« OLCC Results | Main | This Week's Mercury Music Section »
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Politics Re: OLCC Results
Posted by on Thu, Dec 13 at 2:11 PM
I’ll have a lot more to say on this once I calm the hell down, review my copious notes, and put in some calls for clarification to OLCC staff. But for now, I’d like to add how flabbergasted I am after today’s OLCC hearing.
The OLCC staff put a lot of work into this proposed rule change, and made the case that allowing a new class of minor postings with control plans would help them enforce the rules fairly and more extensively than they currently can (right now, there are venues out there that just have a control plan, but the OLCC staff acknowledged today that those don’t have any teeth with an accompanying minor posting).
The music community made smart, articulate testimony in favor of the change, arguing that it will give youth a safe place to spend their time (instead of unregulated basement shows that usually have a keg in the corner).
One of the five OLCC commissioners got it—he’d attended the public hearings, and heard the details and intentions of the proposed rule. The other four were on a different planet. As Ezra noted below, one commissioner was unclear what sorts of venues the rules might apply to. He made some arcane reference to Rick’s Cafe, in Casablanca. Would kids in Oregon be permitted to hang out in a smoky lounge with a piano player?
No, the rules coordinator laid out for the upteenth time—places that are primarily set up for drinking wouldn’t qualify to submit a control plan under this new rule. A place like Valentine’s, in downtown Portland—a quiet cafe that happens to sell some alcohol on the side, but not as the focus—is a case study here. The commissioners, however, seemed entirely unfamiliar with the broad variety of venues in Portland and Oregon—in their minds, it seems, it’s either a tavern/sports bar/smoky dive, a restaurant, or the Rose Garden. The concept of a venue where the music comes first, and the alcohol is just icing on the owners’ bottom line, didn’t compute.
Luckily, the 3-2 vote also sent the rules back to the staff for tweaking. Commissioner “what’s a venue” asked staff to educate him and the other commissioners on the sorts of places in question. Personally, I’m shocked that he and the others didn’t do their homework before showing up to do their jobs.
Comments
This is such crap. The OLCC doesn't begin to grasp what they are doing to these kids.
Now come on, give them some slack. They're just so used to having a debilitating stranglehold on the liquor industry here that they fail to see past the iron gates. Let alone the forest through the trees.
It's our duty as loyal subjects to help the Emperors put their pants on and get to work. We haven't lost yet. Though it would be nice if some of them actually cared about what's going on and not just how much control they have.
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition - given our setup - into our bar, but would totally endorse a revamped minors posting rule regardless. We think the bars that are easy targets for even more OLCC penalization obviously wouldn't dare cross such boundaries like allowing minors in to shows - like Tube. It simply wouldn't work. This debate is about allowing underage kids into clubs that are essentially already designed to cater to people of legal drinking age AND underage kids. So what's the problem?
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition - given our setup - into our bar, but would totally endorse a revamped minors posting rule regardless. We think the bars that are easy targets for even more OLCC penalization obviously wouldn't dare cross such boundaries like allowing minors in to shows - like Tube. It simply wouldn't work. This debate is about allowing underage kids into clubs that are essentially already designed to cater to people of legal drinking age AND underage kids. So what's the problem?
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition - given our setup - into our bar, but would totally endorse a revamped minors posting rule regardless. We think the bars that are easy targets for even more OLCC penalization obviously wouldn't dare cross such boundaries like allowing minors in to shows - like Tube. It simply wouldn't work. This debate is about allowing underage kids into clubs that are essentially already designed to cater to people of legal drinking age AND underage kids. So what's the problem?
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition - given our setup - into our bar, but would totally endorse a revamped minors posting rule regardless. We think the bars that are easy targets for even more OLCC penalization obviously wouldn't dare cross such boundaries like allowing minors in to shows - like Tube. It simply wouldn't work. This debate is about allowing underage kids into clubs that are essentially already designed to cater to people of legal drinking age AND underage kids. So what's the problem?
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition - given our setup - into our bar, but would totally endorse a revamped minors posting rule regardless. We think the bars that are easy targets for even more OLCC penalization obviously wouldn't dare cross such boundaries like allowing minors in to shows - like Tube. It simply wouldn't work. This debate is about allowing underage kids into clubs that are essentially already designed to cater to people of legal drinking age AND underage kids. So what's the problem?
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition - given our setup - into our bar, but would totally endorse a revamped minors posting rule regardless. We think the bars that are easy targets for even more OLCC penalization obviously wouldn't dare cross such boundaries like allowing minors in to shows - like Tube. It simply wouldn't work. This debate is about allowing underage kids into clubs that are essentially already designed to cater to people of legal drinking age AND underage kids. So what's the problem?
If it helps, Tube is easily a bar that would not be able to allow minors under any condition ... oh wait, someone else already said that.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
Our Friends
- UrbanHonking
- Your Daily Awesome
- Portland Metroblogs
- Hype Machine
- Lelo in NoPo
- Furious Nads!
- Oregon Media Insiders
- Huffington Post
- Loaded Orygun
- Food Fight Grocery
- Jesus Christ's Blog
- Willamette Week
- BlueOregon
- Pampelmoose
- The Etchasketchist
Our Enemies
- Russian Amputee Brides
- God Hates Fags (Westboro Baptist Church)
- Portland Indy Media
- Oregon Republican Party
- Jack Bog's Blog
- The Stranger
- Men Who Look Like Kenny Rogers
- Any Dumbass Still Using MySpace
- Portland Monthly
- Life Decisions International
- Courtney Taylor-Taylor
- The Earthly Minions of Emperor Klaktu
All contents © 2006 Index Publishing • Privacy Policy • Contact Info • Production Guidelines
What the fuck do we pay these people for? to spend months on a topic only to ask, "now... what's this all about?"
FUCK!
Kudos to Cary and Nathan for all their hard work.