City More on the Mayor’s Proposed New Club Restrictions
Yesterday I got a furious voice mail from mayoral spokesman Marty McOmber (who has a policy of not speaking to the Stranger) about my Slog post unveiling the mayor’s draft proposal for new nightclub regulations. McOmber said my post was “riddled with inaccuracies,” adding, “And you wonder why the mayor’s office won’t return your calls.” McOmber told me to call Film and Music Office director James Keblas (who also did not return calls and e-mails for comment for last week’s feature), who he said would set me straight.
Here’s what Keblas said: “The mayor is not anti-nightlife. [His policies to date] have not closed any clubs… This proposal is meant to professionalize the nightlife industry so everyone knows what the conditions are … and centralize the city’s relationship with nightclubs.” So basically, the mayor’s office doesn’t like the way I characterized the mayor’s legislation. Asked if the mayor’s office disputed anything other than my characterization of his position as “anti-nightlife” (my opinion), Keblas pointed to the way I defined “nightclubs”: as establishments with a capacity of 50 or more that provide live entertainment. Actually, Keblas said, nightclubs are drinking establishments with a capacity of 50 or more people that provide live entertainment after 10 pm. I was happy to clarify, but honestly, I think the difference is a pretty minor one. (Most people understand, I think, that a nightclub is a club that operates at night and sells booze.) Keblas also took issue with my use of “leaked documents.” I certainly hope McOmber, a former Times reporter, recognizes the usefulness of leaked documents to reporters’ work.
Again, I asked Keblas to cite the repeated major errors McOmber alluded to in his message. He sent me a long e-mail in response. The e-mail noted two other “errors”: Clubs are only required to patrol parking lots that they own or operate (I said they had to police both lots that they own and lots that they “use,” i.e. operate, which I consider a different way of saying the exact same thing). And Keblas said club employees don’t have to “maintain security” outside clubs before and after closing time, as I wrote; instead, he said, they’re just required to “patrol, i.e., monitor, and call law enforcement if illegal activities are taking place.” Again, this seems like a semantic difference to me. One more substantive thing Keblas did point out is that I said club owners aren’t “allowed” to police adjacent property (like the sidewalk and other areas that aren’t under their legal control). My understanding was that this is true. He asked me to offer evidence. I’m looking into that and will post a correction if I was wrong.
Those minor differences aside, I stand by my post: The mayor’s proposed new regulations (which include requiring clubs to prevent patrons from bringing drugs and weapons on their premises; requiring clubs to keep noise levels inaudible to “a person of normal hearing”; allowing the police chief to summarily suspend nightclub licenses at will; and requiring clubs to police all areas where patrons “or prospective patrons” gather) would harm, not help, nightlife in Seattle. Keblas said in his e-mail that I failed to note that the mayor’s nightlife task force recommended several measures to help nightclubs, including “promoting the development of a vibrant entertainment and late-night entertainment industry within the city” and mediating disputes between clubs and their neighbors. The reason I didn’t note any of the task force’s positive recommendations is that none of those recommendations were incorporated into the mayor’s draft of the law. Yes, the city is adding a new staff person to work with the new nightclub advisory board (which will administer the new nightclub licenses) and clubs. But that staffer wouldn’t be necessary if the mayor hadn’t proposed the new nightclub license and all the attending new restrictions I wrote about extensively yesterday in the first place. Yes, this proposal is just a draft. But from a mayor who claims to support “vibrant” nightlife in Seattle, it’s an alarming place to start.
Mayor staffers are angry with your Slog post? This is my surprised face.
While I believe you jumped to a few conclusions, ECB, their defensive retorts sound like little more than CYA to me. The goal of this bill appears to be to suburbanize our urban neighborhoods by silencing and micromanaging the nightclub scene. And that's the problem.