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

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

Squadron Watch, SLA Inspectors and Smokeasies

Nightlife News for January 13th, 2009

By Gamal Hennessy

Is Squadron in a position to carry out his plans?
Roy Edroso of the Village Voice reports that new Democratic State Senator Daniel Squadron has been chosen to head the cites committee of the New York State Senate. Given his anti-nightlife position during the election, the question is will the new position but Mr. Squadron is a position to carry out his Nightlife Control Plan?

Club security guard sentenced for kidnapping charge
Darryl Littlejohn got 25 years for stuffing Shanai Woodward into a van. He still claims he’s innocent and that his trial was unfair because his name was also linked to the Imette St. Guillen kidnapping, rape and murder. Newsday.com didn’t specify when the St. Guillen case will be tried, but Littlejohn will continue to be a bad example of security the industry will have to deal with

Does the SLA need more inspectors?
A TV station in New York might have found the reason why liquor licenses are so hard to get. According to a spokesman for the SLA, there are only 21 SLA examiners in the whole state, and they process over 6,500 applications per year. But if New York needs to create jobs in a recession, and liquor licenses can create more jobs, why not hire more inspectors?

Watch out for the DOH before you light up
Grub Street has confirmed that the Department of Health has been conducting more raids and handing out more fines for venues that violate the smoking ban. The raids might be in response to more venues turning a blind eye to smoking in 2008, so smoking might become a contentious nightlife issue again six years into the ban.

What do you think? Should we worry about Squadron? What will it take to get more SLA inspectors? Will the DOH crackdown lead to club closings? Add a comment and let us know.

Have fun.
Gamal

Did New York Nightlife Lose the Election?

By Gamal Hennessy

Clubs were full last Tuesday night celebrating the historic victory of this country’s first black president and began counting down the final days of our worst president. While the tears and champagne were flowing, few people realized that a new player is also coming to Brooklyn, one with a distinct anti-nightlife platform and powerful supporters. Did the election we celebrated give rise to a new enemy to nightlife?

On Monday I got an email from a nightlife operator with a link to Daniel Squadron’s Nightlife Control Plan. I didn’t know who Mr. Squadron was, but I read his plan and I didn’t like what he had to say. No one involved in nightlife, who has seen the rise in power of the community boards, or understands the arbitrary way some boards operate would take the position that CB’s need to have more power without accountability or capriciously decide that any area has “too many bars” and essentially cripple on of the few industries that can continue to bring revenue into the city during an economic downturn. I came to the conclusion that I didn’t support Mr. Squadron. I also quickly understood that my support didn’t matter all that much. I didn’t live in his district and I only found out about him a day before the election. There was no time to get the word out and mobilize support against his election.

So spent the next few days following Sun Tzu’s advice and started to find out more about the new state senator.

It appears that Daniel Squadron is the son of influential attorney Howard Squadron and the former aide to U.S. Senator Charles Schumer. His campaign against the 30 year incumbent Martin Connor received endorsements both from political heavyweights like Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg and from local community groups seeking change. The following is a comment taken from The Brooklyn Paper

Daniel Squadron has the endorsement of almost all the Williamsburg leaders and newspapers this week. Folks, we need fresh blood. The coming years will see budget cuts because of lower government incomes. We need young fresh faces that have no old liabilities to fight for our rights...Lets all come out en mass and vote Daniel Squadron

It also appears that Mr. Squadron has links to nightlife that pre-date his Nightlife Control Plan. Based on his account given in July of this year, he once owned a nightlife establishment in the city. This should give him an idea of the pressures and difficulties in owning a New York bar. It should also help him understand the perspective on the community boards and police in relation to the clubs.

But if he does understand what nightlife operators are going through, where does the Nightlife Control Plan come from? Why is it worded to help the community boards restrain bars, but doesn’t openly mention actual standards of proof for them? Does his plan offer the venues protection and support, recognize them for the cultural and financial impact they have on the city? Will his plan build on the strides made by police and operators to keep the city safe or will it drive a deeper wedge between the two sides?

Since Daniel Squadron is the elected senator in Lower Manhattan and he does have substantial political allies, it is not inconceivable that his Nightlife Control Plan will evolve into a law. We can hope that the state senate understands the benefits of New York clubs and reject overly stringent controls. We can hope that lobbyist from the nightlife industry deliver the message that nightlife needs support as well as control. And all of us, especially me, can keep a closer eye on the people who claim to speak for our best interests.

Have fun.
Gamal