The City Commissioner's need to decide what type of a downtown they are creating and have created. Royal Oak's downtown is the go to party place, that is the reputation that is a fact. Why, because of alcohol. The city commissioners continualy vote to increase the amount of alcohol establishments, the size of the establishments, outdoor sidewalk cafes where more alcohol is consumed, special events for more alcohol consumption. This then creates the problems of police staffing and rowdy crowds. So why is anyone suprised. Look no further than the CITY COMMISSION TABLE!

I agree decisions and discussions should center on facts and data versus "overly sensationalized banter and fear mongering".

The following should be consigned the fear mongering category -

1.) If you oppose another bar/liquor venue downtown, you are being puritanical, are against growth, and/or are costing Royal Oaker's jobs.

2.) Any opposition to another bar/liquor venue downtown, or any other project in the city with questionable attributes, is "hanging a closed for business sign at the city limits".

3.) That if you live in or near the downtown, you should expect to have to put up with drunk morons screaming, fighting, urinating in public at all hours of the night as part of the decor. (Most patrons to our town are, fortunately, not of this variety.)

Thank you Clyde! As a regular downtown patron, the number of problematic people I see is very slim compared to the many, many more people who visit our downtown without incident.

I am also curious to know if all of the new establishments have attracted more people downtown, and if they have, how many. From what I see, a couple of the newer bars have truly brought in a new population, but the bulk of the crowd remains the same, with just more places to visit. I would also like to point out that a new population isn't necessarily a bad thing. The 40+ crowd at 526 Main and the Soccer Fans at Red Fox are both great additions to our downtown, who brought something new and were both hotly contested before they opened.

Personally, I would rather have these so-called "100's of drunks" riding around in party buses than in "100's" of cars. I am in the over 50 crowd, live very close to downtown and am not seeing any undue behavior issues. There will always be some idiots regardless of the number of liquor licenses passed out.

Mr. Esbri, I believe you serve on the planning commission.

Please comment on how the city commission isn't following the master plan because the master plan doesn't have a goal to be a entertainment district.

Also, why didn't the planning commission amend the master plan, when the recent amendments were considered, to reflect what the city commission has has been building in the downtown......a entertainment district.

Tell us how the city is planning for our downtown. It isn't in the current master plan.

I would think as a planning commissioner, this would be your focus and interest, having a plan for the city's future..

Mr. Esbri, if you serve on the city's plan commission, you would be more familiar with Royal Oak's master plan than 99% of the citizens. I think that qualifies you to be called an "expert" on the master plan. I also understand that you are a mayoral appointee to be on the plan commission.

As a resident, I participated in a couple of the neighborhood charettes that were conducted during the master plan process in 1999. I remember that there was a strong feeling that the goal for the downtown was to be a mixed use downtown including a strong retail presence.

Yet, the decisions of past and present city commissions have turned the downtown into a entertainment and bar district.

As a plan commissioner, how do you reconcile the goals of the master plan with turning our downtown into a bar district?

The city isn't following the master plan. Shouldn't the planning commission be amending the master plan to the direction the city commission has gone in?

If I'm mistaken, please point me in the direction of when and where the city decided to be a entertainment district? And where can I find the city's vision and plan of how to accomodate such a goal? You know, how to pay for it?

After reading the Liquor Ordinance Statement of Purpose, it also appears, that the city commission isn't following the intent of the ordinance to limit liquor licenses in Royal Oak.

As a citizen, I would hope that my plan commissioners, zoning board members, and city commissioners vote to uphold the master plan, and all ordinances.

If you disagree with them, then work to amend the ordinances and master plan, but do it in a public process.

Clyde, thanks for the opportunity to comment.

As a plan commissioner, I want to ask you a very simple question. Nobody seems to want to answer this question.

With the exception of letting a hotel have a liquor license for a hotel development, what is your saturation level for liquor licenses in town? Royal Oak has over 50 now. Surely, you can answer this simple question as a planning board member.

I've asked the mayor this question 3 times, and he has never given me an answer.
Hopefully, you will. ;)

Under State law, the Planning Commission is not involved with liquor licenses. That is the strict province of the City Commission.

So the question may be simple, but is not relevant to a Planning Commissioner. They can only approve/alter/or disapprove of the physical and business plan submitted. They cannot deny a restaurant/bar plan if it meets the Zoning Ordinance. Again, liquor is up to the CC.

A sad, but humorous fact is that many of those who complain the most about the lack of downtown retail are the same people that killed downtown retail when they were younger and took their families off to shop at the new malls - permanently.

Clyde, as a citizen of Royal Oak (not as a plan commissioner), what do you think the saturation level of liquor licenses is in downtown. How many more bars do we need? That's simple enough.

As a plan commissioner, I would like to hear your thoughts on how the downtown has been developed versus the goals of the master plan.

Also, you've stated you've followed this commentary very closely. I assume you've read the liquor ordinance statement of purpose. Do you think the city commission is following the intent of the ordinance?

These aren't supposed to be stumper questions. Straight up, what do you think?

Regarding “fact” #3- Party Buses
The city commission hasn’t done enough to remedy the party bus situation. When party bus occupants and/or operators become disruptive law enforcement needs the tools to better control the situation--The City Commission is the body citizens have elected to supply those tools/ordinances.

The ICMA report made very specific recommendations concerning the CBD to optimize our limited public safety resources:

1) Create a separate CBD enforcement unit consisting of one
Sergeant and four police officers. This unit would be funded in
large part by CBD businesses, would be removed from patrol
operations, and would become part of a new division and be
commanded by a lieutenant.

2) Enact a civil nuisance ordinance to give the ROPD the tools to
police problematic locations.

City Attorney Gillam was directed to look into a civil nuisance ordinance last February-- Any follow up by the Commission???

How arrogant for Mr. Esbri to say his view is "fair," and other views are not. I find his blog nothing but poorly researched dribble.

When I noticed that a planning commissioner was going to weigh in on the issue, my hopes went up that intelligent discourse on the issue would follow. I was disappointed to read Mr. Esbri's meatless sandwich response.

I expected a planning commissioner to share his knowledge of the master plan, city ordinances, and other planning devices.

Instead, Mr. Esbri choose to contest very minor points, instead of addressing the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

This blog offers no solutions!