Are the Clubs Planning to Take on the Cops?

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

Bloomberg’s Nightlife Record

By Gamal Hennessy

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to announce plans to run for a third term in office tomorrow. Various groups are weighing in before the official announcement and the outcome will be controversial no matter how it shakes out. Nightlife, as a distinct facet of the city, also needs to consider the implications of Bloomberg’s tenure. What has the mayor done to support or hinder nightlife during his term? Is nightlife better off with a new mayor?

To get a better picture of how the mayor has impacted nightlife recently, NYN went through all of its past coverage to find Bloomberg’s influence, even though all these events cannot be directly tied to him. Here is a sampling of his programs affecting nightlife since 2003.

Supporting the nightlife industry

October 2007: New York Nightlife Association and New York City Police Department create a new plan to improve security conditions after two separate nightclub murders.

October 2007: New York City launches multi-media campaign to attract tourists to various aspects of New York City, including nightlife.

February 2008: NYC expands its free condom offering to bars and restaurants in the face of rising HIV rates.

July 2008: Mayor signaled willingness to rescind the cabaret law, although that willingness has not been backed up by actions at this point.

Opposing the nightlife industry
March 2003: New York City institutes a smoking ban in bars, clubs and restaurants. While smoking rates have gone down citywide and anecdotal evidence suggests that non smokers now go out more, the ban has amplified issues between local residents and clubs.

June 2007: Mayor’s plan for congestion pricing in midtown threatened to create residual traffic jams on nights and weekends when the tax wouldn’t be in effect.

September 2007: Arguments between the city and local taxi drivers over GPS, credit card, TV screens in the back of all cabs boil over into a cab strike.

April 2008: The NYC Department of Health targets select gay clubs for violations while possibly ignoring a majority of others

Real Estate Issues
The mayor enjoys support in the voting community and in the business sector. Their basic argument is that the extraordinary economic times that we live in call for a mayor that has the business experience to see the city through this difficult time.

When you look at how business has fared in New York recently, it is worth noting that the real estate sector, which experienced a boom under Mr. Bloomberg, is in full retreat now after years of wild profit speculation and uncontrolled growth. It also makes sense to point out that the encroachment of residential real estate into formerly commercial areas where nightlife thrived added to the conflict between clubs and local residents who didn’t want to have their illusion suburban quiet disturbed while they slept in the middle of the city. A more balanced investment by the city between more residential real estate and more support for local nightlife might have been the wiser business strategy.

It is easy to see how Mayor Bloomberg’s term in office was more beneficial to New York nightlife than Mayor Giuliani’s, since Rudy would have preferred to close all clubs. It is difficult to say that his impact on New York nightlife has been wholly negative, given some of his actions. It is impossible to tell if nightlife would be given more support to thrive under a new mayor because we don’t know who the opposing candidate might be. But it is possible to see that he is willing to impose his own lifestyle on others and circumvent or rewrite laws to achieve his goals. If that kind of brazen cowboy attitude to power fails miserably on a national level with Bush/Cheney, what makes us think it will work better on a city level?

Have fun.
Gamal

Source: Michael Barbaro: 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

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.