Neighborhood blog Central District News is running an anti-nightlife editorial criticizing the city's plan to petition the state for later liquor serving hours. The only problem is, whoever authored the piece (it's attributed to the "East Precinct Advisory Council," which is a nebulous group of neighbors who regularly share their crime and neighborhood concerns with the Seattle Police department) doesn't seem to know what the skinny fuck they're talking about.

Let's read a highlight together, shall we?

There are those who believe that the trouble that occurs when nightclubs close at 2:00 a.m. can be avoided by staggering closing hours. However, the negative residual issues that could occur with this proposed plan far outweigh any benefits. The extended hours plan will mainly increase liquor revenues to nightclubs—not improve public safety or create a socially responsible drinking environment—or 'a more vibrant nightlife’. It serves the few in the private, special interest (nightclubs) category, not the many residents who would be impacted by noise, DUIs and alcohol-fueled violence.

Really, East Precinct Advisory Council? Police Chief John Diaz (and his command staff) all agree would help alleviate the public brawls and other public safety issues associated with our current system. Furthermore, contrary to the author's hysteria, "[Later bar hours] would be a privilege that's earned by being a good neighbor and model business," says Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, a spokesman for SPD, "not by people engaging in reckless business practices, who have received noise complaints or are associated with violence or over-serving. That wouldn't make sense."

Indeed! More nonsense after the jump!

The editorial then dismisses a citywide survey that found that over 80 percent of residents were in favor of later bar hours, because evidently that doesn't jibe with their anti-nightlife agenda, and proceeds to ask a series of skeptical questions that are clearly designed to attack a plan that hasn't even been developed. "The advisory committee is reacting to a plan that doesn't yet exist," says local nightlife advocate and bar owner Dave Meinert. "It's a bit hysterical and premature."

But what the fuck, let's answer a few of their questions anyway!

If this becomes a pilot program in Seattle, what zone will be chosen?
"Again, there is no specific plan for extended hours right now," says Meinert. "We're not there yet. What we're asking is the state give us permission to pilot these local controls—and when we have that permission, we'll invite everyone to the table to draft that plan."

Will police staffing to monitor and respond to late night drinking and all its problems be at the expense of other citywide public safety needs?
"Right now we face real challenges at 2:00 a.m. from the bar scene and elsewhere," says Whitcomb. "Staggering [closing hours] helps us because the streets are quieter at, say, 4:00 a.m., which means we could actually have more police resources monitoring bars at that time."

How will noise, throughout the night, every night, will be managed? (Note: Seattle has not, to our knowledge, issued a noise violation, despite numerous complaints by residents, the process is very cumbersome)
Maybe the author should read the city's safety initiative (.pdf)?

Do you think young people (who will likely take advantage of extended hours) should be given the choice to have another drink or two or three at say, 4am?
The same laws apply to public intoxication at 4:00 a.m. as they do at 2:00 a.m. or noon. Over-serving is illegal, period (and rhetorical morality is overbearing).

Voicing questions or expressing concerns about this pilot project are great—we've done so on numerous occasions. Spreading misinformation about its intent or effect is not.