Senators Are Right about Inauguration Bar Hours
Today's WaPo brings news that two senators are bitching about the impending move to allow bars and nightclubs to stay open till 5:00 am throughout the inauguration madness. This is our city, of course, and I don't particularly care what a pair of senators from California (Feinstein) and Utah (Bennett) have to say about how we run the place.
Trouble is that in this case, they happen to be right.
This is a big giveaway to the very powerful Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington, which came up with the idea in the first place. By extending the hours, of course, all kinds of businesses will pull in extra cash.
D.C.'s police union chief, Kristopher Baumann, has raised hell about the diversion of crime-fighting resources that the extended hours will cause. People out in the neighborhoods, Baumann has said, will be left with scant police protection because all the officers will be covering the nightlife areas. As union boss, Baumann's complaints can often be dismissed as idle carping about nothing.
But think about the scenario--we're going out of our way to extend bar and club hours, and for what? So the police can prowl the streets collaring people for disorderlies and DUIs all the way up to 7 am? It'd be nice to think that the spirit of Election Night will linger; in other words, that people will be joyous and peaceful and so on. But four nights of almost-to-dawn revelry provides a huge opening for the knuckleheads of the world to have their day.
Plus, the move lays bare the District's political bias. How come they didn't do this the last time Bush was inaugurated? Bad policy all around.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
3:33 pm
you're dead wrong, erik. you're forgetting the amount of tax revenue this will add to the city's coffers. in a town where we can't institute a commuter tax, the 10% that we are able to get from food and drink sales in restaurants and bars is super-important to the bottom line around here. and, since the city is operating with a deficit (luckily it isn't as deep as in other jurisdictions), this could go a long way towards helping to plug up some holes.
let the liquor flow, and sweep up the cash from all the visitors.
9:30 pm
Unlike a lot of the readers of the Washington City Paper I'm a capitalist. Therefore, I'm all for the potential revenue generating cash cow that the inaugural events in DC will bring. However, along with being a capitalist I'm also a skeptic. I have taken my fair share of risks in the name of making more money and building business but this extended bar hour stuff is retarded. I will be out and about on one of the evenings during that 5 day span because of a nightlife project that I'm working on. Otherwise, I'd be in the house watching the events unfold on the boob tube because bringing money to the city is the only good thing that'll come out of all this.
10:56 am
All good points, but I would disagree with that last bit, about political bias----I assume this move to extend hours of operation was made in response to the massive numbers of tourists that will be coming to DC. If Bush's win(s) had inspired/provoked so much of a influx of out-of-towners, I'm sure the idea would have cropped up before.
1:26 pm
"But four nights of almost-to-dawn revelry provides a huge opening for the knuckleheads of the world to have their day."
and 9pm 'til 3:30 am isn't already a big enough window?
you can't blame laws or by-laws or temporary exceptions of the law for the actions people may take, erik. the opportunity is always there for your "knuckleheads".
1:48 am
I'd love to know the real reason the police union chose to come out against this.
It can't possibly have anything to do with public safety, otherwise the union would be taking a stand against overweight cops who can't even give chase to shooting suspects 10 yards away; and the union would also be against the issuance of "FOP" plates that help off-duty cops violate speeding rules with impunity.
So, since it's not public safety, why is the union against this? I'm guessing it's because cops might have to work inconvenient schedules: some long-tenured union members might lose a day off or have to work night-shift.
And the bit about cops spread too thin to "protect" neighborhoods is a farce. In the residential neighborhoods, cops respond after the crime has occurred and grudgingly do the paperwork. Anyone who thinks cops somehow "protect" them from robbery or assault needs to rethink their defensive strategy.
5:48 pm
In response to the last paragraph of Jay's last comment, I agree. However, I think they won't even respond at all. For example (well more like a true story), the September 12, 2001 I was on my way to class at Howard U and I caught a ride with a friend because we both stayed off campus. As she's driving we end up behind a metrobus so she decided to go around it, misjudged and hit the back of the bus. Bus driver calls in the accident and a metrobus supervisor shows but the police never do. Second example (another true story), later on that day I'm riding in a car with another friend on 295. He's speeding in a Ford Crown Victoria with dark and tint and rims. We notice a police car waiitng in the median (as soon as we flew by them). I'm pretty sure if it were September 10, 2001 the police would've done what they normally do in those instances. But because security was heightened everywhere as of September 11, 2001, hitting a metrobus and speeding weren't as important as looking out for suspicious activity. So, as sad as it is, responding to a shooting, domestic dispute, robbery, etc won't be as important as making sure everyone hanging out in the streets are okay.