Recommendations

[Aaron]

After tonight's work session, I respectfully withdraw from this group,
as I feel disinvolved from efforts regarding CB #08-0163. I initially
was interested in protecting DIY venues, as this cause was advertised
to me on March 21st. Whether or not the council's stance is
sufficiently comprehended, I don't see efforts with this affinity
group addressing intrinsic concerns throughout the arts community.

As an artist/musician, I hold no exclusive loyalty to any one venue,
only the circumstances that permit more freedom (and frankly, mo'
money) for artistic expression. I must also comment that the paranoia
(such as exercised in talking around certain topics), social and
internet-related, is divisive and limiting, and commonly viewed in
some circles as a scare-tactic or strongarm maneuver to consolidate
personal and improper gains. I do remind you, the council told us
point-blank: THEY KNOW DIY venues exist, (in fact the council's
insulted if anyone thought they were being fooled) but since they're
very low-budget and there's no complaints, there's no enforcement. In
the meantime, the council's annoyed that they're facing baseless
arguments.

I've read the hard copy version of the petition. It's fine wording,
but the bill has changed. At this point I'd think the points of
objection are 1. entrenched and arbitrary governance (e.g., Tenured
Director), 2. moral character inquiries (I actually think some people
should be prevented from opening night spots, but that the affidavit
process needs work), 3. mediation/objection process, at current
definition, holds too much potential for heavy-handed misjudgment and
4. extortionate licensing fees ($1,500?!) I might also suggest that
petition pick-ups be at a local phone number; some people, believe it
or not, don't have free long-distance. (I also question the .docx file
usage. If it's a security measure, it ain't working; the council
should be expected to have the right software.)

I think the attempt to redraft the legislation has been laborious and
counterproductive. It's excessively dominated the meetings and
prevented clearer comprehension of the bill, the council, the
circumstances and the issues; it's prevented clearer strategizing and
networking. I respect the efforts made to read the bill to its fullest
but I think the amendments are too much in the wrong direction.
There's a risk of alienating the council, if you didn't notice. One
prominent person two meetings ago said as much, I seconded it, and
tonight I consider it proven.

I must also say, I initially suspected the council might be trying to
flush a lot of unlicensed folks out into the open. If that were the
case, they would already be succeeding, if a unified and concisely
informed stance isn't in place. This would mean more networking... and
facts with brevity.

In the future, I'd like to take part in a more inclusive coalition
that would secure legal definition and protection for all venues on
the DIY scene.

That said, best of luck.

[Rick]

I'll agree that too much emphasis was placed on non-business venues
last night and I think BLAS still has a lot to do outside of
petitioning and ammendments, but this is no time to disengage. Last
night's council workshop meeting had a really bitter tone to it,
that's what alienates city council (and for those of us in the
audience who feel disrespected, alienation does its work from both
ends). The presentation of documents and evidence that this bill, with
or without Rawling-Blake's ammendments would hurt art and cultural
life in Baltimore is the kind of thing that can get these meeting back
to the business of dissuading the rest of the committee. The newest
proposed ammendments were a step in the right direction, but it's
uncertain as to whether the committee will adopt them into the
official draft. This petition would help those on the Council who seek
to ammend CB 08-163 in the right direction by demonstrating public
support for those ammendments. In summary, the proposed ammendments
are a step in the right direction, but those gains could be erased by
the next council workshop meeting if we don't act fast.

Rick

[Josh Atkins]

i'm a little worried about how the city council is handling this issue
now. instead of trying to provide pathways to legality for diy venues
they say that they will turn a blind eye if there are no community
complaints.

what are the implications of this statement?

say the ottobar decides to not pay these licensing fees and they
receive no community complaints. is the board also going to turn a
blind eye to their lack of licensing? the council stating that this
board will ignore illegal venues is a contradiction - the bill is what
is making these venues illegal. how can they not enforce it in every
venue equally? the fact that the city council suggests that this is
what will happen is frighteningly naive.

this bill should have exemptions for: non-profits, residences,
churches, and educational institutions. this would alleviate all of
our fears. the bill should also get rid of the ridiculous and vague
definition of a dance club as 'any place that provides the opportunity
for dancing'.

aaron - i worry that you are leaving at the wrong time. accepting
what the city council says about who is covered by this bill without
demanding that they back it up with clear language should not be
acceptable. if the details of the bill are left up to the board's
interpretation whatever the city council says about their intentions
are void.

josh

--
Joshua Atkins
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park Building 157
3400 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
(410) 516-6150

[Tiffany DeFoe]

hey Josh- I agree with your points about exemptions, but fwiw I heard something a bit different from the council-

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Josh Atkins <josha...@gmail.com> wrote:

i'm a little worried about how the city council is handling this issue
now.  instead of trying to provide pathways to legality for diy venues
they say that they will turn a blind eye if there are no community
complaints.

 

what I heard them say was that up to this point, a blind eye has been turned to underground spaces - any attention that has been paid to enforcement has been driven to community complaints.  But, if at some point someone (like a developer) develops an interest in shutting down underground venues, they could demand that the city step up enforcement of the zoning code, and there wouldn't be much way around that.  I think they said that part of their intent with relaxing the zoning code is to provide underground venues some margin of legality and defense in a situation like that.

 

I'm guessing they meant, in part, the proposal to make LE an accessory use in O-R and R-8, -9, -10 zones, which include underground places.   Anyone know if there are underground places also in industrial (M) and B1-3?  There is a proposal to make dance halls a permitted use in the Ms.

[Tiffany DeFoe]

oops, I meant 'driven by' complaints, not 'driven to'. Also, I'm talking about the same comments from last night that you are- I just heard them differently.

[Jurret Fischer]

hi all:   i just want to make it clear that i am concerned for the well being of all venues: from the talking head to everything in station north to even stuff like "rams head" (never been there) and sonar, because while some smaller emerging venues reserve a special place in my heart, i am really into baltimore's unique diversity of musical/artistic institutions . . .   that means i don't want the impetus of this great movement to clear a path just wide enough for nonprofits (and the like) to get token exemptions, while other bar-backed, for-profit venues get slapped with an inconsiderate licensing fee . . .   therefore, i can't impress upon you how important it is for us to continue our unity and even increase the intensity of our unrest and disagreement with this bill. the goal should remain getting the entire city fired up about this bill . . . then we can systematically checkmate this wacky b**ch of a bill. . . And yes, let's keep things up on the media front : : let's get the very places that sang our praises to run stories on how our important contributions to the national arts community are in jeopardy by this bill : : that means PR kids contact RS magazine and SPIN and Brooklyn Vegan and other such stuff (Baltimore mag and Urbanite) ..   In addition (WARNING THIS IDEA IS NOT VETTED YET), as a fellow musican, let's get our boy Martin O'Malley to feel our pain and weigh in against this craziness - yeah, if somebody has those connections we should weigh that card here in this forum . . .   just rambling but whatever   and with regard to underground venues, please please stop using the word illegal - fuck the word illegal - there is not a single thing wrong with playing music in one's home . . but at the same time we don't need to discuss everything that goes on in our homes so yeah stop calling attention to our best kept secrets   --- On Fri, 4/17/09, Tiffany DeFoe <tiffan...@gmail.com> wrote: