The Greensboro City Council passed a resolution in support of establishing a Safety Review Board at the Tuesday, Dec. 21 meeting.
The vote to support the Safety Review Board was 8-1, with Councilmember Justin Outling casting the lone no vote.
The idea of a security ordinance to punish restaurants and bars that have a violent incident in or near their premises has a long history. In 2014, the City Council passed a nightclub ordinance that required enhanced security. However, because of the opposition to that ordinance, the City Council then voted to impose a moratorium on enforcement of the ordinance and never lifted the moratorium.
In this round, Mayor Nancy Vaughan proposed an ordinance establishing a nightclub security ordinance in January and the ordinance was revived as establishing a Safety Review Board in April after a stabbing at a downtown restaurant.
The major difference in the Safety Review Board that the City Council voted to support on Tuesday is that it is not an ordinance. The makeup of the board, with four city employees, is the same as in the proposed ordinance, with the noted last minute addition of a fifth member, who is a “peer business owner.” The memo establishing the Safety Review Board reads like an ordinance, but the Safety Review Board established by this memo has no inherent power.
According to the memo, if a bar or restaurant has a “violent incident” and is asked to appear before the Safety Review Board but does not comply with the recommendations made by that board, then that private business will be subject to enhanced enforcement efforts by the Building Inspections Department, the Planning Department, the agencies regulating businesses with alcohol sales and consumption licenses and could be declared a public nuisance by the city.
One man who did not identify himself but said that he was an attorney representing a number of businesses, noted that government establishments such as the Greensboro Coliseum were exempt from the proposed plan, that the plan was based on “zero findings of fact,” and that the public had not been informed of the Safety Review Board proposal with sufficient time to review it and comment on it.
Outling noted that there was no clarity on when a bar or restaurant would be subject to the Safety Review Board or how the recommendation process would work.
Outling also noted that the proposed plan was reactive rather than proactive.
He said, “We should be proactive with bars and restaurants to prevent crimes from actually occurring.”
Councilmember Marikay Abuzuaiter said that she was totally against the ordinance, but that she could see how this plan might help a restaurant or bar stay in business after a violent incident.
She said, “I think this is going to be a big help to businesses.”
Councilmember Marikay Abuzuaiter said that she was totally against the ordinance, but that she could see how this plan might help a restaurant or bar stay in business after a violent incident.
She said, “I think this is going to be a big help to businesses.
THIS LOGIC, OR LACK THEREOF DEFIES EXPLANATION!
Sign. Even more govt overreach. Any business can have a violet occurrence – violence even happens in courtrooms while Deputies there at all times.
Why would you single out a certain place selling alcohol? All businesses pay taxes in this County. They are entitled to police protection any time they need it. It is CUSTOMERS who misbehave (see: airline passengers), not the business. It’s like saying that guns kill people. Arrest and prosecute the perps.
A “social district” where people can wander around with cups of alcoholic beverage and a nightclub security ordinance?
I wish there was a “Common Sense Review Board” to review this Council and their “Safety Review Board”.The best part is having building inspectors be the enforcers.Heaven help us.
I’m sure Mandate Mayor and her cabal think one days notice of agenda items is enough for restaurant and bar owners to organize and attend city council meetings during Christmas week……The underhanded, quasilegal, abusive, unilateral, shenanigans our Mayor pulls is unacceptable. Isn’t her term over already? Didn’t she promise not to run again? Is this based on sluggish food and drink sales at Performance Arts Boondoggle (exempt )? Will this shut down brewery’s adjacent to Colisieum (exempt) when another gang related murder happens there?
Any solutions other than nanny state buercrats punishing small business?
Who and what qualifies to be a board member?
You have to be LEFT-handed.
Perhaps if there were legitimate security concerns to be addressed this empty dialogue would have a basis in the real needs to be addressed. If you want a safer city ( not just “downtown “) start with the gangs and the clubs where there are persistent problems. We need more law enforcement and real security measures like curfews and stop and frisk. Greensboro will not be made safer by deputizing restaurant owners and staff.
We all know That no real solution will be forthcoming from our “representatives “. After 77 years in Greensboro I have seen our city spend money on everything but real public safety. Just drive on any street and see how nonexistent compliance to common driving regulations has become. If we can’t even enforce that level of safety , why would we put businesses in the role of code enforcement?
Our city’s motto should be “ To seem rather than to be”. Keep electing sameness and you’ll always get the same result. Einstein was right in his often quoted statement about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.
It’s up to us. Are we tired of pretensions and sameness our do we want solutions?