All down to a phrase?

The hearing against the termination of the voluntary agreement of Hanks Oyster Bar in DuPont Circle, became an argument over the phrase " good faith attempt."

The board hearing took place at 1250 U street right near Ben's Chilli Bowl and started at 1 p.m. It was a relatively small room on the second floor that held about 25 to 30 people all together. Most of the crowd showed up about 15 to 20 minutes into the hearing. The crowd consisted mostly of blog writers, and community members. In the middle of the room on the wall, was a giant projection screen.

The two sides represented in the hearing were the DuPont Circle Citizens Association ( DCCA), and Hanks Oyster Bar. The DCCA was represented by the Robin Diener in addition to a group of five other residents who have been fighting Hanks Oyster Bar on allowing them to terminate the current voluntary agreement in place. Terminating the agreement would give Hanks the permission to buy the vacant commercial property at 17th and Q streets Northwest that separates Hanks from the remaining block of row houses. " Were packed durring the weekend and people are standing out on the sidewalk. This will help all that congestion," Jamie Leeds owner and lead chef of Hanks Oyster Bar said.

Michael Hibey, a member of the DCCA, had primarily one consistent argument for most of the hearing. While he necessarily doesn't mind the expansion of Hanks Oyster Bar, he doesn't feel that Andrew Kline, Leeds attorney, made any "good faith attempt" to compromise on an agreement. The phrase "good faith attempt" is cited in the District Columbia official code Title 25 Alcohol Beverages, 25-446-D. Whenever Hibey was faced a question, he would usually go back to the fact that Kline never showed a good faith attempt to reach some sort of mutual agreement. He mentioned that Kline just said were going to terminate the agreement and that is that.

Kline tried to match Hibey's tactics by searching for minute details. He noted the difference between the terms "termination" and "amendment" and that they are two separate things. He also said that there isn't any point in talking about an amendment if a party seeks termination. Klein also disagreed with the statement that Hanks Oyster Bar made no effort in making a "good faith attempt" to amend the termination agreement. " The board has emails and a letter referencing our good faith attempt," Kline said.

Kline seemed is if he was almost mocking Hibey, laughing at his counter points and shutting them down very quickly. When Hibey brought up the point that one must go through each step in 25-446 in order to have a valid argument. Kline rudely laughed at the remark and replied, " That was disagree on."

Once again, Hibey reiterated the fact that Hank's failed to make that "good faith attempt" to discuss with the DCCA some sort of agreement on how both sides could work together. In addition, Diener tried asking how it could be possible to amend the agreement and meet to discuss the issue and was flat out told, no it's impossible.

In response to that statement by Diener, Kline seemed perplexed and thought the need to meet was unnecessary. He bascially said that the two sides would meet, state what they believed, and leave with nothing getting accomplished. So what's the point then? Kline asked.

Surprisingly, a lot of the community members present seemed to side with Hanks Oyster Bar on this issue. " It's fascinating the people here are just talking about words when we should be discussing business and community. Hanks has done such great business for the area and it would be more of an issue if Hanks was doing poorly. No one is going to get drunk off seafood, it's a good independent restaurant," community member Doug Rodgers said. After making that comment, a lot of the community members around him seemed to be nodding there heads in agreement.

At about 2.30 p.m the board went to review both sides and vote on the decision. Once they returned, the board first unanimously dismissed the DCCA from the protest hearing along with dismissing the motion to protest the termination of the voluntary agreement. Afterwords, the board voted on whether to dismiss the group of five. The vote was split so it moved forward.

Then both sides presented witnesses who testified under oath, primarily local residents, to support their arguments. Shockingly, Robin Diener was brought back as a witness by the group of residents even though, she had been dismissed as a protestant. Now the board has a few decide on whether or not they will terminate the voluntary agreement in place. One has to wonder if " good faith attempt" will have any significance in the final ruling at all.