The Planning Commission recently voted to deny the Palihouse hotel a permit to sell alcohol. A number of residents came out against allowing booze at the hotel, which is located in a residential neighborhood.
So, this week’s Q-Line question asked:
Do you think Palihouse should serve alcohol or are residents right in objecting to the practice?
Here are your responses:
“The Planning Commission made the right decision denying the Palihouse hotel a liquor license. Remember, it was originally an apartment building and they kicked everybody out to make it a hotel. It was not built as a hotel. It’s in a residential neighborhood and right near a nursing home. You know if they serve alcohol there are going to be many drunks walking around and making too much noise. If you want to drink in your room, bring the liquor up to your room, but don’t sell liquor on the property. It just creates problems for the entire neighborhood.”
“There are no arguments that the damage that has been done and is being done to the city is justifiable for the gains of outside interests. Asking residents to absorb noise, parking problems and more traffic is unconscionable. It is time for the Planning Commission to sober up and stop making decisions based on a dry drunk. Get with the program. The residents are tired of being victims.”
“The Palihouse should never have been allowed to think they could sell booze in a residential neighborhood. Every developer and property purchaser should be on notice before they plunk down their money that there are clear and firm city codes they must adhere to. That would avoid all of the anxiety our residents have to go through to fight off these invaders of our sanctity.”
“Yes, the residents are right in objecting to the practice of selling alcohol at that hotel. We have enough drunks in Santa Monica, let’s not have them there.”
“I just wondered why it is OK for the Oceana Beach Club Hotel at 849 Ocean Ave. to have a liquor license, but it’s not OK for Palihouse? Both are in residential neighborhoods. I kind of think that’s unfair to Palihouse.”
“We don’t need any more to deal with. The neighborhood was there before these people came in. If liquor wasn’t sold there before, it shouldn’t be sold now.”
“The Palihouse should not serve alcohol. The residents are right in objecting to the practice. Residential neighborhoods are clearly defined in Santa Monica and certain restrictions apply to those areas. Residents should not be disturbed by commercial activities, especially in the evening when most hardworking neighbors are trying to sleep. Any guest at Palihouse has only a short walk to the promenade where food and alcoholic beverages are easily found at many establishments. Please let Santa Monica keep residential zones clear of commercial activity.”
“There are already enough drunkards running around in Santa Monica, police don’t need any more to deal with. The neighborhood was there before these people came in. If liquor wasn’t sold there before, it shouldn’t be sold now.”
“There should never have been a hotel there in the first place, but the City Council screwed the residents over and allowed the legal conversion of apartments to a hotel just so they could save a dozen or so rent-controlled apartments. They got bad legal advice from the city attorney, and then found themselves without any leg to stand on. So, naturally, they caved. It’s a shame that many neighbors have to suffer because of the council’s misguided, socialist agenda which assumes everyone should be equal, even if it means destroying one’s quality of life.”