|
New S.F. promoter legislation may ultimately hurt all of us!!!!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Taj |
GET UP, STAND UP! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!
Listen up event producers and promoters, there is a piece of legislation pending that if passed will require event producers to get a permit to do each event. This is something that can prove to be very expensive and seriously regulated. Furthermore, the legislation will prevent anyone from loitering outside of clubs, hence inpacting opportunities for street promotion and mingling. It is noted that there is a hearing this coming Tues at 4pm at city hall. Below is an article regarding the matter as well as a link for information about the hearing. It is really important for everyone to be aware of these proposals, from venue owners to event producers, street promoters, and anyone who wants nightlife entertainment to retain its freedom for producing the events we desire.
Event promoters under fire
by Seth Hemmelgarn
[email protected][/email]
Proposed legislation put forward by Mayor Gavin
Newsom and District 10 Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has some worried that event
promoters' fundraising efforts – as well as queer nightlife events – could be
stifled.
The legislation, which Maxwell was introduced to the Board of Supervisors on March 4, would require anyone who promotes two
or more events a year to obtain a permit, and would enable police to determine
who to hold accountable for a security plan, any health or safety rule
violations, or creation of a public nuisance.
Proof of at least $1 million in liability
insurance and a security plan would be among the requirements for applicants.
The Entertainment Commission could revoke permits. The cost for the permits
hasn't been specified.
The proposed legislation is designed to address
violence at entertainment venues, and is part of a package of proposals that
would also prohibit loitering outside nightclubs, among other things. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported there've
been six homicides outside nightclubs since the beginning of 2007.
But some say many promoters could be forced
out, including those who do fundraising for LGBT groups.
Openly gay Supervisor Bevan Dufty said he has not been briefed on the proposed legislation yet and hasn't taken a position, but he said it did raise eyebrows.
"A lot is being done to make it harder in communities that are not creating
problems, so I don't know what the value is," Dufty said. "I am concerned."
Duftysaid he's been asked to meet with promoters, venue owners, and activists next week to discuss the issue.
FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/entertainment_index.asp
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 [email protected]
Board of Supervisors:
President Aaron Peskin [email protected][/email]
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell [email protected]
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick [email protected]
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier [email protected]
Supervisor Carmen Chu [email protected][/email]
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi [email][email protected]
Supervisor Chris Daly [email protected]
Supervisor Sean R. Elsbernd [email protected]
Supervisor Bevan Dufty [email protected]
Supervisor Tom Ammiano [email][email protected]
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval [email][email protected]
Terrance Alan
Chairman
San Francisco Late Night Coalition
415.346.9165 t
415.974.1952 f
PO Box 77406; San Francisco, CA 94107
http://sfscene.blogspot.com/2008/03...len-of-san.html |
|
|
| 2tall |
and here's a more concise summary of the four parts of legislation:
- The first ordinance would require promoters to obtain a permit before holding two or more events per calendar year, thus enabling the Police Department and other regulator agencies to know who is directly responsible for an event and hold them accountable for a security plan and any violations of health or safety rules.
- The second ordinance amends existing law to tighten the permitting process, and grants emergency powers to the Director of Entertainment Commission to suspend permits for a variety of safety and noise violations.
- The third ordinance clarifies the application requirements for Extended-Hours Premises Permits (premises which are open between 2-6a.m requiring these premises to create security plans, which the Executive Director of the Commission must approve.
- The final ordinance makes it illegal to loiter within 10 feet of a club for more than 3 minutes. It only applies between 9p.m. and 3a.m. and does not apply to people waiting for a bus or other activity. A person must be warned before they can be cited.
(source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=76144) |
|
|
| Andrieux |
ing hip-hop ruining :rolleyes:
I think the SF EDM promoters should get together and form an alliance on this issue. Stronger in numbers, also this will help manage and control the messaging that will be delivered from the anti-legislation group. The more organized the group is against the legislation, the better it will look in the eyes of the elected officials. |
|
|
| DJ Taj |
Not only the S.F. promoters gathering & speaking there voice but YOU THE PEOPLE NEED TO EMAIL THE ABOVE EMAIL ADDRESSES VOICING YOUR OPINIONS AS WELL.
Lets realize the more stringent the city is going to get the less events people/promoters will want to throw.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| JoNMiTz |
| it sounds to me like the loitering section is more against people trying to cause problems rather than people handing out fliers, and I don't think any Edm clubs are owned by big enough s that theywould call the police to ultimately hurt their own scene |
|
|
| 72hrpartyanimal |
sounds like a bull!
I'm suprised the city of S.F. would do such a thing being how liberal they are!
will be sending an email tonight! |
|
|
| DJ Taj |
| Dave T...Curious to know your thoughts on this subject...:conf: |
|
|
| DaveT |
I think it's terrible, not just for us, but for all parties involved. All parties will be affected. Patrons, DJs, Promoters, and Club Owners. To think it will effect some parts of the scene, but not the other is rediculous.
If this passes as is (not that I want any variation), it just shows how naive the panel of voters is....I don't even have to know anything about the scene and it looks like a bad idea to me.
If this litigation gets serious consideration, the sway could be by the club owners themselves. I know that there are a couple of owners on there that support it...out of despiration...you go out and have all the club owners that rely on promoter-run-parties to get people to come to their place...let them speak about how putting everything over on the promoters is such a bad idea.
I think the end, if this is passed, I will be astounded.
I would post a more thorough reply that made more sense...but ...yeah...uhh, we'll just say I'm too lazy! |
|
|
| DJ Taj |
| If you wanna make a difference then try to show up to the meeting today @ 4pm!!! |
|
|
|
|
