(Image: KELO-TV)
City ordinance was changed last night to allow the Overlook Café to apply for a malt beverage license and sell alcohol during regular business hours.
I am all for the café providing alcohol during special and catered events. The café has done this in the past, but I am have trouble grasping why they need to sell during regular hours?
Good question.
First off, I don’t think this is going to add much to the Overlook Café’s bottom line. Many other family restaurants/cafes downtown provide beer and wine, and most would tell you that it really doesn’t help/or harm the business, so why the big push at Overlook?
WILD SPECULATION
Remember what the first proposal for the Overlook Café was? It was proposed to make it a fine dining, privately ran full service restaurant. I cannot recall why that idea was ever turned down, but I do know that it is something that CAN be done in the future simply by changing the contract or lease agreement.
You will have to give Milstead credit, she understands that working with local government, you have to take baby steps all the way. Her husband has worked in public service most of his life, he for one knows things don’t get done overnight. Milstead understands her first step was getting approval of this ordinance change and eventually her license. I ‘speculate’ once she proves she can provide alcohol safely during regular business hours she will propose changing the café into a full-service restaurant, and she may even want to take it a step further by changing the way the café profit shares with the city and convert it to a lease agreement.
This of course is speculation on my part, but I am still scratching my head why she fought so hard to sell beer with ice cream cones, hot dogs and cookies. .
Don’t get me wrong, I think a full-service restaurant in that location is a wonderful idea, and have often wondered why it was turned down to begin with. Food for thought.
Until it becomes more than a snack bar it will never catch on.
Very true. Catering is a very profitable business, and she knows she needs it to make it float. I am also sure she is well aware how popular a full-service restaurant would be at that location. Wouldn’t it be wonderful enjoying filet and lobster with a glass of wine on that patio overlooking Falls Park? Something’s up. I’m just saying.
Agree 100%. As unique dining spaces go, could any restaurateur in town be handed a better physical location than that? Every year the city lets that place go by as a glorified snack cart is a year the city is leaving a pile of money on the table. Invest the modest sum necessary to upgrade the kitchen (which seems to be the real hangup with the property) and get on with it.
hornguy’s correct, except that to do it right it’s more like a low six figures project.
Also, remember that they only got one formal proposal back on the place, so others who looked at it obviously didn’t like the numbers as is. Kudos to her for making a go of it. If I were her, I’d make deal with Monks to sell their homebrew.
I hope she does it.
Beer with ice cream … yuck. For once the city is thinking into the future when Falls Park becomes a habitat for vagrants and winos. Why should they have to take the trolley to Sid’s? Perhaps they should sell needles and crack pipes?
I’d agree with Sy, except I have no problem categorizing a low six-figure investment in that building as a modest expenditure, especially when one considers the economic potential it adds to the building. Without the upgrade, like Sy points out, the city just isn’t going to see a lot of interest in that space. It’s like watching someone try to make the best out of a three-legged stool.
I mean, if we’ve got money to hand the State Theatre a projector in exchange for maybe letting some kids go to Saturday movies for free…
And you know, the only reason the State put that offer in there is because councilors Jamison and Staggers asked what they are getting in return for the donation.
There is nothing wrong with asking how the public – no matter who it is – benefits from support. It’s called partnerships and if our city councilors initiated that conversation – well good for them. Seriously – do we have to make a mountain out of a mole hill every time?!? The State Theatre will draw even more people DT where they will spend money of which some will go back into the city coffers. A much, much better option than the building sitting in the middle of DT rotting away.
And as far as the Overlook – I go back to an above statement, “Many other family restaurants/cafes downtown provide beer and wine, and most would tell you that it really doesn’t help/or harm the business, so why the big push at Overlook?” Exactly – why not try it and see if it helps? I am one that enjoys a “cold” one or a glass of wine with my meals – especially in the summer.
It’s amazing how people can take a new implementation and make it into the whole park will be full of drunks – which the lady did on the news the other night. Good grief!
I agree, the State will be a great addition to DT, and I think the money the city has already given the theatre for building upgrades is good. You have to understand where this all started. First off, if Staggers never offered the amendment about the contract and if the State never offered the free mantinees this would have NEVER passed. The State basically went in just wanting the money with NO strings attached, a bad precedent for any non-profit to set. My question is #1, how did this ever get to full council vote when they did not have a concensus on it (in the working session they were split 4-4) and #2 why did the four that wanted it think it was a good idea to just give away $63,000 of taxpayer money to a PRIVATE non-profit with no strings attached? The money is one thing, the handouts with no responsibility is another. I told a councilor today that the 4 that wanted this without a contract need to be publicly ‘reminded’ that this will not happen in the future.
I’m fine with the alcohol within the restaurant, it is the sudden policy change at Falls Park that I question.