Seattle to Remain Famous for Coffee and Rain
Thanksgiving Pairing Suggestion: Dessert Isn't Just a Meal
Eight Things A Seattle Sports Fan Can Be Thankful For
Seattlest Pix 09Nov25
Can't Miss It: Thanksgiving Eve
We're bringing it up because Seattle Times brought it up.
Here's why we hate the idea of making clubs get licensed in order to be clubs: If we happen to have some huge influx of new citizens, you can bet the majority of them aren't coming here simply because they want to sit in a cubicle for nine hours and return home to their ever-tinier condo so they can watch TV. Where people work, they also want to be able to unwind. Your average Jane and Joe want to head to the corner pub for a beer after work, maybe stick around for live music.
Don't get us wrong, we don't think any local official would be stupid enough to want to take away our God-given right to happy hour and live music. We just think the way they're going about looking out for the influx of new residents is all wrong. They're assuming the influx of new citizens will mostly include workaholic humorless yuppies with no desire of a social life.
Granted, we don't want to be kept up all hours of the night while the bar downstairs entertains its loud, drunk patrons. We do, however, think those patrons should have their pick of places to go to be loud and drunk until the wee hours. Furthermore, in terms of club-related crime, Seattlest is proud to say that, after living in cities with actual high crime rates like Buffalo, NY and New Orleans, there's not a lot of bar-lined streets here where we'd be afraid to walk by ourselves at midnight. In fact, we can't think of one.
Says the Times:
Jim Peters, president of the Responsible Hospitality Institute in Santa Cruz, Calif., which promotes discussions on nightlife policy, says Seattle is typical of many cities wrestling with the issue."Where I've seen success is where policymakers, clubs and police come together on an equal plane," Peters said. "Cities where there's this 'us versus them' approach often just have conflicts because there's not the respect of the people operating the businesses."
Before we think about tackling a huge crime wave that may come, before we start blaming clubs that offer relaxation, celebration and inebriation to people who have earned it, why don't we consider the fact that Seattle is still a fairly safe city? The rash of shootings that have taken place have not, for the most part, been randomly executed crimes. If there start to be drive-bys on 2nd Ave or in the area of 11th and Pike, then we'll start worrying. Even then, though, it won't be the fault of Shorty's, the Croc, the Wildrose or Purr.
We think there are laws preventing crime already, and we think people who have a vendetta against someone can just as well get drunk in their own home before setting out to shoot them, as they can at some bar. If the city is seeking to cut down on noise pollution and violent crime, the way to do it is not by increasing the red tape that discourages more clubs from opening to serve the growing populace. The way to do it is by better sound-proofing music venues, setting a noise limit like Austin has done, and making sure law enforcement is readily available when necessary.
Photo courtesy of the Seattlest Flickr pool
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
You know, it's funny--this issue of noise outside bars and clubs explodes once cities ban smoking. Unfortunately here in this state, the state law has it's stupid 25-foot rule. Now, I'm not trying to thrust smokers in everyone's way again, but technically, virtually no bar or club in Seattle has an outdoor space on its property that meets that requirement, meaning that they could be fined if they allow people to smoke on their patio or deck. The result is that drinkers are constantly leaving the bar where bar owners and bouncers have control over them to go smoke--this seems directly correlated to complaints of fighting, litter, and yelling at late hours. If the city was given the right to pass exceptions to the 25-foot rule in order to allow smoking on outdoor areas on bar premises, we wouldn't be having the same discussion we are, where the mayor wants bouncers and bar keeps to police the streets.
An additional idea would be to close later. While the jury's still out, a lot of people (and this comes up not only here but in Britain, where the government is struggling with drunken hooliganism on a wide scale) believe that closing later or leaving closing up to the establishment such as in cities like New York helps address the problem. The reason is two-fold: First, large amounts of the loud Friday and Saturday night crowds show up after ten and race to drink as much as possible before 1:30 last call. The argument is that this encourages drunkeness, whereas the elimination of last call until a point so late that most people would have left of their own accord doesn't race people's alcohol consumption. Second, when people can drink more or less as late as they want, most will drift away of their own accord at various times, thus eliminating the explosive effect of dumping hundreds of drunken revellers on the street at the same time, as happens around two in Fremont or Belltown or along Pike/Pine.