Source: Rhino Times Greensboro

Nightclub Owners Singled Out

by Alex Jakubsen

December 06, 2012

Greensboro nightclub owners are saying that a proposed entertainment facility ordinance is unfairly singling out their businesses, and that the Greensboro Police Department is using misleading statistics to push the ordinance.

Business owners and attorneys brought their concerns to the Greensboro City Council Entertainment Facility Use Ordinance Review Committee at a Nov. 29 meeting in the council chambers at city hall, where committee chair Councilmember Zack Matheny and Councilmembers Marikay Abuzuaiter and Jim Kee heard complaints and directed questions to staff.

The proposed legislation would require entertainment facilities that have dancing or live entertainment after 9 p.m., with occupancy over 150 people, to have a minimum number of licensed security guards based on the number of patrons.

Live entertainment venues that don’t serve alcohol are also held to the requirements if they operate after 9 p.m. and have an occupancy of over 150. Strip clubs would be subject to the ordinance regardless of size. Failure to meet the requirements could result in a loss of the facility’s privilege license and would be handled through the Greensboro Planning and Development Department.

Thurston Reeder, the owner of Thirsty’s 2 dance club, said the law is unnecessary for his facility because of a lack of criminal history. The police reported they had over 6,590 calls for service at businesses that would have to comply with the ordinance.

Reeder also noted that not every call for service involves an actual incident.

According to Reeder the only incident at Thirsty’s 2 was a car accident in the parking lot. But he said several service calls were related to a stolen car left in his parking lot.

“This would put me out of business. I can’t afford the cost of this, plain and simple,” Reeder said.

He also questioned why several facilities had been dropped from a list of clubs, including Revolution Mill Event Center Banquet Hall, Club Fifth Season, the Elks Lodge and the Moose Lodge.

Police Department Public Information Officer Susan Danielsen later said those facilities had been exempted because they didn’t have a history of crime.

Rocky Scarfone, who owns several night clubs including Allure, criticized the ordinance for its vague language. He said terms like “live entertainment” and “audience participation” in the ordinance were ambiguous, and could be used to extend the reach of the law.

Scarfone said the proposed ordinance could be interpreted to include bars and lounges with karaoke or trivia contests.

Scarfone also presented his own tally of calls for service that occurred over three years at five facilities that would not be covered by the ordinance to show that violence is not unique to nightclubs or other entertainment facilities.

Scarfone brought up the death of Michael Felka, an 18 year old fatally shot outside of the Greensboro Youth Carnival, as an example of crime occurring away from the club scene.

He also questioned the reasoning behind the 150-person occupancy qualification, and why it should determine the application of the ordinance. “We continue to ask for statistical data on where this magic 150 came in,” said Scarfone.

Scarfone ended his presentation with an excerpt from a letter from Greensboro Police Attorney Jim Clark, which stated that an expected benefit of the ordinance was to establish a means for the city to resolve nightclub issues more easily and rapidly instead of relying solely on the state to take action.

Scarfone said the ordinance was an attempt to circumvent due process already in place for club owners.

Scarfone’s attorney Amiel Rossabi spoke on behalf of several downtown clubs including Allure. He said the legislation was a knee-jerk reaction to a few crimes and that there is already legislation in place to deal with the crimes.

Rossabi said he had helped the city shut down all massage parlors by enforcing existing laws without costing the taxpayer anything. “That statute has survived constitutional review; these ordinances will not,” he said.

Christopher Gregory, general manager of Lotus Lounge, said he already had reliable security and a new law wasn’t needed.

When Kee asked about the more than 200 calls for service to Lotus Lounge, Gregory responded that he called police whenever necessary.

“A lot of the calls come from me personally, and my staff,” Gregory said. “I have no problem sending people to jail.”

Ken Keller of Carruthers & Roth, representing Greene Street Club, brought up what he said were flaws in the proposed legislation.

He said the law required clubs to contract third-party security providers like Lankford Protective Services, but that only Lankford responded but did not give him a quote on providing security for the interior of a club.

Keller also said that many of the crimes listed by the Police Department took place in the parking lot, over which the club does not have legal jurisdiction. Greene Street had 134 calls for service regarding indecent conduct/exposure.

Keller is correct that Greene Street Club has no legal claim to the adjacent parking lot. However, the club uses the lot as if it did, often blocking the driveway and even going so far as to place a generator in the lot without asking permission of the owner. So it is no wonder Greene Street patrons use the parking lot as an outdoor restroom and often get ticket by police.

Keller also said the ordinance didn’t make it clear what triggered enforcement, and said that if calls to service triggered enforcement of the law, it would discourage calls to the police when criminal activity occurs.

Katei Cranford spoke as a representative of the downtown “creative culture,” and criticized the city for trying to squelch low-end and mid-tier entertainment facilities while at the same time rallying support to spend $40 million in public money to finance a high-end performing arts center.

Cranford also said that the clubs like the Blind Tiger and Lotus were being unfairly grouped in with strip clubs, in an attempt to portray the club scene in general as unsafe.

Strip club owner Doug Adkins said he was proud to run “adult oriented businesses” and that they serve their own public good. He said none of his facilities had ever had a shooting. “The last thing I want is a call that someone has been shot at my business. That’s a terrifying thought,” he said.

Adkins said that violence was not unique to nightclubs and that other types of facilities like apartment complexes had a lot of crime. “Yet we’re not on a witch hunt after apartment complexes,” he said.

The owner of Safe & Secure Worldwide Protection Lance Jones spoke last, and defended the proposed ordinance. He said that an essential part of security is properly uniformed and equipped officers, which he said were lacking at many nightclubs.

Matheny said he was glad that the discussion was taking place in an open and public manner. The subcommittee has scheduled a meeting for Dec. 15 to hear updates from city staff and the Police Department.