I keep getting requests via email as to whether or not I was satisfied, and if I have any more questions. I gave a "good" rating so you would be paid, but, truth be told, I was a bit frustrated, and somewhat offended, by the tone of your response. I was not trying to get you to say anything, but was asking, repeatedly, for clarification.
A: Hello again. Comments:
1. I do not send or authorize any communication to a customer from this website, other than my direct answer(s) to questions, as asked. If you receive any correspondence from the website, whether or not it displays my userid, that correspondence may be generated by the website, without my authorization or consent, and I have absolutely no idea what said correspondence contains. I apologize for any inconvenience you may have sustained, and I invite you to contact customer service and demand that they cease and desist from sending you any further correspondence -- because I have absolutely no control over these communiques (and I have repeatedly requested that the website stop using my userid for any such correspondence -- to no avail).
2. I apologize if I offended you in any way. That was not my intent. I am in a precarious position here, generally speaking, because customers come to the website seeking more than mere "answers" to their questions. Customers want an answer that provides a positive result for their concerns. Unfortunately, the nature of the law is that there are always at least two sides to any dispute, and at least one side inevitably loses. When I answer a question with anything other than a response such as (example), "That's outrageous. You've been wronged and you can sue the living c*** out of your adversary," the customer, about 90% of the time, gets angry, rates me "poor" or "bad," and then leaves without paying. This is natural, because after all, if the customer can't win over their adversary, and I tell them that they can't, then the customer is being asked to pay for "bad news" -- sometimes, bad news that demonstrates that the customer is in fact a wrongdoer.
I can live with this repeated punishment (i.e., do good work -- become the customer's new target of blame) -- it's just an artifact of the job (if you can call this a job). But, what I cannot do, is tell a customer anything other than the unvarnished truth, because if I do, and the customer later discovers that my answer was BS designed to extract payment in exchange for providing a positive, but erroneous answer, then that would be an outright fraud, and I would be in serious hot water.
Your question fit into the general category where I thoroughly expected you to become angry, and then leave without paying (or pay, and then return later and demand a refund from customer service). So, I felt it necessary to "cover my assets," and characterize my answer in the manner that I did. I certainly meant no insult to you of any kind, and once again, I apologize if that's how it seemed to you.
Since our exchange, I have been ignored by my councilman's legislative aid, from whom I sought advice. I have learned an On Sale License is possibly available, but only if I provide full food service (not equipped for that service at my club). I might have an "irrational agency decision," but my plan at this point is to approach the powers that be directly. It is not possible to reactivate my old 3.2 license without going through a neighborhood review, site review, parking review, zoning review, etc, or at least that is what I have been told. I don't want or need a 3.2 license for my needs, but that is my current plan. If you have a good idea, I would be happy to read it.
A: I don't see how a 3.2 license helps you, because your members are allegedly bringing in hard liquor. The cost of litigating this matter for court review will be at least as much as the $5,000 plus for a full-service license -- though I realize that if you were actually to take that approach, your set-up costs to outfit a kitchen, hire personnel, establish a point of sale system, etc. would be a lot more than $5K. But, the question, for me is whether or not burning money in court is as valuable to your club's long-term health as actually trying to set up to provide some level of restaurant service (even if it's only cooking dogs/sausage and burgers or maybe a breakfast burrito).
Substantively, from a legal viewpoint, I can't think of any additional avenues to get you where you need to go (other than to try to buyout or partner with the neighboring bar, and then physically connect the two establishments, so that your club is actually part of the bar, and visa versa -- and, talk about expensive).
That's really about everything I can think of at this point. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.