Civil-liberties advocates are hot and bothered over efforts by Mayor Greg Nickels to create a new license on nightclubs, which currently operate under the same regulations as regular bars. According to a memo from the mayor's office, the new recommendations will likely include some form of new license for establishments that offer "singing, music, dancing, or other similar entertainment"—any place, in other words, that has both entertainment and booze.

The new rules, though still vague, already sound alarmingly familiar to civil-liberties advocates who spent years fighting the so-called "added activities" ordinance, which required club owners to obtain a license for live music or dancing. The ordinance was overturned in 1999 as an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech—a problem the new ordinance appears to get around by licensing nightclubs themselves, rather than entertainment—a constitutionally protected activity. David Osgood, the attorney who fought the added-activities law in the '90s, says the new ordinance would have the result of "restricting entertainment," making it exactly the same, in terms of effect, as the added-activities law.

Jordan Royer, the mayoral staffer charged with crafting the new nightclub regulations (which will undergo a nominal approval by the city's nightlife task force in the next few months) did not return multiple calls for comment. But task force co-chair Brett Allen confirms that Royer did recommend "some form of licensing," adding, "What was disappointing was that the mayor's office was supposed to be balancing the regulation of nightlife with some sort of assistance program" for clubs; instead, he says, "all we've seen is the regulation part."

Figuring out how to help out clubs may not be at the top of the mayor's agenda, but promoting his $4-billion-plus waterfront tunnel is, if a glossy color brochure (estimated by mayoral spokeswoman Marianne Bichsel to have cost between $1,200 and $1,500) is any indication. The four-page pamphlet, which echoes an earlier Nickels propaganda piece titled "Myths of a Big Ugly 'Rebuild,'" was being passed around by Nickels staffers at a recent Transportation Choices Coalition forum on the viaduct. (Characteristically histrionic line: "We can't make the mistake of building another elevated structure on our waterfront.") The mayor will have to shut down the PR machine if the viaduct goes on the November ballot, at which point Nickels's practice of campaigning on city time will become... well, campaigning on city time.

That moment, according to council transportation chair Jan Drago, won't come until at least September, when the city's expert panel on the viaduct releases its recommendations on the three competing viaduct proposals. One option that likely won't be on the ballot, at least according to Drago, is the surface/transit alternative, which would replace most of the viaduct's capacity with a surface roadway, plus transit and improvements to surface streets downtown. But wait: The council just agreed to spend $15,000 studying the surface/transit alternative! True, but the entire council has also already signed off—unanimously—on its "preferred" option: the tunnel. recommended

barnett@thestranger.com