ONE OF the more common sights at City Hall through the years, spanning multiple mayors, is the cringeworthy spectacle of a small/independent business owner standing before City Council, being verbally abused in public for daring to want to invest their money in Savannah.
By now it’s a cliché, but it gets no easier to watch: Individuals, not affiliated with a corporate chain, decide to invest their savings or credit line — or both — in a business venture in one of America’s most lovely cities and vibrant tourist destinations.
They get all the right permits, make sure their zoning’s in order, and genuflect before all the relevant bureaucracies.
And then — often with regards to an alcohol license — some members of City Council put the brakes on the project, insult them for not doing due diligence, imply their goal is to destroy the fiber of the community, and grandstand with a new series of ad hoc, last-minute demands.
All because the small businessperson had the gall to want to put some money back into a community with a 26 percent average poverty rate.
Of course, projects with corporate affiliation continue to sail through often completely unchecked, a long-standing issue which has only just within the past few months received Council attention.
In the meantime Savannah is one of the most famously lax cities in America with regards to alcohol. For example, the City seems to have no problem with Bud Light tents selling $3 quarts of beer on St. Patrick’s Day so young people can walk around puking in the bushes all afternoon.
I don’t recall anyone getting called on the carpet in front of Council for that.
The Stage On Bay is a new venture seeking to meet the demand for a mid-size performance venue bigger than a large club but smaller than the current Johnny Mercer Theatre or the upcoming Westside Arena, which will be about a mile from Stage On Bay’s location in a similarly depressed neighborhood.
Like any such venue it will almost certainly need a liquor license to be commercially viable. Therein lies the rub.
I bring this case up only because I have seen this scenario play out so many times before. It’s like deja vu at this point.
In last week’s liquor license hearing for Stage On Bay, Alderman Van Johnson, in whose district the venue would be, said he has “major issues” with it.
He told CEO Charlie Schmitt, “Good concept, wrong place,” suggesting that Schmitt move it to the other end of the Viaduct in downtown proper.
(This is the same Van Johnson who just weeks before said to applause in Council chambers that the Historic District was becoming “like Disneyland” from unchecked development.)
I’m gobsmacked that Savannah continues to tolerate its elected officials — who often have literally zero business experience — lecturing businesspeople at the granular level about which business model to use, what products to sell, what customer base to target, and what district they can and can’t locate in.
The nearby Hudson Hill neighborhood agrees with Johnson, with residents speaking forcefully against the all-ages venue, its serving of alcohol in a neighborhood with several bars and liquor stores already, and the disruption and type of music and clientele it would bring.
The neighborhood also insists their input wasn’t solicited. Schmitt disagrees, saying “I can’t force people to answer emails and phone calls.”
Meanwhile, Schmitt — wisely or not — has already scheduled a concert by the Marshall Tucker Band as the opening event at Stage On Bay, set for Feb. 3.
Mayor Eddie DeLoach, himself a small business owner, challenged Schmitt, saying, “I think you jumped the gun on hiring Marshall Tucker before you got the liquor license you need.”
A visibly angry DeLoach told Schmitt he wouldn’t vote for the license if Schmitt didn’t meet with the neighborhood again to assuage community concerns.
“That’s on you,” the Mayor said, ending with an open threat:
“And if you don’t make that happen I won’t vote for it and we’ll have to see you in court.”
To which Schmitt responded, “With all due respect, I see your point and that’s probably what will have to happen” — i.e., taking the City to court.
I’m not a lawyer, but if history is any guide it’s a case Schmitt is likely to win, with court costs borne by us, the taxpayers.
But I’m not here to agree or disagree with either Hudson Hill residents or Stage On Bay.
I’m here to say it didn’t have to go down this way.
And there’s a way to make sure it doesn’t happen this way in the future.
I agree with what Alderman Tony Thomas said at the contentious hearing: Savannah needs to have a coherent policy which balances the very real need of residents to have input, and the very real property rights of small business investors.
The core problem is this: The City continues to approve or disapprove many projects often on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis, with little standard protocol that small/independent businesspeople can consistently depend on.
As it stands, a vocal minority of residents can often have de facto veto power over small business startups in Savannah.
However, rarely does even a vocal majority of residents have any real sway over a larger corporate development.
And now for the issue of the Westside Arena itself. A vastly larger project in scale than Stage On Bay, with full liquor license capability, the Westside Arena when built will have the potential of neighborhood disruption many orders of magnitude greater than Stage On Bay.
Yet the Arena project was specifically sold to County voters — who are paying for the project at this moment with the SPLOST one percent tax — precisely because it’s an entertainment venue selling alcoholic beverages, bringing investment money into a blighted community!
The double standard is blatant, the lesson equally so: If you have a corporate or government partner, you get the benefit of the doubt and your investment is framed in the best possible light.
If you’re a small businessperson, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt and your investment is viewed as tainted and problematic, and certainly disposable.
The fact that there’s any small business at all in Savannah continues to amaze and impress me. All independent businesspeople here deserve a medal. Seriously.
This is me, raising a glass to you.
Related Stories
Stage On Bay liquor license quashed; Marshall Tucker Band show moved to Lucas
This article appears in Jan 25-31, 2017.
The city may gain from investments like the one Charlie Schmitt is making but the trickle down theory of economic advantages is never evident in the neighborhood. Small businesses generally take money out of a community. They don’t even hire a resident of the community. How would the neighborhood be served by another variation of Disneyland type attractions?
Lack of guidelines, and especially, lack of smart city planners, are the overall problems. City planners are supposed to have the interests of residents & small business in mind, but these seem to focus mostly on pleasing large corporations.
Perfect example: many Hudson Hill residents don’t want the Arena to come in as planned,because they haven’t been incorporated into the planning of it.
Good city planners would’ve made sure a project of this size INCLUDED residents’concerns at all levels-employment & business opportunities, safety, transportation, safe places for youth to recreate/learn, housing-all of it.
City council members are not professional planners & can’t do planning work professionally, no matter how much people complain.
The liquor license approval should not come at the end of the process. But the city wants you to have a complete CO before they will even schedule you to go before council for the liquor license. So you have to show proof that you completely renovated the building to modern codes, then you can ask about a liquor license.
You can’t say “they don’t even hire a resident of the community” when they are still under constuction. They obviously have hired some local contractors already and will have more employment opportunities when they open. This block has mostly vacant and blighted buildings on it. It’s an area targeted for revitilization. Replacing vacant buildings with thriving businesses makes an area safer. This 1 business will create dozens of job opportunities and encourage other investments. Jobs and safer streets is how the neighborhood will be served.
I love how they keep referencing “Disneyland” type attractions. I haven’t, as of yet, seen a Space Mountain or a Tea Cup ride. Obviously, these people are ignorant when it comes to terms they are using. Maybe a trip to Disney would be in order before making such claims. Small business owners are what keeps our town running. Their money stays here. Corporate businesses may hire locally but all of the money made by them goes to their corporate offices, which are not here. Come on people. Wake up and quit being such sheep. Quit following the idiots at City Hall who are only looking out for their own pockets. Use your minds and make your own decisions.
All businesses regardless of size need customers to survive. There are a growing number of us customers that are reducing our trips to Savannah because of the backwards leadership, growing crime, and lack of parking for starters. The council members seem to have agendas not readily apparent to the public.
I believe Mr. Schmitt should go into court with the idea that the Council pulled a scam. He presented a plan for his business, Council agreed to a plan, Schmitt put his life savings into the plan, and now Council is stalling on the liquor license claiming that Schmitt didn’t do his “due diligence.” The Council scammed Schmitt out of his savings on the come, likely knowing that they could convince the residents that small business is a good idea or small business is a bad idea depending on some standard about which we can only guess. If Schmitt doesn’t get the license, the city should refund ALL of his investment in the space IF he wants to get out. And of course like other Council/Mayoral mistakes, the city will have to pay once again for their incompetence.
(Speaking of that, did the Council ever remove the possibility that a government worker/official will be paid a full pension even when the Courts find said official guilty of crimes??) Did the City refund the Children’s Fund of the Sugar Factory after they permitted a government employee to embezzle the funds — yes permitted. No oversight = permission to thieves. Is she collecting her pension??