So, the pending Seattle Times article I spent all day yesterday warning and warning and warning readers to watch for—didn’t land today. Obviously.

I imagine, though, that it’ll run in next few days, if not Sunday, for full impact. Again: Their big story is that there’s only one person who has a city license to do all-ages shows—which evidently raises the question: How can kids be safe if they’re going to unlicensed shows? The answer is pretty simple. The majority of all-ages shows don’t need to get dance licenses because they’re concerts at venues (like Studio Seven) that already meet strict municipal safety and security requirements—including having undergone criminal background checks for their liquor licenses. AADO licenses are intended for independent promoters and atypical venues that need to get in line with those sort of requirements.

It is true that the zombie dance was unlicensed. That’s likely because “raves” don’t typically require AADO licenses, and, so, the promoter likely didn’t think to get one. (Raves actually fall under stricter guidelines than the AADO anyway, and indeed, the CHAC event had more than 6x the security that the AADO requires.) However, if the CHAC all-ages dance should have been licensed, as it appears it should’ve, the people who screwed up—both CHAC and the promoter, Annika Anderson it would seem—need to be held accountable.

Although, obviously, they should not be held accountable for Kyle Huff’s deranged rampage at a house party over a mile away from the club several hours later.

When the Seattle Times does run its article, they should also publish this letter (about their editorial calling for a crackdown on teen dances), which a Seattle Times reader cc:d to me today:

I crafted the letter below to be in a format that they might just consider for publication, but I have $5 that says they won’t. Just thought you’d want to see what they’re not printing…

Editor(s),

It has been a full week since I read this piece and it’s still bothering me. It is such a dangerous argument to presume that teens would be protected by beefing up teen dance laws. In fact the exact opposite would be true. When Seattle’s Teen Dance Ordinance (TDO) was in place, raves and other such gatherings took place solely “underground.â€� The TDO was so restrictive that it basically made the legitimate production of such an event a virtual impossibility.

Many of these “undergroundâ€� events were produced by older men that not only had the experience to pull it off, but the desires to exploit young teens. They made lots of money not as much on the gate but by selling drugs such as Ecstasy to the teens that came in droves.  Once on drugs, older men could manipulate the teens into positions that they otherwise would never get into on their own. There was never any real security at these events, there was no semblance of safety, there were lots of drugs and alcohol, and for many a teen that was the attraction.

With the repeal of the TDO came the production of many teen dances and music events produced by well established and legitimate concert producers and production companies. Safety and security reigns at these events. There is substantial staffing, people are booted for drug use, and organizations such as DanceSafe (http://www.dancesafe.org/) help to disseminate factual information about the dangers of drug use. The dangerous “undergroundâ€� rave has virtually disappeared in the Seattle area.

Just as passing laws against abortion or alcohol simply drove it into a dangerous underground existence, passing laws that regulate teen dances will do the same. I’d rather have my daughter at CHAC or VERA Project than in the beckoning custody of unregulated and lecherous slimeballs.

I beg your editorial staff to rethink its position. I do not believe that any of us want to slide down that slippery slope of prohibition that will remove the only safety net we now have for our youth.


Ben Schroeter
Seattle