I lean in favor of staggered closing times after 2:00, but I’m not strong. And a decent argument might turn me the other way. This editorial in The Seattle Times doesn’t make a decent argument. It’s annoying for 2 reasons. First, the argument itself.
RESEARCH suggests that focusing on crime hot spots can result in more efficient use of limited police resources. Bars that close at 2 a.m. are a prime example of predictable trouble zones.
The first sentence contradicts the second. You can’t focus on any particular hot spot if they all happen at the same time. Also, I love how research suggests it. No mention of any particular research and then the most bland statement in the world.
Closing time at bars is a knowable, manageable police concern, if the city is willing to bring its resources to bear at that time. Unfortunately, Seattle city leaders and members of the City Council have asked the state Liquor Control Board to consider allowing localities to extend hours. The goal is an enlivened nightlife and music scene and a desire to end the crunch of people leaving bars and causing street trouble at 2 a.m.
How about no? There is no need for longer drinking, more drinking or any other variation on the theme.
“How abut no” is a hell of an argument. Really, totally 100% made the case. There’s literally no counterargument. Well, except, “how about yes?”
They go on in this vein mostly as an excuse to attack McGinn. Whatever. We’ve all grown so used to that stale nonsense. You can find fresher dinosaur meat than you can find fresh ways for The Seattle Times to say they don’t like McGinn. But then there’s the other thing that pissed me off:
State lawmakers are poised to cut liquor-excise tax sharing. For Seattle, the reduction could be millions of dollars and would eventually ding the police budget.
As Councilmember Tim Burgess, who is open to studying longer hours, puts it: “The council won’t be motivated to extend bar hours, which likely will increase the demand for police services, when funds we use for police services are being withdrawn by the state.”
In other words, the city would be embarking on an experiment to extend bar hours while experiencing a reduction of state support for police. This was not a good idea before any state budget cut. It will be even less compelling afterward.
Then maybe fucking argue for a goddamn state budget that will allow local municipalities to keep that money. There’s an editorial today praising the Senate budget that will cut that money. If it’s a problem oppose the budget. If it’s going to mean there’s a public safety issue oppose the budget. Jesus.