PDA

View Full Version : my review of the Cabaret Law hearing....



D J 1 3 8
06-25-2003, 08:26 AM
So I got out of work around 7:00 and went straight down there. I missed the entire day, which had consisted of depositions of a sort from several club, bar, and record store owners as well as some politicians and some community board leaders. Maybe if someone else witnessed this they could fill me in.

In short, The good news is: The city is ready to change the cabaret laws and they fully admit that all of the problems associated with nightclubs have nothing whatsoever to do with dancing per se.

The bad news is: Almost none of the 100 or so citizens that were there seemed to understand that fact, or the real purpose for holding the hearing in the first place, which was essentially "We (the DCA, the department of consumer affairs) know the law is wrong and it will change, so how do we move forward and address the concerns of community boards and the like."

I'm telling you, most people just didn't GET it. It was really frustrating (and embarassing) to listen to.

Citizens could sign up for 2 minutes on the mic and speak to representatives from the DCA.

The majority of testimonials broke down in to these 3 categories:

1) Club heads/promoters/DJs/dancers declaring something along the lines of "I was born to dance, man, it's what I DO, man" and "dancing is older than language, man, how can you make that illegal, it's insanity, blah blah blah"

2) Club promoters/DJs/photographers etc declaring that NYC has fallen from it's peak as the cultural capital of the world and that clubs generate X amount of dollars for the city.

3) Hoop-skirted swing dancers declaring "you don't understand...I'm a SWING dancer, man, we're not part of the problem! We're not the roudy clubkids you should be harrassing!" (I wanted to SLAP these people)

These are all valid points, mind you, but they had already been accepted as facts by the DCA. Thus, they were a complete waste of time. One of the DCA officials even stoppped the citizens halfway through and said "Look, you're free to say whatever you want, but you're preaching to the choir here. We understand all this. We're holding this forum to ocme up with solutions for the future." Yet, the same 3 complaints continued and continued. Many people seemed to have no clear agenda whatsoever and started going off on tangents about how they write graffiti or whatever. It was silly, to say the least.

Not to toot my own horn, but I do believe I was one of the few people who spoke who had anything constructive to say. The point I made is that there are was already existing laws on the books to address every single concern that people have about nightclubs. There are fire codes. There are certificates of occupancy. There are noise restrictions. There are laws that govern crowds on the street such as loitering, public urination, loud traffic jams, flyer distributors littering the sidewalks, disorderly conduct. etc. All of those issues have NOTHING to do with dancing and DCA has admitted this. Therefore, the police just need to ENFORCE those laws already on the books and hold clubs accountable and leave the dancers out of it entirely. I think this was a valid point. I even pointed out that cops could be generating a lot of money for the city by being out on the streets at night ticketing peolpe for violating all of those laws.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Why every single promoter and DJ in the city didn't attend this hearing is another story and a testament to our lack of organization and willingness to do nothing about the issues that concern us the most. I recognized almost nobody in the audience. This saddens me, but whatever. For the record, I wasn't there earlier in the day and maybe every promoter and DJ WAS there then. I don't know.

I unfortunately have a lot of real work to do today so I may not be able to comment further for awhile. Nevertheless, it seems as though the law will change, but the DCA is still looking for some kind of new licensing system to impose on clubs, which I really don't see the need for.

[ June 25, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: DJ 138 ]

drilla
06-25-2003, 08:29 AM
good for you julian.

and thanks bro...for real.

Leslie
06-25-2003, 08:55 AM
My comments. I was not at the hearing long at all due to my need to get home and address the mess that is my home.

I sat with Lil Ray and finally got to meet the man, the myth, the legend - David Mancuso.


I only heard the representatives from CB4M (Community Board 4 - Manhattan) which encompasses parts of the West side in the 9,10,11th Ave areas and around the 20's and upper teens I believe.
Mind you the elected officials (Councilpersons Alan Gerson, Leroy Comrie, Eric Gioia, & Christine Quinn (the last 2 were unconfirmed))were not present due to "working on the budget".
Anthony Borrelli & another woman were there to represent CB4M. They were asked to give examples of clubs within their "jurisdiction" that served as examples of "good neighbors". Essentially they gave the example of The Roxy as being relatively well managed and concerned with the neighborhood. (for those of us who know the area that the Roxy sits in - is this assessment no surprise?).
The complaints CB4M had were with quality of life - noise and "drunken patrons" leaving the premises. BUT, they did indicate that they get more complaints from very small venues (i.e. bars, lounges) that are not managed well than from the larger places. They were also concerned about the amount of traffic these venues attract and how people are parking blocks away and walking to the venues. The woman kept describing all the patrons of these establishments as being "drunk", which I found a bit disturbing. She also suggested zoning a designated area of the city and making it a "nightclub ghetto" (direct quote!). There are issues of the venues having paperthin walls and ceilings, attracting too much auto traffic and congesting the roads (example given the traffic that builds up around the Hudson Hotel), and they feel as though the area they live in is over saturated with clubs, bars, lounges, etc.

There was also issue about when new venues are applying for liquor licenses when they present their plans to the community board they always include the desire that down the road there will be an application for a cabaret license. However, the board has a problem with the fact that although the owners presented up front the desire to eventually apply for the cabaret license, the business plans they show DO NOT include the necessary adjustments that would be needed to have the cabaret license in the future and are never made because they feel that the owners are of the mindset that we all ready have a liquor license then you should just give us the cabaret license with no problem.

In my opinion - this is an outgrowth of the city redesignating too many areas in the city from commercial to residential. I also feel you have an over abundance of transplants who do not fully understand the fabric/history of the NYC and its clubs, bars, lounges, etc. They have moved into these lofts and converted wharehouse apartments and bought these overpriced pieces of real estate in areas that where once zoned exclusively commercial. Don't come to the city and expect your new neighborhood to be as quite as the Minnesota suburbs your ass grew up in! It's all Ruliani's fault - pandering to the real estate community and the money....just my opinion.

mdpm99
06-25-2003, 09:05 AM
Greetings:

Not sure if you read my post under "revamping" --
liL Ray, Leslie, and myself were there till 6:30 PM. I also saw and spoke to Kai who was in attendance.

I agree with you that there was very little if any of the "we the people" there, at least during the committee meetings.

As far as the "rent a cop" solution.....not necessarily a good idea. We might be solving one problem but create 10 others as a result. It should be the club's responsibility to be accountable to maintain order outside of the venue.

My respects to you for taking the time out to participate in this matter.

smile.gif

d

D J 1 3 8
06-25-2003, 09:52 AM
Some more issues that were raised:

A few people did bring up the fact that so many neighborhoods that were formerly zoned as industrial are now zoned as residential. The woman from the DCA seemed to acknowledge that this was a problem and that adjustments need to be made.

A few peopple did also try to make the point that clubs shouldn't be held accountable for all of the actions of their patrons once they have left the premises. The DCA seemed to acknowlkedge this and seek some kind of reform there as well.

While I missed all of the daytime, I would not agree that it was a sham from what I witnessed. The DCA seems really ready to change the law and shift the focus away from dancing, which is great. The fact that they feel the need for more red-tape of some kind is unfortunate, yet I think I now understand why: One thing that came up a couple of times was that the city can only FINE clubs for violations such as noise and unruly crowds and whatnot. It can't CLOSE them for such violations. The city can only padlock clubs when they are in violation of some kind of license. So the implication was that the cabaret law has been used so much because it is the only means that the city has to CLOSE clubs that don't comply or adress the concerns of their neighbors. This seems to be the underlying motivation for their desire to invent a new licensing system.

Unfortunately, clubs are also partly to blame for the current situation. Clubs CAN control what goes on in front of their space. Clubs CAN sound-proof. They often choose not to, preferring to just make as much money as they can before they get closed. LIFE was like this when I worked there. They were just waiting for the axe to drop and trying to cram in as many events before they got padlocked and/or Steve Lewis went to jail. Both things eventually came to pass.

And for the record, from my memory, the zealous enforcing of the cabaret law began under the Dinkins administration in the late 80s. Giuliani simply turned up the heat.

[ June 25, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: DJ 138 ]

mdpm99
06-25-2003, 10:09 AM
Greetings:

The "sham" was in reference to the committee meetings.

The Marriote (spel) Restaurant Associates for example were on the committees. Also some of the "larger" club reps.

They all have cabaret licencses.....which are renewable every 2 years by the people that are asking them the questions (DCA). Get me drift?

I once got involved (at the beginning of the Adolph Gulliani era) where DCA gave me a ticket.
1995 - I went to the hearing with my attorney and 5 credible witnesses. I had an excellent case. The hearing officer worked for the DCA. I lost the case. I decided not to appeal it.

I think if you were there earlier for the committee meetings you might see my point.

d

Leslie
06-25-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by DJ 138:

And for the record, from my memory, the zealous enforcing of the cabaret law began under the Dinkins administration in the late 80s. Giuliani simply turned up the heat. You may be correct, but that was due to the Happyland Social Club tragedy.

D J 1 3 8
06-25-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by david mancuso:
I think if you were there earlier for the committee meetings you might see my point.

d Understood. I was not trying to discount your comments, just trying to make my own observations.

I too want to thank you and Leslie and Ray and Kai for showing up. I was actually hoping to finally meet you David, as I have been painfully unavailbale for all of your recent Loft parties. In due time, bro.

mdpm99
06-25-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Leslie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DJ 138:

And for the record, from my memory, the zealous enforcing of the cabaret law began under the Dinkins administration in the late 80s. Giuliani simply turned up the heat. You may be correct, but that was due to the Happyland Social Club tragedy. </font>[/QUOTE]Greetings:

Very true re: Happyland.

There also was a situation with a place called "Blue" something ???? Early 70's I believe, whereas there was an electrical fire with a loss of lives. The city was sued and was held responsible based on that the buildings dept/electical div. should have pick up on the faulty wiring when doing their inspections. It was a huge law suit in the millions.

d

It was great meeting you yesterday...thank you!

mdpm99
06-25-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by DJ 138:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
I think if you were there earlier for the committee meetings you might see my point.

d Understood. I was not trying to discount your comments, just trying to make my own observations.

I too want to thank you and Leslie and Ray and Kai for showing up. I was actually hoping to finally meet you David, as I have been painfully unavailbale for all of your recent Loft parties. In due time, bro. </font>[/QUOTE]graemlins/beerchug.gif

d

Jolyon
06-25-2003, 10:25 AM
David - check your PM./

smile.gif

Leslie
06-25-2003, 10:56 AM
David it was a pleasure meeting you also.

mdpm99
06-25-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Leslie:
David it was a pleasure meeting you also. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

d