Repeal the TDO
Here's a weird thing: Greg "I'm going to make more changes in [my] first week in office than Paul Schell made in his entire term" Nickels isn't moving on the Teen Dance Ordinance repeal because the TDO's biggest detractor--JAMPAC--is asking Nickels to hold off. Come again? Here's the deal: The music-industry lobbyists at JAMPAC want Nickels to wait until its lawsuit against the TDO scores a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik. JAMPAC activists are hoping Judge Lasnik will declare the TDO unconstitutional ["I Was a Teenage Lawsuit," Josh Feit, Jan 31]. If Nickels tosses out the TDO before Lasnik issues a decision, JAMPAC worries, its lawsuit will become moot.
JAMPAC thinks a successful court ruling would accomplish two things. First, a favorable ruling could give JAMPAC legal muscle to take on annoying ordinances in other cities. Second, JAMPAC thinks a favorable court precedent would send a message to the Seattle City Council saying that any sort of teen dance permitting process, like Richard Conlin's proposed All Ages Dance Ordinance, is a no-no. (Weirdly, JAMPAC activists toasted Conlin's AADO over drinks at Linda's when the AADO briefly replaced the TDO in August 2000 before Schell vetoed the idea.) JAMPAC should note, however, that a court ruling against the TDO doesn't guarantee that more lenient legislation like Conlin's AADO would also be found unconstitutional.
More important, and more to the point of my recent rants, Nickels' JAMPAC position is intellectually dishonest. If Nickels wants a judge to throw out the TDO, then it follows that Nickels is against the TDO. Well, he's the mayor. If he's really against the TDO--like he told us last December when he was running for mayor--he should ask the council, not a judge, to repeal the damn thing. Why leave it up to a judge? Why force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for court costs?
By leaving the TDO repeal in the hands of the courts, Nickels is setting a discouraging precedent of his own (let's call it the Nickels precedent). Nickels is saying that the citizens of Seattle should rely on the courts to get stuff done rather than relying on the leaders they elected to get stuff done.
Because Nickels is leaving the TDO up to the courts, I can't help but believe he's using JAMPAC as political cover--and that he's not truly willing to take on the TDO himself. Otherwise, Nickels should take his JAMPAC position to its logical conclusion: If he thinks the goddamn TDO is unconstitutional, he should put legislation before the council calling for an outright repeal of the goddamn unconstitutional TDO. That would be setting a bold (and rare) precedent for the mayor's office in Seattle: leadership.
