On May 19, 2009 the Pittsburgh Post published a story on the doings of a bar on the South Side. S Bar applied for a permit to work on the former Tom’s Diner on East Carson Street in the city’s beer haven district. They told the city that it was to be used for retail and no mention that it was to serve alcohol. So says the city. Then S Bar applied for and received a liquor license extension. The bar is the adjoining building. Some city folks don’t like this so his building work was ordered stopped. What caused the work stoppage was that S Bar made an opening between the two buildings. When S Bar sealed the opening (how?) the city lifted the cease-work order. Can it be reopened when the city isn’t looking?
The city is bent out of shape that S Bar did not tell them they got a license extension, but guess what, they still have it. So they have a license to serve in a building that the city says should not be serving. The city is upset because they say S Bar lied to City Planning and sent Zoning down to close the place. This entire affair is about a hole in the wall and not alcohol. If it was the city’s desire to limit licensed bars then City Planning, Zoning and Council should have the balls to bring S Bar in for questioning. Can they stop this? If so why haven’t they? There are a lot of things not mentioned in the Post’s story. Future posting will highlight some of them. For the record, I have been in the S Bar a few times and it is a very clean and well run place. I have no connection to it or it's owners. On a legal point, is the license extension valid if ther is no direct passage from one building to another?