Having thought a bit more about the subject, I do believe Angie's serves a very real and underserved element of the Rainier Valley. Businesses should never be discriminated against due to their clientele, and I don't think they are in C City. I do believe the outrage against Angie's is not because of the ethnicity or socio-economic status of its clients but is due to the outright dangerous and criminal element it often attracts. This element is unacceptable, and I do not believe it really makes up the core business of Angie's. If the criminal element was not allowed to operate freely in and around Angie's I don't believe they would lose business. In fact, they may gain additional customers.

It is an easy fix, the management of Angie's needs to hire (at least on the weekends) a qualified staff of bouncers who know how to manage elements that are found in all bars. Experienced bouncers exist and can go a long way in keeping an establishment safe for its patrons and the neighborhood around it. Initially Angie's will also have to hire an off-duty police officer who is in uniform. I am not an expert in the rules surrounding off-duty police officers, but I am 99.9% sure that it is an off-duty police officer in uniform that is paid to be at Safeway. A uniformed police presence will eventually drive the criminal element away.

All this is predicated on the ownership wanting to make a change. If they owner is a good business person then they will know that this change will be necessary to protect their business. This is also where folks active in the neighborhood business district can help. Instead of being confrontational (I'm not saying they necessarily are, I don't really know), they need to support and encourage all the business owners in C City. Helping Angie's thrive as a business helps all members of our community.

Keep up the engaging discussion.

Brian

I'm a dive bar fan. I've hung out in Angie's a couple times mid-week and watched the game. Many of its customers are classic dive-bar drunks and fine people. They're not the problem. I'm not even particularly concerned with civility laws (a little public disorder we can deal with from time to time).

But let's face it, Angie's — whatever its old-school dive bar charms — is (especially on the weekends) not so much a low-income institution as a magnet for crime. There's blatant drug-dealing; prostitution in the alleys; fights (which I've seen) and muggings (from what I hear) and drunk and aggressive behavior. That's not character, that's crime.

Angie's also has much more than its share of nuisance behavior (from broken bottles to people yelling down the street at 2:00 in the morning), but that probably wouldn't be a big deal at all, if the place wasn't an epicenter of crime in our neighborhood.

The cops will not fix this problem by patrolling more often; they don't have the resources.

So, if we want to save a neighborhood institution, fine; but let's be real about what's going on there and what it'll take to make it okay, and that won't happen through a little community love. Something real is going to have to change to fix that place… and it should get fixed.

Just my two cents. Thanks.

Seattle Department of Neighborhoods announces changes to Neighborhood Matching Fund
Improvements make process simpler and easier to receive funding for community projects
First deadline coming up in January

SEATTLE – In its continuing efforts to make the Neighborhood Matching Fund (NMF) more accessible and simpler for residents, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods has made key improvements to this nationally recognized program. The Neighborhood Matching Fund Program provides cash awards to community organizations for neighborhood-based projects, and these changes not only make the structure and process easier, but reflect the changing economy. The changes take effect now for applications requesting 2010 funds.

Highlights of the changes include new electronic application forms, clearer guidelines, increased award amounts, and technical assistance workshops. The NMF website has also been revamped to make it easier to navigate and apply for the four funding categories: Large Projects Fund, Small and Simple Fund, Small Sparks Fund and Tree Fund.

Here is a more complete overview of the changes:

NMF Guidelines:
• NMF guidelines are now clearer and easier to navigate. In fact, all four funds are covered under the same document.
• The value of volunteer time has increased to $20 per hour keeping up with Independent Sector research on average volunteer time value.

Fund Changes:
• The Outreach Fund is now combined with the Small Sparks Fund, which will continue to provide support for community building projects with small funding needs, along with new flexible guidelines.

Award Amount:
• To reflect rising costs, fund request limits have increased to up to $1000 for the Small Sparks Fund and up to $20,000 for the Small and Simple Fund.

Application Forms:
• The forms are designed to be easier to use, along with simplified questions, fill-in electronic formatting, and simpler work plan and budget forms.
• Signatures documenting community match pledges are no longer required for the application.

Technical Assistance and Website:
• To increase outreach and assistance, NMF staff will hold one to two technical assistance workshops every month around the city. There are two workshops in December and three occurring in January.
• The website has been revamped to ease navigation and provide clearer information with the inclusion of a “Frequently Asked Questions” section. It also has enhanced features and links to other funding opportunities.

The deadline for Small and Simple Projects Fund is January 11, 2010 (next deadline in July) and the Large Projects Fund Letter of Intent is due February 8, 2010. For more information, visit www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/nmf/.

The Seattle Department of Neighborhoods works to bring government closer to our residents through civic engagement, community empowerment and involvement by all residents for the betterment of their community.

I live a ways away from this, and my attitude toward Angie's is mainly tolerant neglect. I've been inside only twice, I've read about some violence, but I haven't experienced it. When I walk that way I'm usually on the east side of Rainier, because there's more interest for me there.

Shrie and Brian are right: Angie's is an institution. It's emblematic of a time before my time. And whenever newbies arrive on the scene and start railing at the status quo, well… eyes roll. Believe me, I think any neighbor can bring valuable perspectives to the conversation, but the rest of us can't help but measure those ideas against what little we can glean about that Citizen's background. Still, I wish we would all focus more on the message, less on the messenger.

It seems like this conversation muddles cause, effect, and responsibility. I like how Rob's characterization teases out the players and their roles. The landowners, the business owners, and the City are clearly having a hard time working together on dealing with the bad guys — but I'm none of those.

So what's neighbors' role? Maybe it was neighbors' complaints that caused the City to write this letter — that's a political angle (any idea whether a new City Attorney might take a different approach?) It seems like the bigger gentrification questions hinge on the business & social angles. I don't drink at Angie's because, well, it's not the Ale House. And to the extent that other Columbia City newbies share my tastes for microbrews, we draw down Angie's pool of legitimate clientele by not patronizing it. But if the likes of me did show up expecting our pints of porter and our world soccer, well — it pretty soon it wouldn't be Angie's anymore.

So sure, maybe Brian's call to action could get the City to back off for awhile. But then what? To patronize, or no? For me, either choice is one more nudge toward gentrification. Angie's outcome is just an indicator — neighborhood change is much more about us.

I'm not dramatic, just a CC citizen with plenty to say on the matter, just like other commenters on this subject.

This is a public forum to discuss community issues, which I feel aren't the topic anymore. I'll refrain from commenting on the Angie's issue anymore, as I believe the focus is no longer on the discussion at hand. I've made my argument, but choose not to direct my comments at an individual instead of the original topic.

Happy discussing!

"Crime of optimism" is a little dramatic, don't you think? The police met with Angie's owner numerous times throughout the year, told him of the drug dealings of his bar, got him to enter a Good Neighbor Agreement, and then the owner flaked out on the security training program. The OWNER doesn't want to make the area safer for his own customers. Why should we tolerate and protect someone like that in our community?

Also, as ugly as the condos and apartment buildings are, they provide an array of affordable housing for all types of families. One of those bland modern apartment complexes on Rainier Avenue South houses 50 men and women who were all formerly homeless. Why can't they enjoy a modern place to live? As for chain restaurants, I have nothing against them as long as they're local and the food they serve is fresh, wholesome and affordable. I'm sure the non-Tutta Bella and non-Lottie crowds would enjoy that too… whomever they might be. I'm not saying I want CC to be nothing but apartment buildings and chain restaurants but I really don't believe they'll start sprouting up everywhere once Angie's is gone. So now, can we PLEASE stop using gentrification as a point of argument for Angie's?

quoted text

Let's not slight the businesses and owners who are contributing to the neighborhood to glorify a business that won't follow a Good Neighbor Agreement.

Forgive me for being hopeful that a long-time establishment that perhaps caters to the non-Tuta Bella, non-Lottie's Lounge crowd should be able to remain. However, I would support a security presence in the area. There are a lot of families and children… and it's important to protect our community.

//Indeud 11.03.09 at 6:18 pm

Okay, local communities like ours are already hiring private security, for the same reasons…

Here are some articles about it –

Cash-Strapped Cities Try Private Guards Over Police
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027127337237011.html

Cops for hire: the rise of private police
http://kotare.typepad.com/thestrategist/2009/07/cops-for-hire-the-rise-of-private-police.html

Edgewood community hires security firm to combat crime
http://www.examiner.com/a-266328~Edgewood_community_hires_security_firm_to_combat_crime.html

Think about the decline in the value of your property, and the decline in your safety. What’s that worth to you? If everyone in the Rainier Valley chipped in a few bucks a year, we’d have one heck of a security force on our streets. And none of them would be there to write you a traffic ticket.//

…funny how there's enough manpower to have a cop (yes, an actual police officer) sitting by the door at Lowe's and Safeway pretty much every time I go to either. Do those businesses pay for that service?…I have no idea. Could a business association hire its own officer to patrol a neighborhood? Are police officers for hire like that?

Tom — I'm pretty sure we would all be ignored fairly quick as the cops would be getting calls about verbal harassment and drug sales daily. The police knows what's up at the corner too but what we wish the cops can do and what they actually can do (within regulation and laws) are very different things. It seems like revoking Angie's license is the best solution the city can come up with to deal with our corner problem.

Shrie — I hate for this to sound so personal but if you don't frequent Angie's very often, why are you so adamant about keeping it? If the people that you were speaking of, the ones that feel it's a piece of home, really want to keep Angie's then they will speak and act on their own. When they do, I really hope it's not more talk about gentrification.

I think we can all agree that if there wasn't so much crime surrounding Angie's front and side streets, we would be happy to have it in our neighborhood. But there is. The owners could have taken bigger steps to control what was happening outside if they really wanted to. They've proved otherwise and now here we are.

Sidenote: It seems there's a pattern showing up between living distance to Angie's and which side of the argument you're on. I also live less than 2 blocks away and I am so ready to see it go.

To be fair, I am always amazed that there is not more of an active police presence at and around Angie's. The lack of effort on the city's part to be proactive is very discouraging. The crime is blatant (I cannot tell you how many times I've been
solicited for drugs when just simply walking by). Arrests could be made at any moment on any night…yet, it rarely happens.

It's a tricky situation. No one wants a business to go under. No one wants to see anyone displaced. But, to pretend that this is all about the evils of gentrification and not about the safety of the neighborhood is ridiculous. If Angie's was in any other neighborhood—the CD, Capitol Hill, R. Beach, Wallingord, wherever, I still think the city would be fighting to remove its liquor license.

i agree with rong — if you are concerned about losing our diversification, work for affordable housing in our area or volunteer at REWA or any other local not for profit that is assisting minorities (I do) —

First, there is the owner of the property. Unlike many Columbia City commercial property owners who actively participate in the revitalization of the business district, the Angie's property owner has gone to great lengths to be unreachable and unresponsive. Clearly, he has done nothing to maintain his building; the business owners will vouch for this.

Second, there is the business owner. The current owner bought the business from long-time owners Dan and Suki about 9 months ago. I don't believe the current business owner has any previous ties to the neighborhood, but he does own multiple similar establishments around the Seattle area. He's an experienced bar owner, who presumably knows what he's doing.

Third, there are the regular Angie's customers. The regulars are great people living in the neighborhood. They will tell you that they can't stand the criminal elements who come and go from Angie's and use it as cover for drug dealing and prostitution in the immediate vicinity. They will also tell you they blame the business owner for not taking the steps necessary to discourage the criminal behavior.

Fourth are the bad guys whose presence and activity directly hurt Columbia City's restaurants and shop owners. Most Columbia City businesses are struggling and need every bit of assistance they can get. The last thing our small businesses need is for customers to get discouraged from visiting.

It seems to me that the answer lies in there being a property owner willing to engage and keep the building from falling down, and a business owner willing to take the aggressive management steps necessary to deny the use of Angie's as a safe haven. If liquor license denial is needed to get owner attention or to force a change in ownership, so be it. I do hope Angie's will survive as a place the regulars can enjoy for many years to come, but it is going to take responsible ownership and management.