What the Mayor's New Nightlife Proposal is Missing

Comments

1
And we need to hear from the barbacks especially. Nobody realizes how attuned they are.
2
Discuss it in a bar?

Why do you hate Vera Place and music lovers who are under 21 so?
3
Close is right—the 20-35 crowd doesn't participate in civic process because too often it happens in subdued meeting rooms and school gymnasiums instead of in places people actually enjoy spending their precious free time—like bars.


Everything here was making a great point until this last part. The "20–35 crowd" is not a monolith, and nightlife is so much more than just bars. There are plenty of 20–35 year-olds who do participate (quite actively) in the civic political process and in local governance. There are plenty of 20–35 year-olds who have their nightlife in cafés, outdoors, teahouses, diners, bookstores, and so on — many of which don't involve bar closing hours.

If the 20–35 year-olds who stand to see an improvement with bar closing times are interested to comment, then is it really that hard to seek out where the civic participation meeting(s) will be? The bar owners could also post and advertise to their patrons on where the meetings will be held if they see this closing time reform being beneficial to their bottom lines.
4
The people in that photo look like they're really interested in a discussion right then and there, don't they.
5
I like how if you're over 35 and go to clubs your opinion doesn't matter either.
6
Richard Nordstrom is a C-R-A-Z-Y "activist" who just want his name in the paper. He has nothing to contribute to this conversation. Spend some time with him. Wowza. Nutball.
7
Why are we giving tourists a say in local policy?

Let them have their say where they live.
8
@4: Of course it doesn't. At 36, people must stop everything they were doing as late as age 35. It's the (c)law. No wonder they're so grumpy.

Also, since when do 20-year-olds in the U.S. legally give patronage to venues where there are bar-closing times?
9
@7 has a good point. The only people that should matter are CITIZENS of SEATTLE.

Everyone else can go take a flying leap into the acidic Sound.

There are pubs and other establisments that can have both drinking and non-drinking areas:

Red Door or Norm's for example.

Don't you have any in the rest of the city?
10
20-35 wasn't a dig at anyone; that's the worst age range as far as voting records and civic involvement goes (I cut out the under 21 crowd since they're not legally part of the bar scene), and its the age range I commonly hear when city officials plot about reaching the unreachable masses. I wasn't saying people over 35 don't go to bars and clubs, or that people under 35 don't participate in politics.
11
Extending light rail hours till past 1am would also solve the transportation issue.
12
...Light rail service north of Westlake Center would probably help, too.
13
@11 cool. can't wait until it gets to Fremont and Ballard in 2012 ... oh wait ...
14
i'm pretty sure ainsley is spelled with an -ey, not "ainslee." might want to make sure
15
What about White Center? When will the bars close there? They already open at 7am. I live nearby so I'd like to see them open 7am - 4am. Go home take a nap and then hit it up again. Also, I'm over 35.
16
Needs more titty bars.
17
Extending the last call hours is a great idea! It has worked in so many other cities! Not to mention it brings Seattle up a notch compared to all other major US cities! A major contributing factor to the "craziness" that comes around 2am is that ALL these drunk people are kicked out into the street at the same time... Then you have hundreds of drunk people driving on the roads, walking down the street... If people could leave the bars at their lesiure then this could reduce crime significantly!
18
It's missing any mention of the archaic law that considers bands and DJs employees of the club and bans them from drinking while they perform. In the case of bands, that means now booze on stage. In the case of DJs, it means they can't drink at all while they are spinning records. It's completely dumb, complained about a ton, yet wasn't even addressed. Boooo!

I wonder how clubs feel about the new licensing and added SPD security training, that seems like more stuff getting dumped on them.
19
These “problems” stem from one thing: intoxication, blood alcohol level. Let’s get real. If the WAC re: alcohol serving was enforced none of this would be an issue, absolutely NONE of it. Bars could be open or closed any time with no impact on their communities. Closing time would be a non-issue. Drunk driving would rarely exist. People would be able to leave an establishment without yelling, crying, relieving themselves in public or threatening to hit someone. Read the WAC for alcohol servers if you don’t believe me.

Everyone involved in this movement knows it. They also know that the Nightlife Industry is financially dependent on breaking the law, plain and simple. Without over-serving alcohol they cease to exist. Tips are the living wage for these places. The whole structure of drink prices and door charges depends on a fair number of patrons being served more than the law allows.

So club owners contribute to campaign funds and “new solutions” are pushed on unsuspecting voters. The police deal with the fallout. On top of the rest of their duties. Out of their paper thin budget. That's if this thing passes. It's also possible the mayor knows it won't, it can't, it's not in compliance with state laws, first of all. But he gets to look like he's fulfilled his campaign promise.

I think the reason may be that Mayor AND the Liquor Control Board don’t want us to look at the facts. Because they represent a dirty little secret. A law that’s not enforced and an industry built on deception.

Is a "vibrant nightlife" essential to Seattle? If it is, then let's put all Seattle's brilliant big brains together and come up with a solution that's celebrates our culture, respects rights equally AND gives artists and the service industry a way to earn a real living.