Despite strong words of opposition from Mayor Dan Wolk and Councilmember Lucas Frerichs, a divided council, on a 3-2 vote, approved an exemption that will allow Blondies to move forward after imposing 32 conditions on their establishment – but making modifications to several that will allow for live musical entertainment and allow them to serve alcohol until 1 am (as opposed to the proposed 11 pm time).
Jason Ojeda, marketing director for Blondies, gave a presentation which offered a number of conditions, whereby they promised to adhere to noise regulations, join the business community and practice certain protocols for security.
However, Assistant Chief Darren Pytel told the council that the city has additional conditions that they would like to impose if the council is interested in granting an exemption. These conditions originally included a prohibition against live entertainment of any type, and an 11 pm curfew on the sale of alcohol – with a 10 pm added curfew during special events and holidays like Picnic Day.
The conditions also include a provision that, after 10 pm, “patrons will be subject to security screening and bag inspections. Licensee’s security will use metal detection wands and conduct pat-downs and bag searches for weapons and/or alcohol. Licensee will not allow patrons with alcohol and/or weapons to enter or remain on the premises.”
The question arose as to whether these conditions were intended to be permanent, or were only to be in effect as the city sorted out the permanent changes to the downtown that would affect all existing establishments.
City Attorney Harriet Steiner responded, “It is our intent that whatever council does with respect to the hardship exemption these would be interim conditions which could be modified by council later on.”
Mike Webb added that these were a summary of the suggested conditions that “could be considered for interim conditions.”
During public comment a number of the stakeholders involved with Blondies and the property management clarified their position and made it clear that, while Blondies has a reputation in Vacaville, “Davis is not Vacaville,” and that what goes in Vacaville will not fly in Davis.
Preston Morgan, representing the applicant, told the council that, without the exemption, Blondie stands to lose a substantial sum already invested in the project. He said, “Let me clear, be abundantly clear. Blondies will agree to comply with any new ordinances and regulations.”
He continued, “John Russell, the owner, is here to sign anything to that effect.” However, he added, “He makes one small request for signing on the dotted line, and that’s that the regulation or the ordinance in question be evenly applied to all similar establishments. Really this is a matter of equal and fair treatment more than anything else.”
Jason Taormino, on behalf of the Davis Chamber, read a statement, “The Davis Chamber of Commerce supports the planning and permitting for the new and existing businesses which support the economic vitality of the city of Davis. We’ve been apprised of the recent moratorium which will have a direct impact on businesses that have an existing application in process.”
He said, “While we’re sensitive to the issues at hand, the Chamber of Commerce encourages the city council to keep the process in motion and avoid stalling the existing applications.”
An operations manager of an adjacent business, Cork It Again, noted that the building has been sitting vacant for over a year. “It looks horrible,” he said, noting that homeless people were sleeping in the alleyway. “It’s getting rundown, it seems, weekly almost. I just don’t see the point of restricting any business that’s actually looking at that spot to come and make it look a lot nicer and make the whole downtown look way better.”
One member of the Noda family, who owns the property, said, “There’s been a lot of misperception about Blondies coming to Davis as far as there’s Blondies in Vacaville. They have a reputation of maybe having wet t-shirt contests (and) lingerie things going on there.”
He said he spoke to the owner to tell him “what Davis is like and Davis will not tolerate anything like that. So when they do come to Davis, you’ll see none of that.”
Property owner Donna Noda, a Davis resident, added, “(The owners) have learned as well, they have learned that Davis is not Vacaville. They have learned that we, the citizens, are fully engaged in our communities.”
Owner John Russell added, “All that I ask is that I be allowed to operate under the same conditions as everybody else in a fair playing field. I would do the best I could to uphold everything.”
The question then became whether this would be enough to convince three members of the city council to grant the exemption.
Mike Webb was asked to lay out the timeline for permanent regulations. He said that they would come forward with a range of options as expeditiously as possible – within the next couple of months. He noted that the moratorium is set to expire in November.
He apologized for not having a completely definitive answer, but stated this process would be two to three months, not six months to a year.
Councilmember Brett Lee stated that he wanted whatever they come up with to be “mandatory not suggestive.” He noted that, with regard to Picnic Day, “We have a Picnic Day covenant and we ask for the businesses to serve alcohol, we ask them for a very minor community-minded gesture which is not to serve alcohol before 11 am and each Picnic Day I’m surprised and very disappointed to see a number of what we would consider reputable businesses refusing to even make that very modest step.”
He said, “I would be willing to approve their hardship request with some conditions.” He thought the wanding, while unusual for Davis, was reasonable and sent a strong message to all in the community. He also supported the idea that on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, “the guard presence is substantially enhanced.”
Councilmember Lee said he was supportive of reduced hours, but “11 pm seems a little early, midnight might seem a little early, I think in the interim, 1 am seems reasonable.”
The applicant made it clear that it was not okay with two of the provisions – the one prohibiting live entertainment and the early closing hours.
Councilmember Lee responded, “I really doubt that we’re going to eliminate all live entertainment at restaurants and bars. I find it hard to believe that the council would do that.”
Mayor Dan Wolk said, “It would seem irrational to me that we would tonight approve a use that goes directly at what we put the moratorium on to grant an exception to that moratorium with certain conditions when it seems like essentially coming up with those conditions in a sense is what we imposed the moratorium for.”
He argued that these conditions, like wanding and live entertainment, “[t]hat to me is a larger discussion that I don’t think tonight is necessarily about. I think tonight is about whether we grant the hardship exemption, period.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs said he hopes hitting the pause button “ultimately results in real solutions to the late night situation in our downtown.” He noted that it has been getting worse for some time, “it’s not just a new thing.” He said that he is “confident that letting the moratorium play itself out is the best course of action.”
Rochelle Swanson stated, “I am actually leaning in favor of granting the exemption because $100,000 to me is a big deal and I am a business owner and I know what it means.” She did not see the fairness in imposing this on the Nodas because of the timing of the incident at KetMoRee, and believes that G Street is in desperate need for improvement.
She also was concerned that curtailing downtown would “put us back to where we’re having house parties.” She noted that house parties make it even more difficult to regulate underage drinking and other risks.
Robb Davis stated, “We’re doing exactly what we said we’re going to do – it’s happening in our community.” He said that discussions, meeting are happening. He added, “We changing the downtown scene in significant ways. “
“We’re already having a discussion on how to create a safer environment – an environment that will look in two years different from what it looks like today,” he said. “There is a conversation going on about what does it mean that our young people, especially, are over-consuming of alcohol to the extent that they are.”
Mayor Pro Tem Davis added, “This issue of granting the appeal with conditions is really saying, we’re willing to let you open this business in a way that will not contribute to the current situation in the downtown.” At that point, he said, “the applicant can take it or leave it. If they say no, we will not abide by those conditions, the appeal is effectively denied. So we’re in the driver’s seat…”
He added that this is “a shot across the bow… about how things are probably going to go,” in terms of potential new permanent regulations.
Mayor Dan Wolk pushed back, “I think there are some folks out there, and I totally respect that, who are wondering whether in our downtown, we want to have people getting wanded. Whether we want to have the activities going on there now, happening.”
Robb Davis responded, “We’re not making a final decision (tonight).” He added that if people don’t want to live in a town with wanding, that would change the way he saw this situation. “I guess I’m saying there’s a certain balance that should be struck.”
Dan Wolk said, “I don’t feel comfortable approving the use of essentially having a nightclub in our downtown without having that longer discussion.”
To which Mr. Davis responded, “I was actually thinking we’re not creating a nightclub if we set the conditions the way they’re set here. We’re pointing a direction to a future that’s going to be fundamentally different.”
Robb Davis made the motion, seconded by Rochelle Swanson, to grant the appeal, allowing for live musical entertainment and closure at 1 am as an interim measure, with the understanding that when council sets permanent measures, they would apply to Blondies, as well, upon the date effective.
Blondies’ representatives noted that, while the choice is theirs at this point, they received the city’s respond at 4 pm, the council received it during the meeting, and Blondies had not had a chance to go through it.
They took a recess to discuss the issue. Harriet Steiner reported that there were several modifications that were minor.
In the end it was acceptable to Blondies and three of the councilmembers. Lucas Frerichs and Dan Wolk would dissent on the 3-2 vote.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Is it just me or does Frerichs always vote the same as Wolk?
Always. Every time. They are in fact the same person… just a modified hologram that allows “him” to get two votes in.
this was interesting, i was expecting more 3-2 votes with frerichs and wolk in the minority than we’ve had thusfar. perhaps that due to the lack of substantive issues they’ve addressed thus far.
Me too. Rochelle has sort of been missing or in the other camp. But maybe when it comes to harm to business that other part of her wakes up.
BP and Frankly
Not true. On the issue of fluoride, Wolk was in favor, Frerichs opposed.
David… you quote Rochelle about “$100,000″… didn’t see a reference in the article…. what was that about? A “bond” for security of something?
That was about lack of sleep. Just kidding.
They had laid out their overall cost to date and it came out to about $100,000 of investment
Thanks for the clarification…
Davis City Council achieved a satisfactory outcome regarding the Blondies hardship exemption from the nightclub moratorium. The applicant made considerable compromises during the meeting and will operate under new conditions if they open the business while the moratorium is still in effect. It remains to be seen if Blondies chooses accept these conditions and open its business in town. Davis will enable an assortment of new regulations within two or three months designed to improve security and operation of all nightclubs. Hopefully, this will improve the quality of Davis nightlife for the community at large.
It is important that Davis citizens remain engaged in this process. Wherever possible the new regulations should be made mandatory and applied to all similar ABC type 47 businesses in the city. Too many of these businesses have a less than satisfactory response to voluntary compliance.
Ok, don’t understand… you seem to differentiate between “the applicant”, and “Blondies”… can you elaborate? Owner vs tenant?
By applicant I meant Blondies, who applied for an exemption to the moratorium.
They said last night that they would except these conditions.
Thanks David, that’s something I missed while watching the meeting online last night.
“except those conditions”? I assume you meant “accept those conditions”?
You think?
This could reworded to meet the actual description that business folk use to talk about Davis behind closed doors, but you get the point.
For once we derive the benefits of having three reasonable council members. I have been waiting to see that instead of the 3-2 going the other way supporting the reactionaries and enemies of true progress.
“Ban live music”
I can’t even believe this was suggested.
Biddlin where are you?
“Ban live music”
“I can’t even believe this was suggested.”
I had no idea this was on the table, either. I thought it was discussed previously that the places with live music were not implicated in the out-of-control goings-on that are the problem.
I was at Sophia’s with a friend Friday night, having a few drinks and enjoying the live band that was playing on the patio. The place was packed (mostly a college crowd, with some exceptions) and loud, but I didn’t see any stumbling-around drunks, or rowdiness. They were just people out looking to have a good time and listen to the live band.
Live music will be allowed – topless entertainment will not. Again, confusion caused because there was not enough time to assess the proposed new regulations and their implications. Just one more reason why Wolk and Frerichs had this right.
Wolk and Frerichs have it right about 50% of the time.
Thanks for clarifying!
I agree with you on this one (as did the council, who seemed universally mortified). Live music should be allowed. The difference we may disagree on is, a “Live DJ” is not “Live Music” as such. I wouldn’t ban DJ’s altogether, but I would have stronger restrictions as the nightclub scene is DJ based, and the goal is to eliminate the current problem scene, not the night scene itself. As for not allowing live music on the patio, I believe this should be amended to not allowing live *amplified* music on the patio. Also, if neighbors do not have a problem with Sophia’s (or similar venue) current live music scene on their patio, it should continue. It doesn’t have sonic sub-woofers and it a pretty tame but enjoyable scene. While I want the problem night club scene eliminated, I wish to see the Davis night scene thrive.
live dj is not live music. but live dj wasn’t banned either.
the good news is we now have allowed blondies to move forward and not punished them for being victims of circumstance. the good news is that we removed the ridiculous 11 pm curfew. the bad news is that there is a lot of unnecessary conditions that look like they will become the new norm.
those who think we have created a nightclub (like our mayor) need to read this more carefully…
20. The premises shall be equipped with an adequate number of seats…
21. no exclusive use would be alcohol, food at all times
by definition dan wolk read this more carefully next time… that is not a night club.
Correct. This actually means they are a restaurant all the time… not the other ABC license that is for bars.
I have been confused about how the Graduate escapes the ire of everyone. Well not really confused because I know that most of the vocal reactionaries that are core area residents that demand their little village lifestyle isn’t impacted in the least, and the Graduate is too far away for them to care. And the Graduate is in a dedicated commercial area where we don’t have the residential-commercial conflicts that are likely to plague Davis’s downtown forever. But wondering how the Graduate has 18 and older nights, etc. Turns out that they keep the food window open all night.
Now the needing to have a certain number of seats and tables is going to be a problem for the downtown venues because they are so freakin’ small due to our 1960s era buildings in a 1960s era downtown footprint. I talked to my son and his friends who said this would kill the dancing which is the primary draw for the kids.
So if this is going to be a permanent condition, we might as well change it to 11 PM and expect that the kids will go somewhere else to dance.
I never thought the Footloose story would replay in modern “liberal” Davis, but here we are.
Who says the Graduate escapes the ire of everyone? I am the commenter who noted the Graduate invited male strippers to perform – which was not a good thing IMO. IF the Graduate is selling to underage individuals, they are violating ABC laws and should lose their liquor license.
“I never thought the Footloose story would replay in modern “liberal” Davis, but here we are.”
All five City Council members made it pretty clear last night that changes were afoot (pardon the pun but could not resist!) in the way these nightclub and bars were going to be run. And any new regulations would be MANDATORY. The long list of regulations, which represent best practices from other communities dealing with the same sorts of problems, and recommended by the Davis Police Dept. are under serious consideration for adoption by the City Council. I would strongly suggest the Vanguard run a copy of these regulations on its website.
By the way, the landlord of KetMoRee indicated they had not realized exactly what was going on, and will make sure things change there. Tres Hermanas is going to shut down its nightclub because of violence towards its staff. Clearly these nightclubs and bars are waking up to the fact that there are going to be changes made, either voluntarily or by mandate.
I see the Vanguard has published the proposed new conditions. Thanks!
Have you been confused Frank Lee? Have you? The Graduate is the original sleezy bar, OK? Satisfied? I have lived next to it twice, and it has not escaped my ire. Now you will criticize my ire, after “being confused” that I didn’t have any. Enjoy that with yourself.
Well Ms. Miller you are at least very consistent in what you claim is your ire.
Question, if it was so bad before, why did it take a knife killing to get you and Anon up on your high horses to demand changes?
Next time I take my nephew and niece to play air hockey and video games and to get an Aggie Burger I will check to see if it is really sleazy. I am guessing the answer will be no.
I suspect that you don’t dance.
“They took a recess to discuss the issue.”
IMO, Mayor Wolk and Councilmember Freirichs had this one right. City Council members had only received the Davis Police Dept.’s suggested new regulations for nightclubs that afternoon, with no meaningful chance to review them. The applicant had not even had a chance to look at the proposed regulations – they were handed to them at the City Council meeting on the spot. In consequence, the applicant, the city attorney, Asst. Police Chief Pytel had to got out in the hallway and decide in 15 minutes whether to accept conditions just thrown at them from the dais. The conditions themselves to be imposed on the new applicant were not even agreed to among City Council members. Nor was the public given any meaningful chance to weigh in on the suggested new regulations. In my opinion it was extremely poor/nonexistent public process. Most of the commenters here would be up in arms at such a bastardized process if it involved any other issue…
DP: “by definition dan wolk read this more carefully next time… that is not a night club.”
Your criticism/sarcasm is misplaced. As I noted above, none of the City Council members nor the applicant had little if any time to read through the proposed new regulations. It is not reasonable to expect a City Council member to read, digest, think about and decide on 32 new regulations as well as the applicants proposals about 3 hours prior to a City Council meeting! I stand by my opinion that Mayor Wolk and Councilmember Lucas had the more sensible approach, to come back in two weeks and revisit the issue, after all Council members and the applicant had a chance to review the proposed new regulations.
Furthermore, the applicant even admitted on the dais he may run into construction delays – a common occurrence in the business world. He didn’t expect to open until January.
robb seemed to understand from the start that the changes were converting a night club back into a late night bar/ restaurant. wolk seemed to want to make political points. he could have called an actual recess to read through the conditions – but he was more concerned with ploying through the rest of the agenda than reading the conditions. besides didn’t pytel go through the conditions? so i don’t think his view was reasonable – he wanted to use those two weeks as a de facto continuation of the moratorium rather than create better public policy.
You are really trying to make the argument that a few hours is sufficient to read through 32 different regulations; no time for the applicant to read them (15 minutes tops to read, digest, think about, decide); and a few minutes at the dais is sufficient time to decide on the 32 different regulations on the fly, not thinking through their ramifications? Well, that explains a lot about your posts.
And by the way, Blondies will still have a nightclub component was my understanding.
it’s an interim regulation. it took me five minutes to read through them. they aren’t dense.
how do you define night club? they have seating for all of the patrons, they serve food, and there will be limited dance space.
had you ever been to tres around 10? they cleared their seating up and set up a dance floor. this is very different with full seating.
but if the applicant was agreeable to them and wanted to move forward, it seemed reasonable to move forward and allow refinements to occur during the process for creating final approvals. two weeks didn’t seem to be what the applicant wanted.
The applicant was not agreeable to them, and forced 3 on the City Council to cave on some issues…
how so? brett lee offered his views, the council majority accepted them. basically they said, take it or leave it.
The applicant refused on the issue of closing at 11 pm and the prohibition against live music. 3 City Council members gave in on both those issues. It doesn’t matter whether you, personally agree or disagree with an 11 pm closing time or the prohibition against live music. The public was never give any opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
actually if you watch the tape, brett lee put forward his view that 11 or 12 was unreasonable, they then asked the applicant about it and they said the live entertainment and closing time were not acceptable.
Yeah I was rather amazed at how the process devolved. I think Rob, or was it Brett?, was trying to get them to vote and just “take it or leave it”, which would have at least been OK. Then that weird “negotiating session” ensued, pretty unprecedented, and you could audibly hear the very very long “5 minute” session go on and on. In the end, the council seemed burned out and just accepted what Blondie’s asked for. I caught two issues I believe the council should have clarified or modified (already wrote them). Now that can be taken up in the long-term conditions — but of course it’s easier to have something in place or take a restriction away then place a stronger restriction later.
it’s not pretty unprecedeneted, i’ve been watching these things for a long time, and i have seen applicants sent to the back room before to hash it out and came back with an agreement.
OK, I’ll give you that one.
I had to choke down a belly-laugh when he said that (may be audible on the council video, sorry). Apparently it’s OK for Blondie’s to objectify women in Vacaville, but not in Davis!
Very good point!
Does a tiger really change it’s stripes at the Solano-Yolo border?
Not likely!
i had a different reaction – how old, white and conservative we have become as a community.
Strange, an older black friend of mine who used to live in Davis recently commented to me how young, female and Asian Davis had become.
My take, too (your friend’s)… based on who I see at bus stops, all around town.
Mainly, UCD students.
Yes, UCD students who deserve to be safe when they frequent the bars/nightclubs downtown.
not backed up by demographic data
Anon… curious… do you, or yours ‘deserve’ (have an inalienable right) to be “safe”, no matter where you go, what you do? Am thinking that’s a good concept, but not realistic.
To hpierce: Students have the right to be reasonably safe when going to the downtown nightclubs in Davis. They shouldn’t fear being knifed in the gut; nor should they fear being fleeced by the bouncers; nor should they be permitted to sold drinks when over-inebriated. It’s not that difficult a concept to understand – apparently the City Council didn’t think so either. And based on Brett Lee’s emails, they are running in favor of closing the nightclubs 15 to 1!
No UCD students have been knifed in the gut at any Davis restaurant or bar that I am aware of in recent memory.
UC Davis demographic data –
http://admissions.ucdavis.edu/profile/
Top race/ethnicity is asian (39%) followed by caucasian (29%). Gender breakdown is about 56% female and 44% male.
Time frame?
Alan
I laughed out loud when told what you had said. But it has stuck with me today and I have given it a lot of thought.
While I have much empathy in this situation for the Noda family who I honestly believe are and want to continue to be positively contributing members to our community, I have no such feeling about representatives of Blondies.
It is clear to me that their paradigm is to make as much profit as they can regardless of who else in the community may be harmed. They insisted on the longer hours doubtless knowing that disinhibited young people ( aka inebriated) are going to spend more money than are those who have retained their full cognitive powers. Their chosen model in Vacaville has been to operate as an alcohol driven party spot as per their own on social media promotions. I find it very hard to believe based on their insistence on the later hours, with no evidence based reason given ( besides sheer profit for them) that they have suddenly become interested in the public health and safety. It is clear that their motive is only profit.
What the council majority did was to play down the community concerns about other underlying problems with the encouragement of binge drinking ( which is what this business model encourages ) which will not be seen as business or public health and safety issues, but certainly are. I see the effects of binge drinking in my clinic on a regular basis and I expect to see that my colleagues in other departments also see them.
I want to address the issue of “objectifying women”. IMO this is beside the point. Lingerie parties that offer free drinks if females dress in skimpy clothing encourages 1) women taking off clothes they ordinarily wouldn’t; 2) over-drinking (why not, it’s free???) that puts young women’s safety at risk; 3) sexual assault on women who can’t remember anything because they are too drunk to recall; 4) a feeling of unfairness in customers who are male, or females who refuse to show up in a state of partial undress. The stakes here go much farther than merely “objectifying women”. Tia Will last night expressed this danger of overinebreated girls very well, who end up groped, with STDs, raped, because they cannot remember anything because of over-intoxication.
I would also like to speak to another issue, and this is the cover charge. Based on some comments on DavisWiki and Yelp, it appears bouncers are not necessarily imposing the same cover charge on good looking girls (no cover charge), while charging others as much as $50. In my opinion there is the very real possibility that bouncers at the door collecting cover charges may be running scams, collecting normal cover charges while pocketing the extra. Think about it. If the normal cover charge is $10, and the bouncer is charging $50 to already inebriated students, my guess is the bouncer is pocketing $40 to line his own pocket. In other words, the nightclubs may be fleecing naive/drunk college students. Also, allowing pretty girls in without paying a cover charge is going to create anger in other customers who have to pay the cover charge.
I think the proposed regulations suggested by the Davis Police Dept should go a long way to addressing a lot of these problems. Staff is going to have to take training courses and security guards are going to have to be professionals in the field. I, for one, will be very glad if such changes are implemented. Will they work? Let’s try them for a year, and then reassess the situation to determine their effectiveness.
i think you end up thinking you can use the laws of government to change this kind of behavior. the reality is that if people want to consume this type of stuff, they’ll find a way. i’m fine with most of the regulations, but we’re not going to stop power drinking in this way. we’re likely not going to stop the objectification of women, and sexual assaults are far more likely to occur in a private party than a public place. if we can find the happy median here, i’m all for it. what the council did last night works for me for the most part.
Okay, let me get this straight. On the one hand you seem to think using the laws of gov’t won’t be effective, but on the other hand you are fine with imposing some new laws. Your logic escapes me – I must be slow on the uptake!
No new regulation/law is ever a guarantee to solve any problem 100%. However, if it cuts down the problem by a significant amount, then it has been an effective deterrent. So why not try out the new regulations and see if things improve? Reassess in a year, and tweak the regulations as necessary to optimize performance.
or i’m poor at explaining things. i don’t believe that using the laws of government will be effect. i do believe that given where everyone stands, finding a middle ground that everyone can kind of live with is the best we can do. is that more clear?
I don’t understand your view that laws are ineffective in changing behavior. Laws do this all the time. Rather than assume these new regulations won’t work, why not try them, then wait until a year from now, and see if things have changed for the better? To me, that seems the more sensible approach than throwing up our collective hands, accepting murder as just another everyday event, and do nothing.
because trying the rules implies that the rules were valid in the first place. i don’t think they are. but that’s neither here nor there. we live in the real world and this seemed like the best place from my perspective we could land.
DP
“we’re not going to stop power drinking in this way. we’re likely not going to stop the objectification of women”
This is true. But in a university town, where there are large numbers of inexperienced young men and women, many who have not yet learned their limitations, alcohol or otherwise, I believe that it is the responsibility of the adults in the community to teach in those ways we can. So what positive impacts can we have ?
1. We can set an example of behavior.
2. We can place safe behaviors over profits.
3. We can draw a firmer line on the regulations and not just give in to business men claiming that their model is the only model when we know others can succeed.
4. We can present a consistent message that we as a community do not either through our business practices or personal behavior condone irresponsible drinking behaviors for increased profits.
No we can’t stop it, but we can teach through our own actions and decisions.
“I, for one, will be very glad if such changes are implemented.” I absolutely agree if it is implemented and enforced city-wide. Selective requirements give me “heart-burn”.
If you listened to City Council’s motion, it was made clear that any new regulations will be mandatorily imposed equally on ALL bars/nightclubs in Davis.
Uh… how would they impose that on EXISTING uses? You have either: picked up on a way to change the ordinances, retroactively, for all existing businesses, and make (via legal enforcement) them comply; pointed out what the CC will do for any NEW businesses; [self edited alternatives]. Of the two non-self-edited options, what are you confident that the CC did? Gonna’ bet the CC can’t retroactively apply new ordinances to existing uses, but would be interested to know how that could be done (enforceably).
Oh, yeah, whatever I say is ‘bogus’ and ” I need to “chill”… got it
To another point made by Councilmember Lee last night at the City Council meeting, the intention is to make any new regulations MANDATORY. As Councilmember Lee noted, the city tried the “voluntary” approach with Picnic Day businesses, trying to get them to sign on to a covenant not to sell alcohol before 11 am. Many businesses would not sign on – very disappointing. In consequence, the City Council is going to get much tougher, and force the issue with mandatory restrictions on the nightclubs/bars.
I’m sure “Blond-E Cheese” will comply!
“intent” is not “real”… I know, I need to go “chill”.
I thought that giving preferential treatment to women at bars was ended in the 1970’s when someone sued (or threaten to sue) Larry Blake’s for discriminatory practices for hosting “Ladies Nights” where women got free or reduced price drinks.
Ban live music? Next it will be removal of the pool tables at the Wunderbar. When did we get old?
Sigh… live music was NOT banned. Topless entertainment, on the other hand, was banned.
i think he knows that. i think the point is that it was actually put forth as a serious option. i think brett’s response … was good, we need to be real, we’re not going to ban live music in the downtown. not included was lucas’ response when they talked about taking out option 6 and he pointed out that that would allow topless dancing.
Actually, I suspect the regulations may have been pulled in toto from a best practices report, without thinking every aspect of the regulations through, because of the shortness in time frame to accomplish the task. I commend the Davis Police Dept for pulling something like this together in a short amount of time, given all their other duties. Had the City Council pressed the pause button a little longer on Blondies, there could have been some more meaningful discussion on all the proposed regulations to tailor it to our city’s particular needs. To expect a perfect set of regulations to be produced at this stage of the game is ludicrous!
you’re probably right, but these are just interim regulations until they can create more permanent ones. given that, this seems reasonable.
Yeah A-F-ing-men, A-F-ing-men! I think they are on the right track, but the way they did it, what was decided hurriedly, in a back-room negotiating session, and on-the-fly, is likely to set the “norm” for the new downtown era, instead of really thoughtfully hashing it out. Anything they gave away last night that was “too much” is going to be difficult to reel back in. That was really 90% of my complaint with the decision of the council majority as opposed to Wolk and Frerichs, who wanted those few more weeks to discuss.
people try to put us down… just because we get around
people try and pull us down… just because they try getting around… the law… just sayin’
Who?
Talkin’ ’bout my generation
Well, it’s a good thing the Council didn’t ban rock ‘n roll. Seems to be the only thing we all agree about!
Glad to see Robb’s well reasoned and logical approach, which he took at the previous meeting, prevail on this one, instead of the reactive position the council took the last time this was voted on.
Interesting community conversation put on by civenergy.org and the Davis Vanguard. I don’t think there was a single person in the room who spoke, who wasn’t in favor of imposing stricter regulations on the nightclubs and bars. Some would prefer the nightclubs be eliminated altogether. The community is clearly angry about Davis’ violent and drunken nightlife. What is really interesting is to hear it from a student perspective. Apparently students are not feeling safe at night downtown on G Street. After the death at KetMoRee, one student said that other students are steering clear of certain establishments at night that they feel are unsafe. Suddenly, for the first time, the bars are coming together with the Davis Police Dept. and working on how to make it safer in their establishments for customers. The City Council itself at last night’s meeting made it pretty clear the rules of the game are going to change for nightclubs in the form of a new more stringent ordinance. It makes me wonder if some of the commenters on this blog aren’t way out of step with the views of the general community.
Actually, I recognized so many of the comments from the Vanguard, I think there really are only 30 active freaks in the community who read the Vanguard and go to community meetings, and the rest are at home watching “The Bachelor”.
So, Anon was in the room . . . hmmmm . . .
As I’ve said many times, the council has to realize it’s the same loud voices that they are hearing time after time and they don’t represent the community as a whole.
Maybe the Council should go home and watch “The Bachelor” too, or whatever the Hell is on TV on Tuesday nights.