1439 Egbert Avenue

Citing “an unusually large number of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, for both on-site and off-site consumption in the Bayview area,” the existence of which “appears to contribute directly to numerous peace, health, safety and general welfare problems,” legislation prohibiting any new alcohol related establishments or outlets along Bayview’s Third Street corridor was established in 2003.

Amended to allow the sale of alcohol at grocery stores in 2007, and then to allow wineries in 2013, an amendment to allow Small Beer Manufacturing licenses for the production of up to 60,000 barrels of beer per year, tasting rooms, and the sale of said microbrewed beer is slated to be adopted by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors next week.

And assuming the amendment is adopted, Laughing Monk Brewing intends to start brewing Belgian style beers at 1439 Egbert Avenue, with plans to open an onsite tasting room with retail sales by the middle of 2015.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by curmudgeon

    I love that we try to limit alcohol sales in poor/minority neighborhoods, but when gentrification happens alcohol is good. We are such puritans/classists/racists as a society…. The same issue has bedeviled the Mission, where there is an existing ban on increased liquor sales that was intended to stop cheap corner stores selling to drunks…and now it makes it difficult to open wine shops for classier folks.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      So how do we respond if Thunderbird opens a “tasting room”?

    • Posted by Sam

      Yes, I agree with the racism here.

    • Posted by Fishchum

      Maybe because there’s just a SLIGHT difference between a corner bodega selling 40’s of malt liquor and a brewery brewing Belgian-inspired ales?

      • Posted by zig

        Oh no it is racist!

        I think it is a reflection of politics and who cares. Who led the ban in the Mission in the first place? Was it rich people from Pac Heights?

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        Funny. I’ve been referring to those high potency 22oz bombers and Belgian corkers as yuppie 40s.

    • Posted by zig

      Of course it is the leaders in the poor neighborhoods themselves that lead this.

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        I will agree with zig there, and my original comment was really was intended more globally. More that liquor is seen as a terrible vice in a poor neighborhood, but a cultural attribute in an up and coming one. But there is an implicit racism/classism in the practice nonetheless…because there is an assumption by the political leaders who allow the prohibitions that “those people” need protection from their own base instincts kinda thing. And the community leaders pushing for these kind of bans use language about protecting children and impressionable youth, etc from unscrupulous merchants who are exploiting the community.

        • Posted by zig

          it is a fact that some groups of people have a harder time with alcohol consumption than others even genetically in the most extreme but certainly culturally

          many American native communities totally have to ban alcohol. Other groups have ancestors who have been drinking it for 10K years. Somewhat the same to eating a modern grain based diet. Some of us are all good with that and other groups like Pima Indians and mestizos get diabetics at alarming rates

        • Posted by SFrentier

          The difference in attitude certainly alludes to a class divide, but it’s reality too: hum ho corner stores pushing malt 40’s and cigarettes in da hood is viewed very differently than newly arrived BVHP yuppies sipping craft beer. Basically it is what it is. OTOH folks in the hood can also appreciate a good brew, I mean they certainly get those nice haircuts….so there is potential for some cross cultural commingling as folks of lesser means splurge on the occasional $6 beer….I guess.

        • Posted by catchaclue

          I think it has to do with moderation vs abuse. Anything in moderation is fine, but when a drug like alcohol is abused, it causes problems.

  2. Posted by Bob

    This is the traditional SF small minded response to anything – ban it.

  3. Posted by unwarrantedinlaw

    When marijuana is legal these might fill up with craft/artisan growers. I’m seeing some of that in Oregon. Vile, brain-rotting stuff, of course, but will be very interesting from a real estate point of view.

  4. Posted by brid

    Excellent!
    Speakeasy Brewery, just off Evans near the main Post Office, is a great asset to the neighborhood and draws a good sized crowd. Used to be just Friday evenings but a couple years ago became most/all nights including brewery tours.
    I sense the crowd is some ‘hood locals but mainly folks who work up in Dogpatch, plus looky-lous from all over the city, and occasional beer-nerd.

    What I think this really portends is another step in moving BVHP in a direction the old-time locals (read that however you like…) might find uncomfortable, and preparing for the 10,000+ new housing units at the old Navy Yard.

  5. Posted by Eat Smart

    I think several good tapas bars would be great additions to the microbreweries. Or, if there are serious underlying racial inequality concerns here, invite and offer some tax incentives to East, South, West, Africans to open up restaurants serving their distinct cuisines. Highly differently than soul food. I’ve met many Ethiopians (from nursing assistants to orthopedic surgeons) and all of them laughed when I told them about the places in SF serving Ethiopian food. Of course, nothing will ever compare to their home cooking, but gastronomically, the Bay Area is still serving the functional equivalent of chop suey in terms of African cuisine.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      I used to wonder why the only sub-Saharan African cuisine you can find is Ethiopian. Then I ate ugali for a week. Liberian food is not bad. One of my college roomies used to cook up a big pot of “palm butter” every once and a while.

  6. Posted by BetterSF

    Bayview badly needs restaurants, ice cream shop and a lot of other services. It is a neighborhood devastated by poverty and crime. Crime has gotten better, but services are not there. With the booming new development and changing demographics, more business will open. I am glad that politicians are rolling back stupid bans and is giving the area a chance to bounce back.

    A lot of good intentioned SF policies has very bad outcomes, sometimes achieves exactly the opposite of their intentions. Planned economy did not work out in communist Soviet Union and China, how can it work in SF? China and Soviet Union state leaders are 1 million times smarter than SF supervisors. Even they can not make planned economy work, how can SF’s supervisors plan SF’s economy?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles