They want more money so they can do more of this?

6 Responses to “They want more money so they can do more of this?”

1. 1
   Max Allstadt Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am

   They shut down Mama Buzz’s live music! 6 days before Art Murmur!

   This cabaret law is a great way to stifle small businesses in this city. We need a common sense cabaret law. Cabarets have impacts, which need to be controlled. But this is ridiculous. Mama Buzz has acoustic shows, holds 50 people tops, and closes at 10. This simply should not require any additional permit of any kind. We need to change the law.

   What’s more, we still have a dumb law on the books that restricts cabarets from being near churches. This is a FLAGRANT violation of the principle of separation of church and state. It is also totally foolish because cabarets and churches are rarely if ever active at the same time. This rule needs to be eliminated immediately. An empty church suffers no harm from a cabaret.

   We need a common sense cabaret law. We need one that acknowledges scale. Mingles and Mama Buzz are not the same thing and should not be subject to the same regulatory regime.
   There should be different rules for establishments under X square feet. Licensing fees should be pro-rated in some way by the occupancy limit. If you want to have 700 people, your fee should be WAY bigger than a coffee shop that holds 30. And there should be a minimum size beneath which no license whatsoever is required. Fine them for noise violations, sure, but requiring a permit for one person to sing to 30 others, no matter where it is… that’s unamerican. You don’t get to tell me where I can and cannot sing.

   Meanwhile Dogtown burns, pregnant women and four year-olds get shot, and our politicians won’t even be available for us to yell at for another two weeks.

2. 2
   V Smoothe Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm

   Well put, Max.

   The Council made some modifications to the cabaret ordinance last year, including allowing licenses within 300 feet of schools, libraries, and churches at the discretion of the City Administrator. But the reforms did not go nearly far enough and did not get at the root problem of the ordinance, which is that, in attempting to regulate a certain type of establishment, it places a totally undue burden on local small businesses.

   At the same time as they amended the ordinance as mentioned above, the Council voted to raise the application fee for a cabaret license to $600. During the Public Safety Committee discussion of the issue, Jean Quan explained her reasoning like this: “Cabarets make a lot of money. They can afford it.”

3. 3
   Max Allstadt Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm

   Ahem.

   Ms. Quan… Mama Buzz does not make a lot of money. The performers play for tips. There’s no cover. There are 30 people in a room listening politely. This should not be considered a cabaret, but for some crazy reason it is.

   Many other coffee shops and beer&wine only establishments do not make a lot of money. One way to help them make a little more money is to make it easy for the small ones to have live performances. The easier we make it for Oaklanders to engage in acts of free expression, the more we’ll attract people from nearby cities to our businesses.

   And this is not just about hipsters. Mama Buzz is valuable across demographics. I had a chat with an Alameda County Democratic Party campaign official there yesterday, as well as an 82 year old African American artist and former CCAC professor. Jerry Freaking Brown hangs out at Mama Buzz sometimes. Our cafes have the potential to transcend class and generation lines if we don’t hamstring them.

   That application fee, by the way isn’t even the whole cost of getting that cabaret license. There are also all sorts of building code restrictions. This is why we should have two tiered or even multi-tiered permits. Safety for people in a 500 person night club, dancing in a dark room and drinking whiskey is one thing. Safety for people in a 50 person coffee shop at twilight, sitting and listening to an acoustic guitarist is something entirely different. The little guys simply should not be held to the same standard as the big guys.

   This is ridiculous. Left unchecked, it will lead to a situation where mom-and-pop is a thing of the past. Over-regulation means only people with a gang of wealthy investors will be able to open any sort of live music venue.

   Rebecca Kaplan, are you reading this? This seems like the kind of common sense, pro-fun agenda which might get some positive feedback from you. Am I wrong?

4. 4
   Max Allstadt Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm

   Looking back at the statute, I think there is only one word that we need to point out in order to make the case that it is horrendously out of date, and needs to be revamped.

   “Vaudeville”

   Those pesky unlicensed vaudvillians! They’re a carnsarned dagnabbed menace!

   But seriously folks, vaudeville was all but dead well before WWII. We need a new statute.

5. 5
   Rebecca Kaplan Says:
   September 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm

   Yes Max, you are right. Oakland needs to welcome and harness our arts community — and we need for our permit process to be rational.

   (This goes beyond artists too, there are many ways in which our permit process needs improvement, including this issue of “scale”).

   I would be happy to talk in more detail (including getting your input) about particular instances where we can revise our ordinances/statutes to make them more applicable to our changing circumstances, more user-friendly, and more likely to encourage a healthy and vibrant future for our city.

   We can build an Oakland renaissance. And yes, we will have to change some ordinances to do it. Strengthening the economy and community in a city has often historically included growth in the arts — and related growth of economic opportunity at all levels.

   Also, due to the fact that we urgently need to deploy more police to vital functions (e.g. dealing with serious crime), that is all the more reason to avoid wasting law enforcement resources where they are not needed.

6. 6
   Max Allstadt Says:
   September 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am

   Thanks, Rebecca.

   This scale issue really does amount to regressive taxation in a progressive city. I understand our need to collect revenue, but if we discourage mom-and-pop entrepreneurs in the process (or mom-and-mom, or pop-and-pop), we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.

   I know you’ve spoken about this before. Particularly in the form of loosening up Conditional Use Permits. Glad to have you around.