Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!
N/A. Because that isn't what is happening.
The presence of the NYPD on this street isn't to benefit the clubs; it's to contain the clubs' antics to a specific area. It also does have the default effect of protecting both other local businesses and residents. If the cops are there, it's much less likely that Joe Q. Clubkid is going to smash the windows of the other businesses on the block for fun.
It doesn't mean that the NYPD is supporting this. Let's look at another example. What about those vile religious protesters who travel around with the signs saying "God hates f--gs?" Wherever you see them, you will see more police. Are the police there to protect these creeps? Does the police chief who authorizes increased presence approve of these creeps? No, s/he has decided that the manpower is a necessary expenditure to keep the creeps away from everyone else.
The clubs also do pay for the NYPD. Any time a street is closed down for any reason, with or without increased police presence-clubs, street fairs, parades, whatever--there's a permit fee that has been paid to the NYPD. These clubs are also paying cabaret licenses, liquor licenses and a large variety of other fees, as well as for their own bonded security (and the fees that go with that) inside the venues.
One of the problems with having the clubs provide private security on the street is that these officers have little to no clout in public. Inside a club, which is private property, they can enforce whatever rules the club wishes them to enforce. On a public street they do not have the same abilities and therefore can't do what the NYPD can. Not to mention that people don't tend to heed "rent a cops" the same way they do the police.
If you think that these clubs should be required to pay more for their permits, and that might be a very valid point, you want to bring up at one of the community board meetings, which the NYPD attends.
Over and out.
N/A. Because that isn't what is happening.
The presence of the NYPD on this street isn't to benefit the clubs; it's to contain the clubs' antics to a specific area. It also does have the default effect of protecting both other local businesses and residents. If the cops are there, it's much less likely that Joe Q. Clubkid is going to smash the windows of the other businesses on the block for fun.
It doesn't mean that the NYPD is supporting this. Let's look at another example. What about those vile religious protesters who travel around with the signs saying "God hates f--gs?" Wherever you see them, you will see more police. Are the police there to protect these creeps? Does the police chief who authorizes increased presence approve of these creeps? No, s/he has decided that the manpower is a necessary expenditure to keep the creeps away from everyone else.
The clubs also do pay for the NYPD. Any time a street is closed down for any reason, with or without increased police presence-clubs, street fairs, parades, whatever--there's a permit fee that has been paid to the NYPD. These clubs are also paying cabaret licenses, liquor licenses and a large variety of other fees, as well as for their own bonded security (and the fees that go with that) inside the venues.
One of the problems with having the clubs provide private security on the street is that these officers have little to no clout in public. Inside a club, which is private property, they can enforce whatever rules the club wishes them to enforce. On a public street they do not have the same abilities and therefore can't do what the NYPD can. Not to mention that people don't tend to heed "rent a cops" the same way they do the police.
If you think that these clubs should be required to pay more for their permits, and that might be a very valid point, you want to bring up at one of the community board meetings, which the NYPD attends.
Over and out.
Comment