Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Pain in the Ass | Rezoning South Downtown »

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

That Nightlife Isn’t Gonna Crack Down On Itself

posted by on June 3 at 15:15 PM

The city’s looking to fill the new position of “Nightlife Regulatory Coordinator,” answering to the mayor. According to the job description, the regulatory coordinator would “Design and implement a comprehensive regulatory program regarding nightlife establishments in the City of Seattle … recommend and defend a structure and processes that will improve/enhance regulatory efforts across the City… Coordinate the activities of the Joint Enforcement Team [more about those bad boys here]” and “Monitor liquor license applications and renewals … recommend non-renewal when circumstances exist that suggest that the establishment does not operate in a safe manner or comply with City and State laws.”

Among other things.

Oh, and apparently the city hasn’t heard about the recession (see also: Mak, Robert): The position pays between $67,400 and $101,150.

(Thanks to Slog tipper Lara.)

RSS icon Comments

1

shitbirds!!!1!

Posted by tiffany | June 3, 2008 3:18 PM
2

That salary range seems low to me. I wouldn't want to do that job for just that much.

Posted by Bon Scott | June 3, 2008 3:20 PM
3

quickest dupe in the west.

Posted by bearseatbeats | June 3, 2008 3:22 PM
4

im applying.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 3, 2008 3:26 PM
5

True, @2 - I'd need a lot more than $101,150 before I'd consider putting myself on Hizzoner's leash.

Posted by COMTE | June 3, 2008 3:28 PM
6

It's a shame the city council is so gutless they rubberstamp these things.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 3, 2008 3:44 PM
7

Are you kidding? $110K, and you'll never have to buy another drink. Probably women, too. I can't wait for the inevitable scandal.

Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2008 3:45 PM
8

Actually, we're not technically in a recession yet. A recession requires two quarters of negative change in GDP in one fiscal year. Last quarter had a positive gain of 0.9%, so it's impossible to be in a recession yet.

Posted by Milton Friedman | June 3, 2008 3:46 PM
9

You forget about all the kick-backs. That job could net a million easy.

Posted by Original Monique | June 3, 2008 3:49 PM
10

ya mon, dat joint team be one badass smokin' group against i and i

Posted by bobcat | June 3, 2008 3:52 PM
11

milton friedman, that is merely one definition of recession by one group off people

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 3, 2008 3:54 PM
12

Wise choice of deletion; this post's title was funnier than Savage's.

Posted by leek | June 3, 2008 4:23 PM
13

Well shit, maybe I'm suited for the job as I hadn't even thought of things like kickbacks, girls, drinks, etc. I'd have just put the salary in a 401k and lived the same meager life I do now.

All I know is that if I was reporting to the mayor, I'd want more then what my middle-manager boss makes (probably at the upper end of that scale).

Posted by Bon Scott | June 3, 2008 4:29 PM
14

@8

Yours is a commonly held opinion, but it isn't strictly true. The NBER is responsible for determining whether we are officially in a recession or not, and their methodology is a bit more nuanced than that:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

Posted by Bison | June 3, 2008 4:32 PM
15

Milt, the definition of things like growth and unemployment has been jiggered to make it virtually impossible to make an official recession. That doesn't mean it's not happening.

Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2008 4:32 PM
16

"Milt, the definition of things like growth and unemployment has been jiggered to make it virtually impossible to make an official recession. That doesn't mean it's not happening."

Evidence, plz.

Oh, and $67,000 starting pay? That's really not much, all things considered. Certainly not deserving ECB's snide comment.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | June 3, 2008 5:07 PM
17
Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2008 5:28 PM
18

Fuckhead.

Great to see you haven't lost that feisty liberal spirit, old friend. Way to stand by the "holier than thou" moralist attitude that we've all come to love so much from the free-spirited thinking crowd.

By the way, that article requires a subscription. Nice try.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | June 3, 2008 5:34 PM
19

Here you go, asswipe:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2008/Pollyanna-Creep-Economy1may08.htm

My antipathy to you and your ilk has nothing to do with liberalism. I'm an economic realist, to the right of most Slog commenters. As you would know, if you could recognize a clue. But you can't, because you're a clue-proof libertarian fuckhead. Even your nickname screams pig-ignorant Ayn-Rand security guard weasel. Crime Blogger! Mall Ninja! Who are you really, Dwight Schrute?

Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2008 5:47 PM
20

As you would know, if you could recognize a clue.

You mean if I spent 24 hours a day on SLOG. Thankfully I've got better things to do.

Not surprising that you wouldn't respect Ayn Rand, though. It requires a higher level of understanding to appreciate complete individual responsibility; indeed, such freedom is scary to many who realize that they would not survive in a world where it reigned supreme.

Talk it up. The fact that you rely on cheap insults and chose to attack my username over my positions does little more than reaffirm my belief that you can't argue the issues legitimately. But your ignorance about life and how it really works speaks for itself.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | June 3, 2008 6:13 PM
21

"Ayn Rand [...] requires a higher level of understanding to appreciate"

You called that one, Fnarf. On the nose.

"indeed, such freedom is scary to many who realize that they would not survive in a world where it reigned supreme."

The funny part is that the Randians are often the least suited to survival in this hypothetical world of hyper-individualism that they're always advocating. They're just not bright enough to realize it.

Posted by Bison | June 3, 2008 6:20 PM
22

Ayn Rand was a talentless, bug-eyed freak, SCB, and her attempts at expressing her dim philosophy in turgid fiction are arguably the most laughable literary works of all time. She makes Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who has a frigging bad-writing contest named after him, read like Charles Dickens. And there has never been a writer who exhibited less understanding of "life and how it really works".

I don't need to "argue the issues" with you; you don't have anything to argue with. Higher understanding, my ass. Do you hear Wagner in the background when you type stuff like "would not survive in a world where it reigned supreme"? Are you wearing a cape, by any chance?

Randians are the most contemptible little worms of all the little worms there are. Now get back to your police radio, I'll bet there's a lot of blockbuster traffic action with all this rain.

Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2008 6:54 PM
23

Randians are mostly adolescents. Ayn Rand was a knee jerk reaction to a craptacular childhood.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 3, 2008 7:03 PM
24

why don't homeless people have the right to sleep where they want? especially in a supposed public space? why is the state limiting the freedom of homeless people?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 3, 2008 7:08 PM
25

@23, yes. I was a Randian for about three days when I was in 10th grade. That ended when I got maybe 100 pages into "The Fountainhead" and realized that no recognizable human beings were ever going to put in an appearance.

Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2008 7:42 PM
26

This was the best thread of the day.

Posted by laterite | June 3, 2008 11:05 PM
27

any teenage not into ayn rand needs to read more.

any adult still into ayn rand needs to read more.

Posted by brianmyfatass | June 3, 2008 11:41 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.