Sophie Maxwell Withdraws Name from Promoter Legislation

Word comes from Supervisor Bevan Dufty's office that Sophie Maxwell, the original sponsor, has withdrawn her name from the new nightlife legislation. Though the Mayor's name is still on it as a sponsor, it now has no support from the Board of Supervisors, meaning it's effectively dead. Everyone who turned out to oppose it should congratulate themselves for their efforts. Good job, everybody!

Update on Promoter Permit Legislation: Rejected Unanimously at Entertainment Commission Meeting

At Tuesday's meeting of the Entertainment Commission over fifty members of the public, including a wedding planner, representatives of non-profit and fundraising agencies, two members of the Board of Supervisors, venue operators, and promoters all stood up at the podium to voice their opposition to the new promoter permit legislation. At the end of the meeting, all five attending commissioners also opposed it, and the President of the Commission, Audrey Joseph, said that when the review of the legislation was moved from discussion this week to an action item at the next meeting of EC, they would tell the Board of Supervisors they did not support it. Since no one spoke up in support of the new legislation, including anyone from Sophie Maxwell's office, which introduced it, this appears to be dead in the water. To drive the final nails in the coffin, everyone opposing this should still write to their supervisors and let them know how you feel, since, with this much opposition, few Supervisors would be willing to buck against their constituents to support it.

I went into the Commission meeting with a real sense of anxiety over how this could turn out, though I knew that at least Commissioners Alan and Joseph were sympathetic to the opposition. There were only a few people in the room when I showed up at 4.45, including several people I had contacted personally, so I was afraid we would be a minority voice, but then the room began to fill up and soon reached overflow capacity. I had planned to speak, but it really wasn't necessary, as every point I would have made was brought up by someone else. It was very gratifying to see how the whole entertainment community, with clubs and promoters and non-profits from across the musical and sexual spectrum, could come together like that. When I was talking with David Peterson of Fag Fridays and Temple later, he said it reminded him of 2000, when the SFLNC came together to deal with the club crackdown from Captain Martell of the Mission District. It made me think that we need to have a greater sense of solidarity among the nightlife community, because we really are all in it together, and we need to come together more often, and more effectively, to restore San Francisco to its rightful place as a center of world-class nightlife.

I was also thrilled to see Supervisor Bevan Dufty come in and state, in unequivocal terms, his opposition to the legislation, including the possibility of amending it. Dufty has taken a lot of heat over the Halloween debacle for the past couple years, and has been pilloried as a representative of the bourgeouis gay class that has "ruined" the Castro, but I've seen Dufty out clubbing, and in our discussions with him a few weeks ago, I was impressed that he clearly understood the implications of this legislation and would have nothing to do with it. He might be guilty of being more of a pragmatist than the ideologue that many people seem to want in their Supervisors, but I can't really fault him for doing what a politician is supposed to do, which is to seek out compromises that can work for everyone, and come down hard on those things that make no sense for anyone. I was happy to join in the very enthusiastic applause he received after making his comment.

Gerardo Sandoval sent his legislative aide, Luke Klipp, to represent him. Sandoval seems more equivocal, according to Klipp's statement, since he recognizes the problems with this legislation but is "willing to work" with Supervisor Maxwell on it. If you happen to live in Sandoval's district, you might want to shoot him an email and let him know that there's no way that this legislation can be made to work.

By my count, there are at least four Supervisors who will oppose this legislation, either wholly or in party, leaving only two more to find to get it killed. My feeling is that, if Sophie Maxwell is smart, she will withdraw it, rather than face political embarrassment over having it defeated in a Board vote, and come back to work directly with the entertainment community to deal with the issues that brought this about in the first place. And shame on the Mayor's office for setting her up with this ill-conceived bit of political theater.

Minutes of the meeting, including video, will eventually be up on the Entertainment Commission Meeting Information webpage.

Entertainment Commission Meeting on Promoter Permits, Tuesday April 1

The new promoter permits I've been writing about are coming up on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting of the Entertainment Commission, and the floor will be open for members of the public to make comments (there's a three-minute time limit). The meeting is at 4PM at City Hall, Room 263. If you have an interest in this you should come attend the hearing, and if you are concerned about how this legislation will affect San Francisco nightlife, you should stand up and make your voice heard. There's a good chance we can get this legislation killed before it ever makes it to a board vote, but we need to make it clear to all parties concerned that there is broad-based opposition to it, and that it will have significant, unintended negative effects on the city's culture.

Announcement from Terrance Alan of the San Francisco Late Night Coalition

Just got this via email from Terrance Alan of the San Francisco Late Night Coalition and the Entertainment Commission. If you're concernend about the new promoter permit legislation, this provides some good information about how it came about, what the next steps are, what the major issues are that have been raised by the promoter community, and what you can do to voice your concerns.

*******************

MARK YOUR CALENDARS – Tuesday April 1, 2008 at 4 PM in room 406 of City Hall @ Entertainment Commission

At 4 PM on Tuesday April 1, 2009, the San Francisco Entertainment Commission will hear public comment on legislation that has been introduced to create a permit for promoters. Please read the legislation so that you are informed on what is being proposed.

The idea of a promoter permit first came up a few years ago after the shooting of a 15 year old boy at a party at the YMCA. It turned out that the promoter had a series of violent incidents at his events all over the bay area and often misrepresented the nature of his events and his track record to venue management. Following that unfortunate incident there was discussion of venue owners being able to run a background check on a promoter to check for a criminal background. There was also some discussion of creating a list of problem promoters, but this was shelved primarily because officially labeling someone a “problem” by a city agency would require an expensive and cumbersome process to insure that the list was always accurate and current.

This past year has seen a serious upswing of violent incidents, some of them in the vicinity of nightclubs. Typically, two guys get in a dispute at a club, one goes back to his car, gets a gun, and waits for the other to leave. Some of these incidents may be gang related, but either way, there were 4 deaths last year and two deaths this year. That reality prompted a mayor's office/entertainment commission/club owner/promoter “Nightlife Safety Summit” to discuss ways to stem the violence. The promoter permit came out of suggestions made at that meeting.

The promoter permit was conceived to eliminate the fly by night promoters who come in, deceive club management about the nature of their events, have serious problems including shootings and death, then leave with no consequences and the club is left with the responsibility. The question before us is: “Does the legislation being proposed gets at that problem and at what cost?”

What we at the SFLNC have heard as the biggest issue with this legislation is that “problem" promoters will simply bypass this law by having someone with a clean record/event history, apply for the permit. Meanwhile the 99% of promoter/organizers who cause no problems will be forced to pay for a permit, go through a background check, file a security plan and get insurance; things that are traditionally the responsibility of the venue.

Others have expressed questions about how this permit will apply to the non-profit sector, where events are primarily used to raise money for community work. Any additional permit expense would take away dollars from the causes that are in need.

If this legislation is adopted as written there are many that believe it will financially burden the good and the few problem promoters will simply find ways around it. This is where you come in. Your testimony at the Entertainment Commission will be recorded and summarized. It will then go to the Mayor’s office and the office of Supervisor Maxwell who has introduced this legislation. Your testimony will shape the future of this legislative effort.

Since we are reacting to some serious incidents, we should remember that as you step up to speak, focus on creative ways to get at a solution for the “bad promoter” problem. Here are some suggested “Talking Points” to use in organizing your thoughts. Remember, this is in no way a complete list and that is where your experience, insight, real life stories and passion will come in.

Talking Points

• Can a blanket solution such as a promoter permit deal with specific problem promoters or clubs?
  
  
• What will the cost of this permit be and will there be a provision for the non-profit community to receive a discount?
  
  
• Most club nights are promoted by small, independent promoters who make little or no money from their events, are well known within the communities they serve and create culture rather than problems. These promoters need no more regulation than what already exists between them, club owners, and the community. How can we take this working system and apply it to problem venues?
  
  
• Security issues are the legal responsibility of the venue, which has already had to go through its own permitting process. How can a promoter have any responsibility for security that is not under their control?
  
  
• Insurance is carried by the venue. What is the purpose of the insurance requirement for the promoter? What would that insurance cover?
  
  
• The legislation would require a promoter to provide information pertinent to the promotion of the proposed event, including information as to management, lease arrangements, the size of planned events number of performers, a description of any amplification and etc. How can I give this information as a promoter when I promote events at many different venues and I don’t control any of those variables?
  
  
• The real problem promoters will find ways around the permitting process. What kind of solutions can be created to deal with those promoters?

If you cannot make the hearing and still wish to be heard, please email your comments:

Entertainment Commission:

Commission Secretary crystal.stewart@sfgov.org

Board of Supervisors:

President Aaron Peskin Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick Jake.McGoldrick@sfgov.org

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org

Supervisor Carmen Chu Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org

Supervisor Chris Daly chris.daly@sfgov.org

Supervisor Sean R. Elsbernd Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org

Supervisor Bevan Dufty Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

Supervisor Tom Ammiano Tom.Ammiano@sfgov.org

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org

Terrance Alan

Chairman

San Francisco Late Night Coalition

415.346.9165 t

415.974.1952 f

PO Box 77406; San Francisco, CA 94107

You must have long term goals to keep you from being frustrated by short term failures.
-- Charles C. Noble

Update on Promoter Permit Legislation

This past Friday I got together with Ted Strawser of the SFParty Party, Tenderloin community activist Julian Davis, David Peterson of Fag Fridays and Temple, and Sister Barbi Mitzvah of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to talk with Supervisor Bevan Dufty about the new promoter permit legislation proposed by Sophie Maxwell. I'm pleased to say that Supervisor Dufty supports our position that this legislation will have a severe negative impact on San Francisco nightlife, that it impacts independent hobbyist promoters and non-profits more than the "rogue" promoters it's supposed to, and that, in the end, it really makes no sense. He told us flat out that he wouldn't support it when it came to a vote of the Board. If, that is, it comes to that; it might be possible to convince Sophie Maxwell to withdraw the legislation entirely, and wheels are turning behind the scenes with that goal in mind. Meanwhile, the next legislative step is a hearing before the Entertainment Commission on Tuesday, April 1, at 4.00 PM.

If you're concerned about this legislation, you can check it out on the SFGOV website (click the link for 080321, Promoter permits), then send an email to your Supervisor, or attend the meeting of the Entertainment Commission on April 1 to let the Commissioners know how you feel about it.