Petition to Issue an Ordinance for a Variance to Specs #58/#57 & Removal of Alcohol Zone of Memorial Elementary School

The State of Texas is suing Specs, John Rydman, Karen Lyn Rydman, et al, to close Specs #58 & #57 due to an error/oversight in the issuing of city/county/state permits and licenses. Specs #58/#57 is actually 675 feet, property line to property line (as the crow flies) from Memorial Elementary School.

Specs is operating within the boundary of the law under permits/licenses that were issued by three (3) governing entities.

The process of acquiring permits and licenses can take up to a year. The process begins with City of Houston, then the County of Harris and finally TABC (Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission) approving each step of the process prior to issuing license/permits.

TABC issued Specs their permit on February 15, 2008 after the City and County had respectfully certified all documents within the TABC application. The last permit issued was Occupancy Permit by the City of Houston in July 2008 which must be posted at entrance of the store, prior to the opening for business.

It was “uncovered” in August 2008 of the error/oversight the City of Houston made. Once again, Specs has acted within the law under the guidelines of permits/licenses applied for and granted and now the State wants to penalize Specs and the Rydmans for the error/oversight in lieu of seeking other resolutions.

Resolution was overlooked in accusing a business (Specs) of breaking the law, when in fact, they (Specs) are within their rights according to the 3 governing bodies who issued the permits. Specs was only opened a month when the error/oversight was discovered, with a request that Specs voluntarily close down.

No legal action was sought for seven months while 16 people maintained gainful employment and local community thriving.

The complaint is vague, only hinting at the laws without full text of the laws.

Facts:

1). City was contacted regarding proximity to school prior to applying for permits. City & County issued permits, it appeared no variance was needed. TABC license/permits issued in February 2008.
2). After being notified in advance in December 2007, no objection was filed from School officials prior to application and issuance of the permits.
3). Local community was duly informed via public notices as well as signage of the coming retailer. You must be 21 years or older to enter store per state law or be accompanied by a parent.
4). 16 people employed at Specs #58/#57.
5). It was later determined in August 2008 that Store is 675 direct feet, property line to property line (as the crow flies) from Memorial Elementary school after permits were issued and store was opened in July 2008.
6). School not visually seen from store (Specs).
7). Actual drive is 1,056 feet per Google Maps.
8). No resolution offered by City or County upon discovery of error/oversight/mis-issue of permits and whom have the authority to resolve this issue.
9). The store contributes to local community economy.

The above facts and time line do not justify the action that the State took when there were other avenues of resolution, which takes time, such as issue a city ordinance, issue a variance, remove the alcohol zone of Memorial Elementary or assist Specs with relocating. Only offering the proposed “We made a mistake, surrender your license/permits”.

To make the situation worse, ethics were cast aside in the mad rush to the courthouse to file the petition on Friday, March 20, 2009 @ 4:24pm (just 36 minutes before the close of courts and end of business day/week), supplying information to the media, the story aired during the evening news PRIOR to Specs being properly served, revealing confidential personal information that is protected by our privacy laws.

Facts in dispute:

The State of Texas claims:
1).Specs unlawfully obtained permits
Not true – All information was disclosed prior to, during and at the time applications were submitted
2). Specs should not hold license or permits for 1 year
3). Specs is violating the open container law
Not true – No evidence provided in lawsuit
4). Specs should be penalized financially for this suit having to be filed.

Ramifications:

1). Supposedly only 16 people will be unemployed….. Not true!
2.) Hundreds have already felt the affects of unemployment within the beverage industry
3). Due to the allegations of violating the open container law, Specs suspended demos which has affected an industry and the local economy: demo agents, distributors, wholesalers, wine/spirit/beer companies.

This lawsuit has created a negative chain reaction that has the potential to have damaging effects on our local economy.