The Third Street Cafe, with the Taproom directly next door.
What responsibility does a private business have to its community?
That question came to my mind recently after sitting through a court hearing on the city’s continuing effort to revoke the business license of the Third Street Café (formerly Club 1400).
At the hearing, the city told Court of Common Pleas Judge Andrew Dowling of repeated criminal incidents in and around the bar at the corner of N. 3rd and Calder streets over the past two years.
That’s why, said city Solicitor Neil Grover, the city yanked the bar’s business license, an action upheld in late August by the three-person Business Privilege and Mercantile License Appeal Board.
The bar then appealed that decision to the Dauphin County court, which was why Dowling was now involved. He would decide whether to allow the bar to stay open until the court could consider the appeal.
At the hearing, Grover ticked off allegations against the Third Street Café:
- In March, a guy was assaulted at the bar’s front door.
- In May, a woman was badly beaten in the alley in back of the bar.
- In May, a drug transaction was arranged inside the bar and took place outside.
There was other criminal activity, too, Grover said, eight specific incidents since March 2014.
The bar’s attorney, Christopher Wilson, refuted them all.
He said that the owner, Tony Paliometros, could not be held responsible for actions outside his bar, even if they were at the front door, or in the back alley, and even if they involved his patrons, who he could not control. As for the drug transaction—that was a Harrisburg police setup, he said.
And to the extent there are genuine problems at N. 3rd and Calder, the bar next door—the Taproom (itself under threat of closure)—is mostly to blame, Wilson said, as are the city and Capital Area Transit for locating a bus stop at the corner.
In the end, Judge Dowling allowed the bar to remain open until the appeals hearing, which he scheduled for Oct. 9.
His decision didn’t surprise me. From his questioning, Dowling telegraphed that he was mostly concerned about the financial harm that Paliometros would suffer if his bar were to close immediately. In his decision, Dowling wrote:
“Appellant has made a strong showing that without the requested relief, he will suffer irreparable injury, that the issuance of a stay will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings and that the issue of a stay will not adversely affect the public interest in any tangible way.” (italics added)
At the hearing, it was clear to me that Dowling had little concern (or perhaps knowledge) of the daily chaos at 3rd and Calder. The loitering, the panhandling, the fights in the streets, the screaming, the swearing, the litter, the harassment of pedestrians, the drunks stumbling into traffic, the guys sleeping it off on the sidewalk, the smell of urine at the boarded up buildings up the block—all of which I’ve seen and experienced. This dysfunction will now continue at least until the October hearing.
I understand that Dowling is constrained by the testimony in his courtroom, but the problems at that corner go far beyond a handful of alleged criminal incidents. The two bars—which acknowledge the block’s problems, but point fingers at each other through their shared wall—are dramatically affecting the quality of life of the people who live and work there—or who just exercise their right to walk down the street.
Which returns me to my original question: What responsibility does a private business have to its community?
I would argue that a business has a substantial responsibility to its community. Most businesses are significant actors in the places they’re located. They then, at a minimum, have a responsibility to do no harm to that area; at best, they should actively try to improve their neighborhoods, making them better places to be and do business.
Bars, in fact, should have among the highest standards of any type of business. They’ve been granted a remarkable privilege by the state to make money selling an intoxicating substance, one that alters minds and behaviors. That’s a special right that should be approached with deep concern for the bar’s patrons and the surrounding community.
In Harrisburg, most bars (and restaurants that serve alcohol) seem to take this responsibility fairly seriously. Some owners are certainly better than others, and the 2 a.m. scene on 2nd Street can get rowdy. But trouble is not an all day, every day occurrence. Outside of most bars, people don’t cross the street to avoid walking by or, when they do, fear for themselves or their families, thinking that something bad might happen.
They often do when passing the Third Street Café and the Taproom. While the owners battle the city and sling mud at each other, the people in the neighborhood are being profoundly affected. To those who live, work and walk there, the bars are practically indistinguishable, with a constant flow between them, all day, starting at 7 a.m., when they open. Is one worse than the other? Maybe, but, right now, the two are feeding off each other.
I don’t wish ill to either Paliometros or to Dave Larche, who owns the Taproom (Larche also owns the Brownstone Café on Forster Street, notably a bar with seemingly few problems). However, they have to recognize that there’s an entire community around them that is suffering.
Is that awesome power—the power to diminish a community’s welfare and seal its fate—something that should be granted to two guys who want to sling booze?
Last year, I went with a developer to look at the dilapidated, boarded-up building next to the Taproom owned by the Volunteers of America, a building with a covered entry that is sometimes used as both a bathroom and a crash pad by bar patrons. Parking across the street, he was immediately beset by people shrieking, fighting and swearing at each other on a Tuesday afternoon.
Without even going inside, the developer passed on a building rehab, saying there was no way he’d touch the VOA building with the chaos on the block. How would he rent any apartments? Who would want to live there?
In his order, Judge Dowling showed a concern for one man’s paycheck, while dismissing the threat to the “public interest.” In fact, contrary to Dowling’s belief, the public interest is being adversely affected, profoundly so, and has been for years.
At the Oct. 9 hearing, Dowling may hear again of the city’s allegations against the bar, perhaps in more detail, as well as explanations from the bar’s attorneys. However, if he’s going to invoke the public interest, he should find out what that public interest is so that he can determine, in an informed manner, if it is being “adversely affected . . . in any tangible way.” A good start would be to take a walk up 3rd Street, check out the action on the corner and then talk to some people who live and work in the immediate neighborhood.
