For those of you who weren’t at tonight’s City Council meeting and/or are new to what’s going on with the Mayor’s Attack on NIghtlife, let me give you a brief summary of what’s going on.

Following the grand Seattle tradition of using a few complaints from a few people about a few clubs as an excuse to go on the offensive against those dens of inequity known as bars and nightclubs, Seattle Mayor Carry Nation Greg Nickels proposed two pieces of ridiculous, unfair legislation aimed at requiring business establishments that meet his definition of a “nightlife” premise to be burdened by having to take on another regulatory license that would force them to agree to serve as de facto police for the areas around their establishments.

The City Council took a look at the Mayor’s unreasonable proposals and had the thought that the best way to strike back at the Mayor’s draconian demands was to write their own even MORE draconian legislation. Well, I guess that makes sense in “Boy, we sure don’t want to be re-elected!” land but out in the real world there are some problems with their idea that bar owners be held accountable for all the sins of the city, chief of which are this: there are already laws in place right now that address the issues of noise, littering, vandalism and violence. There just doesn’t seem anyone intent on enforcing them. Skylark Cafe owner Jessie Summa-Kusiak testified before the committee that the one time she’s needed to call the police to her establishment in the past year she was told, “Call back tomorrow, we’re busy.” She, like other bar & nightclub owners, servers, and concerned citizens pointed out that the owners and employees of bars, unlike the police, are not armed and do not have the authority of the law behind them. How can anyone expect a cocktail server or bar back to enforce the law in place of the police? John Masters, the owner of Jules Mae, reiterated this point, reminding the packed meeting room that his only authority is symbolic–he has the power to refuse service, a power he invoked to the delight of the audience by pre-emptively 86ing Mayor Nickels from all of his businesses.

Bars aren’t just expected to police their own establishments, either–they’re to be held accountable for all crime within 50 feet of their place of business. You know what that means, right? If not, let me spell it out for you: You own a nightclub. I run a crack den right next to you. When my mentally and emotionally impaired clientele spill out on the street wreaking havoc on the city’s streets, well, I’m not going to do anything about it. Why should I? I’m already a criminal. You, on the other hand, as a legitimate business person who has already jumped through the extremely narrow hoops held out by the Washington State Liquor Control Board, you are now responsible for what my clients do simply because they are within 50 feet of your front door. Yeah, that’s fair.

As what repeatedly pointed out throughout the meeting, Seattle already has laws on the books that address noise issues, littering and other crimes. Could some of these laws use improvement? Sure–the noise complaint regulations are cumbersome and subject to the whims of the responding police officer (for whom noise complaints are always a low priority issue); writing an objective standard based on measurable decibles is a good idea. Several club owners agreed that, yes, club owners should be responsible for clearing off the litter around their businesses. Heck, all businesses should be responsible for clearing off the litter around their businesses. It’s true that quite a few speakers responded to the residents of noisy neighborhoods with “why don’t you move?” but the majority of people there were sympathetic to the idea that no one wants to be surrounded by crime. Punishing bar and nightclub owners isn’t the solution, though.

(More behind the jump)

What is the solution? Let me summarize tonight’s testimony, as given by a variety of speakers:

Nightclub owners: We need more police.
Bar patrons: We need more police.
Condo association members: We need more police.
Residents of noisy neighborhoods: We need more police.
Local (non-nightlife) business owners: We need more police.
Concerned citizens: We need more police.

Whatever other suggestions were raised–and there were some good ones, including improved transit, better taxi stands in club-intensive neighborhoods, flexible closing hours to avoid the “two o’clock dump”, training bouncers in problem management technique, creating opportunities for nightclub owners and neighborhood residents to meet to solve their mutual issues–the entire meeting could be simply summarized as this: What’s the point of making new laws to solve problems that could be addressed under current laws but aren’t? As noted local attorney David Osgood pointed out, “We have laws. We don’t have the policing model we need in this town.” Police shouldn’t simply drive by in their cruisers, he said, they should be out walking beats. People who misbehave need to be held accountable for their behavior. Rather than focus on this unworkable new license-the city couldn’t enforce the 50 foot rule anyway, he says, as it violates due process–what we need is the civic will to enforce the laws we have in place now.