Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Club U Opportunity?

Expand Messages
  • William Jordan
    Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U. It is my hope that the Board with
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will
      rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U. It is my hope that
      the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom. For me this
      would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and plan
      that truely addresses public safety. I don't know if the current
      ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
      responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such clubs to
      U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic development,
      public safety and community failure. I will explain my logic.

      A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar owners need
      understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities extend
      beyond their legal liabilities. The law and regulations should be seen
      a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not acceptable
      for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special and
      unique community owners and managers must do more than take a passive, I
      met the letter of the law attitude. The lives of our young people are
      too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
      responsible for making a profit, they also have stewardship for
      ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St.

      The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this opportunity to
      organize themselves for their own well being and that of this community.
      Their should be no free rides. In the case of Club U, it should not be
      allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
      functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility. It is not
      fair to expect this community to carry your weight, step up to the plate
      and take responsibility with action and this community will welcome you
      with open arms.

      From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the public
      safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club U and
      the community. I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but as
      best I can tell MPD took no significant preventative action in years
      of dealing this club. No consistant special patrols, no declaration of
      a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30 Club. It
      seems almost as though that MPD's professional plan was to wait for
      incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed. I truely
      hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns I
      have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary suspension
      at Club U their should be some for a negligent MPD. Initially, I was
      very suspicious of some in the community calling the loudest for the
      closure of Club U, but after seeing how the leaders of the public
      safety apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other viable
      options.

      Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and its
      operations. If that was the case, I would not bother. However, other
      issues are at stake, at least for me. I have an 18 year old daughter
      that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others in
      elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in the
      future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and etc.
      In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
      There is no way that I will stand for that answer. I am under no
      illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
      convert that to a YES. It may not be fair, but in reading between the
      lines, I see the way Club U is being handled as a referendum on
      whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults in
      the future development of this community.

      I say this because of some of what I have learned following this Club U
      issue. Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people, extra
      measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and businesses
      owners is going to be required. An unwillingness to invest these extra
      measure is equal to excluding them. For example:

      Some claim that a government building is no place for an after hours
      club. However, considering were we are with our young people today. The
      Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve this
      demographic on U St. I don't know if current management is up to the
      task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms of
      security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
      constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around. The
      arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our young
      people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water.

      MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
      Club's call to them as evidence against the club. They also, complained
      that calls to the club takes them away from other areas. The logic then
      follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is not in
      the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe. MPD is
      basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting these
      young people. It would rather send its time in the hotspot in Adams
      Morgan. Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work? They just
      don't want to invest time, money and energy in this crowd...

      Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that happen
      it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences. All the
      elements are there for a success. Failure, to make a Club U work in
      the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just one
      club. It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do something
      special here.

      William
    • Dennis
      William, Rarely do I respond to things on this list-serv, but I think that your posting deserves a reply. In theory, Club U may be a good idea. A space for
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        William,

        Rarely do I respond to things on this list-serv, but I think that
        your posting deserves a reply.

        In theory, Club U may be a good idea. A space for young people to
        have fun, in a safe environment. However, you fail to realize that
        Club U is a bar/club. Not a clubhouse or a community center. It is
        not a place for constructive behavior, as most bars are not. When I
        think of an establishment that primarily serves liquor, I do not
        think, "Oh, how wonderful for neighborhood youths." You say you have
        an 18 year old and a 14 year old. Neither should be at Club U as
        both are under age. So what are the benefits of Club U?

        MPD certainly has problems, but, they do not patrol most bars. Adams
        Morgan and Club U are not at all similar. Adams Morgan is a strip of
        bars, not one club. The police patrol 18th Street, not TomTom, or
        some other bar.

        And, I think most in the community would prefer to see some other use
        of the Reeves Building. A government building is simply not the
        place for a club. If you know of any clubs or bars in government
        buildings, please let me know. I do not know of any, though I offer
        a disclaimer that I go to the same places most of the time and rarely
        venture away.

        I see your point of keeping you and your family in the community.
        And, I do believe you fit in here and you will continue to do so.
        But, your logic on Club U is a bit skewed. MPD should continue to
        monitor our streets, and not have to worry about an establishment
        known for crime. Club U should be closed down. There are plenty of
        other options available for people to go and drink and dance and
        whatever.

        I wish you the best.

        Dennis

        --- In columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com, William Jordan <whj@m...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
        will
        > rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U. It is my hope
        that
        > the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom. For me
        this
        > would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and
        plan
        > that truely addresses public safety. I don't know if the current
        > ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
        > responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such
        clubs to
        > U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic
        development,
        > public safety and community failure. I will explain my logic.
        >
        > A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar owners
        need
        > understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities
        extend
        > beyond their legal liabilities. The law and regulations should be
        seen
        > a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not
        acceptable
        > for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special
        and
        > unique community owners and managers must do more than take a
        passive, I
        > met the letter of the law attitude. The lives of our young people
        are
        > too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
        > responsible for making a profit, they also have stewardship for
        > ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St.
        >
        > The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this opportunity
        to
        > organize themselves for their own well being and that of this
        community.
        > Their should be no free rides. In the case of Club U, it should
        not be
        > allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
        > functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility. It
        is not
        > fair to expect this community to carry your weight, step up to the
        plate
        > and take responsibility with action and this community will welcome
        you
        > with open arms.
        >
        > From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the
        public
        > safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club
        U and
        > the community. I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but
        as
        > best I can tell MPD took no significant preventative action in
        years
        > of dealing this club. No consistant special patrols, no
        declaration of
        > a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30 Club.
        It
        > seems almost as though that MPD's professional plan was to wait
        for
        > incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed. I
        truely
        > hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns
        I
        > have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary
        suspension
        > at Club U their should be some for a negligent MPD. Initially, I
        was
        > very suspicious of some in the community calling the loudest for
        the
        > closure of Club U, but after seeing how the leaders of the public
        > safety apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other
        viable
        > options.
        >
        > Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and
        its
        > operations. If that was the case, I would not bother. However,
        other
        > issues are at stake, at least for me. I have an 18 year old
        daughter
        > that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others
        in
        > elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in
        the
        > future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and
        etc.
        > In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
        > There is no way that I will stand for that answer. I am under no
        > illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
        > convert that to a YES. It may not be fair, but in reading between
        the
        > lines, I see the way Club U is being handled as a referendum on
        > whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults
        in
        > the future development of this community.
        >
        > I say this because of some of what I have learned following this
        Club U
        > issue. Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people,
        extra
        > measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and businesses
        > owners is going to be required. An unwillingness to invest these
        extra
        > measure is equal to excluding them. For example:
        >
        > Some claim that a government building is no place for an after
        hours
        > club. However, considering were we are with our young people
        today. The
        > Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve
        this
        > demographic on U St. I don't know if current management is up to
        the
        > task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms
        of
        > security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
        > constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around.
        The
        > arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our
        young
        > people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water.
        >
        > MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
        > Club's call to them as evidence against the club. They also,
        complained
        > that calls to the club takes them away from other areas. The logic
        then
        > follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is not
        in
        > the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe.
        MPD is
        > basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting
        these
        > young people. It would rather send its time in the hotspot in
        Adams
        > Morgan. Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work? They
        just
        > don't want to invest time, money and energy in this crowd...
        >
        > Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that
        happen
        > it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences. All
        the
        > elements are there for a success. Failure, to make a Club U work
        in
        > the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just
        one
        > club. It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do
        something
        > special here.
        >
        > William
      • Richard Layman
        I agree with you that it is important to utilize spaces in time-shifted ways.* I used to promote this idea wrt federal buildings (i.e., the GAO parking garage
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree with you that it is important to utilize spaces in time-shifted ways.* 
           
          I used to promote this idea wrt federal buildings (i.e., the GAO parking garage could be used on weekends and at night to support downtown activities).  Of course, 9/11 changed the dynamic wrt federal buildings...  That idea will never fly now.
           
          I also feel this way about other public assets such as schools.  Rather than DCPS thinking that it and only it owns a school, the buildings should be reconceptualized as centers for total community learning, and able to be used outside of school hours to support and build the community's capacity to learn and grow and improve.
           
          It's too bad that Club U hasn't managed its responsibilities very well, because the points you make are important.
           
          This is another example of how "noxious use" can lead to a policy action that helps get rid of the noxious use, but is limiting in other ways.  The proscription shouldn't be to eliminate all such uses, but to ensure that the uses are well-managed.  (Usually I write about how "noxious uses" are created by developers to get a community to support demolition of historic buidlings, which is something the developer wanted all along.)
           
          Unfortunately, since the problems with Club U have been so egregious, I think that there is a lot of pressure on the ABC Board to do more than a short suspension. 
          Regardless, you raise important points that I hope are heard and considered in the spirit in which they are offered, recognizing at the same time, as you do, that the community has justifiable concerns with regard to the operation of Club U that must be addressed.
           
          Richard Layman
           
          * That great woman Jane Jacobs covers this in part in _Death and Life in Great American Cities_ not exactly how you have laid it out.  She talks about putting places like arts uses away from the downtown (she used Pittsburgh as an example) required new parking lots to be built, only for use at night, while downtown parking garages saw primarily daily use... Had the arts facility been located downtown, the same parking facilities could have accomodated both uses, because of time-shifting of the uses.  Why not apply this thinking to a cafeteria?  I've heard (I've never been) that automobile dealerships in Paris become clubs at night.  Why not?  Etc.

          William Jordan <whj@...> wrote:

          Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will
          rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U.   It is my hope that
          the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom.   For me this
          would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and plan
          that truely addresses public safety.  I don't know if the current
          ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
          responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such clubs to
          U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic development,
          public safety and community failure.  I will explain my logic.

          A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar owners need
          understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities extend
          beyond their legal liabilities.  The law and regulations should be seen
          a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not acceptable
          for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special and
          unique community owners and managers must do more than take a passive, I
          met the letter of the law attitude.  The lives of our young people are
          too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
          responsible for  making a profit, they also have stewardship for
          ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St. 

          The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this opportunity to
          organize themselves for their own well being and that of this community.
          Their should be no free rides.  In the case of Club U, it should not be
          allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
          functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility.   It is not
          fair to expect this community to carry your weight, step up to the plate
          and take responsibility with action and this community will welcome you
          with open arms.

          From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the public
          safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club U and
          the community.  I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but as
          best I can tell MPD took  no significant  preventative action in years
          of dealing this club.  No consistant special patrols, no declaration of
          a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30 Club.  It
          seems almost as though that  MPD's professional plan was to wait for
          incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed.  I truely
          hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns I
          have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary suspension
          at Club U their should be some   for a negligent MPD.  Initially, I was
          very suspicious of  some in the community calling the loudest for the
          closure of Club U, but after seeing  how the leaders of the public
          safety  apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other viable
          options.

          Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and its
          operations.  If that was the case, I would not bother. However, other
          issues are at stake, at least for me.  I have an 18 year old daughter
          that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others in
          elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in the
          future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and etc.
          In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
          There is no way that I will stand for that answer.  I am under no
          illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
          convert that to a YES.  It may not be fair, but in reading between the
          lines, I see the way  Club U is being handled as a referendum  on
          whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults in
          the future development of this community.  

          I say this because of some of what I have learned following this Club U
          issue.  Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people, extra
          measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and  businesses
          owners is going to be required.  An unwillingness to invest these extra
          measure is equal to excluding them.   For example:

          Some claim that a government building is no place for an after hours
          club.  However, considering were we are with our young people today. The
          Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve this
          demographic on U St.  I don't know if current management is up to the
          task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms of
          security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
          constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around.  The
          arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our young
          people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water. 

          MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
          Club's call to them as evidence against the club.  They also, complained
          that calls to the club takes them away from other areas.  The logic then
          follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is not in
          the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe.  MPD is
          basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting these
          young people.  It would rather send its time in the hotspot in Adams
          Morgan.  Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work?   They just
          don't want to invest time, money and energy in this crowd...

          Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that happen
          it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences.  All the
          elements are there for a success.   Failure, to make a Club U work in
          the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just one
          club.  It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do something
          special here.

          William










          URL to this page on the web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/



        • mark mayhew
          I m with you, Club U should remain closed. The 9:30 Club was mentioned....even though it s much larger, and open most nights, I have never heard of even one
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm with you, Club U should remain closed. The 9:30
            Club was mentioned....even though it's much larger,
            and open most nights, I have never heard of even one
            violent incident in or around it.
            I respect the rights of Club U's patrons to shoot and
            stab each other, I just think it's time for them to
            find a new place to carry on these activities.

            --- Dennis <luckydlf@...> wrote:

            >
            > William,
            >
            > Rarely do I respond to things on this list-serv, but
            > I think that
            > your posting deserves a reply.
            >
            > In theory, Club U may be a good idea. A space for
            > young people to
            > have fun, in a safe environment. However, you fail
            > to realize that
            > Club U is a bar/club. Not a clubhouse or a
            > community center. It is
            > not a place for constructive behavior, as most bars
            > are not. When I
            > think of an establishment that primarily serves
            > liquor, I do not
            > think, "Oh, how wonderful for neighborhood youths."
            > You say you have
            > an 18 year old and a 14 year old. Neither should be
            > at Club U as
            > both are under age. So what are the benefits of
            > Club U?
            >
            > MPD certainly has problems, but, they do not patrol
            > most bars. Adams
            > Morgan and Club U are not at all similar. Adams
            > Morgan is a strip of
            > bars, not one club. The police patrol 18th Street,
            > not TomTom, or
            > some other bar.
            >
            > And, I think most in the community would prefer to
            > see some other use
            > of the Reeves Building. A government building is
            > simply not the
            > place for a club. If you know of any clubs or bars
            > in government
            > buildings, please let me know. I do not know of
            > any, though I offer
            > a disclaimer that I go to the same places most of
            > the time and rarely
            > venture away.
            >
            > I see your point of keeping you and your family in
            > the community.
            > And, I do believe you fit in here and you will
            > continue to do so.
            > But, your logic on Club U is a bit skewed. MPD
            > should continue to
            > monitor our streets, and not have to worry about an
            > establishment
            > known for crime. Club U should be closed down.
            > There are plenty of
            > other options available for people to go and drink
            > and dance and
            > whatever.
            >
            > I wish you the best.
            >
            > Dennis
            >
            > --- In columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com, William
            > Jordan <whj@m...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic
            > Beverage Control Board
            > will
            > > rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club
            > U. It is my hope
            > that
            > > the Board with take this opportunity to rule with
            > wisdom. For me
            > this
            > > would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required
            > agreement and
            > plan
            > > that truely addresses public safety. I don't know
            > if the current
            > > ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs
            > a safe and
            > > responsible Club U or two and a failure to
            > produce/attract such
            > clubs to
            > > U St. should be seen as a political, community &
            > economic
            > development,
            > > public safety and community failure. I will
            > explain my logic.
            > >
            > > A suspension is necessary, because Club U and
            > other club/bar owners
            > need
            > > understand clearly that their responsibility to
            > our communities
            > extend
            > > beyond their legal liabilities. The law and
            > regulations should be
            > seen
            > > a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but
            > it is not
            > acceptable
            > > for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer.
            > In this special
            > and
            > > unique community owners and managers must do more
            > than take a
            > passive, I
            > > met the letter of the law attitude. The lives of
            > our young people
            > are
            > > too important, and owners need to understand that
            > besides being
            > > responsible for making a profit, they also have
            > stewardship for
            > > ensuring a place for our young people on an up and
            > coming U St.
            > >
            > > The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take
            > this opportunity
            > to
            > > organize themselves for their own well being and
            > that of this
            > community.
            > > Their should be no free rides. In the case of
            > Club U, it should
            > not be
            > > allowed operate with its lics. until an organized
            > patrons group is
            > > functioning and in place to sign on and take
            > responsibility. It
            > is not
            > > fair to expect this community to carry your
            > weight, step up to the
            > plate
            > > and take responsibility with action and this
            > community will welcome
            > you
            > > with open arms.
            > >
            > > From all that I heard at the hearing and have
            > read, MPD and the
            > public
            > > safety apparatus as been severely negligent its
            > dealings with Club
            > U and
            > > the community. I sincerely hope that I have
            > missed something, but
            > as
            > > best I can tell MPD took no significant
            > preventative action in
            > years
            > > of dealing this club. No consistant special
            > patrols, no
            > declaration of
            > > a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made
            > for the 9:30 Club.
            > It
            > > seems almost as though that MPD's professional
            > plan was to wait
            > for
            > > incidents enough to build evidence to have the
            > club closed. I
            > truely
            > > hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well
            > with the patterns
            > I
            > > have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with
            > a temporary
            > suspension
            > > at Club U their should be some for a negligent
            > MPD. Initially, I
            > was
            > > very suspicious of some in the community calling
            > the loudest for
            > the
            > > closure of Club U, but after seeing how the
            > leaders of the public
            > > safety apparatus tend to respond I see why some
            > see no other
            > viable
            > > options.
            > >
            > > Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just
            > about one club and
            > its
            > > operations. If that was the case, I would not
            > bother. However,
            > other
            > > issues are at stake, at least for me. I have an
            > 18 year old
            > daughter
            > > that attends a local university, a 14 year old
            > son, and two others
            > in
            > > elementary school. And I have to ask is there a
            > place for them in
            > the
            > > future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights,
            > Georgia Ave. and
            >
            === message truncated ===





            __________________________________
            Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
            Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
            http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
          • William Jordan
            D.C. Board Moves to Revoke Club s License By Brian Westley City alcohol regulators moved Friday to permanently suspend the liquor license of a nightclub they
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment

               D.C. Board Moves to Revoke Club's License
               
               By Brian Westley
               
                  City alcohol regulators moved Friday to permanently suspend the liquor license of a nightclub they said has been the scene of several bloody crimes.
               
                   The District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ruled that it will now hold the additional hearings necessary to lift Club U's license for good. It has been suspended since Feb. 14, one day after a man was found stabbed to death in a hallway outside the club.
               
                   "The club's security procedures were ineffective at preventing violent incidents," ABC Board chairman Charles A. Burger said. He cited last month's homicide, part of a long list of crimes that authorities have linked to Club U.
               
                   Metropolitan Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Mayor Anthony A. Williams are among the officials who have urged the board to shut the club.
               
                   During several days of testimony in the first round of hearings, lawyers from the D.C. Attorney General's Office pointed to a history of problems involving the popular nightspot. They said nearly a dozen violent crimes have occurred in or near Club U since March 2003, including three homicides.
               
                   "The evidence was very strong and they made the right decision," Deputy Attorney General David Rubenstein said after the ruling was announced.
               
                   Terrence Brown, 31, was found stabbed to death Feb. 13 in a hallway of the Frank D. Reeves Municipal Center  --  the D.C. government building in which Club U is located. The exact location of the stabbing remains in dispute.
               
                   Club U's owners have said Brown was attacked in the lobby of the Northwest Washington building after he was escorted from the nightspot following a fight with another patron. They also contend the club is not responsible for security outside its premises.
               
                   A city police officer testified that blood stains were found on a wall of the club one day after Brown was killed. He also said a witness told police Brown was attacked near where the bloodstains were found. The officer, who works in the forensics science division, could not say whether it was Brown's blood.
               
                   The same day Brown was killed, authorities said there was also a fight between two patrons in which a woman was assaulted and knocked unconscious.
               
                   "There are no winners in any of this," said A. Scott Bolden, a former chairman of the D.C. Democratic Party who helped negotiate the club's lease.
               Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to 
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A7922-2005Mar4&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle
               
               
              
              Visit washingtonpost.com today for the latest in:

              Richard Layman wrote:
              I agree with you that it is important to utilize spaces in time-shifted ways.* 
               
              I used to promote this idea wrt federal buildings (i.e., the GAO parking garage could be used on weekends and at night to support downtown activities).  Of course, 9/11 changed the dynamic wrt federal buildings...  That idea will never fly now.
               
              I also feel this way about other public assets such as schools.  Rather than DCPS thinking that it and only it owns a school, the buildings should be reconceptualized as centers for total community learning, and able to be used outside of school hours to support and build the community's capacity to learn and grow and improve.
               
              It's too bad that Club U hasn't managed its responsibilities very well, because the points you make are important.
               
              This is another example of how "noxious use" can lead to a policy action that helps get rid of the noxious use, but is limiting in other ways.  The proscription shouldn't be to eliminate all such uses, but to ensure that the uses are well-managed.  (Usually I write about how "noxious uses" are created by developers to get a community to support demolition of historic buidlings, which is something the developer wanted all along.)
               
              Unfortunately, since the problems with Club U have been so egregious, I think that there is a lot of pressure on the ABC Board to do more than a short suspension. 
              Regardless, you raise important points that I hope are heard and considered in the spirit in which they are offered, recognizing at the same time, as you do, that the community has justifiable concerns with regard to the operation of Club U that must be addressed.
               
              Richard Layman
               
              * That great woman Jane Jacobs covers this in part in _Death and Life in Great American Cities_ not exactly how you have laid it out.  She talks about putting places like arts uses away from the downtown (she used Pittsburgh as an example) required new parking lots to be built, only for use at night, while downtown parking garages saw primarily daily use... Had the arts facility been located downtown, the same parking facilities could have accomodated both uses, because of time-shifting of the uses.  Why not apply this thinking to a cafeteria?  I've heard (I've never been) that automobile dealerships in Paris become clubs at night.  Why not?  Etc.

              William Jordan <whj@...> wrote:

              Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will
              rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U.   It is my hope that
              the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom.   For me this
              would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and plan
              that truely addresses public safety.  I don't know if the current
              ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
              responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such clubs to
              U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic development,
              public safety and community failure.  I will explain my logic.

              A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar owners need
              understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities extend
              beyond their legal liabilities.  ; The law and regulations should be seen
              a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not acceptable
              for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special and
              unique community owners and managers must do more than take a passive, I
              met the letter of the law attitude.  The lives of our young people are
              too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
              responsible for  making a profit, they also have stewardship for
              ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St. 

              The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this opportunity to
              organize themselves for their own well being and that of this community.
              Their should be no free rides.  In the case of Club U, it should not be
              allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
              functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility.   It is not
              fair to expect this community to ca rry your weight, step up to the plate
              and take responsibility with action and this community will welcome you
              with open arms.

              From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the public
              safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club U and
              the community.  I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but as
              best I can tell MPD took  no significant  preventative action in years
              of dealing this club.  No consistant special patrols, no declaration of
              a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30 Club.  It
              seems almost as though that  MPD's professional plan was to wait for
              incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed.  I truely
              hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns I
              have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary suspension
              at Club U their should be some   for a negligent MPD.  In itially, I was
              very suspicious of  some in the community calling the loudest for the
              closure of Club U, but after seeing  how the leaders of the public
              safety  apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other viable
              options.

              Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and its
              operations.  If that was the case, I would not bother. However, other
              issues are at stake, at least for me.  I have an 18 year old daughter
              that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others in
              elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in the
              future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and etc.
              In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
              There is no way that I will stand for that answer.  I am under no
              illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
              convert that to a YES.  It may not be fair, but in re ading between the
              lines, I see the way  Club U is being handled as a referendum  on
              whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults in
              the future development of this community.  

              I say this because of some of what I have learned following this Club U
              issue.  Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people, extra
              measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and  businesses
              owners is going to be required.  An unwillingness to invest these extra
              measure is equal to excluding them.   For example:

              Some claim that a government building is no place for an after hours
              club.  However, considering were we are with our young people today. The
              Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve this
              demographic on U St.  I don't know if current management is up to the
              task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms o f
              security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
              constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around.  The
              arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our young
              people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water. 

              MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
              Club's call to them as evidence against the club.  They also, complained
              that calls to the club takes them away from other areas.  The logic then
              follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is not in
              the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe.  MPD is
              basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting these
              young people.  It would rather send its time in the hotspot in Adams
              Morgan.  Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work?   They just
              don't want to invest time, money and energy in this crowd...

              Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that happen
              it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences.  All the
              elements are there for a success.   Failure, to make a Club U work in
              the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just one
              club.  It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do something
              special here.

              William










              URL to this page on the web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/




            • William Jordan
              My concern is almost ways the principle, precedence or policy implications of an action or/on approach, not necessarily saving a particular business. So if the
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                My concern is almost ways the principle, precedence or policy implications of an action or/on approach, not necessarily saving a particular business.  

                So if the club closes because management is negligent whether legally or in spirit then so be it.  But, I find the arguement against time-shifted uses of spaces or a night club in a government building being an automatic bad thing specious.  Especially, if no proposed rule changes or vetting for what can or cannot co-locate with a government has been done.  Having economic and community development being driven by the whim of a few community members or MPD or a council member is not wise.

                I bring up the performance of MPD in the matter, because the over politicization of the public safety apparatus endangers public safety and as well impacts the ability to execute equitable development.  Police have atleast attempt to be good faith actors.  Instead, they basically advice one group of citizens how to shift police resources away for another group and so on.  At this point to have Hot Spots all over Ward 1 makes no sense.  Sound and equitable development planning should make Hot Spots obsolete here.  To have the same basic policing approach in 2005 that we had in 1993 indicates mismanagement of the community and economic development process.

                Interesting that you mention schools.  Nevermind, I  will not go into that land grab in this message.

                William

                Richard Layman wrote:
                I agree with you that it is important to utilize spaces in time-shifted ways.* 
                 
                I used to promote this idea wrt federal buildings (i.e., the GAO parking garage could be used on weekends and at night to support downtown activities).  Of course, 9/11 changed the dynamic wrt federal buildings...  That idea will never fly now.
                 
                I also feel this way about other public assets such as schools.  Rather than DCPS thinking that it and only it owns a school, the buildings should be reconceptualized as centers for total community learning, and able to be used outside of school hours to support and build the community's capacity to learn and grow and improve.
                 
                It's too bad that Club U hasn't managed its responsibilities very well, because the points you make are important.
                 
                This is another example of how "noxious use" can lead to a policy action that helps get rid of the noxious use, but is limiting in other ways.  The proscription shouldn't be to eliminate all such uses, but to ensure that the uses are well-managed.  (Usually I write about how "noxious uses" are created by developers to get a community to support demolition of historic buidlings, which is something the developer wanted all along.)
                 
                Unfortunately, since the problems with Club U have been so egregious, I think that there is a lot of pressure on the ABC Board to do more than a short suspension. 
                Regardless, you raise important points that I hope are heard and considered in the spirit in which they are offered, recognizing at the same time, as you do, that the community has justifiable concerns with regard to the operation of Club U that must be addressed.
                 
                Richard Layman
                 
                * That great woman Jane Jacobs covers this in part in _Death and Life in Great American Cities_ not exactly how you have laid it out.  She talks about putting places like arts uses away from the downtown (she used Pittsburgh as an example) required new parking lots to be built, only for use at night, while downtown parking garages saw primarily daily use... Had the arts facility been located downtown, the same parking facilities could have accomodated both uses, because of time-shifting of the uses.  Why not apply this thinking to a cafeteria?  I've heard (I've never been) that automobile dealerships in Paris become clubs at night.  Why not?  Etc.

                William Jordan <whj@...> wrote:

                Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will
                rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U.   It is my hope that
                the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom.   For me this
                would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and plan
                that truely addresses public safety.  I don't know if the current
                ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
                responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such clubs to
                U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic development,
                public safety and community failure.  I will explain my logic.

                A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar owners need
                understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities extend
                beyond their legal liabilities.  ; The law and regulations should be seen
                a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not acceptable
                for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special and
                unique community owners and managers must do more than take a passive, I
                met the letter of the law attitude.  The lives of our young people are
                too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
                responsible for  making a profit, they also have stewardship for
                ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St. 

                The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this opportunity to
                organize themselves for their own well being and that of this community.
                Their should be no free rides.  In the case of Club U, it should not be
                allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
                functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility.   It is not
                fair to expect this community to ca rry your weight, step up to the plate
                and take responsibility with action and this community will welcome you
                with open arms.

                From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the public
                safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club U and
                the community.  I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but as
                best I can tell MPD took  no significant  preventative action in years
                of dealing this club.  No consistant special patrols, no declaration of
                a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30 Club.  It
                seems almost as though that  MPD's professional plan was to wait for
                incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed.  I truely
                hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns I
                have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary suspension
                at Club U their should be some   for a negligent MPD.  In itially, I was
                very suspicious of  some in the community calling the loudest for the
                closure of Club U, but after seeing  how the leaders of the public
                safety  apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other viable
                options.

                Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and its
                operations.  If that was the case, I would not bother. However, other
                issues are at stake, at least for me.  I have an 18 year old daughter
                that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others in
                elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in the
                future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and etc.
                In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
                There is no way that I will stand for that answer.  I am under no
                illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
                convert that to a YES.  It may not be fair, but in re ading between the
                lines, I see the way  Club U is being handled as a referendum  on
                whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults in
                the future development of this community.  

                I say this because of some of what I have learned following this Club U
                issue.  Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people, extra
                measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and  businesses
                owners is going to be required.  An unwillingness to invest these extra
                measure is equal to excluding them.   For example:

                Some claim that a government building is no place for an after hours
                club.  However, considering were we are with our young people today. The
                Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve this
                demographic on U St.  I don't know if current management is up to the
                task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms o f
                security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
                constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around.  The
                arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our young
                people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water. 

                MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
                Club's call to them as evidence against the club.  They also, complained
                that calls to the club takes them away from other areas.  The logic then
                follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is not in
                the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe.  MPD is
                basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting these
                young people.  It would rather send its time in the hotspot in Adams
                Morgan.  Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work?   They just
                don't want to invest time, money and energy in this crowd...

                Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that happen
                it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences.  All the
                elements are there for a success.   Failure, to make a Club U work in
                the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just one
                club.  It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do something
                special here.

                William










                URL to this page on the web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/




              • Joel
                They use to have the Gay Cherry Circuit Parties in the Ronald Reagan Building in DC. While that is questionable if the Ronald Reagan building is a government
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  They use to have the Gay Cherry Circuit Parties in the
                  Ronald Reagan Building in DC. While that is questionable if
                  the Ronald Reagan building is a government building, I do
                  think it is a legitimate contribution to discussion.

                  As to the few who ruin it for the many, I think the Club U
                  situation is a tale of poor controls and unfortunate
                  business practice that must be questioned. What changes
                  have been proposed by those that run Club U operations and
                  how is lawful enforcement going to occur? That is the clear
                  question.

                  I think having a 'straight-edge' party is appropriate for
                  the community since there is a ban on alcohol, drugs and
                  cigarettes on the premise. If business can not make the
                  atmosphere and the music central, I think the club should
                  be made inoperable since it fails to meet the needs of the
                  community. However, there is demand for a place for people
                  to gather of a certain age bracket and a transition plan
                  needs to be determined. I agree with William that
                  socialization for those ages is important with community
                  and parental support.


                  --- Dennis <luckydlf@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > William,
                  >
                  > Rarely do I respond to things on this list-serv, but I
                  > think that
                  > your posting deserves a reply.
                  >
                  > In theory, Club U may be a good idea. A space for young
                  > people to
                  > have fun, in a safe environment. However, you fail to
                  > realize that
                  > Club U is a bar/club. Not a clubhouse or a community
                  > center. It is
                  > not a place for constructive behavior, as most bars are
                  > not. When I
                  > think of an establishment that primarily serves liquor, I
                  > do not
                  > think, "Oh, how wonderful for neighborhood youths." You
                  > say you have
                  > an 18 year old and a 14 year old. Neither should be at
                  > Club U as
                  > both are under age. So what are the benefits of Club U?
                  >
                  >
                  > MPD certainly has problems, but, they do not patrol most
                  > bars. Adams
                  > Morgan and Club U are not at all similar. Adams Morgan
                  > is a strip of
                  > bars, not one club. The police patrol 18th Street, not
                  > TomTom, or
                  > some other bar.
                  >
                  > And, I think most in the community would prefer to see
                  > some other use
                  > of the Reeves Building. A government building is simply
                  > not the
                  > place for a club. If you know of any clubs or bars in
                  > government
                  > buildings, please let me know. I do not know of any,
                  > though I offer
                  > a disclaimer that I go to the same places most of the
                  > time and rarely
                  > venture away.
                  >
                  > I see your point of keeping you and your family in the
                  > community.
                  > And, I do believe you fit in here and you will continue
                  > to do so.
                  > But, your logic on Club U is a bit skewed. MPD should
                  > continue to
                  > monitor our streets, and not have to worry about an
                  > establishment
                  > known for crime. Club U should be closed down. There
                  > are plenty of
                  > other options available for people to go and drink and
                  > dance and
                  > whatever.
                  >
                  > I wish you the best.
                  >
                  > Dennis
                  >
                  > --- In columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com, William Jordan
                  > <whj@m...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage
                  > Control Board
                  > will
                  > > rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U.
                  > It is my hope
                  > that
                  > > the Board with take this opportunity to rule with
                  > wisdom. For me
                  > this
                  > > would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required
                  > agreement and
                  > plan
                  > > that truely addresses public safety. I don't know if
                  > the current
                  > > ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a
                  > safe and
                  > > responsible Club U or two and a failure to
                  > produce/attract such
                  > clubs to
                  > > U St. should be seen as a political, community &
                  > economic
                  > development,
                  > > public safety and community failure. I will explain my
                  > logic.
                  > >
                  > > A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other
                  > club/bar owners
                  > need
                  > > understand clearly that their responsibility to our
                  > communities
                  > extend
                  > > beyond their legal liabilities. The law and
                  > regulations should be
                  > seen
                  > > a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is
                  > not
                  > acceptable
                  > > for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In
                  > this special
                  > and
                  > > unique community owners and managers must do more than
                  > take a
                  > passive, I
                  > > met the letter of the law attitude. The lives of our
                  > young people
                  > are
                  > > too important, and owners need to understand that
                  > besides being
                  > > responsible for making a profit, they also have
                  > stewardship for
                  > > ensuring a place for our young people on an up and
                  > coming U St.
                  > >
                  > > The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this
                  > opportunity
                  > to
                  > > organize themselves for their own well being and that
                  > of this
                  > community.
                  > > Their should be no free rides. In the case of Club U,
                  > it should
                  > not be
                  > > allowed operate with its lics. until an organized
                  > patrons group is
                  > > functioning and in place to sign on and take
                  > responsibility. It
                  > is not
                  > > fair to expect this community to carry your weight,
                  > step up to the
                  > plate
                  > > and take responsibility with action and this community
                  > will welcome
                  > you
                  > > with open arms.
                  > >
                  > > From all that I heard at the hearing and have read,
                  > MPD and the
                  > public
                  > > safety apparatus as been severely negligent its
                  > dealings with Club
                  > U and
                  > > the community. I sincerely hope that I have missed
                  > something, but
                  > as
                  > > best I can tell MPD took no significant preventative
                  > action in
                  > years
                  > > of dealing this club. No consistant special patrols,
                  > no
                  > declaration of
                  > > a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the
                  > 9:30 Club.
                  > It
                  > > seems almost as though that MPD's professional plan
                  > was to wait
                  > for
                  > > incidents enough to build evidence to have the club
                  > closed. I
                  > truely
                  > > hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with
                  > the patterns
                  > I
                  > > have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a
                  > temporary
                  > suspension
                  > > at Club U their should be some for a negligent MPD.
                  > Initially, I
                  > was
                  > > very suspicious of some in the community calling the
                  > loudest for
                  > the
                  > > closure of Club U, but after seeing how the leaders of
                  > the public
                  > > safety apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no
                  > other
                  > viable
                  > > options.
                  > >
                  > > Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about
                  > one club and
                  > its
                  > > operations. If that was the case, I would not bother.
                  > However,
                  > other
                  > > issues are at stake, at least for me. I have an 18
                  > year old
                  > daughter
                  > > that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and
                  > two others
                  > in
                  > > elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place
                  > for them in
                  > the
                  > > future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights,
                  > Georgia Ave. and
                  > etc.
                  > > In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer
                  > would be NO.
                  > > There is no way that I will stand for that answer. I
                  > am under no
                  > > illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and
                  > many others to
                  > > convert that to a YES. It may not be fair, but in
                  > reading between
                  > the
                  > > lines, I see the way Club U is being handled as a
                  > referendum on
                  > > whether there will be a place for our/my young
                  > people/young adults
                  > in
                  > > the future development of this community.
                  > >
                  > > I say this because of some of what I have learned
                  > following this
                  > Club U
                  > > issue. Reality, says that to ensure a place for young
                  > people,
                  > extra
                  > > measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and
                  > businesses
                  > > owners is going to be required. An unwillingness to
                  > invest these
                  > extra
                  > > measure is equal to excluding them. For example:
                  > >
                  > > Some claim that a government building is no place for
                  > an after
                  > hours
                  > > club. However, considering were we are with our young
                  > people
                  > today. The
                  > > Reeves Center is the best place create a safe
                  > environment to serve
                  > this
                  > > demographic on U St. I don't know if current
                  > management is up to
                  > the
                  > > task, but arguements against this location make no
                  > sense in terms
                  > of
                  > > security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and
                  > council are
                  > > constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and
                  > wrap around.
                  > The
                  > > arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door
                  > cop-out on our
                  > young
                  > > people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water.
                  >
                  > >
                  > > MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U
                  > and used the
                  > > Club's call to them as evidence against the club. They
                  > also,
                  > complained
                  > > that calls to the club takes them away from other
                  > areas. The logic
                  > then
                  > > follows that the club owners would conclude that
                  > calling MPD is not
                  > in
                  > > the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U
                  > less safe.
                  > MPD is
                  > > basically saying it does not want to invest its time
                  > protecting
                  > these
                  > > young people. It would rather send its time in the
                  > hotspot in
                  > Adams
                  > > Morgan. Basically, MPD complains that they have to do
                  > work? They
                  > just
                  > > don't want to invest time, money and energy in this
                  > crowd...
                  > >
                  > > Club U may loose its license close and fail. However,
                  > should that
                  > happen
                  > > it should be no cause for celebration and press
                  > conferences. All
                  > the
                  > > elements are there for a success. Failure, to make a
                  > Club U work
                  > in
                  > > the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader
                  > failure than just
                  > one
                  > > club. It would also indicate another lost opportunity
                  > to do
                  > something
                  > > special here.
                  > >
                  > > William
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >




                  __________________________________
                  Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
                  Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
                  http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
                • Richard Layman
                  Hey, I am all into principles too. It s too bad that government at all levels tends to work on the You have a pain in your foot? I know, let s cut off your
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey, I am all into principles too.  It's too bad that government at all levels tends to work on the "You have a pain in your foot?  I know, let's cut off your leg!" level of nuance in developing policies and responses to evident needs and problems.
                     
                    The trick is to build our capacity as citizens to help change this and make government more effective, responsive, and successful for us all. 
                     
                    RL

                    William Jordan <whj@...> wrote:
                    My concern is almost ways the principle, precedence or policy
                    implications of an action or/on approach, not necessarily saving a
                    particular business.

                    So if the club closes because management is negligent whether legally or
                    in spirit then so be it. But, I find the arguement against time-shifted
                    uses of spaces or a night club in a government building being an
                    automatic bad thing specious. Especially, if no proposed rule changes
                    or vetting for what can or cannot co-locate with a government has been
                    done. Having economic and community development being driven by the
                    whim of a few community members or MPD or a council member is not wise.

                    I bring up the performance of MPD in the matter, because the over
                    politicization of the public safety apparatus endangers public safety
                    and as well impacts the ability to execute equitable development.
                    Police have atleast attempt to be good faith actors. Instead, they
                    basically advice one group of citizens how to shift police resources
                    away for another group and so on. At this point to have Hot Spots all
                    over Ward 1 makes no sense. Sound and equitable development planning
                    should make Hot Spots obsolete here. To have the same basic policing
                    approach in 2005 that we had in 1993 indicates mismanagement of the
                    community and economic development process.

                    Interesting that you mention schools. Nevermind, I will not go into
                    that land grab in this message.

                    William

                    Richard Layman wrote:

                    > I agree with you that it is important to utilize spaces in
                    > time-shifted ways.*
                    >
                    > I used to promote this idea wrt federal buildings (i.e., the GAO
                    > parking garage could be used on weekends and at night to support
                    > downtown activities). Of course, 9/11 changed the dynamic wrt federal
                    > buildings... That idea will never fly now.
                    >
                    > I also feel this way about other public assets such as schools.
                    > Rather than DCPS thinking that it and only it owns a school, the
                    > buildings should be reconceptualized as centers for total community
                    > learning, and able to be used outside of school hours to support
                    > and build the community's capacity to learn and grow and improve.
                    >
                    > It's too bad that Club U hasn't managed its responsibilities very
                    > well, because the points you make are important.
                    >
                    > This is another example of how "noxious use" can lead to a policy
                    > action that helps get rid of the noxious use, but is limiting in other
                    > ways. The proscription shouldn't be to eliminate all such uses, but
                    > to ensure that the uses are well-managed. (Usually I write about how
                    > "noxious uses" are created by developers to get a community to support
                    > demolition of historic buidlings, which is something the developer
                    > wanted all along.)
                    >
                    > Unfortunately, since the problems with Club U have been so egregious,
                    > I think that there is a lot of pressure on the ABC Board to do more
                    > than a short suspension.
                    > Regardless, you raise important points that I hope are heard and
                    > considered in the spirit in which they are offered, recognizing at the
                    > same time, as you do, that the community has justifiable concerns with
                    > regard to the operation of Club U that must be addressed.
                    >
                    > Richard Layman
                    >
                    > * That great woman Jane Jacobs covers this in part in _Death and Life
                    > in Great American Cities_ not exactly how you have laid it out. She
                    > talks about putting places like arts uses away from the downtown (she
                    > used Pittsburgh as an example) required new parking lots to be built,
                    > only for use at night, while downtown parking garages saw primarily
                    > daily use... Had the arts facility been located downtown, the same
                    > parking facilities could have accomodated both uses, because of
                    > time-shifting of the uses. Why not apply this thinking to a
                    > cafeteria? I've heard (I've never been) that automobile dealerships
                    > in Paris become clubs at night. Why not? Etc.
                    >
                    > William Jordan wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
                    > will
                    > rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U. It is my
                    > hope that
                    > the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom. For me
                    > this
                    > would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and plan
                    > that truely addresses public safety. I don't know if the current
                    > ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
                    > responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such
                    > clubs to
                    > U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic
                    > development,
                    > public safety and community failure. I will explain my logic.
                    >
                    > A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar
                    > owners need
                    > understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities
                    > extend
                    > beyond their legal liabilities. ; The law and regulations should
                    > be seen
                    > a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not acceptable
                    > for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special and
                    > unique community owners and managers must do more than take a
                    > passive, I
                    > met the letter of the law attitude. The lives of our young people
                    > are
                    > too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
                    > responsible for making a profit, they also have stewardship for
                    > ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St.
                    >
                    > The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this
                    > opportunity to
                    > organize themselves for their own well being and that of this
                    > community.
                    > Their should be no free rides. In the case of Club U, it should
                    > not be
                    > allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
                    > functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility. It
                    > is not
                    > fair to expect this community to ca rry your weight, step up to
                    > the plate
                    > and take responsibility with action and this community will
                    > welcome you
                    > with open arms.
                    >
                    > From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the
                    > public
                    > safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club
                    > U and
                    > the community. I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but as
                    > best I can tell MPD took no significant preventative action in
                    > years
                    > of dealing this club. No consistant special patrols, no
                    > declaration of
                    > a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30
                    > Club. It
                    > seems almost as though that MPD's professional plan was to wait for
                    > incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed. I truely
                    > hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns I
                    > have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary
                    > suspension
                    > at Club U their should be some for a negligent MPD. In itially,
                    > I was
                    > very suspicious of some in the community calling the loudest for the
                    > closure of Club U, but after seeing how the leaders of the public
                    > safety apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other viable
                    > options.
                    >
                    > Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and its
                    > operations. If that was the case, I would not bother. However, other
                    > issues are at stake, at least for me. I have an 18 year old daughter
                    > that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others in
                    > elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in the
                    > future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and
                    > etc.
                    > In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
                    > There is no way that I will stand for that answer. I am under no
                    > illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
                    > convert that to a YES. It may not be fair, but in re ading
                    > between the
                    > lines, I see the way Club U is being handled as a referendum on
                    > whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults in
                    > the future development of this community.
                    >
                    > I say this because of some of what I have learned following this
                    > Club U
                    > issue. Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people, extra
                    > measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and businesses
                    > owners is going to be required. An unwillingness to invest these
                    > extra
                    > measure is equal to excluding them. For example:
                    >
                    > Some claim that a government building is no place for an after hours
                    > club. However, considering were we are with our young people
                    > today. The
                    > Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve
                    > this
                    > demographic on U St. I don't know if current management is up to the
                    > task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms o f
                    > security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
                    > constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around. The
                    > arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our
                    > young
                    > people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water.
                    >
                    > MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
                    > Club's call to them as evidence against the club. They also,
                    > complained
                    > that calls to the club takes them away from other areas. The
                    > logic then
                    > follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is
                    > not in
                    > the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe.
                    > MPD is
                    > basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting these
                    > young people. It would rather send its time in the hotspot in Adams
                    > Morgan. Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work?
                    > They just
                    > don't want to invest time, money and energy in this crowd...
                    >
                    > Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that
                    > happen
                    > it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences. All the
                    > elements are there for a success. Failure, to make a Club U work in
                    > the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just
                    > one
                    > club. It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do
                    > something
                    > special here.
                    >
                    > William
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > URL to this page on the web:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    > click here
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/
                    >
                    > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > columbia_heights-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    > Service .
                    >
                    >

                  • Rob Williams
                    Opportunity? Principal? Equality? Forget it! At least 3 people have died AND MANY MORE INDIVIDUALS COULD HAVE BECAUSE THE SUSPECT SHOT 10 ROUNDS AT
                    Message 9 of 9 , Mar 6, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Re: [columbia_heights] The Club U Opportunity? Opportunity?  Principal? Equality?  Forget it!  At least 3 people have died AND MANY MORE INDIVIDUALS COULD HAVE BECAUSE THE SUSPECT SHOT 10 ROUNDS AT AMBULANCE DRIVERS AS THEY CARRIED AN INJURED WOMAN AWAY!  CLOSE THE PLACE DOWN!  IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN OUT OF HONOR OR RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT DIED!  ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT FEDEWRAL BUILDINGS ETC. IS SILLYAND IS ONLY CLOUDING THE DISCUSSION THAT THATPLACE SHOULD BE CLOSED DOWN



                      From: William Jordan <whj@...>
                      Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:04:11 -0500
                      To: Richard Layman <rlaymandc@...>
                      Cc: <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, <WardOneDC@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] The Club U Opportunity?

                      My concern is almost ways the principle, precedence or policy implications of an action or/on approach, not necessarily saving a particular business.  

                      So if the club closes because management is negligent whether legally or in spirit then so be it.  But, I find the arguement against time-shifted uses of spaces or a night club in a government building being an automatic bad thing specious.  Especially, if no proposed rule changes or vetting for what can or cannot co-locate with a government has been done.  Having economic and community development being driven by the whim of a few community members or MPD or a council member is not wise.

                      I bring up the performance of MPD in the matter, because the over politicization of the public safety apparatus endangers public safety and as well impacts the ability to execute equitable development.  Police have atleast attempt to be good faith actors.  Instead, they basically advice one group of citizens how to shift police resources away for another group and so on.  At this point to have Hot Spots all over Ward 1 makes no sense.  Sound and equitable development planning should make Hot Spots obsolete here.  To have the same basic policing approach in 2005 that we had in 1993 indicates mismanagement of the community and economic development process.

                      Interesting that you mention schools.  Nevermind, I  will not go into that land grab in this message.

                      William

                      Richard Layman wrote:

                      I agree with you that it is important to utilize spaces in time-shifted ways.*
                        
                       
                        
                      I used to promote this idea wrt federal buildings (i.e., the GAO parking garage could be used on weekends and at night to support downtown activities). Of course, 9/11 changed the dynamic wrt federal buildings...  That idea will never fly now.
                        
                       
                        
                      I also feel this way about other public assets such as schools.  Rather than DCPS thinking that it and only it owns a school, the buildings should be reconceptualized as centers for total community learning, and able to be used outside of school hours to support and build the community's capacity to learn and grow and improve.
                        
                       
                        
                      It's too bad that Club U hasn't managed its responsibilities very well, because the points you make are important.
                        
                       
                        
                      This is another example of how "noxious use" can lead to a policy action that helps get rid of the noxious use, but is limiting in other ways. The proscription shouldn't be to eliminate all such uses, but to ensure that the uses are well-managed.  (Usually I write about how "noxious uses" are created by developers to get a community to support demolition of historic buidlings, which is something the developer wanted all along.)
                        
                       
                        
                      Unfortunately, since the problems with Club U have been so egregious, I think that there is a lot of pressure on the ABC Board to do more than a short suspension.  
                       
                        
                      Regardless, you raise important points that I hope are heard and considered in the spirit in which they are offered, recognizing at the same time, as you do, that the community has justifiable concerns with regard to the operation of Club U that must be addressed.
                        
                       
                        
                      Richard Layman
                        
                       
                        
                      * That great woman Jane Jacobs covers this in part in _Death and Life in Great American Cities_ not exactly how you have laid it out.  She talks about putting places like arts uses away from the downtown (she used Pittsburgh as an example) required new parking lots to be built, only for use at night, while downtown parking garages saw primarily daily use... Had the arts facility been located downtown, the same parking facilities could have accomodated both uses, because of time-shifting of the uses.  Why not apply this thinking to a cafeteria?  I've heard (I've never been) that automobile dealerships in Paris become clubs at night.  Why not?  Etc.
                        

                       William Jordan <whj@...> <mailto:whj@...> wrote:
                        

                      Some time today or very soon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will
                      rule on a license suspension/revocation for Club U.   It is my hope that
                      the Board with take this opportunity to rule with wisdom.   For me this
                      would be a 30 to 90 day suspension and a required agreement and plan
                      that truely addresses public safety.  I don't know if the current
                      ownership group is up to the task, but U St. needs a safe and
                      responsible Club U or two and a failure to produce/attract such clubs to
                      U St. should be seen as a political, community & economic development,
                      public safety and community failure.  I will explain my logic.
                       
                      A suspension is necessary, because Club U and other club/bar owners need
                      understand clearly that their responsibility to our communities extend
                      beyond their legal liabilities.   ; The  law and regulations should be seen
                      a floor or minimum. Such as a "D" is passing but it is not acceptable
                      for graduation, nor should having a good lawyer. In this special and
                      unique community owners and managers must do more than take a passive, I
                      met the letter of the law attitude.  The lives of our young people are
                      too important, and owners need to understand that besides being
                      responsible for  making a profit, they also have stewardship for
                      ensuring a place for our young people on an up and coming U St.  
                       
                      The patrons of Club U and similar venues must take this opportunity to
                      organize themselves for their own well being and that of this community.
                      Their should be no free rides.  In the case of Club U, it should not be
                      allowed operate with its lics. until an organized patrons group is
                      functioning and in place to sign on and take responsibility.   It is not
                      fair to expect this community to ca  rry your  weight, step up to the plate
                      and take responsibility with action and this community will welcome you
                      with open arms.
                       
                      >From all that I heard at the hearing and have read, MPD and the public
                      safety apparatus as been severely negligent its dealings with Club U and
                      the community.  I sincerely hope that I have missed something, but as
                      best I can tell MPD took  no significant  preventative action in years
                      of dealing this club.  No consistant special patrols, no declaration of
                      a hotspot, none of the security exceptions made for the 9:30 Club.  It
                      seems almost as though that  MPD's professional plan was to wait for
                      incidents enough to build evidence to have the club closed.  I truely
                      hope that I am wrong, but that approach fits well with the patterns I
                      have seen elsewhere in this community. Along with a temporary suspension
                      at Club U their should be some   for a negligent MPD.  In  itially,  I was
                      very suspicious of  some in the community calling the loudest for the
                      closure of Club U, but after seeing  how the leaders of the public
                      safety  apparatus tend to respond I see why some see no other viable
                      options.
                       
                      Unfortunately, the issue of Club U is not just about one club and its
                      operations.  If that was the case, I would not bother. However, other
                      issues are at stake, at least for me.  I have an 18 year old daughter
                      that attends a local university, a 14 year old son, and two others in
                      elementary school. And I have to ask is there a place for them in the
                      future redevelopment of U St., Columbia Heights, Georgia Ave. and etc.
                      In the plans and policies that I have seen the answer would be NO.
                      There is no way that I will stand for that answer.  I am under no
                      illusions, it will take alot of work on my part and many others to
                      convert that to a YES.  It may not be fair, but in re  ading  between the
                      lines, I see the way  Club U is being handled as a referendum  on
                      whether there will be a place for our/my young people/young adults in
                      the future development of this community.   
                       
                      I say this because of some of what I have learned following this Club U
                      issue.  Reality, says that to ensure a place for young people, extra
                      measures on the part of MPD, community, politicians and  businesses
                      owners is going to be required.  An unwillingness to invest these extra
                      measure is equal to excluding them.   For example:
                       
                      Some claim that a government building is no place for an after hours
                      club.  However, considering were we are with our young people today. The
                      Reeves Center is the best place create a safe environment to serve this
                      demographic on U St.  I don't know if current management is up to the
                      task, but arguements against this location make no sense in terms o  f  
                      security and other interventions. In fact the mayor and council are
                      constantly talking about mixed and multiple use and wrap around.  The
                      arguements against the Reeves Center is a back door cop-out on our young
                      people, otherwise it such arguements hold little water.  
                       
                      MPD complained about answering service calls at Club U and used the
                      Club's call to them as evidence against the club.  They also, complained
                      that calls to the club takes them away from other areas.  The logic then
                      follows that the club owners would conclude that calling MPD is not in
                      the clubs interest. This logic in terms makes Club U less safe.  MPD is
                      basically saying it does not want to invest its time protecting these
                      young people.  It would rather send its time in the hotspot in Adams
                      Morgan.  Basically, MPD complains that they have to do work?   They just
                      don't want to invest time, money and energy in this  crowd...
                       
                      Club U may loose its license close and fail. However, should that happen
                      it should be no cause for celebration and press conferences.  All the
                      elements are there for a success.   Failure, to make a Club U work in
                      the Reeves Center indicates a deeper and broader failure than just one
                      club.  It would also indicate another lost opportunity to do something
                      special here.
                       
                      William
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       

                       
                      URL to this page on the web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/
                       

                       



                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.