Reader: Debate over El Diablo should be about whether it's safe to dine there, not if Jesse's a douche

photo(41).JPG
El Diablo and Sketch remained dark yesterday -- and as the comments and rumors fly, some people feel they're still in the dark about why the city closed the First Avenue Hotel building when it did. After all, the restaurants had been operating for two years in that space; why did Denver officials deem it unsafe now?

Says guest:

In fairness to all parties, shouldn't the debate be whether or not the building is really structurally unsafe to dine at NOT whether or not Jesse is a douche?

Good point, guest. We have requested the paper trail from the city -- the last document we received was dated August 2011 -- and will post the documents when we receive them.

Post your thoughts below, or join the conversations already under way here.



Location Info

El Diablo - CLOSED

101 Broadway, Denver, CO

Category: Restaurant


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
Guest
Guest

I still don't see any construction going on there...I'm guessing he's going to cut his losses and run.  I'll be very surprised if those places open again.

Rawdoggin
Rawdoggin

I guess it depends on what you consider a "douche"  If a "douche" is just a socially offensive individual, then the issue of Jesse's "douche" status does seem irrelevant from a news perspective.   But if you define a "douche" by someone who makes a career by intentionally leveraging social, commercial and political connections, and then finds oneself persecuted by the same system they were trying profit from, perhaps there is legitimacy in digging deeper into this story. Some questions that do come to mind are whether Jesse's arrangement with the city is unique, and if not, are other proprietors facing the same scrutiny?  And if Morreale is being singled out, what reasons are behind these actions?  Are there circumstances, relationships and transactions that lead up to this?   A little curiosity and the ability to access Google show that this guy is not some line cook who aspired to open his own place and got screwed by the local authorities because he got in over his head.  And, if you base your judgement solely on documents issued by lawyers on either side, then this must be your first day in ImaginationLand.

HappyDay
HappyDay

Well the truth is, if you were given $5 million dollars by the City to develop a project you are beholden to the City and their process.and the onus is on the recipient to be the more proactive party in all aspects of the process. The fact that it has drug on for a week with a former City Attorney as the representative tells me that this is clearly more than just a pissing match or a miscommunication.  He received City money, which is taxpayer money and I am frankly glad that the City is calling foul, it is their job.  And the public PR of the owner "I am the victim", tells me all I need to know.  The business is dodgy at best, the food preparation at Sketch never seems clean or proper. Like they are always pulling it from some hot plate stashed in the back.  And you can spend hundred's of dollars in there as a regular customer and never once do they give you a complimentary "thank you for your patronage" drink, they just recommend the most expensive glass of wine on the list.

seems
seems

City inspectors are just doing there job, but getting attacked for it. Restaurant employees just doing there job, but now have no job to go to. Seems to me the one making the decisions here is the owner... So, yes, the topic SHOULD BE is he a douche.

ISmellaRat
ISmellaRat

Thanks for clearing that up.  I guess if the documents you have don't define a default by Jesse, then the City will just point to some provisions of their Code and say "well, he still needs to meet these, and they weren't included in our original discussions."  If that's the case, you'll get the present situation;  Jesse saying "they're not playing fair" and the City saying "if you wanted an exemption or more time for those other issues, you should've brought it up a year ago." Conclusion;  the City worked with him by giving him a year or so of wiggle room during which time, he didn't do much.  The absolute worst political play is to cry foul and blame it on the City.  Now the City will just point to the law and say; you don't meet it, you're done. In that regard, whether he's a douche has some relevance.  Option 1:  keep your mouth shut, make up some vague excuse for temporarily closing, and get it done behind closed doors.  Option 2:  take it to the brink, loudly whine, and lose.  Only a douche (or someone who already knows he has no chance of getting it done) would choose Option 2.

NotWoofka
NotWoofka

Was there a deadline attached to the documents you already have?

ISmellaRat
ISmellaRat

"We have requested the paper trail from the city" Why haven't you obtained one from the "victim" in this case?  The City is less likely to give up documents over privacy concerns and if the "victim" is litigious. Jesse should be more than willing to paper you..... unless he's hiding something that doesn't fit in too well with his PR narrative.

Alan Baldwin
Alan Baldwin

So here's the part that's confusing for me. A) There's paperwork from August of last year saying if X, Y, and Z don't happen within 18 months of the restaurant opening, the building will be deemed UNSAFE. B) Between 18-24 months after the restaurants open, the building is deemed UNSAFE. C) The rebuttal is "well the building's safe," not "we did all of the things agreed upon to prevent the building being called unsafe." There are certainly two sides to this story, and I'm reserving judgement until there's more information, but I'd definitely be supporting El Diablo / Sketch if the argument was "we've done everything we agreed to."

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...