930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Sage 703 on June 21, 2007, 01:23:00 pm
-
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0607/433174.html (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0607/433174.html)
D.C. Council members are considering changing the District's midnight summer youth curfew to 10 p.m. in an effort to cut crime.
Members of the council are expected to vote Thursday on emergency legislation aimed at keeping children under 17 off the streets from 10 p.m. until 5 a.m. Mondays through Thursdays. The curfew's start time would be rolled back to 11 p.m. on weekends.
Ward Six Councilman Tommy Wells says the curfew would help keep kids safe.
Councilman Jim Graham says the earlier curfew will help keep young people out of mischief.
Under District law, teenagers can be out later than the curfew if they are on errands at the direction of a parent or guardian. There are also exceptions for those who are on their way home from work or on an outing with a civic or church group.
Passage of the emergency legislation will take nine of 13 council votes.
_____________________
Effectively keeps underage kids out of nightclubs, wouldn't you think? Seems kind of sneaky to me, and devastating to all ages shows.
This meeting is happening today.
I was forwarded this message from the Black Cat:
Hi all,
Councilmember Tommy Wells proposed emergency legislation today that would change DC's summer curfew laws. As the law currently stands, the curfew applies to those 16 and under, with curfew hours beginning at 11pm on the weekdays and midnight on the weekends. Wells' new proposal would up the age to 17 and the time to 10pm on weekdays and 11pm on weekends. And, add that to the fact that club owners have recently been told that any curfew law on record will now be enforced by the ABC Board and by the police at all establishments with liquor licenses.
So, Wells' proposal would, in effect, create a ban on all-ages shows - as it would prevent anyone 17 and under from being at a show or club (or restaurant, party, house show, etc.) after 10pm on weekdays and 11pm on weekends. In other words, it's a back-door method of achieving the very outcome that people so roundly criticized and fought against months ago. The worst part of this is that the meeting on Wells' proposal is being held tomorrow at City Council (Thursday) and there will be no public comment as this is "emergency legislation."
Please email ALL 13 members of the city council members NOW!!! and tell them to vote NO on the "Youth Summer Emergency Amendment Act of 2007". Pass this on fast because we need to contact councilmembers before Thursday's hearing!
_____________________
Chairman Vincent C. Gray
vgray@dccouncil.us
cmurray@dccouncil.us
Councilmember Carol Schwartz
schwartzc@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember David A. Catania
dcatania@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Phil Mendelson
pmendelson@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Kwame R. Brown
kbrown@dccouncil.us
Councilmember Jim Graham
jgraham@dccouncil.us
Chairman Pro Tempore Jack Evans
jackevans@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Mary M. Cheh
mcheh@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Muriel Bowser
mbowser@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr.
htomas@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Tommy Wells
twells@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Yvette Alexander
yalexander@dccouncil.washington.dc.us
Councilmember Marion Barry
mbarry@dccouncil.us
-
Who, do you think, will the kids be safe from via this curfew?
-
I think 11PM for 16 and under and 12PM for 17 year olds would be more fair during the non-school summer months.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
As the law currently stands, the curfew applies to those 16 and under, with curfew hours beginning at 11pm on the weekdays and midnight on the weekends.
If the clubs are that concerned about all-ages shows - start them an hour earlier.
-
Bombay Chutney, please!
Yes, many cities have all-ages shows that start and end by a certain time. D.C. is not one of them and I don't think that it is viable for venues like the Black Cat to become like that. Dante said at the hearing in January that without all ages shows, the venue would probably/he would want to have the venue close. We all know how clubs profit: alcohol. Moving the start times earlier is not conducive to liquor sales. Many venues are just struggling to stay afloat. And it would have to be much more than an hour. Mainstage shows on the weekend at Black Cat regularly end far close or past one o'clock. To allow enough time for kids to get home without violating curfew shows would have to end at 10:30. It just isn't practical. And on weekdays? Ending at 9:30 so kids can be home by 10:00? What time should doors be? 5:00? It would require venues to completely restructure their employment and time/money commitments.
When the legislation was much more explicitly targeting music back in January a lot of people were gung-ho about fighting it. We need the same energy versus this issue.
-
The bill was defeated!
-
Why is moving shows to an earlier time not conducive to selling alcohol? Are there really that many people who wait for the stroke of midnight and say to themselves, "Oh wow, time to start drinking."?
-
I've been known to wait until the stroke of noon.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is moving shows to an earlier time not conducive to selling alcohol? Are there really that many people who wait for the stroke of midnight and say to themselves, "Oh wow, time to start drinking."?
-
What about cutting the lineup to two bands instead of the usual three?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is moving shows to an earlier time not conducive to selling alcohol? Are there really that many people who wait for the stroke of midnight and say to themselves, "Oh wow, time to start drinking."?
People work, can't get there in time, etc. The good thing about later start times for clubs is the availability of the alcohol drinking clientele.
-
joe, good suggestion... but that's a double-edged sword. bands need to get practice and exposure, so wedging in no-name opening acts fosters future talent. sorta like the minor leagues.
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
Who, do you think, will the kids be safe from via this curfew?
online biggots mascarading as free-speech freedom fighters?
<img src="http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1174329819-fighting_crime_cat.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I've been known to wait until the stroke of noon.
Poast of the day!
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8789eTsLyAQ-yM:http://jasoncurtis.typepad.com/jason_curtis/images/monkey_smile.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
joe, good suggestion... but that's a double-edged sword. bands need to get practice and exposure, so wedging in no-name opening acts fosters future talent. sorta like the minor leagues.
Right, and because most tours have a three band line-up, I think some would skip D.C. and play elsewhere because it would mean one band would lose a night of revenue.
-
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
Originally posted by Graace:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is moving shows to an earlier time not conducive to selling alcohol? Are there really that many people who wait for the stroke of midnight and say to themselves, "Oh wow, time to start drinking."?
People work, can't get there in time, etc. The good thing about later start times for clubs is the availability of the alcohol drinking clientele. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Graace:
People work, can't get there in time, etc. The good thing about later start times for clubs is the availability of the alcohol drinking clientele.
I always thought the later start times were to keep people drinking and eating while they wait for the show to start...
(Has anyone else noticed an increase of adding a third band to bills at Iota and JJ?)
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
Originally posted by Graace:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is moving shows to an earlier time not conducive to selling alcohol? Are there really that many people who wait for the stroke of midnight and say to themselves, "Oh wow, time to start drinking."?
People work, can't get there in time, etc. The good thing about later start times for clubs is the availability of the alcohol drinking clientele. [/b]
[/b]
The show would have to be over at ten thirtyish on weekends and 9:30ish on weekdays.
That means doors around 5:00/6:00.
Many people work until 5:00. Most do not want to rush from the office, in their work clothes, to catch a show. Many people want to go home, take a shower, change their clothes, maybe eat some dinner, relax after a day at the office. Later start times give people time to do all of that.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
joe, good suggestion... but that's a double-edged sword. bands need to get practice and exposure, so wedging in no-name opening acts fosters future talent. sorta like the minor leagues.
And ticket prices can be made higher for three bands. In addition, a way to increase ticket sales when you are selling to three groups of fans.
-
Originally posted by Graace:
Bombay Chutney, please!
First of all - I agree with most of your points and I think the whole thing is a bad idea.
But if the current curfew is already set to midnight, why would a one-hour change result in starting/ending shows 3 hours earlier? Just roll back the start times by one hour. Trust me - hipsters are perfectly capable of drinking at 8pm on a weekend. They'll sell plenty of alcohol.
According to dcist, this is the same thing they did last summer - extended to 17 year-olds. Is that true? If so, why is it the end of the world this year?
-
Why not cater to the music fan and let the headliner play first? Then those who are there to drink can hang around and watch the other bands.
-
I didn't even know that there was a midnight curfew. . shows how much it is enforced. In that case, rolling back one hour works, obviously.
It got defeated though, so all is good. Though I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
The hard-working, pelvic-thrusting sector of the Americana known as, ahem, "female pole specialists." :D
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by Graace:
Bombay Chutney, please!
First of all - I agree with most of your points and I think the whole thing is a bad idea.
But if the current curfew is already set to midnight, why would a one-hour change result in starting/ending shows 3 hours earlier? Just roll back the start times by one hour. Trust me - hipsters are perfectly capable of drinking at 8pm on a weekend. They'll sell plenty of alcohol.
According to dcist, this is the same thing they did last summer - extended to 17 year-olds. Is that true? If so, why is it the end of the world this year? [/b]
My understanding is that the new enforcement of the curfew by ABC officials is the big change in the policy.
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
If the clubs are that concerned about all-ages shows - start them an hour earlier.
I'm 35 and I'd be down with that! Why not start them at 8 pm...even better! I don't really understand why shows start so late in general. (sorry, my comment is a little late in reading the rest of the thread, I just hate late shows where I have to wait through hours of lame openers to see my band at 11:30 or something)
-
i frequently work until 10, 11 at night and i have a professional job (despite the handle, not as a hooker or stripper)
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
Originally posted by Graace:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is moving shows to an earlier time not conducive to selling alcohol? Are there really that many people who wait for the stroke of midnight and say to themselves, "Oh wow, time to start drinking."?
People work, can't get there in time, etc. The good thing about later start times for clubs is the availability of the alcohol drinking clientele. [/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
lawyers, tons and tons of lawyers
and doesn't the dc area have the most lawyers per capita in the country?
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by Graace:
Bombay Chutney, please!
First of all - I agree with most of your points and I think the whole thing is a bad idea.
But if the current curfew is already set to midnight, why would a one-hour change result in starting/ending shows 3 hours earlier? Just roll back the start times by one hour. Trust me - hipsters are perfectly capable of drinking at 8pm on a weekend. They'll sell plenty of alcohol.
According to dcist, this is the same thing they did last summer - extended to 17 year-olds. Is that true? If so, why is it the end of the world this year? [/b]
They did roll it back last summer, but it was specifically just for the summer. I had to rush home from Fort Reno each week. But nobody explicitly came out and said "hey, we're going to enforce this." There is a year-round curfew in the district that is slightly later than the provision suggested, except it is not enforced at all in clubs. When they start telling us they're going to enforce curfew, AND furthermore, it's going to be later...we're in trouble.
Though we've defeated this one, I suspect this won't be the last time they'll attempt to take away our shows. This was a really sneaky, roundabout way of attempting to do it again...
and *NOTE* how NO steps have been taken thus far to actually lessen the violence in these neighborhoods! oh, fascinating! what a logical bunch.
-
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
lawyers, tons and tons of lawyers
and doesn't the dc area have the most lawyers per capita in the country? [/b]
yes. god bless bethesda.
-
i don't understand how they enforce these things. even if that curfew were enacted for the summer; say i'm at a show... they're going to let me in because doors are at 8 or whatever and maybe i'm in the front and it's a packed show, at 11 are the cops just gonna bust in and start checking ids? will i get a special minor stamp or something?
and on the streets? do cops just go up to people that look young?
-
Originally posted by slowgraffiti:
i don't understand how they enforce these things.
The real purpose of laws like these are to allow cops to question/detain/"investigate" but not necessarily search anbody who looks like they are under the specified age. If you are over the age, they send you on your way, if you are not, they take you home. They tend to focus on kids loitering, not necessarily those who are indoors or those who are not travelling in large groups heading from one place to the next.
The ABC enforcement provision is a whole new twist and I have no idea how they would enforce that. In my experience, ABC rarely did a sweep of a bar in DC - it was always DC's finest. ABC was always the sting type authority where an obviously overage guy who works for ABC would come in with a girl who looked at least 21 but in reality wasn't, and the bartender would get busted for serving the girl.
Anyhow, purely academic now that it was defeated.
-
Do lawyers make up a large percentage of the Black Cat clientele?
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What percentage of the population, outside of retail workers, are working until 10 pm?
lawyers, tons and tons of lawyers
and doesn't the dc area have the most lawyers per capita in the country? [/b]
-
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
Who, do you think, will the kids be safe from via this curfew?
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/6572a182.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
Who, do you think, will the kids be safe from via this curfew?
[/b]
dupek, you want us to take you seriously... then you blatantly lie. allmy$to930 didn't ask that question, YOU DID. so you're replying to your own post hoping no one would notice. nice try, i guess being honest is too much of a stretch for ya.
or are you telling us that you also post under the name "allmy$to930"? sweet.
-
Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did you have to Google it?
Personally, I think you possess "The Right Stuff" to be a moderator. You sure are nosy as hell. Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
Who, do you think, will the kids be safe from via this curfew?
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/6572a182.jpg" alt=" - " />
[/b]
dupek, you want us to take you seriously... then you blatantly lie. allmy$to930 didn't ask that question, YOU DID. so you're replying to your own post hoping no one would notice. nice try, i guess being honest is too much of a stretch for ya.
or are you telling us that you also post under the name "allmy$to930"? sweet. [/b]
-
this, my friend, is what is known as an inconvenient truth. pointing out your very public yet poorly-thought-out stratagem is "nosey"? i'm not here to moderate, but i'm happy to call you out when you're dishonest. you portray yourself as persecuted... yet time and time again, you set up your own crucifiction. it's hard to take you seriously when you do that.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
this, my friend, is what is known as an inconvenient truth.
<img src="http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/808455/2/istockphoto_808455_broken_record_with_blank_label.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
Who, do you think, will the kids be safe from via this curfew?
[/b]
dupek, you want us to take you seriously... then you blatantly lie. allmy$to930 didn't ask that question, YOU DID. so you're replying to your own post hoping no one would notice. nice try, i guess being honest is too much of a stretch for ya.
or are you telling us that you also post under the name "allmy$to930"? sweet. [/b]
Nice one.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
this, my friend, is what is known as an inconvenient truth. pointing out your very public yet poorly-thought-out stratagem is "nosey"? i'm not here to moderate, but i'm happy to call you out when you're dishonest. you portray yourself as persecuted... yet time and time again, you set up your own crucifiction. it's hard to take you seriously when you do that.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
nos·y (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=nosy) /ˈnoʊzi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh-zee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�??adjective, nos·i·er, nos·i·est. unduly curious about the affairs of others; prying; meddlesome.
As in: sweetysell is a nosy nanny.
-
ah, thanks for the clarification...
falling for your race-baiting = acceptable. pointing out the blatant flaws in your "arguments" = nosey. how convenient. how was i "unduly curious about the affairs of others", when this affair in question was a puiblic posting - to all, including me? you lied to everyone, you lied to me, and i pointed it out. this was not a private message, or something you were trying to pass off in private. you were busted, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it.
dupey, might be time to grow up and accept it. oh, wait.