Maybe not a relevant review...I went within a year of opening. Limited menu & pricey...not a bad thing, but small portions. Drink orders move like a herd of turtles. Service was questionable...Server would walk past table after initial drink order without further inquiry, refill on water or refresh bread basket. It's a small place so when a server ignores you it makes for an uncomfortable situation. Neither myself nor my wife have been compelled to return...and we live 2 blocks away.
All Reviews »
The stated problems seem to be a common failure of many newer establishments. The good typically survive and get better...the rest will go out of business. My question...How are $5 single tacos and $7 Margaritas considered 'inexpensive'?
Daniel Atwill is a home owner / resident on the opposite side of the street, and hence, a different 'block'. We do share St Philip as a common boundary. I am on the block to the west, he on the east.
So, correct & accurate. I did not say on the 'street' as is being implied. I am the last on my block. Daniel's block has only 4 (I think).
Daniel is one of the very few with a family who have chosen to stay and make a stand for the livability & residential character of the East end of Elliotborough.
2 full city blocks and not even 1/2 dozen owner occupied homes....!
Parks not Parking Garages!
"The lawmaker's attorney has said Mitchell might be a sloppy bookkeeper, but he's no crook."
Isn't that exactly what they said of former Senater Ford?
What NO ONE has reported is that the Cannonborough-Elliotborough Neighborhood Association has been trying to restrict this proposal to an 11 PM closing.
This was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' and led to the Late Night overlay zone now before City Council. The owners of this enterprise have 1). Misrepresented their project to the NA("it will be a family type restaurant") but knowing this, it was unanimously shot down in a public NA vote. 2). The previous architect initially presented one set of plans to the NA but then submitted a revised set to BAR(bait & switch, anyone?). 3). At the protest hearing for Liquor License they stated under oath: That the NA had approved their project; They had the full support of the City, as per Ombudsman Sheehan, quoting "this is just what the neighborhood needs!" and further stating he was "our go to guy to push this project along". Mr. Sheehan denies making any such comment(s) and retorts that the City does not 'back' projects. By the by, these developers had no documentation for their arguments. The State approved it...
The City has yet to specify in writing what the were qualifications were for allowing this proposal to be 'grandfathered' in for staying open 'til 2 am. Initially reps from the NA were told by City personnel this proposal would not be allowed to stay open 'til 2 AM. Sounds like someone has some grease with the City, maybe threatened a law suit? The second set of plans by Stumphouse referenced in this article were approved for 'height, scale, & mass' by the NA.
The developers of this project have never acted in good faith toward the neighborhood and it's residents.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper