Comments on Nightlife Update
Hmmm. Have to think about it, but might be an option.
Please remember - this does not just affect clubs - it also affects restaurants, pubs and bars that fit the guidelines regarding square footage.
And now these places have to pay for ANOTHER yearly license? Plus fines if any Tom, Dick or Harry complains?
Hey city council, thanks for continuing to NICKEL and dime small business to death.
FUCK THIS CITY
It sounds like they only get fines if Tom, Dick, or Harry can back up their complaints with a decibel meter. I think this is pretty good, really. Especially considering the amount of subjectivity it removes from the system.
It really isn't Mason. It is more fees and more bureaucratic bullshit from the city. Another license fee? Great, thanks. Let me bend over a little further.
Infrastructure to deal with these problems already exists - why add to the layers by asking small businesses to pay more and deal with more crap? None of this gets to the root of the problem. None of it.
Not another special license - bars already have them, it's called a fucking liquor license assholes.
So, here's something: Let's say someone gets shot outside a club, bar, or tavern most likely in an adjacent parking lot not owned by the club, bar, or tavern. Under this legislation, the club will (most likely) get its license yanked and will be closed.
On the surface, this seems just, but is it? How is the club responsible? They let people in and do everything they can to keep their establishment secure. They hire security, frisk people, scan for weapons, be well-managed, etc. And of course, they throw troublemakers out of the club (that's why they're called "bouncers").
Now, they are responsible for what, a citizen's arrest? How could they possibly prevent the shooting from happening? Not play violent music? Well, that's been proven as a First Amendment violation, as well as being discriminatory. (Non-violent people listen to violent music all the time.) Should they...give psychiatric tests to those walking by the club to see if they are likely to shoot someone?
How could this legislation possibly be legal? Any club with sense would appeal the suspension and unless it was proven that they knowingly let an armed sociopath into their establishment (sociopaths who conveniently wear that label on their jackets) or uh, allowed one near their club. How could it be proved that the club caused the shooting? Didn't the shooter cause the shooting?
So this seems like an exercise in futility and in the end, will do nothing to stop what the real problem appears to be, which is the under-enforcement of existing rules and codes.
It's important to take violent crime seriously. If the city was serious about doing so, it would enforce the existing codes it has. This appears to be a dull tool that will do little to make the city a safer place to be at night.
typical bureacratic bullshit. i really don't want our city officials wasting their time and our tax $$ on such a minimal and ridiculous issue. there are people who are hungry in this town. schools in the south end of this city lack basic school supplies like books and paper. and why are our city officials spending time on such a non-issue? because a few wealthy condo owners complained and the squeaky wheel always gets the grease.
Yeah, I will call you Snot.
Where to begin? You think hunger is a Seattle only issue. This cries stupid.
You think the City Council decides the budget for the School Board.
Are you trying out for the poster child of the policy retarded? These are two distinct and different institutions.
I agree with you though on one point. Money thwarts democracy. Welcome to America.
"How could this legislation possibly be legal? Any club with sense would appeal the suspension..."
How long did the illegal strip club moratorium last?
My guess is that they pick off the smallest rowdiest clubs that perhaps won't get support from other bigger clubs and by the time their case gets to the Supreme Court they will be broke and the music they played will be on the oldie stations.
Answer 20 years.
You people just don't understand. Seattle has gotten older, more affluent. Those young people and their terrible music keep us up at night. We've got a lot to worry about, things that keep us up already: Prostate troubles. weak bladders. Whether Nordstrom is going to do that Chanel trunk show. Brokerage commissions. Whether we can get into the Ritz-Carelton down at Newport Beach for the whale watching weekend. We don't need a bunch of loud music outside our balconies. It ruins our Chardonnay parties. That's not what we shelled out 750,000 dollars for. Sure, we're not here all the time, but when we are, we want it quiet.
I encourage everyone, especially bar and restaurant owners to show up to this meeting. The last meeting, bar owners were FAR outnumbered by condo association reps. These are the people creating this legislation and they don't have anything to do with owning restaurants or bars.
Bar and restaurant owners already need 3 licenses in order to operate: Public Health, Business & Operation and a liquor license. No one from City Council has said WHY they need to add ANOTHER one to the list.
NO NEW LICENSES!!!!!
So just what is she taking out of the Mayor's version?
It sounds like she's just piling on, and making a piece of crap legislation into big pile of crap legislation.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).