20 Comments so far

1. stuart on December 30, 2005 4:08 am

   I think this post needs to be corrected. The clubs at 395 Central were from 1993 on- Fallout,Colliseum,Atlantis,and XO. I am not sure how you could say they all went down in flames, as those concepts up untill I sold in 2003 were very sucessful concepts. Our strategy was to change the name every couple years along with a remodel to keep people interested in the club. The ownership remained the same and corporation the same till 2003 when I sold to Jeff Holloway who then lost a lawsuit to the neigborhood because he did not show up to court with a lawyer and had a default judgement entered against the club, this was the beginning of the end. The only club at that location to “go down in flames” was Club Evolution. All the rest were very sucessful concepts. The Pitch Magazine did a piece called “last call” by Ben Paynter that did a good job of describing what happened to the club. As far as the new club, the owners do face a uphill battle in getting a liquor license.

2. reverend scott myers on January 10, 2006 8:06 pm

   Sorry, friend, but XO went down in flames too. Remember the lost lawsuit that the XO club tried to escape the consequences of by selling out to Holloway and creating a new sham corporation? Fortunately Judge O’Malley saw through this corporate scam and told him he can’t ruin a neighborhood and its residents and businesses and environment just because it happens to own a liquor license. This place is really like a hydra that seems to grow a new head every so often. The bottom line is that clubs with this size of crowd of
   patrons, many of them well beyond the legal intoxication limit, don’t belong in this neighborhood. I hope others who actually care about what kind of city and neighborhoods we have will help to stop Clubstatic from ever growing its new hydra like head. Maybe if
   more people really cared about Westport, it
   would become the great community it has the
   potential to become, and not just another
   ghetto of self indulgent bar owners who
   seem to have forgotten their humanity.

3. Francis on January 11, 2006 9:12 am

   Hey Rev, keep in mind that the neighborhood is WESTPORT - the bar district in Kansas City. You can’t get too angry at someone who owns a bar in a bar district. You simply own a house in a bar district.

   I have no connection to any of the bars, and don’t go to Westport, because I’m not particularly fond of the bar scene there, but I simply do not understand a neighborhood adjacent to a bar district getting miffed about a bar in said district.

4. reverend scott myers on January 11, 2006 11:01 am

   Dear Francis,
   Our argument is not against bars. This
   proposed club, Clubstatic, and its predecessors, Club Evolution and XO, etc.are not bars. They have been huge nightclubs which draw in hundreds of people at once, over a thousand in fact . The neighborhood cannot support that. There is a bar down the street, Dave’s Stagecoach Inn, that the neighborhood can support. There is a restaurant/bar, 303 Bistro, that the neighborhood can support. But this is a completely different animal, and the problem is increased further by their desire to stay open until 3 am. When you put a thousand people, drinking heavily until 3 am in the morning, into a neighborhood where people live, you have an enterprise that is harmful to the community no matter what kind of measures they try to take. We deserve better. The homes, the church, the library and a number of the businesses have been around a whole lot longer than this particulaler nightclub. Surely there is a more suitable
   environment.

5. Francis on January 11, 2006 1:03 pm

   “Surely there is a more suitable
   environment”

   Ahh, I get it now. NIMBY. Gotcha.

   Where then?

6. Reverend scott myers on January 11, 2006 1:39 pm

   Francis,

   I’m not sure. As for NIMBY, It’s not like a 1,000 person dance club is necessary to our
   civilization, as, say, jails, power
   plants, trash dumps, etc. are. They could
   go to another part of Westport for that matter. There seem to be any number of regular vacancies between, say Broadway and
   Mill Street and 39th street and
   41st street. Or what about the new Power
   and Light District, or really anywhere
   where there aren’t lots and lots of homes
   within 250 feet of the place.

7. thumper on January 11, 2006 2:53 pm

   live and let live, Rev. who are you to judge?

8. Francis on January 11, 2006 3:40 pm

   “They could
   go to another part of Westport for that matter.”

   To someone else’s back yard.

   “There seem to be any number of regular vacancies between, say Broadway and
   Mill Street and 39th street and
   41st street.”

   So he should take a loss on the investment of purchasing the building he owns and buy another one, in someone else’s back yard.

9. Reverend scott myers on January 11, 2006 3:46 pm

   I’m not judging this situation as to what
   is right and wrong. I don’t look at it that
   way. I’m not opposed to drinking alcohol
   responsibly or having fun or dancing. I’m a Presbyterian. We don’t make those kinds of judgments. However, I, along with residents
   here, owners of nearby businesses (including
   another restaurant/bar, the 303 Bistro),
   parents with children enrolled in day care,
   law offices, and even the people who run the
   post office and library, not to mention Judge
   John O’Malley, are making a judgment as to
   what is good for the neighborhood. Is it a
   business’s right to operate in such a way as
   to destroy this neighborhood, including the
   peace of mind and security of people, the value of residents’ property (which has been proved in court) and even the safety of the club’s customers whose cars I find broken into on our parking lot? We don’t think so.
   What about the school teacher and Fed Ex
   worker and student and minister and secretary
   and roofer and so on who can’t even get to
   sleep at night and have to get up and work
   the next day? What about letting them live?

10. Reverend scott myers on January 11, 2006 3:51 pm

    To Francis,

    There are plenty of places, even in
    Westport, that aren’t in anyone’s backyard.
    That’s the whole problem. This is in
    someone’s backyard. The Hurricane, America’s
    Pub, Beaumont, Kelly’s, etc.—they aren’t
    in anyone’s backyard. So no one, including
    me, is upset about them. But this club is
    in a lot of people’s backyard, and so it’s
    a totally different situation. The people
    who owned that building made plenty of money
    from it for years and years and years. They
    are doing fine.

11. mike on January 11, 2006 5:43 pm

    Club Static will make people realize that it is possible to have a good night club in KC. Club Blond is too too small but has the right idea behind it. I have seen Club Static first hand and it will blow away the bars / nightclubs like Club Blond out of the water.

12. lance on January 12, 2006 12:00 am

    atlantis and xo were the best the music and the atmosphere was great. but, evolution on the other hand that was just a scary place i didnt even feel safe in there. i hope static is going to be different if it ever happens.
    i got a question for reverend scott meyers, i can see living next to that monster would in fact be a hardship and from what im under the impression of is that the old owner really didnt care to much for the neighborhood making that hardship even more of a burden, but my question is what about this new guy who owns it now? is he a good person who is trying to help the neighborhood and make it so that the neighbors are comfortable? i hear alot of rumors about this place and would love to see it open. but open with a good vibe and having the neighbors happy or at a point of tollerence. it doesnt matter how good the club is if the neighborhood shuts it down in a year.

13. reverend scott myers on January 13, 2006 1:21 pm

    The jury is out on the new owner. We don’t
    really know what kind of person he is or
    what kind of owner he will be. How do we
    test him? A lot of promises have been made
    by previous owners, but in the end, they
    became indifferent to the lives of people
    living there. I think this all needs to go
    very slowly so we don’t wind up with another
    calamity. A community meeting with the owner
    might be a good step. This isn’t all about
    money and property. It’s also about
    relationships and trust and distrust, and
    in the end it’s about community and what
    destroys it and what creates community
    and what builds community.

14. stuart on January 13, 2006 3:32 pm

    Rev. Meyers…

    I would like to address one point you made, You said-
    “XO club tried to escape the consequences of by selling out to Holloway and creating a new sham corporation”

    If you remember, it was Holloway who had bought the club before the trial came to pass. Holloway owned the club, Holloway didn’t show up for the trial with a lawyer, Judge O’mally made him face his court date without being able to utter a word in his defense because he had no legal representation and in Missouri , a corporation must have a lawyer to defend itself. Obvoiusly a default judgement was found in favor of the neighborhood. Then after that Holloway blew off his appeal date. Then months after his appeal date was long gone, he realized how much trouble he was in, and finally he decided to fight, it was too late. That is when he sold the liquor license to a new corporation to try to get out of the judgement that had been entered, and you are correct Reverend… That was a sham sale ,and the Judge did enter a correct verdict, in forcing the judgement onto the new corporation. Those are the facts. Plain and simple.

    As to whether the club should be there or not be there, It is one thing to force a club out of business, that has been in business for many years, and that is very very hard to do, the only reason it was done to Club Evolution is that the defense never was allowed to mount a defense in the trial(due to no ones fault but their own).

    Now, on the other hand, now things are different, we are talking about a new club, and starting a liquor license from scratch. When you are starting from scratch the burden of proof falls the other way, and its up to the club to get the neighborhood to allow them in, and that is never going to happen again in that location.

    So… In my opinion, Club Static is in a very very tough spot, and I really don’t see a way that they are going to get a “place of entertainment” liqour license.

    I think that there were some awesome concepts over the years at 3954 Central, and would it have been better if there was no houses next door, of course! I think that for many years, people had a great time at that building, and we all made the best of a mix of residential and nightclub at the same location, Would it have been better with a little more space between the residential and commercial, sure, but we all made due.

    Well, now the new guys are trying to start something from scratch, and the neiborhood is in a whole different position now, instead of trying to close a operating business, they are trying to stop a new business from starting, and that is much easier to do.

    In my opinion, Club Static is probley not going to prevail in getting their license.

    I am only stating facts, and not trying to give my feelings or this post would be twice as long as it and probley not quite as politically correct!
    Stuart

15. Howard on January 13, 2006 8:11 pm

    Is this Stuart Solomon , the one who sold XO Club to the Dentist from Sedalia ?
    3954 Central is doomed from ever having another liquor license ever.

16. Messanger on March 10, 2006 10:28 pm

    You want a place for people to dance and have a good time. Follow by the rules. Keep the problems to a minimum. He’s only an old man living off of sueing people. I say we do the same thing. James Grow is the problem. He’s the one who started alll of this. You want a good place to dance and have fun. Do the same as he did. All the bars need to get to gether and form a party and stand up aginst this person. It’s just like a debate you need two parties. One who’s not with it all and one who’s with it. So you have problems with a bar…..So we have problems with you makeing more problems for us. We are trying to make a living we can’t help the matter of the fact is a place that is across the street. You knew what you where haveing to deal with when you moved to wesport. If you don’t like it then move to another place or keep your peace.

17. Sapphire on March 10, 2006 10:59 pm

    Back off everyone this one is mine.

    I have been in there many time. Let me put in my two cents. Over 350 hours of hard art work went into that place a while ago to make the place look good. last time it was open. Think about for a second the same light that brings a dream and made thier own dreams art work come true into reality became a problem. Call it ironic. I for one would be very offended after putting my own art work upon a wall in a public and then have it shut off from people eye’s

    James Grow can you only think of yourself and the people who live around you and not the one’s who work inside and put many hours to create something good for people to see…So the past has caused a problem. It’s over XO and evolution are now a thing of the past. Now another person want’s to make a dream come true will you again stand in the way or will you try and work things out along with thinking about other’s who put many hours of hard work into a place to make some people happy……Evermore

18. On the Fence on March 12, 2006 10:44 am

    For the last to people who made comments. Go back or stay in school to. your grammer and spelling are bad

19. DJ MD on April 6, 2006 2:32 pm

    I personally think that Club Static should not serve beer or anything in that family.
    The are too many “bars” in Kansas City!!!!
    Let the 18 year olds come in!!!Shoot!!Why limit this?The mode of operation needs to be changed.Things have to change if this club is going to make it!!Why not just do away
    with the alchohol completely?Everyone serves
    “beer”!!You can find that anywhere!!!!A building that beautiful should not be left to waste.I have had many fond memories in that place from 2002-2005.I was a regular.
    And to hold this thing down because of a liquor license is JUST STUPID!!Give it up
    and serve other drinks!!!And do away with
    alot of those problems all together!!A BAR
    IS A BAR IS A BAR IS A BAR!!!!The world doesn’t stop just because total club politics
    are not being fully carried out!!Once again,
    WE’RE CLOSED BY OUR OWN DECISIONS!!!!!!!!!!!
    (Cough Cough)People need a cool night spot to
    go to!!!There is STILL none that compares to the old XO…..And if the new owners read this,GOOD!!You needed to read it!!In a scenario like this,WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU
    RISK YOUR EXISTANCE BECAUSE OF POLITICS?!!!!
    IT’S DUMB!!Get a new audience or make the other one adapt!Can’t have drunken stupidity
    and Club Static must be open!!!There’s your answer!!!What do you all think about that??!!

20. DJ MD on April 6, 2006 2:50 pm

    Another comment,Club Static needs to not serve alchohol & be courteous to it’s neighbors & James Grow needs to shut his mouth!!And if Club Static is a good thing,
    James Grow & the community needs to get behind it!!PERIOD