Drinks?

[Keith Talent]

I'd be interested to hear from restauranteurs how the change a year or so ago pertaining to the sale of food with booze has changed their business, if at all. Anyone see a marked increase in drinks only customers?

[SBonner]

Keith,

I know that a number of my clients have a small selection of their establishment (close to the bar) set aside of drinkers anywhere from 10-15% of the seating total. I guess until it really sinks with consumers alot still seem to eat and drink because they do not actually understand or know about the liqour changes.

Cheers,

Stephen

Edited April 5, 2006 by SBonner (log)

[annanstee]

Alot of places I have been do have not changed their practice at all- they still seem worried about the drinks only thing.

[ssherwood]

FYI, the rules have actually not changed in essence. The vancouver city liquor licensing regulations allow for an area or 'designated lounge' area within each restaurant which applies for it on an individual basis. Regular dining rules still apply in the regular dining areas, i.e. if you go to your local cactus club/earls etc. and sit at a table you are required to eat.

The regulations also state that no longer is the 'intent' to eat enough, now it is considered contrary to one's food primary license to serve liquor without also serving 'a meal'.

The common misnomer is that provincial 'adjustments' of the liquor act trickle down to municiple levels, when in fact, the act states that individual municipalities control their own regulations with regards to liquor service. That is. . . the province made adjustments to loosen things up, but the cities are under no obligation to follow suit.

In the big picture, has anything changed? not really. Old rules that went unenforced have been replaced by less ridiculous rules strictly enforced.

i think this was mentioned in a previous thread about a year or two ago, with the same effect.

Don't ge me wrong, though. The city works very hard to create a suitable arena for doing business in the city, but you can sympathize, I'm sure, with how local politics can become quite contentious, what with competitive interests, NIMBY residents and all sorts of different interests tugging at the shirt-tails of local politicos.

It will be interesting to see if the Olympic fever will loosen up the local regulations any more. . . .

[nwyles]

I have not changed a single thing and have not seen any impact.

Nothin'

Zip

Zilch

Over and out.

[TimK]

FYI, the rules have actually not changed in essence.  The vancouver city liquor licensing regulations allow for an area or 'designated lounge' area within each restaurant which applies for it on an individual basis.  Regular dining rules still apply in the regular dining areas, i.e. if you go to your local cactus club/earls etc. and sit at a table you are required to eat.

The regulations also state that no longer is the 'intent' to eat enough, now it is considered contrary to one's food primary license to serve liquor without also serving 'a meal'. 

The common misnomer is that provincial 'adjustments' of the liquor act trickle down to municiple levels, when in fact, the act states that individual municipalities control their own regulations with regards to liquor service.  That is. . . the province made adjustments to loosen things up, but the cities are under no obligation to follow suit. 

In the big picture, has anything changed?  not really.  Old rules that went unenforced have been replaced by less ridiculous rules strictly enforced. 

i think this was mentioned in a previous thread about a year or two ago, with the same effect. 

Don't ge me wrong, though.  The city works very hard to create a suitable arena for doing business in the city, but you can sympathize, I'm sure, with how local politics can become quite contentious, what with competitive interests, NIMBY residents and all sorts of different interests tugging at the shirt-tails of local politicos. 

It will be interesting to see if the Olympic fever will loosen up the local regulations any more. . . .

←

Mr. Sherwood is correct on his statement. I had a very enjoyable EARLY morning last week at the Liquor Board being instructed on compliance issues for Food Primary. According to the facilitator if a customer has 2 drinks and still has not ordered food then the licensee is in violation of their license. Gone it seems are the days of intent to eat. I am sure we will see a change prior to 2010, look at the changes that Expo brought in 1986.