skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
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.
By Gamal Hennessy
The struggle between the nightlife industry in New York and local government might be moving from the blogsphere to the courtroom. A prominent nightlife figure has reported a lawsuit planned by local clubs against the NYPD. Is this the beginning of a new period of freedom for nightlife, or is the struggle about to take a turn for the worst?
The nature of the conflict
In the nightlife blog Good Night Mr. Lewis, Steven Lewis recently wrote that clubs have recently decided to file suit against the police department. According to the post, the clubs will claim that vice cops staged phony drug buys in their venues in an attempt to implicate the club in the crime. The clubs will then claim that the NYPD abused the Nuisance Abatement Laws (NAL) by selectively choosing to enforce the law in a way that would do the most economic damage to the venues. The combination of these acts results in a situation where the police are “ruining lives and business” and violating due process. The damages sought by the clubs in this suit are said to range in the tens of millions of dollars.
These issues have been simmering for some time. Local nightlife leaders have been aware of this problem since the NAL has been more strictly enforced by the police. While they don’t argue the merits of the law, they think the current enforcement of this law is a problem because it is largely politically motivated.
Robert Bookman, the head of the New York Nightlife Association sees an entity behind the police pulling the strings: “Its not police directly but the Civil Enforcement Unit; they’re not talking amongst themselves. The precinct has no control over it [the closings]; the cops who may have given you the underlying summonses have no control over it. There’s a unit called the Civil Enforcement Unit, they’re the ones who get these complaints from the captains, you know, 'This is a place we want you to consider for NAL.' And it’s the attorneys in this unit that put the papers together, who go to court, get the judge to sign it and choose to serve it almost universally on Friday night. Having said all of that, the situation is better now than a year and a half ago.”
The manipulation of the law might go even deeper than the Civil Enforcement Unit. There is a sense in certain sectors of the nightlife industry that larger real estate developers are trying to manipulate the NAL, the community boards, and using other tactics to reduce nightlife in New York City to make room for more housing construction. If the suit is filed, then all these players and their motivations could potentially be brought to light.
Timing is everything
If this situation has been going on for some time, why are the suits being contemplated now? According to the NYNA, the number of NAL closings has gone down since 2007. The police and the NYNA have made progress in working together to make nightlife safer during that period. In the past, individual clubs were reluctant to take action against community boards, police, or city hall because the backlash could close them down through votes against their liquor licenses, more raids or higher scrutiny from the DOH. So why go to court now?
NYN can only speculate on the actual timing of the suit. It is possible that the recent real estate slump and the political concerns swirling around City Hall make this a good time to go on the offensive with the police, whether or not they are initiating the abuse or just pawns for another group. It could be that the clubs found a way to avoid retaliation, giving them more freedom to act. It is also possible that the economic slowdown makes repeated weekend closures under the NAL impossible to absorb. If clubs are closed for too many weekends they might not reopen at all.
New York nightlife needs the NYPD to maintain the safety of its customers and workers. A protracted court battle between the two groups could lead to a more friction that would ultimately be detrimental to the people who enjoy the nightlife lifestyle. Hopefully, the announcement of a potential suit will induce both sides to come to an amicable agreement before the issue gets dragged through the courts. No matter which direction this goes, NYN will continue to follow the story.
Have fun.
Gamal
By Gamal Hennessy
The future looks uncertain for the downtown cabaret known as The Box. Once seen as a symbol of a new era in nightlife, it quickly became known for celebrity bottle service and risqué burlesque shows. Now it is under attack from local residents and its own staff. Will it weather the current storm? Do we want it to?
Originally conceived as dinner theater and not a club, The Box opened in offering high priced sexually charged performances like “Twincest” from the Porcelain Twinz and other members of the Hammerstein Beauties. It quickly became a magnet for celebrities and celebrity watchers.
But less than two years after its opening, the club (or if you prefer dinner theater) is under siege. From the outside, community board 3 has made threats against its liquor license, claiming that the traffic problems and noise that the Box generates make it undesirable. From the inside, there are threats of a lawsuit from the Twinz who claim the Box has “…unsafe working conditions, prostitutes on staff, in house drug dealing, open drug use throughout the club, and coerced sex with management as a condition of continued employment…”
The owners of the Box have issued a public defense of what they describe as their creative practices, and they are working with the community board to resolve the outstanding issues before their application goes back before the board in October. While a member of the board has stated that the possible employment suit is brought to the attention of the State Liquor Authority, it is not brought before the board in relation to the license.
Is the Box a victim of disgruntled workers and anti-social residents? Or is it an abusive pit of sex and drugs? Or is it both? The problem with cases like the Box is that the truth is often at the mercy of personal perception and it might be impossible to find out. New York Nights is an advocate of the nightlife industry, but we only support venues that add to the quality of nightlife in the city. Clubs that leave our nightlife open to public attack need to close. Anti-nightlife advocates create their own reasons for wanting clubs closed. We don’t have to help them by playing into their stereotypes.
Have fun.
Gamal
Source: Allen Salkin: New York Times
Give us your opinion on what’s going on. Use the comments space below to tell people what you think.
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.
Nightlife News for March 18th 2008
Posts
