Police: For State College Bars, State Patty’s Day Marked ‘Turning Point’

UPDATE @ 8:37 p.m. Friday: Penn State has responded to a StateCollege.com inquiry related to this news. We’ve posted the full text of the university’s statement on this page.

———-

The state Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement has indeed increased its monitoring-and-enforcement focus on State College establishments over the past two years, a state police sergeant confirmed Wednesday.

‘State Patty’s Day 2009 was a turning point,’ police Sgt. Wayne Bush told StateCollege.com in a phone interview. Based in Blair County, Bush leads the LCE bureau’s monitoring and citation efforts for a swath of central Pennsylvania, including State College.

A couple years ago, he said, the Penn State-student-created drinking holiday ‘brought a lot of people’s attention to some of the alcohol issues in State College. We have focused on on State College in enforcing the liquor laws’ since then.

Local police fielded 311 calls in State College that day, and alcohol-related medical calls were so overwhelming that people with non-alcohol-related emergencies couldn’t get an ambulance, Bush said.

He spoke with StateCollege.com on Wednesday afternoon, when news that the state has objected to seven State College liquor-license renewals was circulating through town.

Those objections — to be clear — were filed by the state Bureau of Licensing, an arm of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board that’s based in Harrisburg, and not by Bush’s office.

But the Bureau of Licensing, in reporting its license-renewal objections, cited primarily the affected bars’ respective histories of state-issued citations. Those citations are issued by Bush’s office, the regional LCE bureau.

Bars facing renewal objections are the Shandygaff, the Lion’s Den, the Gingerbread Man, 797 Sports Bar and Lounge, the Mezzanine, the Ramada Inn and the Phyrst. Their respective futures have yet to be determined.

In an interview that lasted more than a half-hour, Bush emphasized that ‘most places in State College are just fine.’ Those who say the LCE bureau is using draconian monitoring tactics are often, he said, ‘resistant to the way they’re supposed to (operate) by law.’

‘If they have issues with the law, they should be contacting their legislators,’ Bush said. ‘ … Honestly, it’s the same few bar owners who seem to want to go back to the days of the Wild West who always seem to have a problem with it (monitoring and enforcement). Most of the bars in State College are doing a fine job.’

StateCollege.com has reached out to a number of key people in the region’s alcohol-service sector, including bar operators. But all who’ve responded have not wanted to see their names in media reports, fearing reactions from state authorities.

Some in the sector in town expressed confusion and concern at the state’s enforcement habits, and outright bewilderment at the volume of bars targeted with license-renewal objections right now.

Bush, for his part, said he has attended local Tavern Association meetings in State College a number of times. He’s told operators that if they don’t serve minors or visibly intoxicated people — two big no-nos under state law — ‘most of the other issues will go away,’ he said.

He also emphasized that his office lauds and thanks those licensed establishments that operate responsibly. But those that don’t can harbor severe dangers, he implied.

Bush spoke specifically of two relatively recent State College-bar incidents in which his staff intervened. He didn’t name the bar or bars involved in either incident. In the first, an LCE worker witnessed ‘a young female … so drunk that she was non-functional,’ Bush said.

When the LCE had an ambulance come to take her away, he said, a customer nearby was noticeably annoyed. The customer, who had just met the woman, had wanted to go home with her, Bush said.

‘I think our guy saved that young lady probably from being raped that night,’ he said.

In other incident Bush referenced, LCE workers witnessed a licensed establishment’s staff call a cab for a heavily intoxicated man. The LCE staff intervened and stopped the cab. The intoxicated man turned out to have a 0.46 blood-alcohol level, Bush said.

‘I don’t even know how he was breathing,’ Bush said. ‘ … I think it’s possible or probable that my guys saved that guy’s life.’

Extreme incidents aside, Bush said, he does think State College has seen an improvement in behavior at local bars since the LCE started its ramped-up enforcement. He said his office isn’t against people having a good time — it just wants establishments and customers to behave responsibly in the process, he said.

‘If people aren’t getting trashed, they aren’t going out in Calder Way and peeing against a building or starting fights,’ Bush said. He reiterated that ‘most establishments make the effort,’ but ‘there are just a few places that are a little more resistant.’

The state citation histories for a number of local bars facing renewal objections go back several years — before 2009. But many of those citations do not involve any infractions as severe as furnishing alcohol to minors or serving visibly intoxicated customers.

That’s part of what’s given rise to confusion, speculation and concern within the alcohol-service business in State College, some in the sector have said.

StateCollege.com has reviewed PLCB records to compile the citation histories for the bars facing objections. Here’s what the website found:

• Shandygaff, 200 block of East Calder Way. Six state citations listed since 1999: unauthorized inside passage to or communication with a residence other than the licensee (1999); furnishing to a minor (2006); insufficient food items, eating utensils and dishes (2007); serving visibly intoxicated people, three citations (2009).

• Gingerbread Man, 130 Heister St. Seven state citations listed since 2009: loudspeakers creating too much noise outside, six citations (2009 and 2010); furnishing to a minor (2009).

• 797 Sports Bar and Lounge, 244 W. College Ave. Two state citations listed since 2010: failure of manager to devote full attention to operations, failure to give PLCB adequate notice of management change, furnishing to a minor, selling alcohol after license expiration (2010); failure to keep adequate records on the premises (2010). The PLCB, in its objections, also referred to ’10 incidents of disturbances including but not limited to a stabbing, fights, loud music and disorderly operations’ at the establishment.

• Lion’s Den, 116-118 S. Garner St. Nine state citations listed since 1994: failure to display license constantly (1994); furnishing to a minor (2000); advertising violation, loudspeakers creating too much noise outside, disorderly operation, failure to make customers vacate within 30 minutes after closing (2005); advertising violation, refilling liquor bottles (2005); loudspeakers creating too much noise outside (2006); failure to keep adequate records on premises (2008); loudspeakers creating too much noise outside (2008); serving visibly intoxicated people, two citations (2008 and 2009).

• Mezzanine, 420 E. College Ave. Seven state citations listed since 2007, some under the location’s prior identity as the Cell Block: manager employed by another business without state board approval (2007); loudspeakers creating too much noise outside, four specific noted violations (2008 and 2009); serving a visibly intoxicated person (2008); furnishing to a minor (2009); failure to post signage as required by Clean Indoor Air Act (2010). The PLCB, in its objections, also referred to ’33 incidents of disturbances including but not limited to assaults, fights, disorderly patrons and employees and assault by employees.’

• Ramada Inn, 1450 S. Atherton St. Four state citations listed since 1994: furnishing to a minor, minors frequenting the establishment (1994); furnishing to a minor (2006), serving visibly intoxicated people (2009); serving liquor on a Sunday between 2 a.m. and 11 a.m. (2009).

• Phyrst, 111 E. Beaver Ave. Eight state citations listed since 1999: offering allowances, rebates or concessions (1999); service from unidentified dispensing apparatus, failure to maintain beverage-dispensing-system cleaning records, failure to clean dispensing system at least once every seven days, loudspeakers creating too much noise outside, failure to maintain adequate records (2005); insufficient illumination, serving a visibly intoxicated person (2006); serving a visibly intoxicated person (2007); serving a half-hour after closing time (2008); serving a visibly intoxicated person (2009); loudspeakers creating too much noise outside, two citations (2009).

Earlier coverage

• State Objects to Seven State College Bar Renewals (Feb. 16, 2011)