Post-Rudy’s Battle Gets Personal

by Thomas MacMillan | Dec 15, 2010 8:37 am

(22) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Business/ Economic Development

Confronted with neighborhood objections against patio service at his new bar, Punhon Chan pulled out his counter-argument: Facebook photos. Chan, whose Elm Bar opened up last weekend on Elm Street, appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on Tuesday night seeking permission to serve drinks on the sidewalk patio and in a back room. That’s what used to happen at Rudy’s, the venerable watering hole that occupied the same space since the 1930s, Chan argued. At the request of the landlord, Chan’s father, Rudy’s left its ancestral home in August and is poised to reopen two blocks away. When neighbor Rex Gilliland argued against his proposal, Chan pulled out some evidence aimed at discrediting his detractor. He showed the board Facebook photos of Gilliland carousing at the old Rudy’s with that bar’s owner, Omer Ipek. Gilliland himself is guilty of the same noisy behavior he now seeks to stop, Chan argued. Gilliland dismissed the photos as irrelevant. He called it inappropriate to bring them up in a public hearing. The BZA didn’t vote on Chan’s request on Tuesday night, referring it instead to the City Plan Commission for a recommendation. When he appeared before the board, Chan began by saying that he seeks permission for activity that took place for years at Rudy’s, without permission. He said he wants permission to serve drinks on the front “patio,” a fenced-off area of the sidewalk. He said he also wants to serve in a back room, an area that had been approved for storage but was actually used for more customer seating. Among several people speaking in favor of Chan’s application was Mahmut Turan, whose nearby Alpha Delta Pizza has historically done a brisk business feeding the Rudy’s crowd. Rudy’s was never a problem, Turan said. Others saw it differently. Four people spoke in opposition to Chan’s request. Gilliland said he was there to represent the 13 residents of the Rochdale Association, a cooperative housing building across from Elm Bar. He presented a petition of 42 signatures opposing Chan’s proposal. Their objections: Noise, public urination, and parking problems. Gilliland said all three were problems under the previous tenant, Rudy’s. Given a chance to rebut the opposition, Chan said the bar has been there for 76 years. Bars cause noise; people moving into the immediate area should know that when they move in, he said. As for Gilliland, he is a personal friend of Rudy’s owner Ipek, a regular at Rudy’s and thus part of the noise problem he now decries, Chan said. As evidence, he submitted to the board several Facebook photos of Gilliland drinking in a crowded Rudy’s. Gilliland’s objection is not about noise or parking, Chan said; it’s about his personal friendship with and loyalty to Ipek. Ipek is renovating a space nearby at Chapel and Howe Streets (last known as Ahimsa) as the home of a reborn “Rudy’s.” Gilliland immediately came forward once more to try to answer that claim, but board Chair Cathy Weber did not allow him to speak. “I saved these photos for today,” Chan said moments later. “I think this is personal.” Chan said he will do his best to keep the noise down at his bar. “I’m going to do better than before.” “He didn’t address any of the issues,” Gilliland said later of Chan’s Facebook presentation. “It’s true that I’m friends with the owner,” he said. “I used to frequent his bar.” But that is “clearly irrelevant in a public hearing,” he said. Gilliland stressed that he was at the hearing only to represent the residents of Rochdale. Chan’s “personal attacks” were irrelevant because the BZA is “there to decide zoning issues according to city ordinances and the impact on residents and businesses, not to make judgments about the character or motivations of the parties involved,” Gilliland said. When he ran Rudy’s on Elm Street, Ipek was responsive to noise complaints, Gilliland said. Since Rudy’s has closed down, Gilliland said, he’s looked into the noise ordinance and realized the rights that he and his neighbors have. Gilliland and Chan spent some time talking in the hall outside the meeting room. Gilliland said they both said they would have preferred to talk about their disagreements prior to Tuesday’s meeting. Gilliland understands Chan’s desire to run a successful business, he said. “I hope I can frequent his bar.” Reached after the meeting, Ipek said he’s focusing on his new venture at 1227 Chapel St., not dwelling on the relationship with his previous landlords. “We’re looking forward and we’re moving on,” he said. The new Rudy’s “is going to be ready soon,” he said. “I just want to let everybody know that we are welcoming everybody.”

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Moira on December 15, 2010 9:30am What BS. Good for Chan. Many of the Rochdale residents have always been part of the noise “problem” at Rudy’s. They’re just taking sides in this silly bar war. Rochdale residents never looked into their rights regarding noise ordinances before, so it’s hard to respect their efforts now. And why are they bringing it up now? Because they favor Omer’s venture over Chan’s. Honest to God people… It’s JUST A BAR. Silly New Haven drama.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on December 15, 2010 9:44am More of the same. We must go to the government for permission. That requirement must be scrapped. If things get noisy or rowdy, aren’t the police around to ticket the owner for violating a noise ordinance? Aren’t the courts available for a nuisance claim? Yes to both. There is a remedy and it doesn’t involve City Planners making decisions for us in advance.

posted by: Pedro Soto on December 15, 2010 10:00am This really smacks of retribution. In my years of frequenting Rudy’s during the summer, not ONCE were the police called due to a noise complaint. The illegal patio is now trying to be shut down by the very people frequenting it? It really sounds more like Mr. Ipek and his supporters is trying to squelch any chance of the the new bar having the same advantages that his old place enjoyed.

posted by: anon on December 15, 2010 10:12am Let the restaurant have outdoor seating, but enforce the noise issues better. Sanitizing the area is not the solution - one should be able to enjoy french fries outside of a restaurant anywhere in the city that one pleases. As a city, we’ve already sanitized our low income neighborhoods, which were once home to literally hundreds of bars and pubs, by making it impossible to open bars and outdoor restaurants. The result has just been more crime as people just shelter themselves indoors after dark. The only places left are places like Dunkin Donuts and Walgreens, which look like concrete bunkers, have no windows, repel people, and therefore attract criminals. Whatever happened to that patio at Macchu Picchu?

posted by: davec on December 15, 2010 10:30am Paul,

This story is only interesting to about 5 people in town. I thought the NHI was a newspaper, not a tabloid.

Your coverage of the Rudy’s ‘story’ is getting stretched a little thin.

posted by: Mike on December 15, 2010 10:30am “Noise, public urination, and parking problems” isnt this a norm for living in the bar/restaurant district in any city in the WORLD? yeah, its personal. BTW, hows the grand re-opening of the new Rudys going? LOL

posted by: john on December 15, 2010 11:37am @anon’s point. The broader issue of where ordinance meets enforcement in this town illustrates one of the chief problems with New Haven: TONS of habitually unenforced ordinances. I never thought I’d say it, but PLEASE save us, Rudy… Giuliani.

posted by: Sarah on December 15, 2010 12:49pm If entitled graduate students and professors want to exploit the low living expenses of the conveniently-located downtown coop known as the Rochdale, they need to accept the fact that all cheap rents come with noise, bugs, or other problems. Welcome to how the other half lives. If the Rochdale tenants don’t like the neighborhood, they should pay triple the rent to live in East Rock. (The Rochdale’s neighbors are paying triple the rent to live on the same block, actually, and obviously accepted the bar as part of the deal when they moved in.)

posted by: Capitalist Travesty on December 15, 2010 1:06pm The outdoor patio was always a problem for the immediate neighborhood. Noise, under-age patrons trying to sneak in, frequent fights, and cigarette butts everywhere. I can understand why the neighborhood would be against it, even if they were occasional Rudy’s patrons. As to the new owners ... I mean they booted out the oldest neighborhood bar in New Haven, and now they’re trying to replicate it? If their idea was to do something new and different that’d be one thing. But hiring old Rudy’s employees and trying to buy Leo’s loyalty? Shameful! If they had any respect for Rudy’s history and patrons, they would not have messed with the establishment, out of nothing more than sheer greed.

posted by: Metroidlover on December 15, 2010 1:43pm So, the folks at Elm want their own bar, and ousted the old tenants in order to use their OWN property in the way they want to. Case closed. Let them do what they want. Every five years or so when that bar changed hands people would surface with the same complaints. The bottom line is that its just a bar, and seemingly, aside from a name change isn’t all that different. I wish them the best of luck. The Belgian incarnation of Rudy’s was just another phase in this property’s history. The best part is seeing the complainers caught in their own hipocrisy…nice facebook photo!

posted by: john on December 15, 2010 1:51pm @sarah/“Welcome to how the other half lives.” What sanctimonious nonsense. For someone who clearly believes in supporting the rights of “the other half,” I’m sure you would agree that one is always within one’s rights (“entitled” or not) to argue on behalf of quality of life issues… even “*the* other half.” (Which one, now? ...exactly.) I’ll grant that the Rochdale tenant[s] seem hypocritical. But I’d really be very interested to see how speciously invoking the terms of class warfare (“entitled graduate students and professors,” “exploit”) has any bearing on the matter. It bears repeating that there is hardly anything revolutionary about arguing for the enforcement of preexisting ordinances. (at least outside of NH)

posted by: Jim on December 15, 2010 1:51pm See you at Cafe 9!!!

posted by: jt75 on December 15, 2010 3:06pm @davec It’s clearly an interesting story to at least 10 people. I’ve seen stories on here get fewer comments. Still, this story involves something that happened in a public forum (a BZA meeting), so it’s not like NHI went digging for it.

posted by: Townie on December 15, 2010 3:57pm It is obvious this is just agitation from a friend of the owner of Rudy’s. I think the neighborhood liked having Rudy’s around, even with the noise. It was a landmark. So, the same acceptance should be given to the new owners, who might just establish a new landmark (although I hope they consider a name change). Besides, what made Rudy’s great was the location and dive-bar atmosphere. As for the “new” Rudy’s, I’m not planning on going when/if they open for business. To me it’s going to end up another yuppy bar with a distinctive brand name.

posted by: JP on December 15, 2010 4:04pm @Alphonse Credenza

In fact the police have no power to enforce the noise ordinance only the health inspectors can and they don’t work nights.

posted by: Giuseppe Valachi on December 15, 2010 4:53pm Rudys has no right to expand onto the sidewalk. This is not some genteel coffee shop - it’s a loud bar with some raging alchs and a lot of crappy loud bar bands

posted by: cityworker on December 15, 2010 4:57pm This is for JP. Health Inspectors AKA Sanitarians enforce only the portion of the noise ordinance that pertains to equipment that is installed on the premises and violate the noise decibel levels. The police can enforce all the other sources of noise including noisy patrons regardless of decibel levels.

posted by: hypocrisy on December 15, 2010 5:20pm Hypocrisy, period. Are there any residents of the Rochdale that WEREN’T regulars at Rudy’s?

posted by: HewNaven?? on December 15, 2010 6:30pm Unless the Rochdale is full of elderly grandmothers perched in their windows, there’s no way they could provide more “eyes on the street” than a crowd outside a bar - intoxicated, or not. It’s common knowledge that public social activity at any time of day is the best thing for a city, granted it isn’t disruptive. So, let them sit outside, and, let them regulate the noise after a certain hour. No one is losing.

posted by: jon on December 15, 2010 7:36pm OK, so we all live where. Comfort, or not, then why? I personally love the neighborhood I grew up with, does anyone else? Love is!

posted by: robn on December 16, 2010 12:40am Maybe the Rochdale residents are just annoyed at the clatter of the antiquated air conditioning system.

NEVERMORE!