Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Vote for Hillary... | Just for the Record... »

Friday, February 29, 2008

SF Proposes Anti-Loitering-Outside-Clubs Law

posted by on February 29 at 8:14 AM

Responding to a recent spike in violent crimes in and around San Francisco’s popular nightclubs, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced new legislation Thursday intended to make the venues safer.

Under the proposed legislation… it would be illegal to loiter within 10 feet of a club for more than three minutes between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. People smoking or waiting for a bus or taxi would be exempted, and police would have to issue a warning before citing a loiterer.

RSS icon Comments

1

Good gawd. Soon, a GovPod will come to our front doors and take us to one of three legal venues in our city, and we will watch the approved entertainment through the windshield, and then we'll be transported to a restaurant where we will be fed meals balanced according to the Department of Agriculture's Subsidized Food Pyramid, and then we will be transported back to our homes in time for our 11pm curfew. If at any time we try to do something unhealthy while in the Pod, the Nanny will activate, extinguishing our smoke, or confiscating our pills or porn.


What I'm trying to say is, that's fucking stupid.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | February 29, 2008 8:31 AM
2

@1
is there a solution you propose?

doing nothing?

other??

Posted by unPC | February 29, 2008 8:57 AM
3

This IS stupid. Loitering outside of clubs is a time-honored tradition.

Posted by Katelyn | February 29, 2008 9:16 AM
4

yes, nothing will suffice. that's basically what this legislation would do anyway. who the fuck "loiters" in front of a club unless they're smoking, waiting to get in, or waiting to leave?
fucking D-U-M-B.

Posted by brandon | February 29, 2008 9:23 AM
5

Freedom to assembly, even alone, is a guaranteed right. This will be thrown out.

Posted by wtf | February 29, 2008 9:31 AM
6

Soon to be followed by a no-fun-in-public ordinance.

Posted by Trevor | February 29, 2008 9:33 AM
7

Gavin will be there to enforece this *personally* for people who aren't actively fawning over Joanna Newsom outside the Great American Music Hall.

Is Newsom the most boring, meddling U.S. mayor of all time?

Posted by mackro mackro | February 29, 2008 9:38 AM
8

Aren't they all smoking anyways?

Posted by Fnarf | February 29, 2008 9:51 AM
9

@2

Yep! I think 'nothing' will do just fine.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | February 29, 2008 10:09 AM
10

don't the police have anything better to do than cruise the sidewalks asking people whether or not they're supposed to be there? and then return in 3 minutes to check up on them again?

i repeat: D-U-M-B. waste of time, waste of taxpayer's money, more fucking stupid beaurocratic bullshit for people to go through just to throw a fucking party at a club. which is to say, this law will probably take effect next week. this is san francisco after all.

Posted by brandon | February 29, 2008 10:17 AM
11

this law is silly. i suppose it exists to the police can disperse a crowd that isn't causing trouble but that might cause trouble.

it all comes back down to the existence of some clubs that attract violent types. how do you deal with them? hold the club accountable for actions outside? or forbid loitering?

a better solution is needed.

Posted by infrequent | February 29, 2008 11:12 AM
12

"And soon no drinking and no talking."

Posted by Greg | February 29, 2008 12:21 PM
13

But what will ahppen to the 2:30am "Sidewalk Sale" of gay men desperately trying to get laid that night after the bars toss them out on Castro Street????


It's GAY CULTURE, damnit!

Posted by Dee in SF | February 29, 2008 1:13 PM
14

Oh, God! I hope Nickels doesn't hear about this...

Posted by Tim Rhodes | February 29, 2008 2:12 PM
15

Although...

...this part of the SF legislation is brilliant and we could really use it here:

The legislation also would require promoters who hold two or more events at nightclubs within any given year to obtain a permit.

As it is now, the mayor said, "fly-by-night" promoters come and go without anybody keeping track of them. Permits would enable the Police Department and other city agencies to know who is responsible for an event in the case of a security breach or health violation.

That at least shows Mayor Gavin's office has a better understanding of the important minutia concerning how the nightclub industry actually operates than Nickels' office has ever demonstrated.

Posted by Tim Rhodes | February 29, 2008 2:46 PM
16

15 - that's the part of the law i think is dumbest. if you had any idea what a convoluted, messy, beaurocratic nightmare the sf city government is, you would understand what a terrible idea this is.

i'm not sure who these fly by night promoters are or where they throw their parties, but this is not "the problem" and has nothing to do with people getting shot outside bars and clubs. forcing promoters to get a permit is a really, really lame idea.

Posted by brandon | February 29, 2008 3:04 PM
17

@ 16:

I work in the industry and I've been a promoter. Dealing with the city here is really no big deal. There's no excuse for a promoter to not have their business license & paperwork in order. It's a very, very low hoop to jump through.

The problem here is not that promoters are "fly by night", it's that crowds often follow a promoter, rather than just patronize a specific club.

A promoter with a "troublesome" draw, might do nights at several different clubs. If a shooting takes place outside of one club, the promoter just moves his night to another club. All eyes remain on the former club and their future often ends up in doubt. (Tabella, Sugar, Baltic, etc.)

Meanwhile the promoter has slipped away sideways -- under the press and police's radar -- to a new club, bringing their violence-happy crowd (and all their bar moneys -- let's be honest here!) to the new club.

And the cycle starts all over again unabated.

A simple $20-a-year license -- with a requirement to file a notification to the Department of Revenue and Consumer Affairs of all ongoing events the promoter is promoting -- would do the trick. All the licensing needs to do is require reporting; providing a paper trail easily followed by press & police if need be.

No big whooop.

(And, additionally, the program would probably more than pay for itself by facilitating the collection of often unpaid business & admissions taxes from shifty promoters.)

Posted by Tim Rhodes | March 1, 2008 4:04 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).