Yay! So maybe 15 years from now Seattle will have a reasonable last call? Seriously, with bar time being 15 minutes fast last call ends up being at 1:30. In Toronto it's last call at 2 as well, but they give you another hour to finish your drink and sober up a little.

Thats pretty crazy. And awesome. Except I doubt bars would get enough customers in the wee hours to merit staying open all night. But it would solve the all-at-once last call crowds from spilling into the streets. If this passed, I'd hope some real dance clubs would open up around here.

Might work as long as people didn't use it as an excuse to just keep on drinking, and clubs as an excuse to just keep on overserving. Under the state liquor law (or rules), as I understand it, anybody who walks out of a bar and blows more than 0.08 has been overserved -- driving a car has nothing to do with it.

Merely enforcing that limit would do a lot to settle the nighttime noise problem.

But it’s not radical idea," says Meinert. "Lots of cities are already do it."

This got Babelfished.

New York seems to do fine with a (IIRC) 4am last call.

London is actually pretty relaxed with the later drinking. At least Soho was...

24 hours would be best. If it meets opposition, an alternative would be a requirement that bars and nightclubs have to stay open one hour past their last call so people filter out, instead of being booted out.

Fuck I'm glad Tom Carr is gone.

well, if they go through with this. I and my friends will be dead.No way around it.

McGinn will demand a series of town halls, one in every bar in Seattle, before he'll support a plan for a plan to move this forward.

@11 - the problem with limiting service til 10am is that it limits many legitimate folks from have a drink after work. I own a bar that opens at 6am and a lot of our customers are doctors and nurses who have just finished their shifts at the emergency room. I think if they want to go out for an after work meal and a cocktail they are as entitled to it as anyone else, maybe more so.

How about 24 hour bars...this way the knife fights can happen inside instead of out on the street.

Less mess.

This sounds like a reasonably good idea, which means there's no way the liquor control board will let it happen.

Ach, das LCB! First of all, their German beer import policy indicates they are completely corrupt. Second, I discovered a new disadvantage recently. We dispersed as per WALCB regulation at the end of an evening and, even though it was an outburb, the cab didn't come. It was me and teetery lurkers outside, including one persistent drunk who remembered me from a chance encounter a month ago. I went back in to request a second cab (which didn't come), the skeevey guy hid out of view of the windows but right there, and the bartenders told me they had to lock the doors.

We have 20 hours of drinking now. Is that not enough?
Will another 4 hours solve crowd problems?

Is booze the only reason you live in Seattle?

This isn't a solution. It is a grab for money.

Furthermore: you should see what happens to innocent local programmers when you yell "Last call!" and they slam one down and then get ejected from the establishment. The best way to mix humans and alcohol is with a lot of ritual. When you can only mix humans and alcohol for about two hours, and you end like that, no good will result.

I'd like to see how this works. I foresee the problem with staggering times being that many bars will want to be the one who gets to stay open later for the additional revenue. How is it determined? Lottery? Would there be a lot of political decision making or "favors" dealt out? Especially on Capitol Hill, the bars would love the opportunity to make a few extra bucks.

The argument about there not being cabs doesn't seem right to me - there's a ton with no fares most of the week at closing time. They would probably welcome the chance to have more productive early am hours.

@18 - I think the idea Holmes was bringing up was to all any bar that wants to operate at any hours they want to. No lottery. Allow the market determine closing times.

Zander - Mix that policy with a new noise ordinance, better sound insulation required in buildings, and a new public disturbance law that allows cops to ticket people who are noisy on the street late at night. Add to that more cops on foot patrol in neighborhoods with nightlife. I think we'll see more money for the City and State, as well as more business. Oh but right, you're against people owning businesses and making a profit. Sorry, that reasoning won't fly. Maybe we can make Seattle less fun, close down at night, and have less jobs. Will that make you happier?

Staggered times would have to be done by geographic neighborhood, and actively policed and enforced. It's the only fair way. Regions of city would be best to be utterly fair.

Lets call the regions

NORTH - north of ship canal. Easy. Ballard, Fremont, UW, and north.
CENTRAL - Magnolia, Interbay, Queen Anne, Cap Hill & east, downtown, Pioneer Square, etc. Ship canal south to say, the stadiums as a boundary.
WEST - West Seattle. Easy.
SOUTH - Every else south and east. Easy.

Week 1: North 2am, Central 3am, West 4am, South 5am.
Week 2: North 3am, Central 4am, West 5am, South 2am.
Week 3: North 4am, Central 4am, West 2am, South 3am.
Week 4: North 5am, Central 2am, West 3am, South 4am.
Repeat ad nauseum

Dave-

I never said I was against people owning businesses or making a profit. You just made that up. What else have you made up to make support your ideas?

Why not get rid of these ridiculous laws and boards that don't protect anyone and treat us like children in school waiting for lunch.
Other countries with similar cultures don't regulate anything but severe alcohol like moonshine and have less problems than us. Also I have long believed that the 2 am is a killer of allot of young people.

Why not get rid of these ridiculous laws and boards that don't protect anyone but treat us like children in a school lunch line.
Other countries with similar cultures don't regulate anything but severe alcohol like moonshine and have less problems than us. Also I have long believed that the 2 am is a killer of allot of young people.

I'm for this because it would bring back our nightlife. We'd attract more artists here if they knew they could play till midnight then go make a scene at a few clubs till 4 a.m. I'm fine with bar time on Monday - Thursday being till 2 a.m or maybe till 3 a.m and Friday-Sunday nights being until 4 a.m.

I'd like to be able to get ready at 10:30 pm and be at the clubs at 12:30 am for 3 hours of dancing like in NY, Miami, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Europe. Hell I miss going out at midnight and coming back home semi drunk when the sun's about to rise. Those were damn good nights. But those nights never happened in Seattle.

I am a woman who lives in Europe and holy christ do I hate cities with last call rules. As others have mentioned they seem to be a catalyst for all kinds of bad moods and nasty behavior, which only makes sense when people feel like they have to get drunk early and quickly if they want to enjoy their night out.

My friend and I were harassed and screamed at on our way home in London by about 6 drunken men in their 40s - it was scary as hell. In Helsinki a male friend of mine accidentally nudged another guy's elbow on a crowded sidewalk just after closing time, and the guy immediately began spoiling for a fight and shoved him into a wall. Another male friend of mine lived in Dublin and reported that closing time brawls are pretty much a ritual there on Saturday nights. If you're a young man it's almost impossible to mind your own business.

By contrast in my city you can go out when you want, and you can go home when you want. Bars close when their owners feel like they should close. There's no closing time bottleneck when the streets get ridiculously crowded with bored, frustrated drunks who are suddenly all dressed up with nowhere to go. It's great.

@26, thank you for that perspective. I live in a city that's actually considering moving its last call up, meaning the bars will have to close even earlier. It was proposed by a city council member who's a former policeman because, according to him, more crimes occur when people get drunk late at night.

Now you've got me thinking that making last call earlier wouldn't really reduce crime--it would likely just shift the time when most crimes occur.

If California isn't doing it, we won't be doing it.

Seattle goes where California goes (whether it makes sense or not).

I'm a big proponent of last call, but people will scream about how California isn't doing it (consciously or subconsciously), and they're doing just fine.

I can drink any time I want at home.

#28
go Portland

I live in San Francisco, California. Several years ago, my then-State Assembly Member (now State Senator) Mark Leno introduced legislation to allow San Francisco and Los Angeles to experiment with a 4:00pm closing time. The bill died in committee and as far as I know has not been re-introduced.

I think his legislation should be reintroduced and expanded to completely overhaul California's Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), which I believe is completely out of control at the moment. Bars that have attempted to change the terms of their service (such as changing to a food and alcohol service to be 18 and over because they're mostly a place that shows live bands) have suddenly faced bizarre crackdowns for arcane violations that are ignored at other bars. In more than one case, the ABC sting operations only occurred on the few nights a month that the clubs catered to an LGBT audience. Coincidentally, no unscheduled inspections occurred on the 28 other days of the month where the venue catered to a straight/mixed crowd (nothing in SF is entirely straight).

So as someone who occasionally hosts charity fundraisers in bars and wants to have a firm grasp of what is and is not permissible, I started to do some research. I was shocked to discover that most of the restrictions and regulations in bars come not from state statutes but from regulations imposed entirely by the ABC. In the 1960s, a state constitutional amendment was passed that changed the ABC from simply enforcing taxation issues to become an agency with broad powers to regulate "morality" and "decency" in bars. (Seems strange to me, actually.)

For things like this, I get a little uncomfortable with "one size fits all" solutions. I think California needs a constitutional amendment that gives more power back to the cities, which can tailor policies that best meet the needs of their communities. And our cities, which are deeply cash-strapped, can use licensing and conditional use fees to fund not only the regulation of bars but probably other city needs as well.

I still believe the ABC can and should serve an important function - the proper regulation of state liquor taxation, ensuring that people underage are not served, and ensuring proper health and safety standards for the service of food and beverages. Other issues like hours of operation, nudity in bars, and similar issues are best left to cities who can decide their own policies either on a citywide basis, or through zoning or conditional use permits.

For example, San Francisco might choose to allow nudity in bars and might, through zoning, require bars in quieter neighborhoods (like the Sunset) to close at 2:00, allow them to stay open 'til 4:00 in mixed-use neighborhoods (like the Castro), and all night in warehouse-type neighborhoods. Bars who want to allow nudity may need to have that included on their conditional use permit (more revenue for the city), which is subject to suspension or revocation if there are related issues that the bar fails to address. (I don't know what those issues will be, but I imagine critics of the policy will say, "But what if X, Y, or Z happens." My point is that whatever those fears are, give the bar an opportunity to address them and then fine the bar or suspend the conditional use permit if they do not.)

Meanwhile, quieter suburban communities may want to keep things just the way they are. Some might even want to require bars to close at midnight on weeknights. My point is that city councils tend to be much more responsive to local neighborhood issues. We don't need the State to decide which potholes to fill and where we need stop signs or traffic signals. Likewise, they shouldn't impose a one-size-fits-all policy on the regulation of bars, at least not on the issues that have a direct community impact.

I fully support the idea of subsidized taxis. Right now it's either find a teatotaler friend, pay $20 and up for a taxi or just drive drunk. Maybe bars that have food service could be food only from 2:00 to 6:00, so you wouldn't have to go home. I love the comment by the gal who lives in Europe but I don't think changing bar hours will change american behavior. I work in an area with alot of bars and as a neighbor of the bar scene, I oppose the idea of extending bar hours. I have found (and had to clean up) cigarette butts, street food, gum, stickers, vomit, blood and other bodily fluids and trash on a daily basis. I can only immagine how bad it would be without a last call. Going out is fun, but living or working next to bars is the hangover.