Here is the most perplexing question in all of local Seattle politics, exceeding in oddness even queries like "How come nobody can decide what to do with the Alaskan Way viaduct?" and "Why do we have 643 different agencies running public transit?"
It is this: Why does Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels despise nightclubs?
Once Hizzonner's war on nightlife was declared, of course, it's easy to see why local media has played right along. TV news feeds on crime and on its viewers' fear of crime and on its viewers' fear of hundreds of intoxicated Negroes milling around the Wrong Neighborhoods at 2 a.m. on a Saturday and the Bad Things that can sometimes happen.
Newspaper editorial boards are naturally inclined to fear and loathe businesses that sell alcohol over a counter, when none of the editorial boards' members have set foot in such a place since roughly the end of Prohibition. And if TV plays on fear, ignorance and racism, radio talk show hosts roll in it and smear it on the walls.
But the mayor is supposed to balance the interests of all of the city's citizens and businesspeople - not merely pander to the lowest common denominator.
Maybe it's because Greg Nickels is from Chicago. He'd rather have illegal speakeasies in the back of smoke-filled pool halls. (The smoke, of course, coming from tobacco-scented incense, since actual smoking would be illegal.) He'd rather it all be off the books.
That's one way to explain the latest media stunt in Nickels' jihad, his release of the Five Very Worst, Ickiest Nightclubs in Seattle. The Axis of Trouble was decided on the basis of a new city standard called (seriously) LiquorStat, which is - how do we say this gently - flawed. It counts against establishments things like incidents of successfully carding underage, would-be drinkers, which is, um, exactly what such clubs are supposed to do. It counts incidents of unruly behavior outside the clubs, even if it's several doors away and involved nobody who ever set foot in the club - or people excluded from it, which, again, is what clubs are supposed to do.
And so you have Axis of Trouble members like the Last Supper Club, whose general manager, Darcy Hanson, in complaints echoed by other club operators, wrote to city council members that "...we have never had a liquor violation, firearm incident, or violent assault. We have consistently worked hand in hand with liquor control, police, and all other government offices to ensure a safe and law abiding operation ... during my tenure, there has never been any notice of my venue being a problem club ... It is highly unethical to use inaccurate data to slander these businesses to further an agenda."
What is that agenda? A proposed draconian nightclub ordinance that would essentially give the city the power to shut down any club at any time. For example, a club can be shut down if a patron - any patron out of the thousands who might walk through the doors - is found to have drugs or a weapon. (Short of strip and full-cavity searches at the door, it's an impossible requirement. Know how easy it is to hide a tablet of ecstasy? Prisons can't keep drugs or weapons out, for god's sake.)
Clubs would be responsible for policing the neighborhood around their business, too, not just the premises. Nickels' measure would create a new "nightclub license" that is so overbroad in its requirements that any licensee could be shut down at any time if the city dislikes it.
Who does this serve? Well, in crowded, new, condo-thick neighborhoods like Belltown, it serves developers. (There's a shock.) It serves new condo owners who want all the excitement of urban living without, you know, the excitement. A little piece of Woodinville in Pioneer Square. And it's no coincidence that many of the clubs Nickels has cited cater to hiphop audiences. Rowdy or not, can't have Them in so-called nice neighborhoods.
Fifteen years ago, urban dwellers used to sneer at these condo types: "Go back to Bellevue!" Now, it's the mayor and his friends doing the sneering: "Go back to Rainier Beach!"
This, ultimately, is the answer. Nickels doesn't hate nightclubs; just the people who patronize them. Are there occasionally problem clubs, bad apples, in our city? Sure, and that's what the police and the liquor board are for. But the liquor board yanks licenses based on whether clubs are abiding by the rules, not based on who their clientele and neighbors are. That's why Nickels wants the city to have a licensing hammer of his own to hold over club owners' heads. Think of it as a Teen Dance Ordinance for anyone who drinks.
So long as you don't actually drink - or dance, or like music, or have fun or have dark skin - you should be just fine.
Latte, anyone?
[[In-content Ad]]
