Chairman Rosen Improves the Liquor License Process

By

Gamal Hennessy

The New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) has faced considerable problems in recent years. A new chairman was brought in over the summer to improve the organization on several different levels. Less than 6 months into his term and operators have seen a noticeable improvement in the license application process. It is a rare piece of good news coming from Albany.

The SLA provides licenses to businesses across the state sell alcohol. It is one of the main offices of government that nightlife venues have to interact with in order to stay in business. In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain a license in a timely manner and operators have lost considerable amounts of money waiting for an SLA decision. The situation became so detrimental that some SLA employees were accused of taking bribes to process applications in a timely manner. The current backlog of outstanding applications is more than 1,200. This prevents businesses from opening, operators from working and patrons from enjoying venues that may never get to open.

Denis Rosen, a former NY State assistant attorney general, took over the SLA in August of this year with a mandate to root out corruption, eliminate waste and streamline the licensing process. A recent New York Times article found that Mr. Rosen is wasting no time making changes to the agency. By hiring more license examiners and creating a system where the attorneys for operators can verify key information in the license application, the SLA has been approving license applications in 2-4 weeks instead of 6-8 months. Attorney’s for nightlife operators confirm that while the new process puts more responsibility on the attorney filling out the application, it can literally shave months off a license application.

There are still many more steps that Mr. Rosen needs to take to improve the SLA. There is still a backlog of more than 1,000 applications that need to be reviewed with the new streamlined process. The Beverage Control Law itself hasn’t been overhauled since Prohibition and needs major revisions. Local community boards and anti-nightlife politicians have already begun their assault on the agency. But the new process is a positive step. Hopefully, Mr. Rosen can continue to take actions that will support a vital aspect of business and culture in New York City.

Have fun.
Gamal

Has Senator Squadron Started His Anti-Nightlife Campaign?

By Gamal Hennessy

When Daniel Squadron ran for the New York State Senate last year, nightlife control was a pillar of his campaign. Now that the State Liquor Authority has new leadership, Mr. Squadron has initiated a dialogue aimed at "improving" that agency. Left unchecked Mr. Squadron’s "solutions" will prove detrimental to the nightlife industry and harmful to the entire city.

According the Senator Squadron’s website, he hosted a meeting last week that included
State Liquor Authority (SLA) Chairman Dennis Rosen, SLA CEO Trina Mead, SLA Deputy Commissioner of Licensing Kerri O’Brien, SLA Deputy CEO for New York City Michael Jones, Councilmember Rosie Mendez, Margaret Chin, representatives from the offices of Assembly Members Silver, Kavanagh, and Glick, and leaders from district community boards. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss nightlife concerns and according to the press release "to start a dialogue to foster informed licensing decisions, intelligent enforcement actions, and safer communities."

While nightlife is certainly an issue that deserves discussion, a deeper look at the attendance of the meeting and the underlying agenda of the host is disconcerting. The major issue is who was not invited to the meeting. Based on the wording of the press release and inquiries that I have made, members of the nightlife community and members of the New York City Police Department were not invited to the participate. It is hard to imagine any discussion about nightlife concerns or safer communities being productive when the industry itself and the people charged with keeping the community safe aren’t involved in the discussion.

The situation becomes easier to understand when you look at the background of the players involved. Senator Squadron ran on an anti-nightlife platform in 2008. The former operator called for a stronger voice for community boards (CBs) when it comes to liquor licenses. He feels that the CBs role should shift from an advisory role in relation to the SLA to something more binding. Greater community participation in the democratic process is a lofty goal, but that does not mean that the CBs should have more control over New York liquor licenses. CBs don’t take needs of nightlife or economic impact of nightlife on the city into account when they make their determinations. A CB isn’t always representative of the actual community since a small minority of NIMBY (not in my backyard) elements often have stronger voice in the CBs than the silent majority that lives in the area. Giving a greater voice to the CBs while excluding operators from the discussion indicates the Senator might be taking an imbalanced approach to the issue.

The Senator’s path to a weaker nightlife industry goes directly through the SLA. Dennis Rosen was brought in to clean up an agency rife with problems including lack of staff, waste, and possible corruption. Based on the press release, Squadron made it clear that he would push for more community involvement in liquor licensing when he voted for Rosen’s appointment. To Mr. Rosen’s credit, he appears to be tackling problems quickly, adding staff to deal with the licensing backlog and corruption issues. But SLA Chairman is a political appointment. Mr. Rosen has to work within the framework of state politics and that means dealing with the politicians who can vote him in or out. The meeting could be the first step Squadron takes to make his nightlife agenda a reality.

Again, the problem is not that a meeting was held between politicians, CBs and the SLA about nightlife. The problem is that a constructive dialogue would have included more voices at the table. If the police and nightlife are not part of the discussion from the beginning, realistic solutions outcomes are unlikely. Operators are the ones who get the liquor licenses and have to work with the community boards. They can address concerns about their industry and offer solutions if they are invited to the meeting. The police are the only ones that can regulate noise, pollution and other quality of life issues on the streets. Operators have little or no legal control outside the four walls of their venue. If they are not part of the discussion, then the problem can’t be solved. It’s not as if nightlife doesn’t have representatives that could have attended the meeting. Operators have the New York Nightlife Association. Patrons have the Nightlife Preservation Community. There are also think tanks including the Responsible Hospitality Institute. Each one could have brought a unique perspective to a meeting about nightlife concerns if they were actually invited to the meeting.

If Senator Squadron plans to meet with operators and police separately, the question is why not have everyone meet at once, and on an ongoing basis, until a framework for understanding is developed? If Squadron simply plans to continue SLA policies and stifle nightlife growth in New York City, all he needs to do is give more power to the CBs and leave nightlife out of the discussion, which is what it appears he is doing.

If patrons and operators want to see the further decline of nightlife in New York, then they should ignore Squadron’s actions and see how far it goes. If they want to enhance and enjoy an important part of New York living, then we need to get more involved in the community board process to ensure that Squadron can’t use them as a weapon against clubs when he gives the CBs more power over the licensing process.

Have fun
Gamal

How New York Nightlife Impacts New York Politics

By Gamal Hennessy

Primaries in New York are almost a non issue because voter turnout is always obscenely low. Political groups that attempt to influence elections on this level understand that it only takes a few votes to make a substantial difference. This year, a new political group focused specifically on nightlife got involved in the primary race. Paul Seres, a community activist, nightlife operator and one of the founders of the Nightlife Preservation Community (NPC) sat down with me to discuss the results of this year’s election.

NYN: What was the NPC goal for this year’s primary? How close did you come to meeting that goal?

PS: The main goals were establishing the organization and using that organization to make nightlife a politically active industry. Establishing the NPC was a success. We got a lot of participation from NYNA members, promoters and the politicians themselves. We were able to reach out to about 700,000 registered New York voters via our website and email lists. By the time the election was over, the NPC was recognized as a legitimate vehicle for political discourse on nightlife.

NYN: How much impact do you think the NPC had during the election?

PS: The number of people who actually vote during primaries has always been terrible and this year was no different. The current estimates show that only 4% of registered Democrats turned out for this election. I’m not sure how many of our people actually voted and considered nightlife when they did vote, but it is clear that primaries are decided by a very small number of voters. If NPC can get more people out to vote in subsequent elections, the overall impact could be huge.

NYN: What is the NPC planning to do to impact the general election in November?

PS: We’re getting together soon to discuss our next steps, but New York is so heavily Democratic that many of the races are decided in the primaries. Three out of the four candidates that we backed won their primary races, so they shouldn’t have a problem winning their races next month. Our main goal now is looking past the general election to political action in 2010.

NYN: What issues is the NPC planning to take up with elected officials in 2010?

PS: As a small business organization, there are several issues that the NPC needs to take up with the City Council and other elements of government. We need a better method of coordinating with the various agencies that operators need to deal with in terms of permits and licensing. We need to continue to build the relationship between the industry and the NYPD. And we have to develop and maintain a dialogue between operators and local community boards to deal with issues before things get out of hand and angry neighbors are demanding for a venue to close down.

NYN: What is the best way for operators and patrons to get involved in the NPC now that the primaries are over?

Our long term success is going to revolve around educating more people about the positive impact of nightlife on the city and how it affects them. Operators and patrons can get involved with the NPC and get the information they need on our website. Then they can join in our upcoming voter registration events, information forums and other activities. Nightlife is an issue that has ramifications for city, state and national politics. Joining the NPC now gives people a chance to get involved on the ground floor and have an impact on a vital part of life in New York City.

Have fun
Gamal

Boom Boom Room, Smyth Hotel Bar and Real Estate Recovery

The New York Nights Club Report for September 17, 2009

Opening

Boom Boom Room in the Standard Hotel

(Urban Daddy)

The natural marriage of luxury hotel and high end lounge manifest once in the Meatpacking District…

Smyth Hotel Lobby Bar

(New York)

…and again in the East Village. Can venues like this placate the neighbors?

Real Estate

Nightlife vs. Condos

(New York Times)

As condo development stalls across the city, nightlife continues to bring revenue into many districts…

Have fun

Gamal

The Power of New York’s Nightlife Reputation

By Gamal Hennessy

Time Out Publishing is releasing a book this week entitled “World’s Greatest Cities”. In the book, New York was singled out as the best city in the world when it comes to things like architecture, arts and quality of life. While most New Yorkers might feel nonchalant about this title, nightlife natives should take note of the impact our nightlife has on the city’s reputation and the impact of that reputation on our lives. The writers of this book singled out New York above all others because of our 24 hour culture. It is nightlife that gives New York its unique culture. Any moves to suppress that culture will have a direct effect on the economy and prosperity of the entire city.

Reputation for tourists

New York is known as ‘the city that never sleeps’. That reputation draws millions of tourists to the city every year. But when visitors think of a metropolis opened around the clock, what do you think pops into their minds? Do you think they are dreaming about a 24 hour Duane Reade? I don’t think so. Is it possible that people fly into New York from Sydney and Bali and Johannesburg to visit the all night bodega? Probably not. The concept that draws people to the city that never sleeps is the idea that we work all day and we party all night. Where do we party? If you have to ask that question, please close this page and visit a different site.

In 2004 a research organization called ARA conducted a study on the impact of nightlife on the New York’s economy. ARA found that 77% of all New York visitors identified visiting a nightclub or bar as one of their primary reasons for visiting the city. This means that almost three quarters of all our tourists came to New York to experience our nightlife. How much money would be lost from incoming tour groups, business conventions like the New York Auto Show, award ceremonies like the MTV music awards, and artistic events like Fashion Week if people decided that New York was no better than any other city when it comes to nightlife? It is hard to imagine how the reputation of New York would remain the same if people came to the conclusion that nightlife in New York, Cleveland, and Spokane were substantially similar.

Reputation for talent

It’s not just temporary occupants of the city that are lured by our nightlife. Every year job recruiters go around the country and around the world to find the top people from the top schools and try to lure them to New York. Recruits are seduced with money and the chance to work in the beating heart of their industry. They are also drawn in with images of high class bars, private parties and mega clubs. TV shows filmed in New York like Sex and the City, and Gossip Girl often have young workers hooked before the recruiter even shows up. People want to work in New York to get access to the nightlife.

If New York didn’t have the reputation for nightlife, how many young, bright people would choose to move to here to pursue careers? Other cities have cheaper rents, more space and other advantages. If New York isn’t unique when it comes to bars and clubs, what is the point of suffering thru all the difficulties of making it here? Other cities like Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles and Las Vegas are trying to use a vibrant nightlife to attract the best and brightest. Can we afford to lose this pool of talent and still be the center of the universe?

It is not coincidental that financial networks like CNBC are focusing on the Time Out book. A city’s reputation can directly influence the economic power of an area. New York City is central to several different industries. We are not dependent on nightlife or any other single business the way Detroit, Orlando or Las Vegas are. But nightlife is still a vital part of the overall dynamic. NIMBY community groups, opportunistic politicians and other anti-nightlife advocates can willfully ignore the contribution that nightlife makes to New York. If we follow their lead or allow them to make decisions for us, we are going to lose more than the title of the best city in the world. We will lose the reputation that drives our economy.

Have fun.
Gamal

Taz Pagan and Nightlife Violence

By Gamal Hennessy

Elements of the nightlife community found out about the death of one of their own last Sunday morning. By all accounts, Eric “Taz” Pagan was a good bouncer who put in extra effort to support the venue he worked for and keep the establishment in the good graces of the community. Those might have also been the same traits that got him killed. Mr. Pagan’s death goes beyond the issues of security and violence in nightlife. The incident highlights the need for a basic change in the mentality of some of our patrons.

Uncommon Circumstances

In spite of the media sensationalism surrounding nightlife violence, the fact is that nightlife fatalities are very rare. When you eliminate the extraordinary case of the Happy Land fire, there are specific patterns that have emerged over the past twenty years.

Evidence suggests that fatal violence is more likely to occur in the immediate area outside a venue as opposed to inside the venue itself. The logic behind this isn’t hard to figure out. There is a higher chance that the ego and self esteem of fanatics will be bruised outside a venue, either because they can’t get into the club or they just got kicked out. Authority or force has been used on them and lashing out at either the operators or at random passers by is a way for them to regain his sense of power and control. There have been a few fatal encounters between bouncers and patrons in recent memory. David Lemus and Olmedo Hidalgo shot bouncer Marcus Peterson outside of Palladium in 1990 . In 2003, a bouncer named Dana Blake was stabbed to death outside of Guernica by Isaias Umali. And in 2006, bouncer Stephen Sakai shot Gustavo Cuadros outside of Opus 22.

Pagan’s death differed from the others in significant ways. The shooting took place outside of Forbidden City, but by all accounts it wasn’t the result of fanatics trying to get into the lounge, because the place was already closed. Pagan often worked as a bouncer at the venue, but he was off that night. He only stopped by to check in on his friends. He wasn’t part of the fight that took place outside the lounge. He simply tried to break it up. Pagan’s death had very little to do with being a bouncer or being at a club. At the time of his death, he was just a man who tried to calm a violent situation.

Larger Solutions

In previous articles, I have argued that the presence of police officers outside of specific venues would help reduce the levels of violence. But in this case that solution wouldn’t be a viable answer. Even if police walked a beat outside Forbidden City, they still wouldn’t be around after the venue closed. Even if security inside the club was in contact with the local precinct, Taz wasn’t part of the security team that night. Louis Rodriguez, the man accused of the shooting, might not have even been inside the club, so neither the police nor security would have any clue the man would be a problem. Police officers can’t be stationed near venues on a constant basis. At a certain point it’s about the patrons, not the operators or the cops.

Fanatics go out with the goal, expressed or implied, to cause as much mayhem as they can get away with. For them, nightlife is a sandbox for them to destroy. To put it quite simply, if we want to reduce the number of problems associated with nightlife, the most effective plan is to convert as many fanatics as possible into nightlife natives. The fewer fanatics we have, the fewer issues we have. This is not a straight forward process. It requires altering the values and thought patterns of people rather than simply throwing more money or manpower at the problem. But until we reach a point where disputes aren’t resolved with a bullet in the forehead, the nightlife community and the city as a whole will continue to lose people like Taz Pagan.

Have fun.
Gamal

Can Rosen Get the Liquor Flowing in New York?

By Gamal Hennessy

Late last week a new chairman was selected to head the New York State Liquor Authority. The new appointment comes at a time when the agency is facing scandals and being criticism both inside and outside of government. Can the new Chairman turn the agency around or should the SLA be abolished altogether?

The State Liquor Authority regulates who gets to sell liquor in within the state. Every legal operator needs to obtain a license from the SLA before they can sell liquor to the public. However, many of the laws regulating liquor haven’t been changed since the 1920’s when Prohibition was part of the fabric of American society. To make matters worse, there is a severe backlog of pending applications. Operators waiting for a liquor license can wait up to 11 months to have their application processed, which means that they can lose money for most of they year waiting for a response from this agency.

The problems surrounding the SLA evolved into a scandal. Several individuals working in the New York Office of the SLA were charged with taking bribes to expedite certain applications. The fallout from this investigation led to Governor Paterson naming Dennis Rosen, a former New York State District Attorney, to head the SLA.

Mr. Rosen’s new job will not have a long honeymoon period. During his confirmation hearing, several state senators complained that the licensing process takes too long and hurts the state’s economy. One senator suggested that the SLA can’t be fixed and might need to be abolished. At the same time, Governor Paterson has signed an executive order calling for several agencies to review and modify “antiquated and burdensome regulations on businesses”. The SLA was one of the agencies named in that executive order. It appears that Mr. Rosen will be called upon to modify the Prohibition Era laws that govern the SLA and clear the backlog of applications or the whole agency might go down with him.

It is unclear at this stage how much change Mr. Rosen can bring to the SLA. It is a step in the right direction to give the new chairman a mandate to assist operators instead of hindering them. It is a step in the right direction to recognize that the Beverage Control Law needs to be brought into the 21st century. But, Governor Paterson is facing political struggles of his own and anti-nightlife factions haven’t openly commented to Rosen on their position. As members of the nightlife community we have both the ability and the right to support change in the SLA that matches the interests and needs of our culture.

Have fun.
Gamal

How Big is New York Nightlife? Part II

By Gamal Hennessy

Last night I described the size and scope of nightlife venues and what they do to directly stimulate the economy. Today we’ll look at the other side of the equation and look at the economic activity of patrons in New York clubs.

Patron Population

All the venues and operators are useless without someone to actually serve. The 2004 Impact Study concluded that the attendance in New York clubs is more than 65,000,000 entries per year. Keep in mind that ‘entries’ is not a direct measure of the number of people who patronize nightlife on an annual basis, since club hopping and bar crawling could take one person to several venues in a night. A tourist might hit a club on her vacation in New York. A nightlife native might visit 50 or 60 venues in a year. Although total entries do not translate directly into 65,000,000 patrons, it is more than three times the amount of attendance at all 8 New York sports teams combined. 64% of nightlife patrons live within the five boroughs with each New York native visiting an average of 2.14 clubs per night out. The other 36% of all nightlife patrons came into the city from out of town and they visit an average of 2 venues per stay.

Cash Flow

Pre-Club Activity: Patrons don’t just magically appear on the dance floor at night. There are many activities that they engage in and spend money on before the night begins. The Study found that each native spent an average of $67 per person on these ‘pre-club’ activities including purchasing clothing, dining out and other activities. In addition, 82% of patrons used some form of transportation to get to the venue, for another $15 per person. So in total, each New York resident spent about $80 before she even walks inside the club. Tourist spending at non nightlife venues was even higher than resident spending. 86% of tourists people engaged in some other activity when they went to a club including dinner shopping, but also including hotels, theaters and sightseeing for an average of $90 per person. The out of town group also spent an average of $110 to get to and from the city and the venues they decided to visit, bringing their per person spending total to almost $200.

Liquor Purchases: The Study and the Zagat guide don’t estimate how much patrons spend when they are actually in a venue, but we can develop an educated guess. In our estimate, we’re going to assume that a person goes into a bar or club and buys four drinks; two for himself and two for the person he is with. I’m assuming a social unit of two, even though larger groups are just as common in clubs. I’m also assuming basic manners here, which means people not going Dutch. This might be overly optimistic in New York City, but in my experience New Yorkers can be very generous with alcohol, especially if they’ve already had a drink or two.

To keep things simple, I’m not including cover fees, coat check fees or bottle service, which would raise the numbers exponentially Let’s say each drink is $10. This is an average between the $5 beer and the $15 martini. That means in every club this guy goes into, our theoretical patron spends a total of $40. Let’s project that out to the total group. If there are 65,000,000 entries per year and only half of them pay for drinks then that’s 32,500,000 “drink entries” per year. If each drink entry is worth $40, then the estimated spending by nightlife patrons in clubs is 1.3 billion dollars.

Effect on the City

The amount of jobs, patronage and spending in nightlife might seem abstract until you put it in context. To place the numbers in perspective, we can look at the local film industry. According to the Mayor’s Office for Film, Theater and Broadcasting, local TV and movie production generates $5 billion dollars in economic activity for the city. In comparison, nightlife generates twice the revenue. The film industry has a government office to support and promote it. Nightlife has no such office despite repeated calls from operators to create it. If and when the city puts its full support behind the nightlife industry the benefit to the city could rise exponentially.

Have fun.
Gamal

How Big is New York Nightlife?

By Gamal Hennessy

There is a movement building to transform millions of nightlife patrons into a political force. As organizations like the Nightlife Preservation Community begin to gain momentum, it makes sense to look at what nightlife brings to the New York economy in hard numbers. When you look at the number of jobs, the number of patrons, the amounts the clubs spend and the amounts the patrons spend you begin to see how vital nightlife is to the financial health of the city.

Where the numbers come from
The New York Nightlife Association (NYNA) is an organization that represents the nightlife industry in New York. The NYNA commissioned a study in 1998 and again in 2004 called “The $9 Billion Dollar Impact of the Nightlife Industry on New York City”. Two weeks ago, Zagat released its 2009-2010 New York nightlife Guide with an updated analysis of the club industry. The numbers in this article are based on these two studies and my own calculations. The numbers coming out of the study have been verified, but since I can hardly add, my calculations are suspect at best.

Venues and Operators
According to Zagat, New York City currently has more than 1,300 nightlife venues, including 100 new venues added in the past year. This finding is supported by our own Trends Report that has continued to track new venues opening almost every week in spite of the economy. While there is no mention of how many venues were lost in 2008, the number of new venues is remarkable considering the economy and the stiff competition for drinking dollars.

Each venue needs several different people on hand to service and entertain customers on a nightly basis. The employees included management, security, bartenders, bar backs, dancers, waitresses, sound and light technicians and food service people such as cooks and chefs. It did not cover people who worked in the club, but were not direct employees of the venue, like musicians, DJ’s and promoters. According to the Impact Study, each bar has an average of 17 people on staff and each nightclub having approximately 38 people working there for an average of 27 operators per venue. That means that the total number of operators currently hovers around 35,000 people. The secondary group of natives who work in the club but do not work for the club is also considerable. Based on the study, nightlife generates 8,600 more local jobs as a direct result of its activities. This means that nightlife employs almost 44,000 people locally.

Spending by Operators

Wages: There are three major costs that operators pay for to keep their businesses running; wages, operational costs and taxes. Employees on the payroll of venues earn approximately $531,000,000 in wages and salaries every year. Freelance operators pull in more than $320,000,000 dollars per year. I can tell you from personal experience that the distribution of these funds varies wildly. If an unknown DJ spins at a club, she might get free drinks. If I DJ at a club, I might get $250 for a night. If a superstar DJ spins for a night, he could get several thousand dollars. While the distribution of these funds fluctuates there is still more than $850,000,000 in wages being generated by this industry, with a majority of those funds getting pumped back into the local economy.

Operational Costs: A bar or club has to purchase a significant amount of goods and services in order to offer its service to the public. While liquor and food are obvious examples, venues also have to purchase capital improvements to their spaces, furniture, cleaning and sanitation, electricity, climate control, accounting, legal advice, advertising, marketing, permits, music licensing fees and financial services. According to the Impact Study, nightlife spends more than $755,000 million dollars worth of goods and services in the city every year.

Taxes: Nightlife venues have to pay business taxes, sales and use taxes and in certain cases real estate taxes to stay in operation. The employees have to pay income taxes on the wages that they have earned (although I believe some payments are made on a cash basis to avoid taxation). The Impact Study estimates that nightlife pays the almost $104,000,000 million dollars a year in taxes to New York City and another $46,000,000 million dollars to New York State.

Part II of this study will be available tomorrow…

Have fun.
Gamal

What Imette St. Guillen’s Death Means to Nightlife

By Gamal Hennessy

On February 25, 2006, Imette St. Gullien left the Falls Bar with Darryl Littlejohn. Two days later her body was found. She had been beaten, raped, murdered and dumped on the side of a road in Brooklyn. Her killer was convicted late last week, but the shockwaves from her death are still being felt in the industry. The creation of the CEI and the passage of Imette’s Law are directly tied to Ms. St. Guillen’s death and have permanently altered the nightlife landscape in New York.

The Sean Bell Connection

The Club Enforcement Initiative (CEI) was set up by the New York City Police Department shortly after the Ms. St. Gullien was killed. Fourteen officers were recruited out of the vice and narcotics squads and sent into clubs undercover where they would investigate drug sales, prostitution and other alleged crimes. The officers were allowed a two drink minimum to help them blend into the venue and they would take deliberate steps not to reveal their identity once they were in the club.

Unfortunately, the police of the CEI were themselves accused of nightlife violence shortly after the unit was created. In November of 2006, Sean Bell and his friends left a strip club called Club Kalua in Queens after his bachelor party. Believing Mr. Bell to be armed and the suspect of a crime, the CEI proceeded to follow Bell’s car. Police reports indicate that after the car hit one of the officers and slammed into an unmarked police van, members of the CEI fired 50 rounds into Sean Bell’s car, killing him and wounding two of his friends. It was later discovered that Bell was not armed and was not guilty of any crime. This incident touched off heated debate within the city about police brutality and racism within the department.

The Best Practices Connection

On the other side of the coin, the murder of Imette also led to increased cooperation between operators and the NYPD. In 2007 a Nightlife Summit was held to discuss the issue of crime and violence within nightlife. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn organized the summit that brought together Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, David Rabin, the current president of New York Nightlife Association and other various club owners.

The result of that summit was the 58 measures of the Nightlife Best Practices which were supposed give club owners incentive to call the police if trouble occurs. In theory, the call would not raise the specter of disorderly premises citations that interfere with liquor licenses and the ability to stay open. Shortly after the summit, the New York State Assembly’s passed Imette’s Law which required video surveillance in clubs and stronger background checks for security staff

Unfortunately, not every measure discussed during the summit translated into policy. The operators at the Summit also called for finding ways to get more cops to patrol outside clubs and bars, increasing accountablility for teens that use fake IDs, targetting the makers and sellers of fake IDs, raising the admittance age for venues from 16 to 18 or 21, and fostering a better relationship among club owners, the NYPD and the SLA. Unfortunately, these measures have yet to be been implemented. Even though they could have improved safety from all types of crime and violence these recommendations were pushed aside for a quick fix at the operator’s expense. A chance to support nightlife was rejected for a one sided demand for operators to assist a police investigation after a crime as taken place.

A camera can record who goes into a club, who leaves, when they leave and who they leave with. If a person like Ms. St. Guillen leaves with a murder like Mr. Littlejohn, then the homicide division will be able to look at the tapes and compare them to criminal profiles once the body turns up bound and asphyxiated. But if there were police patrolling the club areas, criminals might decide to not commit their crimes at that point. If there were Paid Detail officers standing outside of The Falls then perhaps Ms. St. Guillen would have had other options on how to get home instead of walking away with someone she never met. Maybe nothing would have changed, but even the likelihood that nightlife could be safer should be enough of an incentive to take up the Summit’s recommendations.

Littlejohn has been convicted of murder, the lawsuits against the operators of the club are still pending and operators and patrons socialize under the new guidelines. Although violent death is extremely rare in New York nightlife, the steps left on the table during the Nightlife Summit could make nightlife even safer. Hopefully more political action on the nightlife issue will lead to more progress in the wake of Ms. St. Guillen’s death.

Gamal

A New Fight Over New Bars

By Gamal Hennessy

Hidden away from the major media outlets, a struggle is brewing over the nightlife industry in New York. The fight revolves around the laws that govern bars and the way nightlife is perceived. The latest battle in this conflict concerns the Beverage Control Law and how it is interpreted. Anti nightlife groups are planning to change current SLA law to serve their own interests and if their influence isn’t counterbalanced nightlife will suffer.

The current law requires a public hearing for any potential liquor license opening up within 500 feet of two other licenses. If you consider how dense New York is, you’ll quickly realize that almost every new venue requires a 500 foot hearing. Residents who oppose nightlife venues in general often use the 500 foot rule to protest the opening of new venues.

A judge in a recent court case involving Hudson Terrace held that a 500 foot hearing is only necessary for establishments of the same type, not for any liquor license. For example if a bar wants to open up within 500 feet of three other bars, then a hearing is required. But if a bar wants to open up within 500 feet of three clubs, or two clubs and a restaurant, or a club a restaurant and a cabaret, then no hearing is required.

Anti-nightlife elements within the city don’t plan to lose their main weapon without a fight. Daniel Squadron, a new State Senator who turned his back on nightlife before he was even elected, plans to re-write the law to tighten the restrictions and circumvent the judges ruling. He claims that “the decision undermines the spirit of the law”, so the law needs to be fixed.

There are at least three unspoken concepts that are flawed when it comes to the way anti nightlife elements deal with the 500 foot hearing process. First, they assume that more venues are automatically a problem. However, it is just as likely that more venues could reduce crowding and increase revenue for the city and the state. Second, there is an assumption that the community board is the best forum for making decisions about additional nightlife venues. But that body does not and cannot take in to account the cultural and financial impact of the venue on the city. Third, that the BCL needs to be changed to inhibit and restrict nightlife growth when in fact much of the law dates back to Prohibition and needs to be revised not to inhibit nightlife but to bring the law in line with the realities and needs of nightlife in the 21st century.

The BCL does need to be revised and the 500 foot rule needs to be examined but pro-nightlife and anti-nightlife groups need to weigh in on the subject. People concerned with the character of the individual neighborhoods and the viability of the city overall need to be heard. Hopefully organizations like the NYNA and the NPC will get involved with this issue and prevent further erosion of nightlife in New York.

Have fun.
Gamal

New Political Group Forms to Enhance New York Nightlife

By Gamal Hennessy

Unless you are having a heated political discussion over beers, nightlife and politics don’t usually mix. Think about it, what does politics have to do with grabbing a drink with your friends, chatting up a girl for her phone number and dancing like no one is watching? Why not sit back, have a good time, and leave politics for the politicians?

That isn’t a good idea because if we don’t see nightlife as a political issue, we don’t have a voice. Various groups including community boards, law enforcement agencies, and real estate developers weigh in on what they want in relation to nightlife. The only major group that does not have a seat at the table to push its agenda is us. Patrons do not have an organization that directly represents their needs or even defines what those needs are.

A group of nightlife advocates are taking steps to improve this situation by creating the Nightlife Preservation Committee (NPC). Utilizing their ability to reach voters, their substantial connections in media and entertainment and the financial strength of their industry, the NPC plans to be a forum for nightlife that has not been seen in local politics before.

In the short term, the NPC plans to establish political influence in the New York City primaries by reaching out to almost 500,000 club goers who are also registered voters. That voting block could make or break the career of an aspiring politician, since local primaries are often decided by only a few thousand votes. At the same time, the NPC want to act as a bridge, connecting nightlife patrons to the local community, law enforcement, health agencies and other groups that have not seen eye to eye in the past. In the long term the NPC plans to represent the interests of the nightlife community as the issues and concerns about nightlife evolve.

The members of the NPC were kind enough to let me sit down with them as they planned their inaugural event, which is scheduled for June 22nd at M2. I met with Ariel Palitz (Sutra), Steven Lewis (Good Night Mr. Lewis), David Rabin (the New York Nightlife Association), Paul Seres (Sol), Morgan McLean (Rebel) and Paul Insalaco (BF9 Media). I posed several questions to the group to get a better idea of how they planned to connect nightlife and politics.

NYN: What are the long term goals of the NPC?
David Rabin: “In the broadest sense, we want to have an impact on state and local politics as they relate to the nightlife industry.”

Steven Lewis: “We want to revive the concept that New York is the City That Never Sleeps in the same way that Vegas embraced the concept of What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas. We want to spotlight the link between the prosperity of the city and the prosperity of our industry in the same way that the two concepts are connected in Vegas and Miami.”

Are you planning to use the NPC as a pro-nightlife organization to counter anti-nightlife groups within NYC?
Ariel Palitz: “We aren’t trying to polarize the discussion. We don’t want one group of people to automatically vote against any new club. We also don’t want anyone to fight for every venue as a knee jerk reaction. Our goal is to have each venue and each issue judged on its own merits.”

Paul Seres: We are trying to create a more balanced discussion, rather than increase the level of conflict between nightlife and the community. Most of us serve on community boards, so we know there are a lot of things that need to be considered with each club and each operator.

What public relations challenges does the NPC face?
Morgan McLean: “The media paints the entire industry with one broad brush. If one of us is accused of something, then all of us are assumed to be guilty, but an entire industry should not be defined by a few bad operators.”

Rabin: “When someone gets robbed inside a bodega, the cops don’t make the bodega liable. If a fight breaks out in a pizzeria and someone gets hurt, the pizzeria isn’t blamed. In the current environment if those same incidents happen in a club, then it’s the club’s fault. It’s the entire industry’s fault.”

Lewis: “We need to change the way we are perceived. Nightlife brings jobs and taxes and tourism and life to the city. We generate twice the revenue of film and television in New York. Our annual attendance is more than every major sports team and Broadway combined. We want to work with the city and the community boards to continue to do that and more.”

Morgan: “We can’t build our individual businesses or enhance nightlife in general because we spend so much time trying to defend and justify our existence.”

How is the NPC different from NYNA? Both groups are run by operators. Both groups support and advocate local nightlife? Why is a separate group necessary?

Seres: The NYNA is a trade association of nightlife owners. The NPC is a conduit of information for nightlife patrons. It is designed to mobilize people who are interested in the political and policy aspects of nightlife in a manner that is similar to a political action committee.

The NPC will officially kick off on June 22nd. What happens on June 23rd?
Seres: We plan to launch a website on the same day as the initial event and use that as a way to get information out to our people on an ongoing basis. We’d also like to have a series of meetings and events where candidates running for office can meet patrons who are interested in protecting nightlife. Many people never get to meet or talk to the people that they vote for. The NPC will give them a platform to express how important nightlife is to their entire life.

Have fun.
Gamal

Changing of the Guard at the State Liquor Authority

By Gamal Hennessy

In recent months, the New York State Liquor Authority has gone through turmoil. Political pressure from the outside and illegal activity on the inside has left the agency vulnerable to criticism. While Governor Paterson tries to clean house by appointing a new Chairman, the question is can this new appointee reshape the agency into something more relevant and beneficial to New York nightlife.

The SLA has faced several problems under the leadership of its former Chairman, Daniel Boyle. Carl Andrews, an aide to Governor Paterson, was forced to resign after he allegedly tried to force Boyle to renew the liquor license for Cipriani when the iconic restaurateur’s license was in trouble last year. Just last month, the New York offices of the SLA were raided as part of a corruption investigation. Other SLA officials have recently resigned under a cloud. It was only a matter of time before Boyle had to pay a political price for all of this. His appointment was not renewed after the term expired in February.

Boyle’s successor is Dennis Rosen, a graduate of Harvard Law School who has been with the NYS District Attorney’s office since 1982. During his tenure, Rosen has prosecuted civil and legal cases against attorneys, stockbrokers, insurance agents, telemarketers and construction contractors. His most relevant investigation involved going after infractions regarding the SLA. After his nomination is confirmed, the agency he inspected will be the one he has to lead.

The agency that Mr. Rosen inherits has a number of problems that need to be addressed. It was the agency’s chronic lack of inspectors that created the circumstances for corruption to occur in the first place. The overall number of licenses granted is down, limiting the industry’s ability to be a viable economic force in the state. There is a backlog of about 2,400 outstanding license applications due to both the lack of inspectors and the conservative stance of Mr. Boyle. On top of all of that, the SLA is governed by a set of laws that haven’t been changed in any meaningful way since Prohibition.

It is an open question whether Mr. Rosen will be willing or able to bring in more inspectors, clear the backlog, and revise the laws to bring them in line with the economic and social realities of the 21st century while at the same time dealing with state politics, local government and community boards. The nightlife advocates I spoke to last week didn’t have any preconceived opinion of Mr. Rosen, but they are hoping for more balanced treatment than the previous administration.

Have fun.
Gamal

The Liquor Authority Gets a Wake Up Call

By Gamal Hennessy

Last week the Inspector General raided the offices of the State Liquor Authority. Former SLA employees are being accused of bribing employees to manipulate the system. While the investigation focuses on the gift cards and other petty items offered in exchange for “preferred” treatment, officials need to focus on the underlying situation that created the fraud and clean up the liquor licensing system.

The New York State Alcohol Beverage Control Law (ABC) states that an application for a liquor license should get an initial review within 30 days. Nightlife operators have complained for years that the review often took 2-3 months because of a lack of inspectors among other issues. Recently, nightlife opponents in the outgoing administration managed to drag out that period to 6-8 months.

Operators became increasingly frustrated with the process, since the investment in a bar or club can’t start to make money until they can sell liquor and they can’t sell liquor without a license. That’s where the “handlers” would come in. For a fee, these former SLA employees would offer ‘expedited service’ for an application. The IG claims that the service they performed was calling up their friends who still worked in the SLA, and asking for the applications to get moved to the top of the pile. In return, the handlers would give their friends gift cards and, ironically, bottles of liquor. The IG alleges that some applicants got their forms processed in as little as 11 days instead of waiting half a year or more.

It is regrettable that people in positions of authority, however minor, are willing to manipulate the bureaucracy for their own personal advantage. But the larger issue revolves around the system itself. Robert Bookman, attorney for the New York Nightlife Association, sees this raid as the result of a dysfunctional system:

“It takes 8 months to get a liquor license when the law requires it be done in 30 days. Huge investments are sitting and waiting for a license that is long overdue. Is it any wonder that people will get desperate and will do whatever they have to just to get an honest review of their application? That is the real scandal here. Notice there are no allegations that anyone got a license that they were not entitled to. The crime is that the applications were reviewed quickly…the way they are supposed to be reviewed. I am not condoning illegal activity, but no one has been listening about this unlawful, unacceptable wait for liquor licenses before now.”

If the leaders of the SLA essentially broke the law and created a situation where potential operators have to wait 6-8 months for a license, and refused to hire more examiners, then they created the atmosphere for corrupt practices in the Harlem office. The responsibility for this corruption needs to go a lot higher than the clerks who took Applebee’s gift cards. It needs to lead to a revamping of the whole process. Governor Paterson said he supported “the actions of the I.G.’s office to uncover any wrongdoing that may have occurred within the S.L.A. and is working with the S.L.A. to rebuild the organization.” Hopefully this raid can be the beginning of an overhaul that helps bring jobs and revenue to the state while cleaning up a government agency at the same time.

Have fun.
Gamal

The World's Loudest Cigarette: Six Years of the Smoking Ban

Six years ago this week, a smoking ban was imposed on bars, restaurants and other venues in New York City. While the atmosphere inside bars has improved and there are studies that suggest that there has been a significant improvement in the health of nightlife operators and patrons, there have also been secondary effects that threaten the health of the nightlife industry in general. The city has unintentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) created a situation that puts clubs at odds with local residents and ultimately threatens liquor licenses.

History

Before the election of Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, bars and clubs were bastions of smoking. Federal studies found that 61% of heavy alcohol users also smoked, often performing both acts simultaneously. The image entering a smoky bar and approaching a sexual interest by asking for a light were common in many venues in the city. Anyone who went into or worked in a bar accepted the concept that smokers would be there and that they would be able to smell the smoke on their clothes and in their hair long after they left the venue, whether they smoked or not. Back when the world was young and I worked in Webster Hall, I had to sneak outside several times a night for the chance to breathe fresh air. Cigarette smoke triggers my asthma, so for me working in the basement was like working in a burning building. It wasn’t the smartest thing I ever did, but a

hustler does what he has to do, especially when he’s starting out.

In 2002 after Bloomberg became mayor, one of the first things he pushed for was a ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and clubs. The debate leading up to the passage of the law was hotly contested on both sides. Groups that advocated the ban claimed that operators inside the clubs were the most vulnerable to the dangers of second hand smoke because they were exposed to it several hours a night for several nights per week. They claimed a ban would both improve the long term health of operators and improve nightlife business because it would attract people who didn’t smoke into the environment to spend money. Groups that came out against the ban did not deny the health benefits, but they did argue that there would be economic and social effects that the law did not take into account. They also claimed that there would be increased friction from the community because of the noise generated from patrons standing outside to smoke from 5 PM to 4 AM.

The Sound of Smoking

Some people think that a few people standing outside a venue will not substantially increase the level of street noise. But that concept only considers the smokers themselves. They don’t see that smokers, especially female smokers, provide a powerful incentive for groups of fanatics to hang out in front of a club, especially the ones who didn’t get into or got thrown out. In a twisted effort to get noticed and prove their superiority, these individuals will shout, get into fights, honk their horns if they are in their cars, or try to talk to girls from their cars and back up traffic behind them which causes other cars to blow their horns. This sad mating ritual cacophony will die down when the girls finish smoking and go back inside, but it will begin again when the next group of girls comes out of the club to take their place.

The relationship between street noise and smoking outside should not have come as a surprise to anyone involved in the development of the smoking ban since the NYNA informed city that the smoking ban would lead to noise complaints. But when operators requested the ability to hire Paid Detail officers to deal with the inevitable noise the result was the worst of all options. The smoking ban was put in place and the request for Paid Detail was rejected, allowing the smoking ban to become a major contributor of street noise. When street noise increases, 311 complaints from local residents increase. When complaints increase, local community boards can use those complaints to have a venue’s liquor license revoked. Without a liquor license, a bar or a club can’t compete in the market and is forced to close. There is a direct relationship between the smoking ban and the increase in noise complaints against clubs. As the ban enters its 6th year operators need to find a way to keep patrons healthy and stay opened.

Coping Strategies

Different venues use different tactics to deal with the ban. Any venue that has been built or renovated since 2003 could factor the law into their design. The ones that could afford it added heated courtyard lounges like Cielo, rooftop access like Above Allen or fire escape access like APT to give smokers access to the open air without putting them out on the street. Venues that don’t have that option rope off areas in front of the venue to separate the smokers who already made it past the velvet rope from the throngs still trying to get inside.

There are also growing instances of venues that do not rope off areas out front, or create special sections for them. Some operators have come to the conclusion openly or privately that it is easier and more cost effective to simply break the law. Smoking in clubs reported to be on the rise in New York City, either because enforcement has dropped off, or because the fines are low enough that paying them costs less than complying with the law or getting noise complaints. While this minority of operators might not openly reject the law, they have come to the conclusion that the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of erecting smoking areas or subjecting their liquor licenses to revocation based on noise complaints from smokers standing outside. Some solutions have worked better than others, but one thing the clubs won’t do is discourage smoking by their clientele since by some operator estimates, smokers account for 40% of patrons.

A More Viable Solution

There is an alternative that protects the health of patrons and operators, keeps noise levels down outside of venues and allows patrons to smoke all at the same time. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals to clean the air. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier and one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60% of the people are smoking inside. The NYNA proposed that if a venue was primarily a bar, lounge or club and not a restaurant then they could have one filter installed for every 1,250 square feet of interior space and become exempt from the ban. This request was not included in the final version of the law.

The best options available for the industry are to continue to lobby officials on the state or and local level that patrons can smoke inside without health risks, through the use of technology like filtration units. They can also try and work with local community leaders and law enforcement to gain the power to control or reduce noise outside the venues through Paid Detail. Finally, they could work to sever the links between street noise and liquor licenses so that loud patrons don’t lead to closed venues. Whatever tactic operators decide to use they need to insure that the smoking ban isn’t harmful to nightlife health.

Have fun.
Gamal

Are Police the New Health Inspectors or Tax Collectors?

By Gamal Hennessy

Imagine this. You’re sitting in your favorite bar nursing a drink and wondering how you’re going to convince the waitress to give you her phone number. Without warning three cops walk in, push behind the bar and start poking around with their flashlights, making everyone in the room very nervous. As you gather up your belongings and discreetly make your way towards the door, would you assume that this was a raid? Would you guess that the cops were looking for drugs, guns or child pornography? Would you believe they were looking for fruit flies?

Fruit flies are drawn to alcoholic beverages and bar owners are required by the state law to keep them out of liquor bottles as a matter of public health. As part of the routine inspections by the Department of Health (DOH) bars are inspected for fruit flies and any venue that has fruit flies on or in the bottles is subject to a fine that could run between $700 and $1,000 per infested bottle. This is a normal part of the nightlife business and isn’t really a cause of concern among operators. The problem arises in the way the law has recently been enforced. Even if you are a nightlife native who frequents various venues, you have probably never seen a DOH inspection taking place. That’s because inspectors keep a relatively low profile while conducting their business. Patrons usually have no idea what is going on and they don’t have to. But there have been reports of layoffs at the DOH, which could mean fewer inspectors. But inspections still need to be conducted, especially since every violation can lead to fines that cash strapped city and state governments are desperately looking for. So somehow the DOH has been replaced with the NYPD who is anything but low profile when they come into the bar.

One operator commented on the climate that the NYPD creates; “By sending a uniformed officers from the NYPD behind your bar with a flashlight looking for fruit flies and whatever else they can find at the height of your business hours creates a stressful situation for you and your customers. It looks like a crime was committed in your place and they are looking for evidence. It gets people talking about your establishment in ways you don't want.”

Bar and lounge owners in various parts of the city have described this scenario happening in their bars with increasing frequency. Some operators think that the NYPD has been given a mandate to perform random inspections as a way to “find” violations and provide the city and the state with much needed revenue. Various operators have voiced opinions about the situation: “What they are thinking is that they are going to get funds for a broke state and city no matter what the consequences. No thought is given to the outcome except that those cops better come back with some violations. With cops conducting their random inspections, we are at the whim of whoever is giving these cops the orders to do these. It is much more invasive and detrimental to our businesses. “I don't think this has anything to with revenge against a particular venue. All bars are suffering this treatment. This has more to do with the city's need to collect more revenue in the shape of fines and the fact that they've laid off a number of health inspectors.”

So instead of increasing state revenue by working with the nightlife industry, local government is trying to increase state revenue by intimidating and attacking it, using the police as its instrument. We have pointed out in previous articles that ending the backlog in liquor license applications and increasing the number of venues would actually increase state revenue significantly. And as dangerous as fruit flies are to public health, the police are probably better utilized deterring and preventing crime outside of venues instead of poking around behind the bar looking for bugs. We know that the state wants to use liquor consumption as cash cow and nightlife is an economic resource that the city can use for its benefit, but only if it takes more of a cooperative stance instead of being antagonistic.

Unfortunately, some operators don’t see things getting better because they don't feel the lobbying efforts are strong enough to support their position. “With all due respect to our lobbying groups, I really don't think they have the stomach for this kind of fight. We are just going to have to put up with this intrusive behavior by our government and keep our bars as clean as possible.”

So if you see a couple of cops climb behind your favorite bar, it might not be a raid. It might just be an abusive health inspection.

Have fun.

Gamal