Albany rejects Sneaky Pete’s, bringing charges of racism


The Albany Board of Zoning Appeals has unanimously rejected a proposal to locate the Sneaky Pete’s nightclub in the city’s warehouse district.

Sneaky Pete’s owner Dominic Karl has been looking for a new home for his club since its prior building on Central Avenue was razed earlier this year to make way for a ShopRite supermarket.

But Karl’s plan to bring Sneaky Pete’s to an industrial building on Thacher Street brought outcry from nearby business owners who said the club, proposed with an 800-person occupancy, would be too large and incompatible for a neighborhood that has become a low-key nightlife alternative to Pearl and Lark streets.

That, in turn, brought charges of racism from some supporters of the club, which had a largely minority clientele. In fact, the attorney for Sneaky Pete’s called the board’s decision patently racist.

“They’ve got four bars in the industrial zone, and now this nightclub is turned down for no other reason than that the majority of its patrons are African-American,” Jeffrey Bagnoli said.

The zoning board rejected the club Wednesday night, and has previously rejected its request to open elsewhere on Central Avenue. Those decisions raise a question: Is there any place for Sneaky Pete’s in Albany?

Earlier: Sneaky Pete’s, the warehouse district and race (Albany blog); Debate continues over Sneaky in the warehouse district;

Chris Churchill

53 Responses

  1. Save Pine Hills says:

    Not quite sure what to think of this. On one hand, great, keep the thug- life out. On the other, it seems a little country club-ish. This makes me laugh a little though:

    “…the club would be too big and out of character for a neighborhood that has become a low-key nightlife alternative to North Pearl Street.”

    It’s not low-key anymore. Maybe on a Monday or Tuesday sure but so is Pearl Street. I’ve noticed in the last year more and more young college kids in that area acting like it’s Pearl Street. Go into Barrel Saloon, Stout or even Biergarten any Thursday through Saturday night and tell me how it’s any different these days. This is a college drinking town, any new “area” will turn into Pearl St in a matter of years.

    It all just sounds like some local bar owners had their hands in this to keep things they way they want them.

  2. rp says:

    bottom of the Hudson…they could dredge at the same time.

  3. anonymous says:

    My prediction is that Mr. Karl will sue the City of Albany…….. and win. It may take a year or more but Sneakys is coming to Thatcher St unfortunately.

  4. Lido says:

    Good. Place is a dump.

  5. elmer says:

    Watch him come back asking for 600.

  6. DanCF says:

    I think the zoning board was wrong on this one. They have allowed other bars in this area not so much different from what sneaky petes was proposing. Albany needs to learn that laws and regulations must be administered fairly to all people, not based on what board members “feel” is right or wrong for an area. I think the owner has a good case in court to overturn this ruling. Or the owner can simply tweak his application and not make it a nightclub and probably get it approved.

  7. That guy with the beer gut says:

    I love how unelected bureaucrats get to control a person’s livlihood. These people are not city councilmen, they are desk jockeys and are accountable to no one. Shouldn’t the free market determine what is and is not appropriate place for a business? What if this club opens up and flops – then Burrito Boy and the others can say “I told you so”. What if it brings in more business to the neighboring businesses? If crime is a problem simply hire more cops or pay police overtime.

  8. Mike says:

    There is no way the vibe on Pearl St. and by the Biergarten is anywhere near the same. People go to to the Biergarten to appreciate good beer and unique atmosphere. People that go to Pearl St want to drink Bud Lights and listen to over hyped hip hop music.

  9. jrcasmir says:

    no, sneakys had nothing but problems, becasue of the way it was run, it was an eyesoar of a club and doesnt need to be rebuilt or reopened until their management can control what goes on in n out of the establishment..

  10. Rational says:

    I think that some people are missing the main point here. Sneaky Pete’s had to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals because they were trying to open a business where it was NOT a permitted use. They were asking to get around the existing zoning restrictions. The city is not preventing anything, they are just NOT making an exception for them.

    If they sue the city they will waste a ton of money and lose because the law is on the side of the Board of Zoning Appeals without even getting into the specific facts and all of the public opposition.

  11. Huh? says:

    To: That guy with the beer gut-”If crime is a problem
    simply hire more cops or pay police overtime.” If my
    tax dollars are going to hire more cops, which is fine,
    it’s not going to be so they can babysit a bunch of
    wanna be gangsters and thugs at a club

  12. kj says:

    I think you are missing a point as well. Point being, there are already establishments open there. Why are exceptions to the law acceptable for them and not Mr. Karl??? Seems a bit bias to me. Idk…

  13. DanCF says:

    Rational (#10) we get that. However, a number of very similar businesses (basically bars) were granted zoning variances to locate in the same area. Because the Board granted variances to these businesses, it is very hard for them justify not granting a variance to this business. The law must be applied fairly and evenly to everyone. The Board cannot pick and choose who gets a variance and who does not. They have to clearly justify why they have denied this request and I don’t think they did that.

  14. JV says:

    The needed a variance. They didn’t get one. Happens every day to all sorts of businesses. None of the other bars anywhere downtown require metal detectors, why should we let that anywhere, including Pearl St.? If that is what is required at your business maybe you should rethink your strategy.

  15. jim says:

    try schnectady, maybe they dont know the background, at least albany has a reprieve

  16. John says:

    Where’s Marlon?

  17. Marlon Anderson former candidate for mayor says:

    segregation 1. civil rights 0!

  18. andy says:

    @12 becuase it’s not a night club. it a warehouse. with big warehouse things in it.

  19. mub says:

    I hope the Zoning Board has more of a legal leg to stand on than Planning did whenthey turned down the Mormon chapel. I see another lawsuit and hope the bar wins. Does seem like unequal application of the variances.

  20. Really? says:

    I’m going to skip over all the comments and reply to the guy that said “If crime is a problem simply hire more cops or pay police overtime.” Really? Seriously? Actually, I can’t even dignify this with a response…

  21. Broadway Boogaloo says:

    Isn’t the former Big House on S. pearl and Sheridan vacant? Why can’t Sneaky Pete’s go there?

    I am in favor of Sneaky Pete’s. Bars should not block other bars except through providing superior product and experience.

  22. HokieMom says:

    you want a warehouse – how about latham circle (formerly known as) mall

  23. Bamster says:

    I need a little history lesson. Wasn’t there a Sneaky Pete’s in Latham a long time ago? And now more recently there was one on Central Ave that catered to hip hoppers but just got sold? Is it the same owner all these years?

  24. A loyal patron of Olde English Pub says:

    So, why do you suppose Mr. Karl wants to open in this location??? Probably because of the inroads the other bar owners have made establishing the location as an ALTERNATIVE to Pearl st. and Lark. So basically Mr. Karl is just trying to ride the coat tales of the Beirgarten, the Barrel Saloon, etc. Those owners should get the majority say in what type of establishments can go in that area. They are the ones who made the neighborhood what it is and paid the money to do it. One remark was about how unelected officials can “just affect the livelihood” of someone like Mr. Karl, but what about the adverse effect Sneaky Pete’s would have on the livelihood of the bar owners who have invested in making that area what it is?

  25. GS5 says:

    Sneaky Pete’s will not sue and win. If you think so, you obviously have never been to a board review of any kind. The board approved variances for places that are relatively small food/drink establishments, not 800 person nightclubs. That’s the difference that people don’t seem to understand. There is a very clear distinction. And the judge will agree. Waste your time, SP.

    Karl can try to play the race card, but it’s not an issue of segregation either. I was in the WD a few days ago…. to my amazing surprise can you guess what I sat next to at my picnic table? A black person! Oh my god I’ve never seen one of those in the WD. Get real people. Black white or green, you can go to the WD and have a good time. People are people.

    Let’s pretend that Karl still wants to make money off of the investments of the existing WD business…. a pretty solid idea…. but instead of an 800 person nightclub, Karl chooses a smaller building and wants to open a hip hop lounge. Instead of 11 metal detectors, his security docs call for a couple of bouncers. Do you really think there would be as much opposition to that?

  26. Rational says:

    Zoning varies based on the building, not just the area. The fact that there are other bars is irrelevant.

    The building that Sneaky Pete’s wanted to move into is VERY different than the buildings that Wolff’s, Stout, and the Barrel Saloon occupy. The size alone is enough to justify treating it differently.

    Nightclubs also operate VERY DIFFERENTLY than neighborhood bars. They are only open late at night and provide little benefit to the community or neighborhood. The only benefit is to the owner’s pocketbook. The negative elements nightclubs bring are numerous and have already been discussed in great detail in the news.

    the argument that the law isn’t being applied fairly ignores the differences between the existing bars and Sneaky Pete’s. You can be sure the other bars were scrutinized just the same. But those bars don’t have metal detectors, long histories of criminal activity, aren’t even close to the same size, the list goes on…..

  27. Sick of the rhetoric says:

    It confuses me to no end that people are still saying that Sneaky Pete’s would have brought in revenue and increased business to the area. It is a nightclub; it serves no food, it is not open during the day, it would be open only a couple nights a week, and as the outspoken proponents mentioned at the hearing, “They have they clubs, we want ours,” which I take to mean that most of the club goers have no intention of going to the other WD bars. So where is the benefit to the surrounding bars that everyone is still talking about?

  28. Im just saying says:

    As far as the zoning board’s decision for the Thatcher St location: before there was Biergarten there was Noche Lounge frequented by minorities, and before that it was a firehouse. What is the big difference about turning an empty warehouse into a nightclub?! The variance was denied because board members know in advance that minorities will be the staple crowd.

    I know of several bars who wanted to cash in on hip hop night life, and were denied nightclub licenses. Operating on restaurant/nightclub license without serving food inevitable gets the business closed.

    There have been several minorities who have tried to open nightclubs in Albany and have been rejected due to zoning and liquor license boards. In particular, Pearl St locations that were previous operating as nightclubs.


  29. jonesy says:

    albany is not a hip hop town…karl wants to ride the coattails baumgartner worked hard to bring back to broadway. sneaky petes just needs to go away period. people don’t really miss and notice it’s gone unless it’s mentioned.

  30. sm20 says:

    6- DanCF has it just right – The Albany zoning board has approved the warehouse district to be a bar/night life area as an alternative to the Pearl street area by approving 3 bars in that area – At an earlier board meeting when SP’s was turned down for a central ave location the board the board recommended a none residential area like the warehouse district and one with sufficient parking. The thacher street building fit that bill and a renovation of that building would have been a plus for that area and the surrounding businesses. To have turned down this proposal after making the warehouse area a night life area can only be seen as selective enforcement because the members of the board don’t think the people of Albany need a nite club.