local

Last night I was enjoying a cocktail with my friends Eric Magnuson and Kay Tuveson at the Heartland bar.  It was Kay's birthday, and they were celebrating before leaving for New Orleans for some kind of corporate lawyer shindig.

Eric was formerly Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.  He was a Tim Pawlenty appointment and was at one time former Governor Pawlenty's partner.  I should clarify that.  They were law firm partners; they weren't dating.  Kay is a brilliant legal mind in her own right having served on the staff of more than one Republican lawmaker in Washington, D.C.

We got to talking about my last blog post wherein I called out the editor of the Villager newspaper for what I characterized as a bigoted attack on gays and lesbians that he posed as his reasons for supporting the heinous marriage amendment.  I told them I was surprised that I hadn't yet received any hate mail related to that column, and I went on to say that, as a private citizen independent of the restaurant, I tended to be very vocal about my opinions.  We also discussed how the restaurant was politically neutral and secular out of necessity, and that those opinions I express are solely my own.  I expect there many people who work for me who don't always agree with me, and sometimes my progressive views on things don't always sit well with many of our conservative clientele.  I can disturb a few of our more liberal clientele from time to time as well.

At any rate, every so often I get some anonymous hate mail concerning something I have written in this blog.  Sometimes people say stuff right to my face, which is fine.  In fact, Council Member Dave Thune called me a right wing radical just last month.  I found that to be pretty humorous.

So as the conversation progressed, I said I was thinking about posting something about the photo ID amendment and how that amendment would serve to disenfranchise large numbers of voters.  According to this publication, that could potentially be as much as 7% of the population of registered voters that would be deprived of their constitutional right to vote.  Both Eric and Kay were quick to say that, in their opinions, both amendments were unconstitutional and they saw no reason why any judge could find just reason to rule otherwise.  I stopped short of calling them left wing radicals.  I will leave that sort of stuff to Dave.

Upon arriving home last night, my wife handed me a letter addressed to me in a shaky hand with a cryptic return address.  It said, "American News Center 55101".  I hesitated opening it since it was obviously suspicious, but my curiosity got the best of me.  Inside, I found some incredibly entertaining but borderline scary hate mail.  There was a cartoon depicting the devolution of man with the title "The Lower End of the Behavioral Spectrum" that showed a progression from man ("normal") to ape ("queer") to a grotesque creature ("pedophile").  There were also some photocopied "news articles", one of which was entitled "News Media Suppresses Growing Homo Attacks On Children".  There were some quotes from Tom Prichard who heads Minnesota for Marriage.  This is the same Tom Prichard that was quoted by Dale Mischke in his bigoted screed in the Villager that I attacked in my last blog post.  Prichard is quoted as saying, "...homosexuals are only one percent of the population, are 12 time more likely to molest children, cause 50 percent of syphilis cases in Minnesota, suffer no economic discrimination, and that half of homosexual men have over 500 sex partners."  It doesn't stop there.  It also goes on to say that, "homosexual men ingest the feces of 23 different men per year and are 15 times more likely to commit murder."  Nice.

So I did a little research trying to find out who might have sent me this vile, hate filled garbage which, since it was anonymous and sent to my home, was obviously meant to intimidate me.  I discovered that this same trash has been sent to many members of the media as well as private citizens who have had the courage to speak out on behalf of civil rights for all of us including those in our gay community.  In fact, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was sent the same exact letter just a few weeks ago, although his cartoon was personalized.

There are some recipients who claim to know who the author of these letters is, but I couldn't find anything online to support that contention.  While the individual named is currently running for office in one of the western suburbs, I will decline to identify him. I will, however, say that I challenge whoever it might be to step forward from the shadows. You don't see me hiding, nor will you be able to quiet me or any of the others you have targeted through your weak actions.  Unlike those you have attempted to silence, you are coward.

Those who have read this blog on previous occasions might have noticed that every so often I commend the Villager community newspaper for its sterling coverage of Saint Paul neighborhood issues.  My wife and I often depend on that coverage for the most in depth information concerning things that impact us where we live in Macalester-Groveland and for news relevant to greater Saint Paul.

So it was not without some dismay last September 12th that I read a letter to the editor of the Villager from a woman named Jennifer Kowalewski that was so full of insults and bigotry directed at the gay community that I paused to wonder why any respected publication would publish it, let alone give it nearly half a page of what is generally no more than a 36 page newspaper.  In it, Kowalewski claimed that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals and are prone to deep bouts of depression accompanied by excessive illegal drug use.  While claiming that studies showed these things to be true, she didn't bother to cite any of her sources.  Instead, she brought them forth as valid reasons for voting "yes" to the upcoming constitutional marriage amendment referendum that would effectively write into our state constitution a law that would deprive a segment of our population of their civil rights.  In doing so, this law could not be overturned through simple legislation.  It would either have to be challenged in court or be brought forth for repeal through another referendum.  Of course, she claimed no prejudice against same sex couples in her diatribe.  Instead, she insisted that the amendment was good for everyone since, after all, this all about the children; and how can anyone believe that children could be raised in a stable environment when separated from one or both biological parents?  I have an adopted cousin who is the principal of a Catholic school in New Jersey who might claim otherwise, but I digress.

I didn't write anything here in response to that letter since I wasn't really sure what the editors had in mind when they published it, and I just figured that enough of my neighbors would find it offensive enough to respond directly to the Villager. I wasn't disappointed by that, since many of them did.  I guess I was hoping that the Villager was trying to be even handed in publishing opinions from both sides, and maybe this particular opinion was the best they had to offer in that regard.  I also thought that maybe they were trying to provoke outrage from the community in order to motivate those of us who might not be speaking out on behalf of those who stand to lose the most by the passage of the referendum.  By the looks of the vast majority of letters they published in the October 10th edition, they certainly achieved that.  However, a column written by co-editor Dale Mischke in the Viewpoint section of that issue showed that this provocation was purely unintentional.

In that column, Mischke mentions how state Representative Michael Paymar, in a letter to the Villager, claimed that the proposed amendment would limit civil rights and how, in another letter, Dale Smith of Growth and Justice stated that it would "cast in constitutional stone the second-class status of gays and lesbians."  He also mentioned the Kowalewski letter claiming that it "outlined historical and cultural reasons for defining marriage as between one man and one woman."  He then went on to cite statistics that he asserted show how marriage, which he called the "backbone of the family", was under assault from all sides.

This is where he really goes off the rail.  In some sort of convoluted reasoning that only he can explain, he seems to equate the act of depriving civil rights to a certain group of people with the preservation of the institution of marriage without offering any provable causation or logical connection between the two.  Instead, he just continues to play the role of a fear monger by stating, "Redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry may make it easier for them to share health insurance policies, visit relatives in the hospital or pass their estate on to a loved one at death, but what will it do to the institution of marriage?"

Well, Mr. Mischke, here is the answer to your question:  It will do nothing to the institution of marriage except make it accessible to everyone.  As for your claim that allowing same sex couples to marry "may make it easier" so on and so forth, allow me to correct to you.  It will finally make it POSSIBLE.

My brother Gerard and his partner Charles have been in a loving, committed and faithful relationship for thirty years.  Yet because they live in Florida and because there is no federal law protecting them from discrimination when it comes to having the right to marry, their union is not legally recognized.  On the other hand, two people of the opposite sex can fly to Las Vegas, get drunk at a bar, meet at the craps table, fall into the Elvis Chapel and get hitched; and that is legally sanctioned.

My brother served his country for over thirty years, first as the chief USDA inspector at Miami International Airport and later as the acting head of Homeland Security for the ports of Miami and Key West.  During the Mariel boatlift, he was in charge of processing the Cuban refugees and inspecting their boats and possessions in order to ensure that our food supply remained safe and that our agriculture industry was not decimated by blights and invasive insects.  Nevertheless, his partner is not entitled to the same benefits awarded to the spouses of heterosexuals due to the fact that they are not allowed to marry.  The only reason they are not allowed this basic right is because they are of the same sex and are homosexuals.  That is bigotry plain and simple.

Mishke goes on in his homophobic screed to quote some outlandish statements from Minnesota for Marriage that have absolutely no basis in fact nor the tiniest shred of evidence to support them.  According to that organization, redefining the institution of marriage will result in a massive increase in poverty.  It is hard for me to believe that a sound minded individual would agree with such a thing, let alone repeat it; but, when bigotry is the basis for one's assumptions, logic and sound reasoning never seem to enter into the picture.

He finishes his editorial by saying, "Keeping the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman does not prevent same-sex couples from professing their love to one another and making a lifelong commitment. Surely, there are other, better ways for society to honor that love."

If that doesn't smack of "Separate but Equal", I don't know what does.  We abolished segregation in this country so bigots could no longer claim such nonsense.  Gone are the days when Americans of African descent were denied the same access as other Americans.  Gone are the times when bigots could claim that they weren't being bigoted because they have acknowledged our equality even though they won't allow the same access and rights to everyone.  Don't swim in their pools or drink from their fountains or marry their sons or daughters.

So what does Mishcke mean by that?  Could he be referring to civil unions?  I'm not sure, because he doesn't really say.  If that is what he means, then his arguments bear no weight whatsoever.  In that scenario, same sex couples could be legally joined.  It would just be called something else thereby ensuring that they remain second-class citizens at least in name.  Once you start calling people's unions by different names, then you inevitably infer that the unions are somehow different and, consequently, not as worthy of the same distinction.  "Separate but Equal" anyone?

Let's also be clear that voting "no" to this amendment does nothing to redefine the institution of marriage. It simply keeps discrimination based on one's sexual preference from being institutionalized by being written into our constitution.  Allowing such a thing to happen by voting "yes" would be unprecedented in the history of Minnesota, and it is beneath us.  I implore all Minnesotans to let their consciences be their guides and vote "no" to this amendment.  Please do not let the bigots and the fear mongers sway you into believing that a "yes" vote is more than what it actually is.  It is a means to divide us.  It is a means to deprive your fellow citizens of their civil rights.  No matter how you couch it, it is hateful, and it is wrong.

Back in March of 2010, my business partners and I were sitting in a meeting with Cecile Bodor who heads the Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development.  It was Cecile and her team that gave us the lead on the real estate that would eventually become Heartland's new location.

The first question she posed to us was, "How much money are you seeking from the city?"  I responded that we weren't seeking any money.  All we were asking for was the support of the Mayor's office in helping us navigate the numerous regulatory requirements and logistical obstacles that come with developing any commercial project in a large municipality such as Saint Paul.  I further explained that we were scheduled to close on the purchase of the real estate on April 15, and we had our general contractor scheduled to begin demolition on May 1.  Our plan was to continue to operate out of our old location until June 13, and then we would reopen in our new location on July 15.  I impressed upon her that our business would be bleeding money every day that we were not operating.  Besides that, we were concerned about how long our staff would be unemployed.  Our goal was to make sure that most of our team would be unemployed for no longer than two weeks.  We understood that taking on a project of the size we were proposing, located in a distressed property in a historic preservation district, would pose unique and considerable challenges when it came to regulatory and code compliance.  I explained that it was far more valuable to us to have our project supported through the various processes by the Mayor and the Department of Licensing and Inspections than it was to receive a grant or a loan from the city.

As it turned out, things were a lot more complicated than we had anticipated.  Nonetheless, we received an enormous amount of support from almost every city entity we encountered.  Even when we ran up against a member of the city staff who was less than anxious to help us streamline our inspections and occupancy approvals, the response from the Mayor's office was always timely and effective.  As a result, we were able to reopen in our new location on July 27.  The one week delay we encountered was not unanticipated, and it it was through the support of the Mayor's office that we stayed so close to our schedule.  Financially, that assistance was nearly invaluable to us.

As a member of the Board of Directors of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, I believe I am not overstating myself in saying that most of us in the Chamber very much appreciate and support Mayor Chris Coleman in his efforts to help grow Saint Paul's business community.  As a political moderate, he understands the needs of all of Saint Paul's citizens, including residents and business owners alike.  He has done a wonderful job of balancing neighborhood concerns with the practical necessities of establishing and running a succesful business in our city.  This is no easy task.  Not only must he negotiate his agenda with the City Council, but he must do so in such a way as to be fair and evenhanded.  I firmly believe that it is partially through his leadership in concert with the City Council that we have seen positive growth in our business community and a lessening of restrictions that have impeded such growth in the past.

Most recently, I and my fellow members of the Lowertown Entertainment District found our yearly license applications, those that allow us to sell and serve food in Mears Park during the numerous events being held there this summer, were being denied in part due to a state code that supersedes the current city code which regulates such activities.  It was through the efforts of Joe Spencer in in the Mayor's office that we were able to work with DSI to facilitate the writing of a new code that would allow us to continue our presence in the park.  The result has been truly a model of cooperation between a city regulatory agency and private businesses.  Without that support, I fear that we would have run into a brick wall.  As it turned out, we are back on track and making money which, as we all know, generates tax dollars.

Speaking of tax dollars, according to the Saint Paul Port Authority, it is important to note that 33% of nonresidential property in Saint Paul is tax exempt.  In the U.S., that is second only to Boston.  As result and also according to the Port Authority, commercial properties are taxed at a rate that is roughly twice that of residential properties.  Consequently, for every dollar generated by residential property taxes, the city has to provide somewhere between $1.08 and $1.16 in services, while commercial properties require services costing somewhere between $.60 and $.70 for every dollar of taxes paid.  Obviously, if the citizens of Saint Paul are to continue to be provided the services we have all come to enjoy and expect from our city, we will either have to increase the tax burden on existing properties or encourage an expansion of the tax base that produces positive cash flow.

Mayor Coleman and his administration understand this.  They also understand that residential critical mass, public services, improved infrastructure, better public transportation, the elimination of burdensome regulations and more people friendly public amenities such as the proposed Regional Ballpark are vital to attracting the kind of commercial and industrial growth that contribute to the revitalization of our city.  It is my hope that Governor Dayton, through the Department of Employment and Economic Development, as well as our City Council, will continue their recent support of these efforts for they are in the best interests of all of Saint Paul's citizens.

Saint Paul is our Capital City.  It deserves the love and respect of all Minnesotans.  I encourage anyone interested in opening a new business or in expanding an existing business to take a good, long look at Saint Paul.  I think you will be very pleased with what you see.

This week, the St. Paul City Council heard testimony and began debate over a proposal being led by Ward 4 Council Member Russ Stark.  The proposal would amend the number of off street parking spaces required in order for a restaurant or bar to gain a liquor license.  The current requirement calls for restaurants that serve alcohol to provide one off street parking space for every 100 to 125 square feet of total floor area.  The new proposal would allow restaurants that serve alcohol and close by midnight to provide the same amount of parking that other businesses do, that is, one space for every 400 square feet.  The relief for bars is not quite as generous with the proposed square footage basis being increased from 125 to 150 square feet.  The upshot is that a 5000 square foot restaurant desiring to serve alcohol would only need 20 off street parking spaces as opposed to the 50 now required.  The final vote on the proposed changes is scheduled for May 23.

Council Member Stark has been quoted by the Pioneer Press as saying, "Today, if you're a restaurant and decide to serve beer and wine, you've got to more than triple your parking.  To me, that's just ridiculous.  Right now, to me it feels like our code is erring on the side of keeping storefronts empty."  I must wholeheartedly concur, and I applaud the Council Member for taking a stand on behalf of St. Paul restaurateurs.

Of course, there are some who believe that this is not a very good idea.  Count among them Council Member Dave Thune and at least one restaurant owner who has a very large parking lot on Grand Avenue and who most likely would prefer not to have the competition.  It has been reported that Council Member Thune's objection is based upon his belief that the code change would undermine a neighborhood's ability to challenge parking variances.  He is probably right about that, and to that I declare, "It's about time!"

It is also important to note that the code change will only affect a restaurant's ability to secure a wine and strong beer license.  It will not do anything to ameliorate the current roadblocks to a full liquor license.  The St. Paul City Charter restricts the number of full liquor licenses allowed within each ward.  Once that threshold has been met, restaurants seeking liquor licenses are restricted to wine and beer only.  The exception to that rule is again predicated by location.  If the restaurant lies within a city designated commercial development zone, then that restriction does not apply.  There are currently six such zones.

We faced that problem at Heartland's old location in Macalester-Groveland.  Although we had more than enough off street parking under even the current code to allow for a full liquor license, there was none available due to the allocation for Ward 3 being exhausted.  Pat Harris, our Council Member at the time, worked for many years to get the City Council to agree to reopen the Charter to amend it to be more consistent with the current population and density of each ward but to no avail.  In fact, we had a fully executed liquor license application on his legislative assistant's desk for at least four years before we relocated to Lowertown where no such restriction applies.  Pat went so far as to guarantee that one day he would sit at the bar in Heartland and enjoy a martini with me.  We finally got to do that, but it wasn't at the Heartland he had imagined.

Let us not forget that the hospitality industry as a whole is Minnesota's second largest employer and the largest private sector employer.  Only the state exceeds our industry in the number of people it employs.  In addition, restaurant and entertainment venues are vital components of what gives cities their excitement and vitality.  Restricting the growth of our industry is not in the best interests of our city.  I encourage the City Council to follow Council Member Stark's lead in revising the current code, and, while this is certainly a significant step in the right direction, let's not fool ourselves.  There is still much more work to be done in order to send the message that St. Paul is truly open for business.

Chef and restaurateur Michael White and I have a few things in common.  Both of us are, once again this year, nominees for a James Beard Award.  We are both dedicated to excellence in our profession.  We are both partners in hospitality industry corporations.  That is pretty much where the commonality ends.  None of my business partners are former Merrill Lynch presidents, and a good week of revenues at our restaurant is eclipsed by an average day at Marea, Mr. White’s Altamarea Group flagship.

 So it was with great interest that I read Suzanne Craig’s piece on Mr. White and his partner Ahmass Fakahany entitled “Out of One Frying Pan, and Into Another” in last Sunday’s New York Times business section.  I found it to be an informative and enjoyable read.  I also found it to be inaccurate in at least one statement.

 In reference to Altamarea, Ms. Craig states in paragraph eight of her story, “What is so remarkable about their success is that, in the restaurant game, most new restaurants close within their first year – industry experts put the failure rate at anywhere from 60 to 80 percent.”  The writer does not identify who or what so called “industry experts” she cites, nor does she offer any clue as to where they acquired those statistics.

 The fact of the matter is that according to two studies widely accepted as the most accurate and informative portrayals of success and failure rates within our industry, one by H.G. Parsa of Ohio State University and the other by Cline Research Group of Dallas, the first year failure rate is closer to 26%.  It isn’t until year three to year five that the failure rate even begins to approach the 60% low end figure cited by Suzanne Craig in her article.  Not only that, but the figures cited in those studies include not only restaurant closures but also restaurants that have changed hands.  In other words, a very successful restaurant that might have been sold to another owner would have been included as a failure.

 What the statistics show is that, as a group, restaurants have a better than average success rate when compared to other small businesses.  To see an urban myth such as the one Ms. Craig recounts on the front page of such a venerable publication as New York Times Sunday Business, only serves to perpetuate falsehoods that keep banks from meeting with those of us in our industry.  These are the sorts of unsubstantiated statistics that are used as the basis for refusing financing and for depriving capital to restaurants.  Often time, when loans are approved, the interest rates can be extremely unfavorable only serving to make survival even more difficult.  Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.

 Personally and as a member of an industry that endures more than its fair share of mudslinging, I expect more from the New York Times, from their writers and from their editors.