Club Owners Demand Reduced Fees,
Create Public Safety Problems

By Mark W. Forster

As a resident of Jack London Square in council district three, I lived through shootings and violence at Mingles and Zazoo's, two nightclubs only blocks from my place. A pregnant woman was shot and killed in a crowd outside Mingles. Three people were shot outside Zazoo's two years ago. Both clubs were finally closed.

Now an initiative carried for ambitious club owners by councilwoman Nancy Nadel would liberalize city cabaret law, encouraging even more of these clubs to flourish in Oakland, ranked the third most dangerous city in the country.

A staff aide to Nadel claims new revenue would amount to "$300,000 in permit fees its first year and more down the line." Yet according to a press report, Nadel proposes to reduce the permit fee for these bars from $2,200 to $600. She would also streamline the application process and extend the 2 a.m. closing time for some nightclubs and bars to 5 a.m. (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 7, 2010)

The permit income is miniscule compared to the police resources needed to keep the peace around these clubs. An already decimated, over-burdened police force (whose numbers continue to decline each month due to normal attrition and council refusal to fund training academies) will be further stretched in efforts to monitor and respond to the violence associated with these establishments.

"What the council wants is going to cost money, and it will have a negative impact on resources," Dom Arotzarena, president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, told the Wall Street Journal.

Meanwhile, criminals scouting for opportunities in other parts of the city will have even more freedom to prey on Oakland residents.

If Nadel wants to close several hundred thousand dollars of budget gap, she does not need to encourage venues that generate shootings, robberies, sideshows, and riots. How about eliminating the mayor's taxpayer-funded, chauffeur-driven luxury Town car? How about eliminating a chunk of the city council's staff (who serve no purpose other than as an incumbent-protection program)?

Economic development cannot occur in a stable fashion until Oakland gets a handle on crime. Businesses of all sorts will accept a certain amount of property crime, but they are absolutely repelled by violent crime. Why should aspiring club operators make money, drive away other businesses, and expect the public to bear the expense of keeping the peace?