TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why clubs are always on the political hitlist

Why clubs are always on the political hitlist

The reason clubs are always on the hitlist is because greedy politicians have made the rules so strict that its literally impossible not to somehow violate them. Why? So they can get their clammy hands on some of the money being made. Not only that, but in the downtown core they want the clubs out to make way for condos which bring in more CITY taxes than clubs do.

Example: Ontario liquor law states that a drunk patron may not be found in a licenced establishment.

Now tell me how ANY club, bar or restaurant can avoid harbouring drunk people. Thats like saying that wet people arent allowed at a pool.

The laws here are some of the tightest in the world when it comes to clubs and bars. And make no mistake about it, it's all about political control.. NOT your safety.

looks like someone is still bitter from the report Guv for overcrowding thread lol

you can argue it both ways. Politicians have proven to be greedy yes, but so have the bars too..greasing at the doors, inside the doors, etc.. there are examples in that AVB review thread of bouncers allowing access for special 'gratuities'.

Politicians have to be flexible and the bars have to have solid management respectful of its patrons, imo. In most cases, bars will end up bending over backwards vis-a-vis politicians, so I agree with you there.

I will not use the "G" word knowing that it'll lock this thread too

But politicians have the power to make greed into law. And then exploit that law for political gain. They can then twist those laws to make the clubs look like they are always at fault.

ie) that club is a bad bad place because they permit drunkeness and someone was smoking... it should be shut down or fined!

Meanwhile, isnt that what clubs were built for in the first place?

How this would sound in the real world.

"Pools are bad because they allow wet people and some of them use towels! they should be shut down or fined"

see my point?

btw the worst is how politicians spin their laws to make it look like they care about public safety when in reality they are laws enacted to assert more political control.

More political control = more revenue through fines, permit fees and greasing.

they cant stop us.....

they have and they will...

mainly because no one here does anything about it

want proof that they can stop us?

check this out

http://www.king-spadina.com/CityDoc...wFeb14_2006.pdf

I saw the word 'erection' in that .pdf

Unfortunately, much of our generation is not politically savvy/interested in municipal politics and are too apathetic when it comes to voting. The politicians seem to be generally appeasing those who do not want nightclubs in their neighbourhoods/tourist destinations, with the so-called negative trappings that sometimes are associated with clubs, unfortunately (ie drunk driving, drug trade, noise pollution, physical assaults, etc). They are generally much older, more affluent, politically active and conservative than us, and thus carry more political clout. And of course developers carry more financial clout.. however, you'd be surprised at how difficult it is erect condos in the downtown core as well.

Every city needs a nightlife, there's no doubt about it. However,
some of these clubs need to clean up their act, imo, as it would just make it easier for municipalities to establish laws and erect condos in lieu of clubs, say, if something adverse were to happen due to - for example - overcrowding.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Laden I saw the word 'erection' in that .pdf Unfortunately, much of our generation is not politically savvy/interested in municipal politics and are too apathetic when it comes to voting. The politicians seem to be generally appeasing those who do not want nightclubs in their neighbourhoods/tourist destinations, with the so-called negative trappings that sometimes are associated with clubs, unfortunately (ie drunk driving, drug trade, noise pollution, physical assaults, etc). They are generally much older, more affluent, politically active and conservative than us, and thus carry more political clout. And of course developers carry more financial clout.. however, you'd be surprised at how difficult it is erect condos in the downtown core as well. Every city needs a nightlife, there's no doubt about it. However, some of these clubs need to clean up their act, imo, as it would just make it easier for municipalities to establish laws and erect condos in lieu of clubs, say, if something adverse were to happen due to - for example - overcrowding.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I SAY IT IS UNWISE TO CALL POLITICIANS AND MEDIA TO WHINE ABOUT STUFF BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY PLAYING INTO THEIR GAME.

What nightclubs and patrons needs to to is unite to form political clout of their own. But sadly the only thing people do around here is try to backstab each other so in the end we all lose and the old fart whiners and politicians get their way.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 What nightclubs and patrons needs to to is unite to form political clout of their own. But sadly the only thing people do around here is try to backstab each other so in the end we all lose and the old fart whiners and politicians get their way.

who's gonna represent the asian crackheads?

while i dont want to see our scene completely ruined, i think its completely wrong for you to suggest that we have to make the choice between

overcrowded, unsafe and overpriced nightlife VS no nightlife at all

and to compare these attributes to other places around the world and conclude that because its just as dangerous somewhere else in the world that makes it justified here is rediculus as well.

Agreed.

Some of the posters here are concerned that media coverage would shut down the scene, and understandably so. I can see that. What some refuse to look at, however, are the crappy conditions of some of these clubs. Even beyond the issue of safety, when it takes someone 30 mins to go to the bathroom or advance from one room to another, then something's horribly inefficient.

The last two massives in Montreal royally sucked because of this (not surprisingly, many of the positive reviews came from TOTAs ), and it was most certainly a byproduct of poor planning and excessive greed. It probably won't happen again as they got a severe wrist slapping after Bal en Blanc from the fire marshalls who showed up.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The reason clubs are always on the hitlist is because greedy politicians have made the rules so strict that its literally impossible not to somehow violate them. Why? So they can get their clammy hands on some of the money being made. Not only that, but in the downtown core they want the clubs out to make way for condos which bring in more CITY taxes than clubs do.

I think you've missed a key point. It's NIMBY-ism, pure and simple. Clubs are absolutely HATED by residential neighbours, and its always been this way. The hatred was the driving force behind the creation of the club district in the first place. The idea was to put them all in one area, don't grant any new licences outside the district, and the "problems" will all be contained in one manageable area.

You are correct about condos bringing in more revenue to the city than clubs though.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I SAY IT IS UNWISE TO CALL POLITICIANS AND MEDIA TO WHINE ABOUT STUFF BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY PLAYING INTO THEIR GAME. What nightclubs and patrons needs to to is unite to form political clout of their own. But sadly the only thing people do around here is try to backstab each other so in the end we all lose and the old fart whiners and politicians get their way.

suggesting that patrons of a club unite is simply impractical and won't work, IMHO.

When various minority groups can't even effectively unite on a political front, how is a group of club-goers who don't know each other, don't care about each other, don't live in the same city, etc. going to form an effective group?

you're essentially calling for a patron lobby group to be formed...that takes time, energy and money. so...who benefits financially from the situation that they are going to invest the time, energy and money to form said group?

Besides, won't an organized and vocal group of patrons simply draw the same attention to the club on the political and legal fronts that complaining to authorities will do?

so...what's the suggestion? "suck it up or don't go" works on an individual level, and is the reason I *rarely* go to Guv anymore...but it doesn't solve the very real issue of potentially dangrous and potentially illegal overcrowding.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I SAY IT IS UNWISE TO CALL POLITICIANS AND MEDIA TO WHINE ABOUT STUFF BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY PLAYING INTO THEIR GAME. What nightclubs and patrons needs to to is unite to form political clout of their own. But sadly the only thing people do around here is try to backstab each other so in the end we all lose and the old fart whiners and politicians get their way.

I agree with this, back in the rave days we were more united, now it's just stupidness. However I doubt we'd have the capacity to get super organized as a club community as we're very fragmented, although I hope someone proves me wrong.

As for the pool analogy, it would be better put like this:

"Pools are bad because they allow wet people to swim and some of those people may drown if they don't know how to swim. Because of this risk there should be no pools at all."

A solution to people being completely out of control when drinking etc is removing/adjusting one aspect that CONTRIBUTES to this. Last call. Extend last call, then eventually eliminate it. More $ for the clubs/bars, more money for the area. Phase it in so people in the city don't go bonkers with it. The way I see it is people will drink anyway, why not make things more fluid and easier? People drink like FISH already now probably because they think "Oh shit I have only 20 min left then I can't drink anymore so I have to buy and drink all the booze I can before then."

That way even if they drink up until they are going to leave the club they won't be stumbling out like drunken idiots (hopefully) because they've staggered the amount of booze they've had. (obviously there will be exceptions with people who will drink like crazy period) but I doubt it is the norm.

quote:

Originally posted by Flec while i dont want to see our scene completely ruined, i think its completely wrong for you to suggest that we have to make the choice between overcrowded, unsafe and overpriced nightlife VS no nightlife at all and to compare these attributes to other places around the world and conclude that because its just as dangerous somewhere else in the world that makes it justified here is rediculus as well.

the comparison point is to prove how spoiled and whiney we are here...

ANd its that spoiledness that helps result in nothing great ever being accomplished in Toronto. (among other things)

quote:

Originally posted by van haaster I think you've missed a key point. It's NIMBY-ism, pure and simple. Clubs are absolutely HATED by residential neighbours, and its always been this way. The hatred was the driving force behind the creation of the club district in the first place. The idea was to put them all in one area, don't grant any new licences outside the district, and the "problems" will all be contained in one manageable area. You are correct about condos bringing in more revenue to the city than clubs though.

The problem with these NIMBYs though is the fact that most of them moved in AFTER the area was designated as an entertianment district. And id argue that most dwellings there were built BECAUSE of it.

ANd those who were there before the clubs have seen their neighbourhood go from being a direlect row house neighbourhood full of empty warehouses and gay bath houses to a very desirable and pricey piece of real estate.

Clubs in other parts of the world are similar to or far more excessivly tight than in Canada, and yes others elsewhere are far more lax. That does not make it right, just giving a more realistic perspective. You have made a wonderfully false, and always skewed generalization so as to prove your point. I've gone through the evolution of clubs in Toronto, or de-evolution of the club scene and some of the things I've seen, seem considerably more lax.

Your whole speech is void of the overarching issue of drugs, drug use, drug dealing and the whole underworld connected to drugs. So for a whole slew of seemingly unconnected people; now connected by their love of clubs to use whatever soapbox necessary to get their point across, what is this unified conglomerate of clubbers going to say when the drug issue comes up.

Sure there are BS laws positioned to protect political interests, however the club scene is a microcasm of some nasty shit and its all rolled into overcrowded buildings. This scene needs to be watched; could be watched more, regulated more, and frankly we are lucky (in Guv's case) that it is not.

Any Elliot Ness would walk right into Guv, turn the lights on and expose some especially illegal activity and substances.

Certainly an establishment that is well run with good clientele would help property value, not hinder it. Fortunately for the Guv, most edm'ers are usually well behaved compared to other groups, esp when you consider overflow crowds like that can easily increase tensions. Happy pillz, maybe?

What we're talking about here is a fairly decent club that could be a GREAT club with proper ticket/crowd controls. When every 1/3 or 1/4 post is about the crowd being pushy and aggressive, I wouldn't consider that whiney. I fact, I'd consider that symptomatic of other problems. And take it from me, for someone who bodybuilds and is bigger than 99 percent of the edm crowd, even I find it irritating.

As bar staff, I'm quite surprised you haven't sympathized with these TOTAs.

YAY!!! JAYX1 is BACK!!!

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 Clubs in other parts of the world are similar to or far more excessivly tight than in Canada, and yes others elsewhere are far more lax. That does not make it right, just giving a more realistic perspective. You have made a wonderfully false, and always skewed generalization so as to prove your point. I've gone through the evolution of clubs in Toronto, or de-evolution of the club scene and some of the things I've seen, seem considerably more lax. Your whole speech is void of the overarching issue of drugs, drug use, drug dealing and the whole underworld connected to drugs. So for a whole slew of seemingly unconnected people; now connected by their love of clubs to use whatever soapbox necessary to get their point across, what is this unified conglomerate of clubbers going to say when the drug issue comes up. Sure there are BS laws positioned to protect political interests, however the club scene is a microcasm of some nasty shit and its all rolled into overcrowded buildings. This scene needs to be watched; could be watched more, regulated more, and frankly we are lucky (in Guv's case) that it is not. Any Elliot Ness would walk right into Guv, turn the lights on and expose some especially illegal activity and substances.

In socially conservative North America the entire concept of late-night dancing and revelry is intrinsically countercultural. I don't see how anyone can expect nightlife to be legitimized and respected. It has always represented the dark underbelly of society--that which is sinful and wrong. Dance with the devil...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.