“I’m not trying to put Mr. Patil out of business,” said Karl Ronne (pictured) of the competing liquor store owner whose downtown relocation he’s trying to block in court.
“Our objection,” he said, “is that particular spot.”
Ronne filed a lawsuit in Superior Court protesting the city zoning board’s decision to let Sanjay Patil move his liquor store to the site of the old Edge tattoo parlor on Chapel Street. Patil was forced to relocate from nearby College Street to make way for a large condo tower that may or may not end up being built. Read a background story and passionate reader debate here.
The Independent’s story Tuesday prompted questions over why a community-minded storeowner like Ronne, who often donates wine to charity events, would block another businessman’s move.
In the suit, Ronne charges the Wine Thief is aggrieved because Patil’s new location would be within 1,500 feet of Ronne’s store. So is Patil’s current location store, which has been there for 18 years, before Ronne came to downtown.
Ronne expanded on his viewpoint in an interview Thursday at his Crown Street wine store.
Having Patil’s store so close by “does reduce the value of my business,” said Ronne.
But Ronne said at the core of his complaint is not a concern over competition, but rather a vision for what type of store he’d like to see on prime downtown real estate. “We’re trying to make this for quality businesses,” he argued. Selling single-service nips, as Patil has traditionally done, causes “problems,” he said.
In approving Patil’s special exception, the city zoning board slapped on new conditions that would force him to clean up shop: No selling loosies — single cans or single bottles of beer. No selling lottery tickets or cigarettes. No selling plastic one-shot portions of alcohol, aka nips.
Ronne said he hadn’t heard about those conditions. But he questioned what kind of business owner needs to have special conditions put on his lease in order to be acceptable downtown.
The Wine Thief owner didn’t attend the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing where the city board approved the application, with conditions.
“I was shocked when I heard they approved it,” he said. “They probably should have put a little more thought into it.” Once the city decision was made, he said, “my only recourse was to take legal action.”
Scott Healy (pictured), head of the Town Green Special Services District, backed up Ronne’s position in an interview Thursday. He said he regretted that the fight has become so personal, but he shared Ronne’s feelings that the downtown spot is too precious to be turned into a package store.
The New Haven Green is the “one iconic space that is the center of the city,” Healy explained. “To have a liquor store across from your most iconic space is not appropriate.”
“It’s not snobbery, it’s not classism,” Healy said — “that use is not appropriate for that space.”
Healy’s group opposed the proposal before the zoning board, and he’s been in touch with the State Liquor Commission to see if there were any further recourses against having Patil’s store in that spot (there aren’t at this time).
Healy stressed that spot on the Green is not Patil’s only option: He suggested open spots on State Street, Court Street and in the Ninth Square. Healy’s group has a standing offer to help businesses find places downtown, he said.
Patil has said he’s a small business owner trying to make a living, with an 18-year track record of serving people downtown.
However, Healy questioned the “community-mindedness of a business owner” who has spent 18 years “selling opportunistically nips and single beers to people who are addicted to alcohol.” That type of business is “shameful,” Healy said. While the free market may support nips and loosies, Healy urged the city to reach for a “higher standard” with its prominent downtown tenants.
“In its most important spaces, sometimes the community has to be more heavy-handed and more vocal” in enforcing higher standards above what the free market would naturally bring.