First, let me clarify something from last Sunday’s City Talk.
In that column, I questioned the provision in the city of Savannah’s draft alcohol ordinance revision that would ban anyone under 21 from working for “a licensed alcohol beverage caterer” if the employee had any contact with alcohol.
The revision is actually consistent with state law. (I would add, however, that the state law itself seems inconsistent with other state laws.)
As owners and managers of bars and restaurants have had time to look more closely at the city’s draft ordinance, many are questioning a few key areas, including the strict requirements for additional security personnel at all establishments that serve alcohol after midnight.
The draft does not include the word “additional,” but it seems the majority of late-night establishments would have to expand their payrolls.
The reaction to the new requirements among affected owners and managers seems to run the emotional gamut from disgusted to livid.
The objections are increasingly boiling down to two key questions.
Is there a demonstrated need for new regulations?
Do the proposed regulations address that need?
To build the case for additional private security after midnight on weekends, the city has assembled data showing an increase in police calls within an area that includes River Street, City Market and much of Congress Street and Broughton Street.
Over the past year, there were 600 police calls on Saturdays in that area. Primarily because of the hours after midnight, there were 552 calls for police service on Sundays.
If we divide the numbers by 52, we realize there are, on average, about 12 calls for police service every Saturday and 11 every Sunday.
For many years, we have marketed River Street and City Market as major tourist destinations dotted with restaurants, bars and nightclubs. Bay Street and River Street are both lined with hotels that attract guests eager to enjoy our hospitable downtown culture.
The clusters of bars and restaurants downtown attract many locals too, including young adults who often work long hours and sometimes party hard.
Given those realities, how worried should we even be that there are 12 calls for police service every Saturday?
Of course, not every police call results in an arrest. There were 532 total arrests in the area from July 3, 2013, to July 1, 2014. That’s an average of just more than 10 per week.
By the way, in that area there were only eight arrests of 16- to 20-year-olds that included charges for alcohol related offenses. That’s for an entire 12-month period.
I am actually surprised these numbers are as low as they are.
Still, I tend to agree with police officials that we need new strategies to address issues that arise just before and just after last call when patrons have to leave private businesses and enter public spaces.
As city officials noted in a statement, many police calls require multiple officers, and there is always the chance that minor incidents could escalate “into something really bad, such as a shooting or other type of aggravated assault.”
But would those concerns even be addressed by requiring most late-night establishments to expand their payrolls for security?
Consider the two hours of the week with the most police calls in the area: early Sunday morning from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. and from 3 a.m. to 4 a.m.
Of course, by 3 a.m. every bar is closed and locked up tight.
In that same statement, city officials said that under the new ordinance, it would be “the responsibility of late night entertainment establishment personnel to clear all on and off-site areas associated with the licensed premises within 30 minutes of closing.”
I suspect that most establishment owners would probably be willing to put forth greater effort to disperse crowds on the sidewalk if they know that their patrons are congregating there long after closing time. But a single door person could handle that.
City officials have suggested they are reconsidering some of the proposed requirements for additional security.
“We are talking to those establishments that have good security plans in place already that are working, but that would have to increase personnel under the proposal,” said the email I received from city spokesperson Bret Bell. “This input is proving extremely helpful. We don’t want to mess with things that are working.”
I’m sure some business owners are glad to read that last paragraph, but, given the ugly mood out there, they will remain vigilant until they see new language in the draft.
Let’s go back a step further.
Consider this summary statement from the city’s website: “A small number of late-night establishments are causing a disproportionate number of calls for Police service. In recognition of this, the City is proposing the creation of a late-night sales license, which replaces and repeals the current hybrid license.”
I’d be thrilled to see Savannah scrap the “hybrid” classification, but I don’t follow the logic of those two sentences.
If a “small number” of establishments are the real problem, why are we considering a licensing process that will affect dozens of bars and restaurants throughout the city, even those that are outside the downtown entertainment zone, that close as early as 1 a.m. and that have no history of problems?
I have asked city officials for the names of the “small number” of truly troublesome establishments, but I did not receive it before my deadline. I will follow up on that question and other issues in upcoming columns.
Also please note there will be drop-in sessions where residents can ask public officials individual questions about the ordinance on Thursday, Sept. 18, from 1-3 p.m. and 6-8 p.m. in the Bryan Room of the Civic Center.
City Talk appears every Tuesday and Sunday. Bill Dawers can be reached via billdawers@comcast.net. Send mail to 10 East 32nd St., Savannah, Ga. 31401.