Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Seattle Times Gets Club Story Wrong ... Again

1

The dead horse is well beaten.

Posted by elrider | September 16, 2007 12:25 PM
2

Oh shut up, elrider. Beating (or burning) dead horses is a fucking blast and you know it.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 16, 2007 12:36 PM
3

elrider @1,

Dead horse?

"They botch it again today, on another key issue."

We've moved on to a separate and brand new fuck up in today's Seattle Times elrider.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 16, 2007 12:53 PM
4

here's some more dead horse beating. Hopefully it motivates people to get involved....

Clark's committee refused to work with the industry to create a license that was reasonable and that the industry could see as a decent compromise. Instead, Clark and the other members have ignored the input of the industry, attorneys and community members and have created a license that is incredibly unreasonable an invites abuse, not to mention is will make clubs less safe as it gives business owners an incentive to not call police or emergency services for help.

Here's some of the less reasonable parts of the license:

Each year, a business must apply for a new license, which can then be denied even if the business hasn't been cited for doing anything wrong in the pas t year. Each year a business with millions invested could be disallowed to operate any longer at the whim of the Mayor's office. And there is no oversight except for the Mayor's office. The Nightlife Advisory Board gets only to make comments, which don't have to be listened to.

Under the license if your business is has certain acts of violence occur on it, it can lose it's license.

These "acts of violence" include someone robbing you or even trying to burn your business down (see RCW 9.94A.030(50)(i-xi)] or if someone enters carrying a concealed "blackjack, sand-club, metal knuckles, switchblade knife, chako sticks, or throwing stars...dangerous knife, or carry concealed on his or her person any deadly weapon other than a firearm" you can lose your license. This will provide a whole new level of sting operation.

A nightlife establishment could also be closed if they call the Police for help with someone on their premises who has not yet committed a crime, but then when the SPD arrives, resists arrest (RCW Sections 9A.36.031).

Even more ridiculous is that is a 4th degree assault happens on premises - which could be as much as one person spitting on another, then a business could be closed!

And if the Mayor feels that there is imminent threat to property or safety (including it seems the potential of someone being spat upon), he can issue an immediate suspension of the license. At any time, and basically for any reason.

Keep in mind we live in a City that just broke laws in a PR stunt to get this license passed. One where the City Attorney and SPD did a sting operation on an African American owned club where the Police gave crack to crack addicts so they would go into the club to buy and sell crack so they could close the club (this was proven in court).

A city where a shooting happens near a venue (one of several in the area) so the Mayor tries to close it, but the Liquor Boad and Police end up showing that the venue had nothing to do with the violence.

We are about to give ultimate authority over nightlife to this same Mayor.

Licata and Conlin have been huge supporters of music and art, not to mention police oversight and such progressive things for years, but they have suddenly bowed to pressure from the neighborhoods and the Mayor. Although Licata has worked harder than anyone to come up with some amendments, his changes don't go close to far enough. Even if his amendments pass the above craziness will be in place. Licata and Conlin now seem to be willing to support this license which oppresses music and nightlife. If you have supported either in the past you need to let them know how you feel about this gross abuse of power they are about to authorize.

Jan Drago, typically a friend to the independent business owner, is now proposing a license that is as anti-business as it gets.

We're all about to move to Beaumont and Nickels and Carr are about to become our own little Shaw Moores, assisted by the supposedly more reasonable Council who end up going along to get along.

please write your council members and let them know how you feel.

Posted by Meinert | September 16, 2007 12:57 PM
5

isn't there a conflict of interest here, considering that the stranger survives off of ad revenue from night-life venues?

seems pretty obvious to me. i think the stranger staff needs to chill out on this one. or else rename their paper "the night-life industry post-intelligencer."

Posted by xiu xiu | September 16, 2007 1:06 PM
6

Xiu Xiu,

The Stranger will continue to get ad revenue from night life venues wether this license passes or not.

Here's what makes this an important issue to me: The special authority the city is looking for can be used to discriminate against certain types of venues.

As Meinert @4 pointed out—the provisions in the ordinance give the executive sole discretion to shut down clubs. Given this city's history of antagonism toward hip hop clubs and all-ages punk clubs, and given the current mayor's need to prove to cranky neighborhood voters that he's a tough on crime bad boy, I think giving him that authority is a bad move.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 16, 2007 1:15 PM
7

Josh or Meinert or anyone else in the know, when is the vote on the proposal? This week?

Posted by Katelyn | September 16, 2007 1:22 PM
8

Of course, the P-I had the story a day earlier than the Times.

Posted by Prospero | September 16, 2007 1:22 PM
9

the vote is scheduled for this Monday, as in tomorrow.

Posted by Meinert | September 16, 2007 1:26 PM
10

@7,
Tomorrow!

It looks like the license will pass. In favor of license, I'd say: Drago, Clark, Della, Licata, and probably Conlin.

Against: Steinbrueck and McIver.

Leaning against license: Rasmussen and Godden.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 16, 2007 1:30 PM
11

Thanks @9 and 10. I've been in contact with the Council members on this issue a couple times over the past week... Even though the prospects aren't good for striking this down, I feel better knowing at least I've been more than clear with the council on how I stand on the issue.

Say the proposal passes. Are we stuck with it, and for how long? Once this kind of power is passed to the mayor's office, how difficult is it to get it back to the neighbors, liquor board, and SPD?

Posted by Katelyn | September 16, 2007 1:43 PM
12

If this is passed, it will take decades or a successful lawsuit to change it.

Basically, this passing or not is all on Licata it seems. He's about to add to his legacy. It will be an odd one - he helped get rid of the TDO, and now he's about to help create a new, even worse license regulating music and nightlife. Crazy.

Posted by Meinert | September 16, 2007 1:53 PM
13

"reign in violence" should be "rein in violence."


Posted by Graham Marr | September 16, 2007 1:54 PM
14

So, Josh, how about some analysis of why Drago failed to play the role you gave her, standing up to the mayor? Where you just wrong? Say it ain't so!

Posted by So what happened, Josh | September 16, 2007 2:51 PM
15

@14,

Casey Corr would not have bucked the Mayor on this issue.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 16, 2007 2:58 PM
16

The Stranger covers the music/club scene and therefore music/clubs advertise in the paper SFW. Josh would want to write about this if he worked for the Times even if were restricted to doing stories about how the inhertitance tax hurts small business.

How much money will be raised by Nickles' campaign from clubs? Don't give and gee you're shut down. Too much power over people's livelihood.

Josh Blethen actually testified DC for inhertitance tax - why don't you and yours go beyond using the paper and do activism. Or come out for the license and hope the Stranger effect wins out.

Posted by whatever | September 16, 2007 3:01 PM
17

answer the question, josh. What happened to Drago?

Posted by answer the question | September 16, 2007 3:39 PM
18

Josh, if you want to make a reference to 2005, Drago got a lot of support from the nightclub community that year -- so where is she in 2007? And speaking of 2007, how come you're not holding people accountable?

Posted by 1411 3rd Avenue | September 16, 2007 6:15 PM
19

I'd love to find an email address for Jan Drago that doesn't bounce back... jan.drago@seattle.gov isn't working for me.

Posted by Katelyn | September 16, 2007 6:28 PM
20

Cool down gang. No pro Jan conspiracy here or attempt not to hold her accountable.

The priority of my coverage and posts so far has been to challenge the legitimacy of the raid, arrests, license idea, and really: The Seattle Times sloppy coverage. It's a handful.

Getting in Jan Drago's face is a great idea (and Nick Licata's too).

And I will certainly follow up that angle.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 16, 2007 6:58 PM
21

The Stranger's reporting on this issue has blown away the Times. It's amazing just how shitty and lazy their reporting is. They are worthless.

I still have hope for the PI. Monica Guzman's blogging on hispanic day laborers has been great, although the racism in the comments is depressing. And you guys are way, way too harsh on Jamieson. Yes, he fucks up every now and then, but on the balance he's a force for good.

Posted by Sean | September 16, 2007 7:42 PM
22

Seattle is filled with great clubs. It's one of the things that makes Seattle a better town. If the town fathers like Licata (?!?!) make Seattle an impossible place to have a club then we'll have only crappy House of Blues hell holes.
Nick: If you come down on the wrong side of this I will never forgive you. Read this thing. Talk to some people whose businesses will be hurt by this.

Posted by Tim | September 16, 2007 8:03 PM
23

Josh,
What's with your obsession with The Times?

Just do your stories, and do your job, which includes confronting pols with the gap between rhetoric and actions. Drago just dances to the mayor's tune, and you got snowed.

It's your day of attonement, pal.

Posted by Who cares about the Times, Josh? | September 16, 2007 10:33 PM
24

#23,
And what is your obsession with Josh?

Posted by It'sCools | September 17, 2007 12:22 AM
25

Thanks for the picture Poe. I now see why Josh likes it so much.

Posted by elrider | September 17, 2007 7:17 AM
26

No problem whatsoever.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 17, 2007 8:31 AM
27

@19 - I just wrote to all 9, and the Jan Drago address hasn't bounced back yet . . .

Posted by Levislade | September 17, 2007 9:04 AM
28

@27 She probably just doesn't accept emails from women. Or something.

Posted by Katelyn | September 17, 2007 9:27 AM
29

If we could just control the clubs that play Hip-Hop music the city would be a better place. Only bad things come from these clubs in the first place.

Posted by Touring | September 17, 2007 9:38 AM
30

Do you ever stop congratulating yourself, Josh? If you and Erica are such top-notch reporters WHY in the world are you still plugging away at a free rag loaded with bar ads like the Stranger? There are a lot of good newspapers out there. Why haven't they hired you? Most of my friends from J-school have gone on to work for the Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Trib, you know, decent papers or magazines like the New Yorker and Time. How come you can't get hired at places like that? Do you really like making $38K a year at your age? Don't you have any good clips to trot out? Hasn't anyone ever recruited you?

Posted by Special Kay | September 17, 2007 9:42 AM
31

It's threads like this that I wish we could see the IP addresses.

Posted by Soupytwist | September 17, 2007 9:51 AM
32

Yawn.

Posted by Michael | September 17, 2007 10:52 AM
33

Operation Happy Hour
up the ante, fight the fight

Posted by woofer | September 17, 2007 2:09 PM
34

On another point, the Times article stated:

"In his bid in July to have the Liquor Board shut down Tabella, Nickels essentially held the club responsible for a June 4 fight in a nearby parking lot that involved more than 200 individuals. But the Seattle Police Department, in response to a public-records request, recently said the incident was unrelated to Tabella."

Josh, has there been any more mainstream reporting on this? (i.e.: The actual facts behind the incidents that kicked this whole anti-club fiasco into overdrive)

`Cuz more and more it looks like not only are the laws on the books sufficient to the task, but that the current system of checks and balances worked like it's suppose to: to prevent a wrongly accused business from being shut down by a mob-rule-like mentality.

Sober, process oriented, checking of facts (by the LCB) got it right.
Knee-jerk, political overreaction (by Nickels, et al) got it wrong.

(Who'da thought!)

After six years of King Bush the Lesser's rule, I'm still shocked that people haven't learned by now the inherent abuses -- and hence obvious and tragic error -- in any and all attempts to further "concentrate power in the executive."

BAAAAH! A pox on all their houses!!!

Posted by Tim Rhodes | September 17, 2007 2:57 PM
35

@31 yeah I'd like to look up your IP address, too

Posted by Yep | September 19, 2007 1:08 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).