OUR POSITION
 
Generally, we support ongoing neighborhood revitalization efforts based in reduction of alcohol license outlet density and resident empowerment, recognized federally as bases for ongoing neighborhood vitality.  With regard to residential mixed-use neighborhood planning, we oppose trends in business permitting historically recognized as potentially in conflict with the peaceful use and enjoyment of residential property. 

Legislation:  Early Morning Entertainment, 2-6:00 a.m.
 
We are opposed to the pending nightclub legislation.  This legislation would create a massive early-morning entertainment industry in the very neighborhoods with the densest residential populations in the City.

We are generally opposed to early-morning Extended-Hours operations in mixed-use residential districts, based on their incompatibility with residential land use.  Our position is founded on our review of numerous sources warning of on-going conflicts between residents and businesses when clubs and restaurants are allowed to operate from 2-6:00 a.m.  These sources describe seriously compromised quality of neighborhood life for residents and social and economic disintegration when an over concentration of alcohol licenses is a factor.

Our Position to the Mayor’s Office Letter Supporting Early-Morning Clubbing

Based on resident and police testimony, San Francisco currently faces a crisis of clubbing-related violence threatening neighborhoods citywide. The Mayor is the primary lead for protecting the public safety and welfare and for addressing the current crisis.  Based on The City Charter, his role, first, is to enforce all City laws. 

Nevertheless the Mayor’s Office is pushing for expansion of early-morning nightclub operations, 2-6:00 a.m., in our residential mixed-use neighborhoods.  Kevin Ryan's letter to Supervisor Chiu is misleading in its entirety and misrepresents numerous facts, such as the number of temporary event permits currently being issued.

The letter cites 12 One-Time Event permits issued annually, on average, thus falsely concluding that the market for this type of permit is marginal.  The actual amount is some 80 permits annually, on average, including a meaningful percentage for events, 2-6:00 a.m., based on Residents Central member review of hard-copy permit documents.

Although Mr. Ryan states that the legislation is “intended to decrease nightlife-related violence,” he provides no explanation of how to achieve this. Instead, he repeatedly presents arguments regarding commercial concerns (without providing any statistics to back his statements).  He also completely ignores the conclusions of numerous studies on increased violence related to alcohol outlet density and the negative impact thereof  to the economy and to communities.

Moreover, his critical assessment is entirely lacking:

“Even if we have a problem today, with respect to post-2:00 a.m. activities...this does not mean that an increase would exacerbate this problem.”

It is our position, that Mr. Ryan's letter represents a Mayor’s Office ignoring citywide neighborhood concerns for a growing crisis of clubbing and violence (fueled by increased availability of alcohol). 

San Francisco Entertainment Commission

Based on numerous feedback from residents, the San Francisco Entertainment Commission’s has not placed any efforts in mediating countless conflicts between residents and clubs to date.   The commission’s primary role of aggressively promoting business entertainment strongly suggests that it is not the appropriate body to arbitrate serious neighborhood issues arising out of the “vibrant” nightlife the commission promotes.

The commission has a thoroughly documented history of questionable decisions and conflicts of interest, including faulty routine administrative functions and reporting, lack of permit condition enforcement against even the most violent clubs to granting permits to clubs presenting flawed applications.

It is our opinion that the current commission set-up and its role of regulating and promoting the entertainment industry, represents an extreme conflict of interest and is not in the best interests of San Francisco citizens.

 

We recognize the Police Department as the only agency staffed appropriately to oversee permit and license enforcement, and to protect the public safety.  We consider the immediate expansion of the role of the department in enforcement of nightclubs critical to addressing the current crisis of clubbing and violence.

Based on the EC's record and having endured years of dealing with the consequences of the commissions policies and decisions, we call for an immediate intervention and for major reorganization of the process to obtain entertainment permits, to prevent further harm to the vitality of our neighborhoods, 

The bases of our opinions include resident testimony, review of Institute for Public Strategies and Marin Institute reports; the 2006-07 Civil Grand Jury Report; discussion on Michael Krasny’s Forum on KQED Radio, August 18, 2009; SF Weekly cover story of July 8, 2009, by Peter Jamison; articles in Central City Extra, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Examiner; and information compiled by neighborhood organizations.