"Born and raised in Santa Monica. The only local cab company."
PROMOTE YOUR BUSINESS HERE! Yes, in this very spot! Call for details (310)
310-444-4444
SMto LAX $
Hybrid • Vans SantaMonicaTaxi.com
458-7737
Not valid from hotels or with other offers • SM residents only • Expires 12/31/13
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2013
30
Volume 13 Issue 36
Santa Monica Daily Press
RELOADING THE BULLPEN SEE PAGE 8
We have you covered
One less restaurant in town BY DAVID MARK SIMPSON Daily Press Staff Writer
DOWNTOWN Yankee Doodle’s is officially
Federal court strikes down L.A. hotel search law THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
not coming back to town. Restaurant owner Herb Astrow dropped an appeal, allowing the owner of the Third Street Promenade property, Bill Tucker, to continue with plans to convert the space for retail. In May, the Planning Commission granted Tucker permission to follow through with his plans to convert nearly all of the roughly 15,000 square feet of restaurant space to retail. Two months later, a flash fire broke out behind the broiler, said Astrow, and water pumped in by the Santa Monica Fire Department to knock down the flames ruined the place. A natural gas leak was the cause of the fire, said Assistant Fire Marshal Eric Binder. Surveillance tape from inside the restaurant caught the start of the fire, he said, and there was nothing suspicious about it. Astrow appealed the commission’s permit, asking to save the restaurant space, which is to be downsized to 1,700 square feet. He dropped the appeal earlier this month. “Our insurance company is dragging their feet in terms of resolving the claim and because we don't know when that will take place, I can’t ask the owner to let the property stay empty,” he said. “Our hands our tied. I had to step away.” Property damage amounts to about $1 million, he claims. “After 23 years I guess you could say you become pretty attached to the place,” he said. “We had great plans to do a real renovation and gastro pub concept. Is it disappointing? Sure it is. But you got to make the best of the situation.” For Astrow that means hopefully taking over the remaining restaurant space for a gourmet sandwich shop or a burger joint. Despite the appeal, he and Tucker have a great relationship, he said. The restaurant area retains a liquor license and a small patio space, which Astrow is excited about. In May, when the commission discussed Tucker’s retail proposal, they talked about the mix of restaurants Downtown. Dining establishments are typically less profitable Daniel Archuleta daniela@smdp.com
SEE RESTAURANT PAGE 7
THE DRAGGING AND DROPPING ISSUE
IT’S GONE: Yankee Doodle’s will not be returning to the Third Street Promenade.
HAPPY 2014
FROM IZZY AND THE ENTIRE STAFF
OPEN 24 HOURS ON NEW YEARS 1433 Wilshire Boulevard, at 15th Street
310-394-1131 OPEN 24 HOURS
LOS ANGELES A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a city law it said wrongly allows police to inspect hotel and motel guest records without a warrant. In a 5-4 ruling, the appellate panel said the ordinance violates the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches. It reversed a lower court ruling that sided with the city in a challenge brought by two motel owners. The city attorney’s office did not immediately comment on the ruling but spokesman Frank Mateljan said a statement might be released later in the day. In its majority opinion, the court said that the law improperly authorized a police officer to inspect guest records at any time without consent or a search warrant and without a chance to let a judge review the demand. Hotel operators who refused could be charged with a misdemeanor crime carrying a potential six-month jail sentence and a $1,000 fine. The city defends the ordinance “as a nuisance abatement measure designed to deter drug dealing and prostitution,” the court said. However, the majority opinion said that such inspections “involve both a physical intrusion upon a hotel’s papers and an invasion of the hotel’s protected privacy interest in those papers.” Such inspections, whether of computerized or paper records, are subject to constitutional search provisions, and whether or not the inspections find anything “of any great personal value” to a hotel is irrelevant, the court said. In their dissent, four judges said that the majority wrongly assumed that all searches made under the ordinance were unconstitutional. The dissenters noted that the language of the law never specifically authorizes warrantless searches and argued that even if it did, there could be reasonable exceptions where looking at a hotel register immediately was important, such as when looking for a suicidal person.