Cafes
October
28, 2002
Honorable Gretchen Dykstra
Commissioner
Department of Consumer Affairs
Dear Ms. Dykstra;
The
Greenwich Village Block Associations is a community wide coalition dedicated
to the preservation and improvement of the “quality of life” for
Greenwich Village residents. This summer The New York Times published an
article about possible self-regulation by restaurants having or wanting
to open sidewalk
cafes. As a community with more than 200 cafes, such a change in procedure
would have negative ramifications throughout the Village. Although the
GVBA does not believe that the Community Board should be the last word on any
matter, we believe that it would be detrimental to silence its voice in
this
instance.
Villagers
live with numerous outdoor eating venues. We have, usually involuntary, expertise
with respect to the effects of sidewalk cafes
on a neighborhood
where residents frequently live close to the street. Many residents believe
that
too much of a good thing is….. too much. Current regulations allow a
restaurant to take half the sidewalk for tables measured from the curb line
without regard to tree wells, fire hydrants or street furniture that further
impedes pedestrian flow. Much of the time pedestrians share sidewalks with
empty tables and chairs — clutter that detracts from our historic ambiance.
While we agree that people enjoy “al fresco” dining, we do
not consider cafes our primary tourist attraction. In any case, the welfare
of
Greenwich Village should not revolve around needs of the tourist industry.
We
have evidence in the international media that self-regulation fails to work.
Small business differs from big business only in size. Restaurants,
which violate
regulations, do so, not out of frustration, but due to greed and lack
of respect for their host communities. This behavior should not be
excused, rationalized,
or accommodated. Genuine frustration is suffered by “good neighbor” restaurants
(the overwhelming majority) who respect the rules and by residents who can
get no relief from a troublesome café. Permission for out door tables
should not be “as of right”. Although an owner may believe that
a café is essential to compete, this is often inaccurate, because
business that would occur indoors simply moves outside.
The
concept of self-certification relies on the premise that back up inspection
with serious penalties by other agencies will occur, but
it rarely does.
Thus, as in the corporate world, regulators become “enablers” due to
their failure to perform their expected function. Abnegation of government
responsibility by instituting self-regulation will make the present “bad” situation
even worse. Café permit renewals are now routinely rubber-stamped; as
it stands, the community has difficulty weighing in on whether or not a renewal
should be granted. If a new restaurant assumes a location with an existing
café, the application is treated as a renewal rather than
as a new license. This process should be examined and improved. Community
opinion,
which is determinable
in many ways, should be considered in both the initial and renewal
approval process.
The
process could be streamlined by cutting down on multi-agency inspection of
plans. At present, the Department of Transportation’s role
in granting licenses and the Department of Consumer Affair’s
role in regulating them is confusing. The Department of Consumer
Affairs presently has nominal enforcement
responsibility, but does minimal enforcement work. Contrary to the
Times article, the NYC Department of Health acts on sanitation issues
without regard to whether
or not a restaurant has a café. We might endorse the centralization
of responsibility under one agency, but we must be confident that
infringement of
regulations will incur certain severe penalties.
Before
making it easier for private enterprise to appropriate public space, we urge
your agency to move toward uniform enforcement of
existing regulation
and
to provide that the community’s voice is seriously considered.
The priority of any government agency should be the best interests
of the entire community,
not merely a vocal, well-funded segment of it.
 |
 |