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