by Marvin J Ramirez
Marvin J. Ramirez
Just recently, San Francisco Mayor Newsom proposed what he called, a Nightclub Reform Legislation to address “the recent spate of violence outside nightclubs.
These are the three proposed ordinances the mayor would like to put in effect:
- The first ordinance would require promoters to obtain a permit before holding two or more events per calendar year, thus enabling the Police Department and other regulator agencies to know who is directly responsible for an event and hold them accountable for a security plan and any violations of health or safety rules.
- The second ordinance amends existing law to tighten the permitting process, and grants emergency powers to the Director of Entertainment Commission to suspend permits for a variety of safety and noise.
- The third ordinance clarifies the application requirements for Extended-Hours Premises Permits (premises which are open between 2-6 a.m.), requiring these premises to create security plans, which the Executive Director of the Commission must approve.
- The final ordinance makes it illegal to loiter within 10 feet of a club for more than 3 minutes. It only applies between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. and does not apply to people waiting for a bus or other activity. A person must be warned before they can be cited.
The mayor thinks that extending more police control over private promoters, loitering and violence is going to end. Mr. Mayor, can you have proof that the cause of the violence and loitering you are talking about is caused by nightclub promoters?
Yes, there is violence sometimes at nightclubs that sell alcohol, but you can’t or anyone law enforcement officer could testify under oath, that promoters are the cause of any of the charges you try to insinuate.
A promoter should not be responsible for what goes on outside a nightclub, neither should the city penalize a person who promotes one night every week at a nightclub.
To my opinion, this is just another intent to shorten people civil liberties of assembly. It imposes police control over civilians who otherwise don’t have a legal obligation to submit their private information to the police, and in this case on people who don’t hold the responsibility to run the nightclub. It’s just a way to of using an excuse to enter into people’s lives as in a police state.
This is no different from what the Bush administration has done to the people in the United States after the Sept. 11, – with the excuse of “protecting” the homeland – he has eroded the fundamentals of liberty and the right of individuals to privacy with the infamous Patriot Act.
The Board of Supervisors should think it twice before going this far in voting for this ordinances. The promotership is a private contract between the owner of the nightclub and a private citizen. The state should be out of private contracts, since the owner already has a contract with the state and the police via their operating licenses.
The nightclub owner is the one responsible for running the club and keeping the necessary security to protect the patrons. With promoter or no promoter, the club has to meet the security needs in the establishment where alcohol is served, as required by state laws and local ordinances.
If this is the type of governorship you’re proposing if you become governor, thanks but no thanks. We don’t need a governor who is doing to expand the existing police powers over civilians.
