|
October 6th, 2008Concern Over Live Entertainment LegislationBy John Lewis |
Over the past few days, emails have been bouncing around regarding proposed legislation for licensing live entertainment in Baltimore City. And after reading over the legislation, I understand why folks are concerned. According to what's being proposed, the proprietors of restaurants, taverns, and dance clubs that book live entertainment would have to re-apply for licenses annually. It would establish a Board of Licenses for Live Entertainment and an Office of Hospitality Services, which would act as something of a liaison between the board and the public.
Licenses would be required for a...
(1) MUSICAL ACT, CONCERT, OR RECITAL
(2) THEATRICAL ACT, PLAY, OR REVUE
(3) CIRCUS, AERIAL, OR ACROBATIC PERFORMANCE
(4) DANCE PERFORMANCE
(5) PARTICIPATORY DANCING
(6) MAGIC ACT
(7) KARAOKE
(8) DISC JOCKEY
(9) POETRY RECITAL OR BOOK READING
(10) PERFORMANCE ART
(11) STAND-UP OR OTHER COMEDY
(12) OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY.
Licenses would issued by a board consisting of...
(1) 2 MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IV, § 6 OF THE CITY CHARTER
(2) THE PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PRESIDENT’S DESIGNEE
(3) 1 COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL
(4) THE DIRECTOR OF HOSPITALITY SERVICES
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR
(1) 1 MUST HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE LIVE-ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
(2) THE OTHER MAY NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY ENTITY THAT OFFERS OR PROMOTES LIVE ENTERTAINMENT.
It's troubling that only one of the five board members is required to have "substantial" experience with live entertainment. And the legislation doesn't even define "substantial experience." I've been to a lot of concerts. Does that mean I'm qualified for a four-year term on the board?
And here's where things get really iffy..
INVESTIGATION OF APPLICANTS
ON RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION, THE BOARD MUST INVESTIGATE THE CHARACTER AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
QUALIFICATIONS. (A) MORAL CHARACTER; AGE.
(1) A LIVE-ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE MAY NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY PERSON UNLESS THE APPLICANT: (I) IS OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER; AND (II) IS AT LEAST 21 YEARS OLD.
Good moral character? I'm all for clubs and taverns being good neighbors, but this goes too far.
Beyond that, each licensee will be required to maintain a "white book" for inspectors.
“WHITE BOOK” DEFINED.
“WHITE BOOK” MEANS A COMPILATION, IN THE FORM REQUIRED BY RULE OR REGULATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF HOSPITALITY SERVICES, OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT A LICENSEE: (1) THE NAME OF AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE LICENSEE; (2) THE PARKING, TRAFFIC, SECURITY, AND SANITATION PLANS FOR THE LICENSED VENUE; (3) A COPY OF ALL LICENSES ISSUED TO OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LICENSEE BY THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR CITY GOVERNMENTS; AND (4) ANY OTHER INFORMATION THE DIRECTOR OF HOSPITALITY SERVICES REQUIRES BY RULE OR REGULATION.
THE LICENSEE MUST MAKE THE WHITE BOOK AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION, AT ANY TIME DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, BY THE BOARD OR ANY AUTHORIZED CITY OFFICIAL.
And is the city really prepared for all this? Are restaurant and tavern owners? It looks like a bureaucratic nightmare to me.
Does a city with a vital arts and culture scene enact legislation like this?
4:13 pm
Categories: Uncategorized
Where do I go to join the fight against this absurd bill?
I'm all for requiring safety for patrons at a venue, clean restrooms, and ample parking but don't believe government has any obligation or right to "regulate" art. In the early 80s the city had a 10% amusement tax that cut into earnings substantially and as an indirect result probably half of all places featuring live music closed in the Baltimore area. As a musician in this city for over 30 years I can tell you when that money came directly out of my bands' take at the door, we kept wondering when they were going to use the funds to build us a cultural showcase like the Meyerhoff to perform in. Still waiting.
As for the qualifications of the board and the licensee, they must be kidding. Are we going back to a "cabaret license" for the musicians/performers too? Ask some of the jazz greats how well that worked for them. As we've seen repeatedly from elected officials "moral character" does not seem to be their strong suit, if you count nepotism and favoritism for rewarding city contracts etc. Imagine trying to show a John Waters movie or perform a Frank Zappa tribute where the material is "objectionable" or "immoral" and see how it directly affects the license being jerked from the establishment. I can smell the PMRC starting up again shortly after that.
Support local music, performers, magicians, any way you see fit by heading downtown to see them and spending a little cash while you're there (parking meters count) and the city will benefit. Restrict that ability even a little and it all dries up and heads to the surrounding counties.
Yeah, what Glenn said!