Bass Hall Newly Posted

[cowhow]

Anyone heard anything further on this? I just received an email notice from Texas3006.com. Considering the secluded, isolated parking around Bass Hall and the late hour you're typically leaving an event there this is particularly troubling.

[sammeow]

Here is a previous thread on Bass Hall.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=59903" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Haven't been there in a few years so not sure if things have changed.

[Keith B]

It has been 51% for many years. The sign has been there, was just apprently never submitted to http://www.texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The alcohol sales are handled by a subcontracted vendor and they hold the license. More than 51% of their sale is in alcohol, so it is a legitimate 51% locaiton.

[cowhow]

I read through the thread that was mentioned and I'm like many of the respondants there. I have never considered Bass Hall being 51%. I guess in my mind it's not a "beer joint" in the classixal sense so I failed to connect the dots.

[Keith B]

Unfortunately there is the possibilty of this happening in various places. Another locaiton you would never think was 51% is the Kimball Art Museum in Fort Worth. They also have a contracted company that does their concessions and catering and are a 51% location due to the revenue amount generated by alcohol sales by the license holder.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Unfortunately there is the possibilty of this happening in various places. Another locaiton you would never think was 51% is the Kimball Art Museum in Fort Worth. They also have a contracted company that does their concessions and catering and are a 51% location due to the revenue amount generated by alcohol sales by the license holder.

Keith I don't have the background. Why would liquor sale be half their business? We're talking Bass Hall at UT right -the high end music/play theater?

[Jaguar]

Unfortunately there is the possibilty of this happening in various places. Another locaiton you would never think was 51% is the Kimball Art Museum in Fort Worth. They also have a contracted company that does their concessions and catering and are a 51% location due to the revenue amount generated by alcohol sales by the license holder.

Keith I don't have the background. Why would liquor sale be half their business? We're talking Bass Hall at UT right -the high end music/play theater?

Alcohol sales are not half of Bass Hall's business, it is 0% of their businiss. The company they contract to sell alcohol at their location makes more than 51% of their money from alcohol sales, so the subcontractor gets the whole property posted.

This is Bass Hall in downtown Fort Worth.

[flechero]

I think they are saying the 51% refers to the subcontracted food/bev vendor. So there could be a true 51% business there.... not sure how that plays out if they are a tenant or if their area can be argued to be the entire complex or just where the concession area are set up... I guess a lawyer's opinion would be valuable at this point. I know there are several here... maybe one will weigh in.

[Keith B]

Unfortunately there is the possibilty of this happening in various places. Another locaiton you would never think was 51% is the Kimball Art Museum in Fort Worth. They also have a contracted company that does their concessions and catering and are a 51% location due to the revenue amount generated by alcohol sales by the license holder.

Keith I don't have the background. Why would liquor sale be half their business? We're talking Bass Hall at UT right -the high end music/play theater?

Yes, that's the place. However, the liquor concession is handled by a contacted company, not Bass Hall itself. The contracted company is the one required to hold the liquor license. Their revenue comes from sale of food, liquor, etc. If more than 51% of THEIR revenue is form liquor sales, then the license is issued as a 51% license. The license then applies to the area defined by TABC as the approved area for consumption, which in this case would be the whole location. So, the whole location becomes off limits to CHL carry because it falls under the contacted companies 51% license.

[Keith B]

I think they are saying the 51% refers to the subcontracted food/bev vendor. So there could be a true 51% business there.... not sure how that plays out if they are a tenant or if their area can be argued to be the entire complex or just where the concession area are set up... I guess a lawyer's opinion would be valuable at this point. I know there are several here... maybe one will weigh in.

We have actually had it verified by a TABC expert who is one of our members here. The license holder is the one who is responsible for the liquor sold and the area they define for consumption when they apply for the license. If they are a 51% license and define the whole location, then it will be off limits. Doesn't matter what the rest of the building income or who tenants are and how much they make, it is the license holder that the rules apply to for the locaiton.

[rtschl]

Just thinking out loud here...

If Bass Hall is not 51% but a vendor is (i.e. subcontractor) does that make the entire "premises" 51% area or maybe just where the alcohol is served?
More so, wouldn't the business (again Bass Hall) have to be the one that is 51% of sales in order to ban carry on the entire premises since the vendor is hired to serve there for the business. No one is going to enter the premises in order to drink alcohol alone like a hotel bar that is open to the general public and not just hotel guests. They are going into the premises of Bass Hall and paying for a performance where alcohol is served.

It seems like a loophole for the anti's and municipalities to exploit to prevent cc.

Ron

EDIT. Didn't see Keith's response above when I was typing.

[flechero]

Keith,

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that the licensee, and not the owner of the property defines the area.

[cowhow]

This is one of the most technical issues I've seen in a while. And since this would all be gauged, or judged, by what a reasonable person would do/expect I suppose the onus is on the CHL holder to make sure it's legal to carry. A task that is sometimes challenging to do.

You're right, I would have never thought about the Kimball either.

[rtschl]

This probably needs to be a priority for correcting. I don't know enough if it can be a regulatory or legislative correction. I'd feel better about a legislative one as it is permanent (more or less). It lacks common sense that a subcontractor hired by a business to serve alcohol trumps the company/venue for the 51% rule unless enclosed in a bar area. This seems especially true if the serving of alcohol is not open to the general public but only to those with a paid admission to the venue.

Since I don't drink, I don't normally go into any place that has a 51% sign. But this has huge repercussions on limiting CC. Any business or venue that hires a subcontractor/vendor to sell alcohol will essentially make the entire premises off limits and opens up more questions:

What about a restaurant that sells alcohol but contracts it out to a vendor?
What about catered events (Ex. Wedding Reception etc.) and a vendor is hired to serve alcohol?

Doesn't that make all of the above situations under 51% rule?

Thanks,

Ron

[Keith B]

This is one of the most technical issues I've seen in a while. And since this would all be gauged, or judged, by what a reasonable person would do/expect I suppose the onus is on the CHL holder to make sure it's legal to carry. A task that is sometimes challenging to do.

You're right, I would have never thought about the Kimball either.

As a CHL holder it is our responsibility to look for 51% or 30.06 signs. On 51% establishments we have a defense to prosecution if the license holder does not properly display the 51% sign as required by TABC rules. For instance, if you went into Bass Hall and there was no sign posted, or you didn't see the sign and didn't know it was a 51% location, then you would not have received legal notification of status of the business and in turn have a legal defense if arrested for carrying in the location. That defense to prosecution was put into the statutes in 2009 I believe. Prior to that time there was no defense and you would not have a statute backing your defense.

So, bottom line, yes, it is a pain. And yes, it does not seem right that a small contract vendor can cause a large venue like Jerry World or some other place to become 51% because the main company does not hold the liquor license. However, that is a TABC rule and would have to be changed by legislative support and a bill to modify the TABC rules.