Sundberg Sees Protest On Horizon for Excello

Richard Sundberg spoke Saturday about the voluntary agreement he helped negotiate with Excello in December 2001, and about his sense of how well Excello has met some of its obligations..

In December 2001, you and [ANC Commissioner] Ronald Nelson and [Council member] Sharon Ambrose signed this agreement with Sung S. Bang of Excello Liquors, requiring Excello to do certain things. Can you explain a little about how you were able to persuade Excello to sign this agreement?

Jeff Coudriet worked on that with us. He used to work in Sharon Ambrose's office, and he works in another capacity in the D.C. government now. He has extensive experience with the problem liquor stores in the area, and fashioning neighborhood agreements with them. We were fortunate to have him helping us, and he and Ron put together that proposal and, surprisingly enough — you've seen it, so you've seen how extensive it is — Mr. Bang signed it, on advice of the person that was representing him, who was Doris Wallace, our former ANC rep here.

In general, what kind of leverage does somebody have to sign an agreement?

What kind of leverage? The Board in its new configuration and new outlook is trying to be more responsive to neighborhood concerns. Previously, the Board seemed to have found always in favor of the liquor industry, evidently.

Why would a liquor store even want to sign this kind of thing?

Well, I'm unsure. They do know that with the protest having been submitted in a timely fashion, that when the hearing came up, they were going to be told to meet with the community representatives to see if an agreement could not be fashioned, because if the agreement is successfully completed between a business and the neighborhood, then the protest is withdrawn and the license is reissued. The interesting thing about this is that that agreement is part of that license now. They're up for renewal again — that agreement stays; a new agreement does not have to be fashioned. And if that business were to be sold, that agreement travels with [the license] to the new owner.

Let me ask you about some of the specific things in the agreement, and [ask you to] tell us why you and the [other] protestants asked for these things, and also your sense of how well they're being followed. For instance, refusing to sell single-serving containers of alcoholic beverages and not to sell go-cups. Why did you ask for that?

Because, since you've spent some time in the area now, you know just from walking around, the problem we have with litter, and people hanging out and drinking. And the go-cups and the singles just encourage that. They encourage the public urination and a variety of other things. So that's why those two items were put in there.

And is Excello doing what it agreed to do?

Initially, they were. I have not kept track of that, so currently I do not know.

Another thing was to ensure there is a daily street cleaning of the 400 block of 13th Street NE up to the alley next to the store, as well as the entire length of Duncan Place.

[Laughs.] Oh, Marc. When you create an agreement, each side comes forward looking for everything they can get, and then negotiate down. It's just part of the philosophy of that — at least that was Ron's philosophy and Jeff's philosophy. And frankly we were surprised that those things were agreed to.

How well is he following them?

Marc. [Laughs]. I don't think it's being followed.

"Remove public pay phones." Why did you ask for that?

That was asked [for] because we've historically had a problem with those phones being used, unfortunately, for drug transactions. The police know about that, and the phones were removed at one point, with the old phone company. When Mr. Bang purchased the business, he contracted with another firm to put that phone in, and that activity started again, and so we were looking to curtail it. And it's unfortunate in a way, because there is a legitimate need sometimes for a pay phone in the area.

Have you ever asked him about the phones — how come it's still there?

We asked about that early on, and the phone company that owns it — the private concessionaire — was holding Mr. Bang to the agreement contractually. I don't know if that agreement is still in effect or not. That's just an item that needs to be addressed.

What about the cleaning of Duncan Place? Did you ever follow up with him and say, "Look, you've agreed to do this. Where's the street cleaning?"

Well, Ron had done that before he left. He had followed up, and followed up with the ABC as well, and the inspectors. And, quite frankly, the response was very disappointing.

The response from the city?

The inspectors, yeah.

"No loitering" signs, and that they request loiterers to "move on." I guess the intent there is obvious. How are they doing on that?

There's loitering there, still.

"Four 500-watt spotlights" operating "during hours of operation."

Those are not there.

"Not to display signs on the front windows"?

They are there, and they continue to be there.

And what was the idea behind asking them not to display signs?

Because we have so many young people coming to the area, going to the stores, and the displays glamorize the consumption of alcoholic beverages, and it just sends the wrong signal to them, and just frankly makes the block look a little trashy, besides, and it's the feeling that a store can prosper on its merits — it doesn't have to do that. It's a little complicated, I know, because merchants get some sort of gratuities from the firms that sell those products for putting up the displays.

And the last one I wanted to ask you about was "agrees to work with protestant and other members of the community in an effort to prohibit sales of alcohol to minors." What was the thinking behind that? Were you trying to address something specific?

Well, there's a feeling that minors in the neighborhood are buying alcoholic beverages at the stores, and it's not a problem limited to there. Trants, over on the 1300 block of Constitution had a habit of doing that, and that was one reason why the neighbors were successful in shutting that store down, because that was well documented, happening time after time.

Is there a sense that they're not carding properly, or that the kids have fake I.D.'s? Or how would they be getting it?

I don't think people are routinely carded, and I don't think that problem is limited to Excello.

Overall, then, what are your feelings about Excello's bid to renew its license in June?

I think that they have not followed many points on the agreement, and I have problems with that, and I expect the neighbors to put together another protest on their license, and the grounds will be not having adhered to the items in the current agreement.

Will you be part of a protest again or are you going to stay out of the next one?

I'm undecided. How's that for a cliff-hanger? It'll be interesting to see what happens. It's not my intent to run merchants out, and I'm certainly not against people drinking, but, having lived in the neighborhood you know yourself some of the difficulties we face around here, and certainly more stringent controls by the stores themselves, coupled with the police, would be a big help in alleviating those problems.

Would these things that were in the agreement — would they really help?

Yes, they would. For instance, not selling singles. The people that hang out in front of the stores, that hang on the corners here, are usually buying singles. I'm talking about people that loiter all day long. And when they have a couple of singles, they then use our neighborhood as a latrine. They throw their containers just anyplace, and then they get food items and buy the time they have a few beverages of their choice, they throw that stuff around too. I mean that intersection of Duncan and 13th is always trashy, and it's because of the way the people behave around there.

Thank you very much, Richard.

Oh, you're quite welcome. §