Do Dollars = Votes?

The Charge from Geof Vasquez

Frank,

recently came before Royal Oak’s City Commission to request an expansion to their plan of operation. What wasn’t disclosed prior to the Commission’s discussion and vote was the approximately $6,500 contributed during the recent city election by individuals (and their relatives) associated with Fifth Avenue and its landlord. Commissioners DuBuc and Fournier each received about $2,000 and Commissioner Goodwin received $800. Even George Gomez, who was defeated in the election, but spoke in favor of Fifth Avenue’s request during Public Comment received over $1,000.

After a discussion, Royal Oak’s City Commission approved Fifth Avenue’s request by a vote of 5 to 2:

• Ayes: Ellison, Rasor, DuBuc, Fournier, Goodwin
• Nays: Poulton, Capello

No meaningful consideration was given to the track record of Fifth Avenue’s current operators. Before being corrected by Commissioner Poulton, Commissioner Rasor even went so far as to say there were no police calls at Fifth Avenue. In fact, there were 185 calls for service during 2011; on average the police visited Fifth Avenue every other day for an entire year. Some of these calls involved a near riot this last summer, employees assaulting patrons, an intoxicated patron exposing himself, fighting and more.

Even with this track record, Commissioner DuBuc says Fifth Avenue’s managers are “good actors” “running an exemplary business”; Fournier said voting for this expansion is a “no brainer” and Goodwin claimed Fifth Avenue was “culturally attractive”. To me, the only facts that support these comments are the facts surrounding the campaign contributions. Fifth Avenue is very costly from a public safety standpoint and Royal Oak should be considering cutting back its operation rather than expanding it.

Commissioners DuBuc, Fournier and Goodwin should have sat out this vote. Voting just weeks after receiving these large contributions raises serious ethical questions. During the election cycle we asked what favors special interests would ask for in return for contributions; perhaps now we know. The city needs to put some teeth in its ethics ordinance. 

Thanks! 

Geof Vasquez

For those who will ask, how this page came to be

Geof submitted his letter, asking that it be published in Versagi Voice. I said I would consider publishing it only if he agreed that I would first forward it to the individuals he names. The intention was that his letter and any responses would appear on the same page at the same time. Geof's answer was, "Absolutely."

On Tuesday, I emailed the letter and invitation to respond to George, Kyle, Mike, and Peggy, setting Saturday night as the deadline. I suggested, too, that they might alert Fifth Avenue, in case the owners might want to comment.

On Thursday, George submitted his response.

On Friday, I called (left a reminder message) for Kyle, Mike, and Peggy.

Saturday morning I received Peggy's response.

Sunday morning, I found a response on behalf of Fifth Avenue, which had been posted just after midnight.

George Gomez

Frank,

In the few years that I've become aware of Mr. Vasquez's presence I never thought of him as cowardly or misinformed. His comments have changed my mind.  Only a coward hides behind accusations instead of walking up to the podium and speaking his point of view as the rest of us have done.

Misinformed, as he didn't acknowledge that over the years I have repeated my message that dancing isn't evil and possibly a good distraction from just drinking. I've personally approached the old commission on a number of times and spoken in favor of dancing and hope that I had a small influence on licenses becoming available once again.  Also  I spoke in favor of 5th Ave based on what I saw as an injustice where as they were the only large venue in town that was overlooked for dancing, earlier operating hours and a larger bar area.  Even after they were turned down, Diablo Cantina and Tequila Blues were given one.  

I'll admit accepting donations from a number of the people involved in the 5th but only after I came to know and respect them.  What Mr. Vasquez didn't acknowledge or possibly know is that I returned a donation from an individual associated with the owners but since I didn't recognize them from Royal Oak chose to return the monies back to them.  Even  though it was given to me with the best of intentions I just didn't feel comfortable.

Next time I suggest anyone disagreeing with a point of view to step up to the podium and take a chance to express their feelings and say something to convince 7 honest, caring people of what they believe to be fair and best for the City.

Sincerely,

George Gomez

Fifth Avenue

Dear Mr. Versagi,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of Mr. Geof Vasquez regarding Fifth Avenue.

During the public hearing at the LCC meeting, we attempted to accurately describe the factual history surrounding the reopening of Fifth Avenue and the performance of Fifth Avenue since said opening. As stated at the meeting, Fifth Avenue has developed a record of which Royal Oak can be proud. In addition to the obvious positives of job creation (60+ jobs) and significantly enhancing both the appearance and the activity level (shopping/dining) of the Washington Street/Fifth Avenue corridor, Fifth Avenue has been a proud participant in a number of Royal Oak’s most successful charitable events. It must be mentioned that Fifth Avenue established this impressive record while enduring what can only be described as some sort of vendetta developed by certain members of the outgoing City Commission which manifested itself in a veritable witch-hunt to find wrongdoing on the part of Fifth Avenue. As a direct result of this campaign against Fifth Avenue, as explained by police officers during testimony in Royal Oak District Court, they were ordered to enter Fifth Avenue on an almost daily basis resulting in the majority of “the calls for service” referenced by Mr. Vasquez. Every time a police officer walks into Fifth Avenue for a “check”, it constitutes “a call for service.” Unfortunately for these individuals, (and the City which could have obviously utilized its resources in a host of more productive ways) the 44th District Court granted a Motion to Dismiss and exonerated Fifth Avenue of any wrong doing related to its plan of operation. In addition, the Police Department recommended approval of Fifth Avenue’s Plan of Operation with the exception of dancing which admittedly had more to do with staffing issues than the record established by Fifth Avenue.

Fifth Avenue was approved because, despite the challenges presented to Fifth Avenue as a function of being deprived of what seemed to be such fundamental rights as operating during hours of its choosing and enjoying music with dancing, Fifth Avenue has not only flourished but has become a very positive contributor to the Royal Oak Community. Contrary to Mr. Vasquez’s assertion, Fifth Avenue’s plan was not “expanded” but as the Commissioners pointed out, Fifth Avenue was simply afforded the same opportunity every other liquor license establishment has been granted, to operate with dancing pursuant to a dance permit agreement that is revocable by the city if certain standards are not meet.

With regard to the “charges” of participation in the democratic process, charges of which Mr. Vasquez is ostensibly also guilty, the referenced contributions were made after considered examination of the candidates. The undersigned, on behalf of Fifth Avenue attended most, if not all of the candidate forums and reviewed the information that was otherwise available in order to understand which of the seven would be best suited to move Royal Oak forward in a positive direction, with an objective approach to what is in the best interest of Royal Oak. The best evidence of this new objectivity is the treatment of Fifth Avenue during the very vote Mr. Vasquez references. It is the current commission, including its three newest members that, for the very first time, gave “meaningful consideration” to Fifth Avenue’s track record and as discussed above it is a track record upon careful examination, overwhelmingly deserving of an opportunity to operate on an even playing field with other Royal Oak establishments.

Fifth Avenue’s success is inextricably intertwined with a strong vibrant Royal Oak and thankfully, the majority of Royal Oak residents agreed with Fifth Avenue and elected Commissioners Goodwin, Fournier and DuBuc, who gave and give every indication that they will no longer tolerate “politics as usual” and will truly promote an agenda that will lead to a safe, secure and prosperous Royal Oak and provide the leadership that Royal Oakers deserve.

Sincerely,

Anthony A. Yezbick

Peggy Goodwin

Frank,

Mr. Vasquez greatly distorts the facts in his letter regarding the vote on Fifth Avenue’s operating plan.  The LCC, comprised of Commissioners Capello, Fournier and Poulton, recommended approval of Fifth Avenue’s operations plan, , and this is the 5-2 vote he references.   As commissioners, we are to govern by looking at the facts of the case, not the fallacies or rumors.  Fifth Avenue was created as a live entertainment venue with dancing and billiards 20 years ago, and recently, new owners breathed life into a building that stood empty for over one year.

Like many residents I talked with during my campaign, Mr. Vasquez was greatly concerned about crime prevention, and shared his concerns with me at my fundraiser, knowing that crime prevention was a great part of my platform.  At the last CC meeting, I introduced a safe neighborhoods initiative and was unanimously appointed to the Crime Prevention Council.   This is what we, as commissioners do, bring forth the issues, deliberate them, and try to implement good policy that does the most good and the least harm possible.  I don’t believe dancing causes harm to most people.  Over-intoxication does.

As commissioners, we look at the facts. The facts of the Fifth Avenue case are:

• The vote in question pertained to dancing.  Fifth Avenue is one of the very few Class C License Holders that schedules live bands from the blues, rock and jazz genres.  I believe dancing compliments live entertainment, and to prohibit it without cause is unfair.
• The City’s case against Fifth Avenue was dismissed by a Judge in the 44th District Court.
• Fifth Avenue was being allowed dancing on temporary basis, via permits issued from the Royal Oak Police.  This new permit can be revoked if it proves problematic.
• Chief O’Donahue agreed with the commission that Fifth Avenue’s owners are “good actors.”
• Fifth Avenue has a solid track record of enforcing the age limit, checking for false i.ds, and has no violation regarding serving minors.  Obviously, the entire commission was satisfied with Fifth Avenue’s operations.
• Fifth Avenue management has initiated calls to Royal Oak Police when they have identified people attempting to enter with false identification, and we thank them for this service.
• If Fifth Avenue’s owners ever prove to be “bad actors,” I will be among the first to request restrictions.  

Sincerely,

Peggy Goodwin

Frank Versagi is the editor of Versagi Voice.