The classist campaign against Nate’s Crown Liquor Store

After a recent Denver Homeless Out Loud meeting, Tim and Aurora Correa, owners of Aztlan Theatre, told some of us about the struggles of their business neighbor, Nate’s Crown Liquor Store, to stay open in the face of an assault against them by neighboring businesses.

Some of us went to last Thursday’s hearing re: whether the City’s Department of Excise and Licensing will renew the liquor license of Nate’s Crown Liquor Store at 11th and Santa Fe. The hearing we went to was devoted to hearing people who opposed renewal of the liquor license. It went quite late and I heard only three of the speakers but believe two or three others spoke, plus more were going to speak another night. This hearing has been continuing for several evenings I believe.

On Monday Feb 24th at 6pm in the License Renewal room on the second floor of the Webb Building (201 W Colfax), the store owners/managers will have their chance to testify, as will any others who want to speak in favor of the liquor license renewal. Both Raul, the manager of Nate’s, and our friends Tim and Aurora Correa, who own Aztlan Theatre, are hoping people will come to this hearing to support Nate’s effort to retain its liquor license. 

What is going on here? As best I can figure it out, from being at the hearing and also talking to Raul, the manager of Nate’s, a group of businesses around Nate’s at 11th and Santa Fe want Nate’s to close, because they believe having a store that sells alcohol to homeless people brings down the neighborhood and negatively impacts their businesses. Among the businesses that are working together to close Nate’s are a beauty salon, a Tai Chi studio, a veterinarian, a clothing/gift shop, and an architectural design firm. Raul showed us a stack of letters complaining about Nate’s that several businesses had written to the Excise and License Department.

Indeed, Nate’s, a neat, brightly painted, traditional little liquor store, stands in stark contrast to the earth-toned businesses around it. They are upscale, while it is…down-home, just itself, a remnant of the sort of businesses that surely dotted the neighborhood before gentrification and trendiness set in.

At the hearing I went to, the owners of the beauty salon and of the veterinary practice spoke, as well as a police officer. Both owners testified that people, purportedly customers of Nate’s, would drink in the area around their businesses, fight, panhandle and frighten customers, urinate, litter, come in to use their bathrooms, etc. The salon owner said such people made it hard for her to “grow our brand” with the community and also said it makes her sad that the liquor store makes a living “preying on these people “ (the so-called “habitual drunkards” ). (Why is it that whenever someone wants to screw homeless folks they say they’re doing it to protect them??) Asked by the city attorney whether she saw similar problems around the liquor stores on east Colfax, where her business was previously located, she said she did not–which I personally find very hard to believe. (And why was the city attorney asking such leading questions, aimed at skewering Nate’s?)

The veterinarian said inebriated people camp out on his property, and that they ruined the garden he spent $6000 to put in. He submitted many photos he’d taken of people and trash on and near his property–including people in the act of urinating–during the last two years. Yet he insisted that most of the people weren’t homeless, and that he resented the insinuation that “homeless” and “alcohol addicted” are synonymous.

On cross examination, both business owners had to agree they did not know whether the people bothering their customers, urinating in the alley, fighting, and throwing trash and bottles in the area were actually customers of Nate’s or not–nor did they know whether the bottles were from Nate’s.

The complainers accuse Nate’s of selling alcohol to intoxicated customers, in violation of State statute. Asked by Nate’s attorney whether they would be in favor of the liquor store staying in business if it followed “appropriate business practices,” the salon owner said yes, while the vet said no.

The District 6 (now District 1) police officer testified about being called to the 7-11 store, next to Nate’s, by the store’s manager on a night in September 2012, because a very intoxicated man came into the store. The man, who was taken to detox, said he’d bought beer at Nate’s.

I talked to Raul, the manager of Nate’s, who told me about two police officers who were waiting outside the store to breathalize a customer who had just bought alcohol. The customer was found to be intoxicated, and the store and clerk were ticketed. Raul explained that it’s often hard to know if a customer is intoxicated or not.

What I can’t help wondering is whether the police, under pressure from the trendy businesses in this rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, are targeting this particular liquor store in order to remove them from the area–with the businesses hoping that once Nate’s is gone, those of its customers who are homeless will also disappear.

But this whole situation just underscores the painful reality that gentrification, or the “upscaling” of neighborhoods, making them unaffordable to the people who once lived there–such as is happening in this area–is a major cause of homelessness. And, as Tim, who’s owned the neighboring Aztlan Theatre since 1970, told me, “when you force businesses like Nate’s to close, you just create more homeless people.”

Not that I’m a fan of alcohol, but somehow it doesn’t seem fair that housed people can buy all the booze they want, and take it home and get as drunk as they want, without anyone making a fuss about it. But unhoused people have nowhere to drink in private–should they want to drink–or to stash their purchases–or to pee in private, without someone taking their picture–for that matter. Where are the public bathrooms for unhoused people to use? And where is the affordable housing which would keep people from having to hang out in alleys and beg to use other peoples’ bathrooms?

Raul said the other businesses criticize him for selling “cheap” liquor–i.e. liquor that poor people can afford–as if that’s a crime! He also admitted that the other businesses have forced him to stop selling to “trouble makers”–and that might mean “homeless people”–talk about profiling! But they’re still not satisfied and want his business gone–probably to make way for another trendy upscale shop.

I’ll post new developments as they happen. 

Nancy

 

5 thoughts on “The classist campaign against Nate’s Crown Liquor Store

  1. La Alma Neighborhood Association has also been supporting Nate’s. I found it amazing how those who testified against the liquor called the homeless ‘drunks’ and ‘deralicks’. They were very ignorant about the issue, and very insensitive.

  2. Denver Homeless Out Loud is completely on the wrong side of this long time neighborhood problem. Why on earth would a homeless advocacy organization support a liquor store that has stayed in business all these years through the dollars, the very limited dollars, of the homeless community. Seriously?! That’s just nuts. Surly your not advocating that law breaking businesses should get to stay in business so they can continue to get away with increasing the substance dependency upon a very vulnerable group of individuals. Please don’t tell us that this is your stance because it sure sounds like it. Where is your advocacy to advance legislation around increasing mental health support and housing options for the homeless. Instead your wasting you time and energy on this issue, really?!

    Let’s talk about what this is really about. Nate’s Crown Liquor is EXPLOITING the homeless population in the La Alma Lincoln Park neighborhood. Everyone who lives and works in the area knows it, especially those of us who have been in this neighborhood our entire lives. So how dare you proclaim this is a form of gentrification on behalf of “trendy” businesses owners. These owners and residents have invested in this community for years, for generations. We have a right to hold all of our businesses in this community to the best possible standards. The type of standards that long time business owners like Jigg’s Barber Shop, Bud’s Mufflers, Artists on Santa Fe, Plaza Liquors, Gerken’s Church Supply, The Center for Animal Wellness and many others have put in place in this neighborhood.

    Furthermore this is not a homeless issue. This issue is about Nate’s Crown Liquor shady and illegal business practices, nothing more. Stop making this out to be an “us” verses “them” situation. Nate’s isn’t exactly handing out sandwiches to the homeless. Their selling to them while their inebriated and cashing their disability checks while keeping a percentage.

    Also I don’t speak anonymously, my name is Andrea Barela and I work for NEWSED Community Development Corporation. If you have a problem with what I’ve said give me a call.

    • As the salon owner who is mentioned (and misquoted) in this article, I am very disheartened to read the author’s limited perspective. Perhaps the author should have interviewed parties from both sides of the argument or been present for all of the testimony in order to gain a more complete and historically accurate picture of Nate’s current and former business practices. I would happily share my experiences of that and would just as happily welcome a candid discussion regarding the plight of Denver’s homeless population. I think it’s a conversation in which all of us should continue to be engaged, and I think were the author to speak to me about that topic, we would find ourselves to be on a very similar page.

      I can’t understand why a group who claims to be an advocate of the homeless chooses to support a business that victimizes an already victimized and margianalized population. I can’t believe that asking a business to operate within the laws of our city and good social conscience can possibly be conceived of as an attack on the homeless?!
      By the way, so that the record is clear: I don ‘t want the homeless to “go away”. I want Nate’s to. The one thing the author got right: I did say I was and am sad (and mad) that Nate’s preys on the alcohol addicted and that they serve and over serve visibly intoxicated persons – homeless and homed alike. Proof of that is that I have seen a visibly intoxicated person leaving Nate’s; newly purchased alcohol in hand. I have then had to have that person (who was unconscious from drink) removed from my property less than one hour later by the fire department and Denver police. Oh, and Nate’s has received tickets and warnings and complaints for the very same thing for years.

      That is the reason we are “going after” Nate’s. Because selling alcohol to discernsbly intoxicated persons is illegal. Because choosing to operate your business illegally and in such a way as to damage the health and welfare of all persons from all walks of life who populate your neighborhood is unconscionable and disgraceful. Because the management and representatives of Nate’s would rather drum up this “attack on the homeless” and “gentrification” nonsense than operate within the good faith of the law and their neighbors.

  3. DHOL lists it’s purpose as ‘to stand for the rights of people experiencing homelessness’. Through engaged dialogue and action, DHOL appears to work for this purpose. However, if rights are to be upheld, then you rely on justice prevailing over time, and yet justice is at the very heart of why Nate’s needs to leave.

    This article is filled with a lot of thoughts, yet accusations fly and assumptions are made. I strongly request that everyone who wishes to voice an opinion start by learning some of the truths of this discussion. The homeless in Denver are not as simple as an assumption, and neither are the complaints against Nate’s.

    Nate’s admits to blatantly violating liquor laws, and has done so both via their own communications and in letters from their lawyers. They admit to regularly serving known drunkards, which is a law that they swore to uphold when they received their liquor license. Furthermore, they have a track record of violations and issues, for which they refused to publicly address with neighbors until their license was in question this last September.

    If homeless advocates truly seek justice, start by learning about the negligent business owner, the ill-trained business manager and operators, and the attempts by adjacent neighborhood business owners to dialogue about their concerns and were flatly denied by both Nate’s owner and manger. Then make up your mind.

    The community surrounding Nate’s, including anyone experiencing homelessness, deserves better from a liquor store than Nate’s owner and management. Simply stating that adjacent business owners want to remove the homeless from the area is unfair to the actual concerns – the violation of laws.

    If you truly seek to uphold justice – be careful about fighting something that at it’s very core seeks the same end – to uphold the rights of people.

  4. Have fun explaining why a homeless advocacy group came out in favor of a liquor store with a history of violations against the homeless. I took the liberty of sending this article to the Denver Post, 9News, CBS 4, Fox 31 and ABC 7.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s