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

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

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

Be Aware, Take Care

By Gamal Hennessy

We go out to have a good time. We want to forget the recession, the housing slump, the credit crisis and the soft job market. We want to drink, dance and seduce each other for a few hours before reality sets in again. The last thing we need is for thieves, pickpockets and scam artists to invade our refuge and make us even poorer than we were before by stealing our wallets, clothing or purses. But that’s what’s happening and this is what people are trying to do about it.

The NYPD recently approached the New York Nightlife Association with an educational campaign to help patrons guard against petty crime in the clubs. While most of the advice is common sense and straight forward, a little prevention can go a long way. Patrons are in a vulnerable spot. They are often intoxicated, literally in the dark and focused on everything except their personal belongings. Operators can only watch and do so much (like coat check or to a certain extent security guards) to prevent theft. This gives predators space to operate. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own stuff, but the NYPD flyers can make us a little more vigilant on the dance floor.

The underlying dynamic to this situation is threefold. First, there is a historical tendency for different types of crime in nightlife to rise in a down market. The city is trying to reverse that trend in an attempt to maintain its reputation as a safe city for tourism. Second, nightlife itself doesn’t need the negative publicity of higher crime in a time when patron spending is already down. Any steps taken to make the public feel safer are helpful for the bottom line. Finally this gesture between the police and nightlife comes at a time when relations have been slightly strained. The safety flyers might not settle the allegations of phony drugs busts and potential law suits but like the crisis in the Middle East, any steps toward reconciliation have to be taken with cautious optimism. If the NYPD and the NYNA continue to focus on the well being of patrons instead of attacking each other, then thieves and scam artists will have less room to maneuver and we can escape in relative peace.

Have fun.
G

What’s your opinion? We’d like to know.

Sin Taxes, Playing Together and Notorious Crimes

Nightlife News for January 21st, 2009

By Gamal Hennessy

Time for a New Sin Tax
David Kesmodel of the Wall Street Journal reported on the growing trend of lawmakers across the country to increase taxes on liquor to lower state budget deficits. While sin taxes have been used in the past for governments to get through lean economic times, New York might want to couple that tax increase with an increase in liquor licenses so that more jobs and more taxes are created at the same time.

Playing Well Together
Heather Murray of Chelsea Now found a positive story in the residents vs. nightlife situation. Cafeteria in Chelsea has been working with neighbors to install sound proof windows, police the area around the building for noise and amateur behavior and early waste removal. The situation offers good ideas to operators trying to peacefully coexist with people living near their venues.

Notorious Crimes Taint Movie Opening
The Gothamist reported that four people were stabbed at a party thrown to celebrate the hip hop film Notorious. In a separate incident, the Times reported that a teenage girl was shot and killed at a teen only party in the same weekend. If the film was supposed to be a cautionary tale about the connection between hip hop, crime and violence the message didn’t get through to every one.

What do you think? Should we support more liquor taxes? What else can venues do to work with communities? What will it take to separate hip hop from violence? Add a comment and let us know.

Have fun.
Gamal

How Safe Are the Clubs?

By Gamal Hennessy

There is a famous saying in entertainment that "any press is good press." If you don't believe that concept, just look at Paris Hilton. But nightlife operators might not agree with that statement. The past two weeks has produced one missing woman and a shooting associated with local venues. How can clubs maintain safety without sacrificing the party or their autonomy?

Nightlife is often associated with crime, even if the operators and the venue are not at fault or even involved in the actual incident. Plaxico Burress shoots himself in the leg with his illegal gun at LQ. Jennifer Garza disappears after spending time with a sex offender at Marquee. While these events could have happened anywhere, the stories frequently mention the clubs. It’s too early to tell if these incidents will hurt attendance at these venues in the long term, but previous violence with P. Diddy at Club New York was a contributing factor in its demise. Of course, mentioning where a story took place answers one of the basic questions of journalism (who, what, when, where and why) but it isn't hard to imagine that the nightclub angle is played up to 'sex up' the story and perpetuate the concept that nightlife is inherently dangerous.

The past two weeks have been something of an aberration. Compared with the number of people in New York clubs every year (the 2004 estimate is 65 million entries), the number of high profile incidents is low. Reasonable behavior from nightlife natives, a watchful eye by club security and a stiff police presence in some neighborhoods keep serious crime down. This fact is rarely reported outside of New York Nights. Stories like Burress and Garza stay in the public consciousness.

This perception creates a potential threat to the nightlife industry. If negative stories are all that are reported or remembered then that is the image that is going to stick, no matter how infrequent the incidents are. This can lead to liquor licenses being unjustly revoked, abrupt closings and ultimately fewer quality venues in the city.

Operators have to do several things to be successful. They need to attract people to their venue, provide hospitality service, entertain their patrons, make a profit and provide a safe environment. There is a limit to what they can do. They can't keep track of sex offenders who come to the club, they can't control things that go on outside the club and they are forced to tread lightly when it comes to celebrity.

But there are things that are done. Why don't we hear about that? Can the industry show that millions of patrons aren't injured when we go out? It might be helpful for the industry to show the public what is done to keep them safe. Not just after a clumsy athlete shoots himself, but on a constant basis. That way we have a balanced image of nightlife safety, not just the bad news.

Have fun.
Gamal

Will the Recession Cause an Increase in Crime?

By Gamal Hennessy

Even with welcomed change in White House, the US recession is predicted to last well into 2009. In the past, recessions have led to a dramatic rise in violent crime. Nightlife specifically gained a reputation for being dangerous. Will history repeat itself? If so, what can natives and operators do to mitigate the problem?

Historical parallels
There is a historical link between economic stagnation and violent crime. “Every recession since the 50’s has led to higher crime” usually with a year lag between the economic trouble and the onset of the crime wave. While nightlife in New York experienced an injection of creativity during the last downturn, crime was also an issue. Nightlife was associated (and not always fairly) with muggings, rape, robbery and drug related crimes. Last week’s Trends report predicted an upswing in the nightlife industry. Do those same factors point to more crime?

Unclear Causes
Predictions are mixed because there are distinct differences between past financial crises and this one. Some experts say falling wages and fewer jobs will lead to higher crime as people become more desperate. Others claim that there are fewer potential victims today because electronic banking and video surveillance are so widespread. Mayor Bloomberg has used the specter of increased crime as one of the justifications for his rewriting of the term limits laws, but California has been embroiled in a prolonged financial crisis without seeing a rise in crime. Part of the reason that predicting crime is difficult may stem from the fact that some of the factors that link economics and crime are indirect.

It is easy to assume that if people lose their jobs, they can turn to crime as an alternative to work, but the more likely culprit in a crime spike will be stress not greed. When people suffer from large amounts of anxiety they are less likely to cope with situations in a rational manner. They are more likely to lash out as a way to release their pent up emotions. This lashing out can translate into more crimes including assault, domestic violence and rape. The crime isn’t committed to make money. It is committed without thinking. When the alcohol use increases to deal with the stress and the hormones inherent in nightlife are added to the mix, the threat of increased nightlife crime rises.

Complications
The threat of increased crime also brings new complications to natives and operators in the nightlife space. For the past year, venues affiliated with the New York Nightlife Association and the NYPD have been working together to create a safer nightlife environment. But recent friction between the police and the clubs is building. Within the past month, there have been reports of a major lawsuit from certain clubs against the police. If relations between clubs and the police deteriorate just as a crime wave is building, the results could be a decrease in overall safety for everyone and more animosity between the two groups. There are anti nightlife officials gaining power. They could be willing to use any perceived link between crime and nightlife as a weapon to attack our lifestyle.

Be aware, take care
Nightlife natives need to be aware of their own internal situations when they go out. Stress relief doesn’t need to descend into amateur displays of violence. Over indulgence will only make your situation worse.

At the same time, nightlife operators need to be aware of potential spike in both financial and stress crime and plan accordingly. The image your venue has might be more important as reality, since it will only take a few incidents to draw increased scrutiny.

The Age of Drinking

By Gamal Hennessy

The Amethyst Initiative released a statement recently calling for a discussion on the drinking age in America. Battle lines were drawn immediately between the college students who felt that the current law led to dangerous binge drinking and the opponents who claim lowering the drinking law will increase binge drinking. The debate has focused on college campuses, but nightlife has a stake in this debate as well. Does it make sense to set the drinking age at 21? Should it be lowered? Should it be raised? Should drinking be based on age at all?

The Problem
The Amethyst Initiative, which is made up of college presidents and chancellors from around the country, claims that the current drinking age creates segregated communities on campus. The 21-25 group drinks on a regular basis in bars, restaurants and other places liquor is served. Since the 18-20 group can’t legally drink they pre-party heavily to compensate. This binge drinking leads to a host of problems. It promotes to criminal activity to get liquor to causes alcohol poisoning and other health problems once the liquor is consumed.

Officials from various government and civic organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) claim that the Amethyst Initiative ignores proven data on the benefits of legal drinking at 21. They say a lower drinking age will lead to more alcohol related fatalities and simply push the age of binge drinking down to the high school level. They have also exerted pressure on members of the initiative to withdraw their support.

The Nightlife Impact
Nightclubs and bars have a vested interest in the drinking age law. Once schools open again for the fall semester, the clubs will be teeming with drinkers. Some of them won’t be 21. These are the places that underage drinkers try to get into after the pre-party. These are the places that have to deal with fake IDs. Would it be easier for everyone if the same person who can go to college, get a license, and drive to the club also be allowed to drink there?

From an economic standpoint, there might be short term gains for nightclubs. There would be more potential people coming in and drinking, which means more money for the club. There would be less need for security to check ID’s at the door, which would free them up for other tasks (like dealing with the drunks who are already inside). There would be fewer violations for serving underage patrons, which could lead to fewer threats to liquor licenses since every violation goes on record against the club when it wants to renew its license.

However, the public relations impact outweighs the economic benefit. New York nightlife is already under attack in various parts of the city by community boards, police and possibly real estate interests. It doesn’t need to draw additional fire from MADD or other politically influential groups. It might take just one incident of a 20 year old girl being injured or killed to spark a new crusade against clubs. It probably wouldn’t matter if she was drunk before she got to the club or if she was even in or near the club when the incident occurred. The story would be about a young girl killed after going to a nightclub. The details would probably be missed.

New York Nights supports debate on issues like the relationship between age and drinking, but we don’t feel that lowering the drinking age would benefit New York Nightlife.

Have fun.
Gamal

A Different Perspective on the Latest Nightclub Murder

By Gamal Hennessy

News wires, newspapers and blogs all over the world ran last week’s story of Ingrid Rivera’s murder at the hands of a bar back. The combination of celebrity association (Lil’ Kim wasn’t involved), sex (reports say there wasn’t any) and violence makes this story titillating and easy to add to the universal gossip mill of the internet. It is also very easy to use this incident as an example of the threat nightlife poses to society at large. What might be lost in the overall discussion is that while Ingrid Rivera’s murder was tragic, death inside a New York nightclub or bar is very rare.

The consensus among media outlets is that Syed Rahman, an employee of Spotlight Live, lured Ms. Rivera to the roof of the club during a birthday party for rapper Lil’ Kim. He tried to make sexual advances towards her that she rejected. At that point, Syed attacked her, killing her with a blow to the head. Her body was found two days later in a utility shed on the roof. Syed was arrested that same day and reportedly confessed to the crime.

An associated story detailed the deaths associated with New York nightlife over the past 20 years. While there were little over 100 people killed between 1988 and this point in 2008, there are three things that are worth noting. First, an unusual number of incidents involve club security or other worker inside the club. Second of the 100 people killed, 87 of them died in the Happy Land fire of 1990, which means the other 13-25 deaths accounted for all the murders that took place in more than 1,000 local nightlife establishments. Finally, there is an estimated 65,000,000 entries into New York bars, lounges and nightclubs every year in New York, which means while there have literally been millions of people in New York nightlife almost every one of them makes it back home.

We are not saying that Ms. Rivera’s death or any of the deaths associated with nightlife are an acceptable part of the industry. We are not saying that initiatives like the recent nightlife security plan are not necessary. What we are saying is that while murder in nightclubs is abhorrent, it is also very rare. We don’t want opponents of our nightlife to use this crime as ammunition to close clubs down.

Have fun.
Gamal

Dating: New York Strengthens the Domestic Violence Law

Restraining orders are not available to any partner who was harassed, abused, beaten or threatened. In order to get one, you have to go to the police, have the guy (the abusers are usually guys) arrested and then get the prosecutor to help you, unless you were married. Most people aren’t willing to go through all that. Now Governor Paterson has agreed to expand the law to cover a wider range of relationships, including people who are dating.

A Brooklyn politician named Helene Weinstein has been pushing for a change in the law since 1988, but this is the first year that there was support from the state senate and the governor’s office. The new law will allow anyone in an “intimate relationship” to get a restraining order in civil court instead of going to criminal court. The relationship could be straight or gay and doesn’t have to include sex at all. The intimate relationship could even be created on the first date if that’s when the stalking starts.

With so many current relationships falling outside the traditional marriage structure, it makes sense that the law evolves to match the society it’s supposed to protect. Even though restraining orders can’t keep someone safe, it’s a step in the right direction and extending that to everyone who could be abused is another positive step. An expanded law can itself be abused by manipulative dates, but a lot of us have seen people at clubs abusing their partners. Maybe a few of them will be able to drink in peace once the law is past.

Source: Danny Hakim: New York Times

And if you want to find out more about what's going on in New York nightlife, sign up for NYN Insider. It's free.

Technology: Homeland Security Company Hits the Clubs

Technology
Homeland Security Company Hits the Clubs
(Press Release)
Last weekend the New York Bar Show gave liquor makers, bar managers and industry professionals the chance to sample new products and roam around the Javits Center. One of the more unique exhibitors is trying to replace the scrutiny of bouncers by pushing a technology that would make it easier for nightclubs and bars to catch fake ID’s.




Intelli-Check - Mobilisa is a technology company that has built a business in ID verification. They produce wireless handheld devices that read and analyze the data in barcodes on government issued ID (drivers licenses, passports, etc.). While their products were once confined to military bases, government installations and industrial parks, Mobilisa is now planning to provide the same technology to clubs so they can keep underage drinkers out.

While this might seem like another infringement of big brother into nightlife, systems like this are already developed and there might be a logical reason for clubs to adopt the Mobilisa system. With today’s technology, fake ID’s are not difficult to acquire. Dram shop laws traditionally hold clubs liable for serving drinks to minors and there has been an increased crackdown on fake ID’s in the past year (See Nightlife News Crime 10/19/07) so clubs need something to combat the increased sophistication of forgery. A system like this will work within the new guidelines that the NYPD worked out with the New York Nightlife Association late last year (See Nightlife News Crime 10/19/07).

With all the pressure to keep kids out of clubs, it might make sense to put less trust in a bouncer staring at thousands of ID’s in the dark (and maybe hooking up his friends) and more trust in the barcode. As long as the system doesn’t get abused by the police, telemarketers or hackers, it might help everybody.


And if you want to find out more about what's going on in New York nightlife, sign up for NYN Insider. It's free.

Opinion: The Anti-Club Police

Opinion
The Anti-Club Police
(Steve Lewis: Good Night Mr. Lewis)
In 2007, the NYPD asked the city council for expanded ability to enforce the Nuisance Abatement Law. This law gives the police the right to close an establishment where violent crimes, drug sales, prostitution, gambling, are going on or where building, health or zoning laws are being violated. Proponents of this law claim that it is in the interest of the public to close or regulate establishments where criminal activity is being carried out. The nightlife industry as a whole and the New York Nightlife Association in particular doesn’t argue the merits of the law. However Steve Lewis, and other nightlife experts, think the current enforcement of this law is a problem.

In a recent posting on his blog Steve Lewis explained how the NYPD manipulates the system to the detriment of the nightlife industry. When a club or bar is closed, it is invariably closed on a Friday. This has two effects. First, the club cannot respond the charges until the courts re-open on Monday. Second, the club can’t open until it responds. Since the weekend is where most of the money is made, the police have effectively killed the business of the club for that weekend. Keep in mind the police can close a club that is charged with violating the nuisance law. It doesn’t have to prove the law has actually been broken. While the losses that the nightlife industry suffers might be more than enough to justify a lawsuit, club owners are reluctant to start a case that will draw the animosity of the police department. This reluctance gives the elements in the police department that have initiated this plan (Mr. Lewis makes it clear that he is not accusing the entire NYPD of this abuse) a free hand in targeting nightlife.

There are some clubs that break laws when they are open. They need to be controlled and the police need to control it. But the solution to this problem is not attacking the entire industry. That makes about as much sense as punishing every driver in the city because a few people drive drunk. The practice of abusing the Nuisance Abatement Law, and the liquor license struggles we have described in Can We Keep Clubs Open and Last Call are simply the latest examples of attacks on clubs. We are the people who appreciate and enjoy New York nightlife. Up to this point we have also been the silent majority, unable or unwilling to speak out against things done allegedly for our benefit. If we continue to be silent, nightlife will suffer and ultimately, so will we.

And if you want to find out more about what's going on in New York nightlife, sign up for NYN Insider. It's free.

Club Cruises, Dance Parades and Smoke Smuggling

Nightlife News for May 13, 2008

Events: Club Cruises
Events: The Dance Parade
Smoking: Smokers Will Choose Quitting or Crime

The Cops Chase Weed. The SLA Holds Back.

Nightlife News for May 6, 2008

Crime: Cops Hooked on Pot
Government: SLA Holding Business Down

Cigarette Smuggling and the Tribeca Film Festival

Nightlife News for April 15th 2008

Smoking: Cigarette Smuggling (Will the New Tax Lead to a Black Market?)

Events: The Tribeca Film Festival (Lower Manhattan Rolls Out the Red Carpet)

Sean Bell Testimony, Alcoholism Drugs and Transit Lies

Nightlife News for March 26, 2008

Catalytic Converters, Drunkorexia and the Best of New York

Nightlife News for March 5, 2008