dnalounge update

DNA Lounge update, wherein a New Year's Eve tale of police harassment is told.
Tags:
Current Music: Halou -- Wholeness ♬

12 Responses:

  1. artkiver says:

    East bay is getting in on the war on fun too:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2010/01/16/BAAO1BJ04A.DTL

    And OPD shut down a party at the bordello last weekend and stated that they were on their "watchlist" because when venues are getting harassed and shut down, and people move to private events, well we can't have that either! grrr.

  2. greyface says:

    So, 1060.1 is the criminal (as opposed to ABC penalty) version of "You're violating the terms of your permit." Right?

    Presumably, since the number of witnesses is copious, they'll have to come up with something that ACTUALLY happened? Can that ticket be valid for blocking the sidewalk before the officer asked your staff to clear it? Is that ticketable the second it happens? Only following a complaint or officer's instruction?

    • bluknight says:

      The way I read 1060.1, it appears the more appropriate accusation is "you're operating without a permit." And since we have established that jwz is pretty much manic about trying to do things above-board, I for one would really like to know what permit he's operating without.

      Oh, wait a minute, I already know the answer. He didn't acquire a "make money through business" permit. Of course, he'd tell you that didn't apply because the nightclub business doesn't make money. However, don't tell the war on fun that...

      • greyface says:

        Since 1060.1 requires a permit, I assume that doing things not allowed by the permit is a violation. In a broader strokes example, if you apply for a permit to assemble in the streets on the 16th, from 8am-5pm, and people are on the streets on the 17th at 4am, you can't say, "We had a permit for yesterday," and expect it to get you anywhere.

        Back towards the point, if your permit REQUIRES you to do things (keep the sidewalks clear, keep noise down, etc) failing to do those things means you're doing things NOT COVERED by your permit.

        But I'm not a lawyer, much less an entertainment lawyer. So, I am talking purely from the same place I fart out of.

  3. spoonyfork says:

    If you haven't already I recommend filing a harrasment complaint against the officier in question. They add up and affect compensation as well as bring more attention to you. :)

  4. klarfax says:

    I hope all of your customers know about these problems--have you handed out flyers, etc.?

  5. sheilagh says:

    Do y'all have security cameras that would show the sparse population on the sidewalks that night?

  6. dasht says:

    The officer said "being cited under section 1060.1 MPC, violating the Good Neighbor Policy". The "Good Neighbor Policy" is an Entertainment Commission regulation, not ordinance, and has no applicability to 1060.1 unless you lack a permit.

    It sounds like a citation for "here's what I think of you and your Entertainment Commission buddies".

    • phoenixredux says:

      I always thought the Good Neighbor Policy was what I got from my State Farm agent. This sounds more like getting the shaft.

      • strspn says:

        Thank you for your request for "insurance." Sadly, our popular Good Neighbor Policies were recently replaced by "What Do You Expect Me to Do with This Flood Insurance Premium Because All Our Actuaries Were Fired by Hedge Fund Managers Betting against Themselves in Bed with OPEC" policies, which precipitated the AIG, counterparty, and sub-prime mortgage crises, resulting in asset price collapse and the elimination of public transportation and bike lanes in your area. We look forward to your continued patronage after the coming plagues.

  7. mc_kingfish says:

    Crap like this requires sunlight to disinfect it. It may be too far in the past I dunno, but I sent this off to writers at the SFBG, the SFWeekly & The Chronicle. This whole story is just plain ugly.

    • strspn says:

      I have a feeling lawyers ask for an embargo on this stuff. I'm not sure it would help. I think Nature would be a lot more respectable if they didn't insist on an embargo.