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

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 World's Loudest Cigarette: Six Years of the Smoking Ban

Six years ago this week, a smoking ban was imposed on bars, restaurants and other venues in New York City. While the atmosphere inside bars has improved and there are studies that suggest that there has been a significant improvement in the health of nightlife operators and patrons, there have also been secondary effects that threaten the health of the nightlife industry in general. The city has unintentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) created a situation that puts clubs at odds with local residents and ultimately threatens liquor licenses.

History

Before the election of Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, bars and clubs were bastions of smoking. Federal studies found that 61% of heavy alcohol users also smoked, often performing both acts simultaneously. The image entering a smoky bar and approaching a sexual interest by asking for a light were common in many venues in the city. Anyone who went into or worked in a bar accepted the concept that smokers would be there and that they would be able to smell the smoke on their clothes and in their hair long after they left the venue, whether they smoked or not. Back when the world was young and I worked in Webster Hall, I had to sneak outside several times a night for the chance to breathe fresh air. Cigarette smoke triggers my asthma, so for me working in the basement was like working in a burning building. It wasn’t the smartest thing I ever did, but a

hustler does what he has to do, especially when he’s starting out.

In 2002 after Bloomberg became mayor, one of the first things he pushed for was a ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and clubs. The debate leading up to the passage of the law was hotly contested on both sides. Groups that advocated the ban claimed that operators inside the clubs were the most vulnerable to the dangers of second hand smoke because they were exposed to it several hours a night for several nights per week. They claimed a ban would both improve the long term health of operators and improve nightlife business because it would attract people who didn’t smoke into the environment to spend money. Groups that came out against the ban did not deny the health benefits, but they did argue that there would be economic and social effects that the law did not take into account. They also claimed that there would be increased friction from the community because of the noise generated from patrons standing outside to smoke from 5 PM to 4 AM.

The Sound of Smoking

Some people think that a few people standing outside a venue will not substantially increase the level of street noise. But that concept only considers the smokers themselves. They don’t see that smokers, especially female smokers, provide a powerful incentive for groups of fanatics to hang out in front of a club, especially the ones who didn’t get into or got thrown out. In a twisted effort to get noticed and prove their superiority, these individuals will shout, get into fights, honk their horns if they are in their cars, or try to talk to girls from their cars and back up traffic behind them which causes other cars to blow their horns. This sad mating ritual cacophony will die down when the girls finish smoking and go back inside, but it will begin again when the next group of girls comes out of the club to take their place.

The relationship between street noise and smoking outside should not have come as a surprise to anyone involved in the development of the smoking ban since the NYNA informed city that the smoking ban would lead to noise complaints. But when operators requested the ability to hire Paid Detail officers to deal with the inevitable noise the result was the worst of all options. The smoking ban was put in place and the request for Paid Detail was rejected, allowing the smoking ban to become a major contributor of street noise. When street noise increases, 311 complaints from local residents increase. When complaints increase, local community boards can use those complaints to have a venue’s liquor license revoked. Without a liquor license, a bar or a club can’t compete in the market and is forced to close. There is a direct relationship between the smoking ban and the increase in noise complaints against clubs. As the ban enters its 6th year operators need to find a way to keep patrons healthy and stay opened.

Coping Strategies

Different venues use different tactics to deal with the ban. Any venue that has been built or renovated since 2003 could factor the law into their design. The ones that could afford it added heated courtyard lounges like Cielo, rooftop access like Above Allen or fire escape access like APT to give smokers access to the open air without putting them out on the street. Venues that don’t have that option rope off areas in front of the venue to separate the smokers who already made it past the velvet rope from the throngs still trying to get inside.

There are also growing instances of venues that do not rope off areas out front, or create special sections for them. Some operators have come to the conclusion openly or privately that it is easier and more cost effective to simply break the law. Smoking in clubs reported to be on the rise in New York City, either because enforcement has dropped off, or because the fines are low enough that paying them costs less than complying with the law or getting noise complaints. While this minority of operators might not openly reject the law, they have come to the conclusion that the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of erecting smoking areas or subjecting their liquor licenses to revocation based on noise complaints from smokers standing outside. Some solutions have worked better than others, but one thing the clubs won’t do is discourage smoking by their clientele since by some operator estimates, smokers account for 40% of patrons.

A More Viable Solution

There is an alternative that protects the health of patrons and operators, keeps noise levels down outside of venues and allows patrons to smoke all at the same time. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals to clean the air. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier and one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60% of the people are smoking inside. The NYNA proposed that if a venue was primarily a bar, lounge or club and not a restaurant then they could have one filter installed for every 1,250 square feet of interior space and become exempt from the ban. This request was not included in the final version of the law.

The best options available for the industry are to continue to lobby officials on the state or and local level that patrons can smoke inside without health risks, through the use of technology like filtration units. They can also try and work with local community leaders and law enforcement to gain the power to control or reduce noise outside the venues through Paid Detail. Finally, they could work to sever the links between street noise and liquor licenses so that loud patrons don’t lead to closed venues. Whatever tactic operators decide to use they need to insure that the smoking ban isn’t harmful to nightlife health.

Have fun.
Gamal

Are Police the New Health Inspectors or Tax Collectors?

By Gamal Hennessy

Imagine this. You’re sitting in your favorite bar nursing a drink and wondering how you’re going to convince the waitress to give you her phone number. Without warning three cops walk in, push behind the bar and start poking around with their flashlights, making everyone in the room very nervous. As you gather up your belongings and discreetly make your way towards the door, would you assume that this was a raid? Would you guess that the cops were looking for drugs, guns or child pornography? Would you believe they were looking for fruit flies?

Fruit flies are drawn to alcoholic beverages and bar owners are required by the state law to keep them out of liquor bottles as a matter of public health. As part of the routine inspections by the Department of Health (DOH) bars are inspected for fruit flies and any venue that has fruit flies on or in the bottles is subject to a fine that could run between $700 and $1,000 per infested bottle. This is a normal part of the nightlife business and isn’t really a cause of concern among operators. The problem arises in the way the law has recently been enforced. Even if you are a nightlife native who frequents various venues, you have probably never seen a DOH inspection taking place. That’s because inspectors keep a relatively low profile while conducting their business. Patrons usually have no idea what is going on and they don’t have to. But there have been reports of layoffs at the DOH, which could mean fewer inspectors. But inspections still need to be conducted, especially since every violation can lead to fines that cash strapped city and state governments are desperately looking for. So somehow the DOH has been replaced with the NYPD who is anything but low profile when they come into the bar.

One operator commented on the climate that the NYPD creates; “By sending a uniformed officers from the NYPD behind your bar with a flashlight looking for fruit flies and whatever else they can find at the height of your business hours creates a stressful situation for you and your customers. It looks like a crime was committed in your place and they are looking for evidence. It gets people talking about your establishment in ways you don't want.”

Bar and lounge owners in various parts of the city have described this scenario happening in their bars with increasing frequency. Some operators think that the NYPD has been given a mandate to perform random inspections as a way to “find” violations and provide the city and the state with much needed revenue. Various operators have voiced opinions about the situation: “What they are thinking is that they are going to get funds for a broke state and city no matter what the consequences. No thought is given to the outcome except that those cops better come back with some violations. With cops conducting their random inspections, we are at the whim of whoever is giving these cops the orders to do these. It is much more invasive and detrimental to our businesses. “I don't think this has anything to with revenge against a particular venue. All bars are suffering this treatment. This has more to do with the city's need to collect more revenue in the shape of fines and the fact that they've laid off a number of health inspectors.”

So instead of increasing state revenue by working with the nightlife industry, local government is trying to increase state revenue by intimidating and attacking it, using the police as its instrument. We have pointed out in previous articles that ending the backlog in liquor license applications and increasing the number of venues would actually increase state revenue significantly. And as dangerous as fruit flies are to public health, the police are probably better utilized deterring and preventing crime outside of venues instead of poking around behind the bar looking for bugs. We know that the state wants to use liquor consumption as cash cow and nightlife is an economic resource that the city can use for its benefit, but only if it takes more of a cooperative stance instead of being antagonistic.

Unfortunately, some operators don’t see things getting better because they don't feel the lobbying efforts are strong enough to support their position. “With all due respect to our lobbying groups, I really don't think they have the stomach for this kind of fight. We are just going to have to put up with this intrusive behavior by our government and keep our bars as clean as possible.”

So if you see a couple of cops climb behind your favorite bar, it might not be a raid. It might just be an abusive health inspection.

Have fun.

Gamal

So Where Are the Cops?

By Gamal Hennessy

Several people were stabbed over the weekend outside a TriBeCa club. The violence that occurred is the latest incident involving this venue and is sure to be used as an example of out of control nightlife here in the city. Unfortunately, incidents like this might be inevitable given the current position of the New York Police Department. Until nightlife venues are given the same police protection as other venues, violence will be a part of the nightlife experience.

Deco has several aspects to it that make it a less than ideal example of a New York venue. According to Matthew Chayes of New York Newsday, Deco has been operating without a liquor license since January 3, 2009 and it was the scene of two shootings in 2007. On Saturday night, two people were allegedly slashed with razor blades by Mario Olmedo. Later that same evening there was a report that three more people were attacked with blades outside the same venue.

Newsday wasn’t able to contact the operators of Deco for a statement, but the ripples are already being felt in the industry. Operators who were planning to move the Flatiron performance space Cutting Room to TriBeCa withdrew his scheduled appearance before the community board yesterday because he didn’t want the backlash from Deco to influence the decision on his liquor license.

It is an unfortunate fact of nightlife that fanatics and amateurs get most of the attention when it comes to news stories about nightlife. Very few pages are written about the tens of thousands of patrons who go out, have a good time and get home safely without slicing each other up in the street. It is objectionable that these incidents occur in spite of the fact that nightlife advocates have repeatedly requested the ability to have uniformed police officers patrolling the streets near venues during peak hours. One of the major points that came out of the Nightlife Summit of 2006 was a specific request by the New York Nightlife Association to have paid police patrols outside clubs to enforce laws that club security can’t enforce outside the venue. This request was, and continues to be rejected by the NYPD because it could potentially breed “corruption between the club owners and the cops.”

Serious violence is rare in nightlife, but as long as there are fanatics out there, the potential for violence exists. But while the NYPD protects itself from potential corruption, operators are held responsible for violence that they do not have the authority to control. They suffer the wrath of the irate community board members looking for any reason to shut down our venues. We as patrons are left to fend for ourselves among the fanatics when we go out, creating a situation where some of us will have to go to the hospital when our night is over.

Have fun.
G

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.

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.

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.

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.