news-record.com

The shootings in downtown Greensboro were the actions of people with no regard for the law. Passing more laws will have no effect on them. If someone wants to pack a gun, they're going to pack a gun. Charging 5 dollars to park will hurt downtown businesses. Loiterers and panhandlers are annoying, but they aren't the ones shooting people. The alleged shooter at the N Club's College Night is over 18, so a curfew on under 18s makes zero sense and practically prohibits teens from living with their families downtown or working there. Enabling security guards discretion beyond the limits of their private clubs presents a potential public menace, giving them police powers in public spaces. I respect Zach Metheny, but I'd be curious to see where he's getting his expertise in these matters.
What we need to do is hold the establishments downtown more accountable for the way they run their businesses. Ironically, those same business owners are on board with that because they know their businesses can't survive if downtown is perceived as unsafe. Rocky Scarfone, in particular, has stepped up with a comprehensive plan to make his clubs safer. He needs to make sure weapons don't walk into his club. I think we should allow the private sector time to clean up their act and do their job before imposing knee-jerk laws.

If you really want to pass regulations, here's an idea: after 7pm on Friday and Saturday nights, close the South Elm nightclub corridor to anything but pedestrian traffic. No more cruising up and down South Elm, no more easy access to vehicles. If anyone gets into an altercation, they can't easily go back to their vehicles and grab a weapon and, if a crime is reported, no car could drive over and quickly pick the perps up. It would also more than double the space available for pedestrians and vendors downtown. The people living downtown typically do not park on South Elm, anyway, because of the meters, so it shouldn't affect them adversely, plus it will make their living areas safer.

I was under te presumption that these new cameras installed were supposed to make downtown safe. Have thy accomplished their goal? I do not think so considering the recent shootings. There is no clear cut way to make downtown safer. I have lived here my entire life and I have never seen anything like what is going on in this town right now. It may very well have to do with the influx of people from other states bringing their crime with them. Who knows. These additional restrictions are not really going to make downtown safe. These restrictions will only make you think you are safer. If you close all the downtown nightspots,you will have many empty buildings,so it will not help tenents who run their businesses find potential customers,nor will it help the new motel planned for downtown, which I personally think will be one of those empty buildings. I have seen it happen many times before and I believe it will happen again. I am trying to look at this problem from all angles,not just one for the benefit of the city where I was born and raised and will live until death do us part.

So I guess that "heavy-handed, meddlesome government regulations" that "tie the hands of private enterprise" aren't the solution to this problem . . . unless they are.

So, the week we remember and celebrate the opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989, our local government proposes limiting free movement of its citizens and increasing surveillance? Wow. I don't see the connection to crime reduction - only a false sense of control in the hands of the few.

$5 for parking after 9pm in the only place in the city to go have a good time at night??
Doesn't sound like safety. Sounds like a new way to get city revenue.

Unfortunately a curfew is absolutely necessary. On July 4th weekend on Saturday and Sunday night police had to deal with an estimated 4,000 juveniles who were downtown attempting to start a huge fight. Many gang members were present and it was a miracle there were no serious injuries or a shooting. This went on for hours up until about 2am. On weekends now juveniles congregate on corners and in the park throwing up gang signs and looking for trouble, openly defying police attempting to keep the peace and ensure safety. We SHOULD not need a curfew, but since the parents refuse to watch their own kids, action must be taken.

The solution is simple.

Ban all entertainment downtown, except that of the genre made famous by Lawrence Welk.

I’m a downtown business owner. We moved here as a choice – because we liked what was happening on South Elm Street. We still like it. We came here in spite of several city-created headaches, a story for some other time.

My wife and I are also not infrequent patrons of South Elm nightlife, whether Triad Stage or some of the other establishments. We are a little old for the N club and it’s not our thing, anyway, but we have been there, and to its neighbors.

The recent shootings are unfortunate. While the crowd that is out on the street late at night is often friendly, there have certainly been times when the mood was tense, and my wife and I have commented to each other before, “How many of these people do you think have guns with them?” That is a problem in society as a whole, not limited to downtown or to the N club. The situation deserves some thought – and reasonable means to improve it. I hope both the Police Department and the club owner and management can constructively work to improve the situation (and there are signs, if the paper is to be believed, that is happening). However, several aspects of Councilman Matheny’s proposal are the wrong way to go about it and it looks like merely the latest chapter in the long story of the city’s history of harassing out of existence every successful nightclub, without exception.

1. Let’s keep in mind that the revival of South Elm Street, which is noted throughout the state, and beyond, began with the “N” club. Before that South Elm was wig shops, pawn shops and winos. And empty storefronts. I’m sure it was nice and quiet at night for the few people that lived here. I worked downtown in the 80’s. There wasn’t much.
2. As South Elm had its Renaissance more than a few people commented “this will continue so long as the city is not involved, but sooner or later, they will decide to “manage” it and that will be the end.” It seems that time is coming. City management gives us such success stories as Carolina Circle Mall. Private enterprise, often fighting the city, gave us Friendly Center (and a revived South Elm).
3. The City says it wants young urban professionals. Young people. But young people don’t want to eat dinner at Avenue at 6:30 and turn in at 10 o clock. They don’t shop at retailers on South Elm. They do appreciate night clubs. And the city wants to make sure that we do not have any?
4. I could go back through the history of successful night clubs harassed out of business in Greensboro. Jokers Wild/ Jokers 3 come to mind, but there have been many others. Do New York, DC and San Francisco harass nightclubs because patrons occasionally behave badly? I don’t think so. In fact, I know not.
5. Unfortunately, it’s a fact of life that some night club patrons will behave badly. So do some school students, but we don’t harass schools. So do some customers of retailers, but we don’t harass stores. So do some politicians, but we have not yet banned government.
6. It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that this is another attempt by a few people to promote their personal vision of what downtown should be. News flash, it’s not going to happen. No amount of planning or managing is going to turn downtown into a retail and office zone, active during the day and asleep at night. And guess what, if you live downtown, it’s going to be loud late at night on the weekends. If you don’t like it, move. I live in a rural area. If I don’t like my neighbor spreading chicken litter once a year, I need to move.
7. What is needed here is a reasonable approach to improving security and maybe the “atmosphere” of clubs. I have no inside knowledge but it sounds like the owner is trying to do some things. A reasoned discussion of how things can be improved, and a realistic attitude (you are not going to reduce your problems to 0) is needed. Not punishment and prohibition.
8. Charging for evening parking is a stupid idea. Moronic. You want to kill downtown – go ahead. That proposal tells me that what this is really about is running the nightlife off so a few downtown residents can get a good night’s sleep, beginning at 10 PM. What about people who get to the exit at 1 or 2 AM without cash? They will just snap the gates, anyway. The law abiding will stay away if they have to pay $5.00 just to park.
9. If you need more police, put more police downtown. Police should be assigned where they are needed. I’m sure the new chief, who seems sensible, has some ideas of what can be done by his department to improve things. He should do it. We don’t raise property taxes on the higher crime parts of the city (which I believe downtown is not). Why punish downtown with fees and taxes, or refuse adequate policing (I’m not saying its inadequate). The idea of charging for parking to pay for police is wrong, and stupid.
10. Cameras are fine but they are feelgood security. They may help catch the perps but won’t prevent a whole lot. If I’m going to behave badly on S. Elm in view of dozens or hundreds of people, or of the police, the presence of a camera up the street is not going to do much. It’s about as useful as TSA security, which is to say, not very. Like TSA, it’s theater.
11. The licensing proposal looks like a thinly veiled attempt to give the city a tool to harass, or put out of business, those businesses they do not like. See above.
12. Why curfew those under 18 after 11? What if they are on the street with their parents after dinner? Is there any evidence that the problems come from juveniles, anyway? If they do then maybe I could see it. Otherwise, this just sounds like another “clamp down and control” proposal to make the frightened people who never go downtown anyway feel good.
13. “Hold downtown businesses accountable for the actions of their visitors?” What? Since when was that part of how we do things in this country. Am I responsible for what my clients do? Is the Civil Right Museum responsible if one of their patrons does something outside? What about the city, if someone goes to the city building and then leaves and behaves badly on market street, is the city responsible? Of course not. Really, the proposal is to hold one, or a few businesses, “responsible” for their patrons. Let’s be honest.
14. This proposal deserves a quick smackdown. Please give it the quick death and cheap burial it deserves.

I think the only effective thing out of the laundry list of otherwise asinine suggestions proposed in this article is having better security at the clubs. Some of the "harassment" is coming out of the fact that there have been several club shootings and assaults this year, some of which resulted in fatalities. There have been two shootings that happened in clubs owned by the same owner as the N club, one of which ended up being a homicide. That isn't the first time his establishments have been wrapped up in some kind of trouble either, there has been plenty of other things that don't get reported in the paper. I don't think imposing licensing standards on the staff of these places is "harassing" them out of business as much as it is probably aimed to make sure that they are keeping upright business owners around in profitable and lively areas like Elm Street, and not letting nefarious ones turn the city into the OK Corral. There are plenty of other bars and nightclubs that don't produce the kind of problems that particular ones do because they have responsible managers and business owners. Other than that, cameras, parking fees, and curfews aren't going to stop anything.

I'm no rocket scientist and I do not suppose the rest of these people are either, but with the exception of "Voice Of Reason" they are all much more realistic than Councilman Matheny. I am not sure that I want minds like his solving the problems of Greensboro. The police are responsible for crimes committed on the streets of Greensboro, not the club owners or the bouncers! Mr. Matheny's plan would only add layers of government bureaucracy and cost to the taxpayers and the business owners while not realistically addressing one single issue at hand. I think Matheny would have been better off to keep his plan to himself than to expose himself by sharing this foolishness with the citizens. My bet is that Matheny has never had any experience running a night club, and I think that would be the minimum requirement to weigh in on this issue with any authority.

Unfortunately, better security in the club won't help if some jerk becomes upset and retrieves a gun from his car, or from his friend. Smarter security might help in deterring at least some number of customers who might behave badly, in the club or outside, but even then can't reduce the problems to "0." The problem is people, not the club itself.

Plus, although the owner may be the same, there's probably not a lot of parallel between a strip club near the interstate and the N club downtown. Different place, different clientele.

A curious combination of grandstanding, self-aggrandizement and political ambition. Excessive.

"A curious combination of grandstanding, self-aggrandizement and political ambition."

.....the same as the library no-filter vote.

A pattern is established with Matheny.

Greensboro is well on its way to having a vibrant downtown nightlife (that's right I don't think we're quite there yet) and now "Zackie Boy" wants to screw it all up based on a couple of incidents. I live in his district and he has received my last vote. That Zack is a visionary.....just ask him.

Making club security responsible for the area outside their club is not providing them menacing police powers. It's making them more responsible, period. What clubs often do is throw out all parties involved in a dispute and simply wipe their hands clean of it, with no regard for how the dispute is settled 20 feet beyond their doors. This is what happened in both cases at the N Club and at LAX. With the N Club the suspect probably brought the gun inside, but security wasn't (and hasn't been) responsible enough over the last few years. The N Club has not been strict enough about who they let in because money is more important. It wasn't like that a few years ago when many "patrons" were turned away due to their dress, attitude, or other information which showed they were a likely safety threat. If current ownership can't, or isn't willing enough to shore up their security operations, the city should step in with license requirements that force their hand. These are requirements that should not have any affect on the vast majority of other downtown establishments, only night clubs.

If a curfew for minors is so objectionable, what should be done about teens that turn downtown into their own little romper room? Voice Of Reason accurately described a near riot in the summer that was caused by teens leaving the N Club and allowed to run amok with no supervision. It would be a great assistance for security and police to focus on other potential causes of violence if hundreds of wild teens (some simply acting like typical care-free teens, some like morons, some like criminals), if they weren't allowed to hang around and fester into a problem in the first place. Baby sitting minors in a prevention effort takes away from actively monitoring and responding to the most dangerous people and situations that have become a little more prevelant.

Downtown became a really nice place to go out for dinner or drinks, and the last several years it's become less and less safe despite an increased police presence. I don't go there anymore anyway, but I would assume some people with more interest at stake would want something definitive to be done about it.

Oh my! Joe Guarino and I agree on something!

In all seriousness, most of these ideas are really bad and epitomize a knee-jerk reaction.

Crime happens, including violent crime. But we should never penalize non-offending businesses, let alone the public, for actions of one or a few bad actors. The GPD has already said that a major reason the shooting occurred downtown was because the N Club security failed to find the gun on the shooter.

The N Club should be held responsible. And by all accounts, its owner is working voluntarily with police to increase security and make his properties safer. But if he is resistant or doesn't do no enough, Shut the N club down.

Assessing a $5 fee for parking after 9 won't help fund increased security in parking decks because PEOPLE WILL STOP PARKING IN THE PARKING DECKS! You'll see a dramatic increase in side street and neighborhood parking and cruising downtown, which is already a big enough problem. And more importantly, it will keep people from patronizing downtown businesses. Who will want to go to Fincastle's for an $8 burger and fries when it will really cost them $13 including parking?

Enacting a curfew for minors will likewise be ineffective. First of all, it doesn't have any correlation to the shooting that brought all this about. Teens (at least most who will be impacted by this curfew) aren't shooting people. Convicted felons (as was the case with the N Club incident) are. Secondly, there is no credible evidence or studies to point to that demonstrate curfews for minors actually accomplish anything, let alone a reduction in violence. Further, many cities have been taken to court and LOST because their curfew ordinances have been found to violate the Constitutional rights of minors.

I could go on and on. The fact is, the majority of these ideas suck! And those that don't certainly should receive more than 6 days worth of debate and discussion.

Announcing these plans today and expecting to implement them by next Tuesday is not only bad policy-making, it's nearly as reckless and dangerous as the criminals that brought about this discussion in the first place!

Greensboro and its citizens deserve more deliberative and thoughtful ideas from its elected representatives.

The statement "minors under the age of 18" is redundant.....and about as effective as the prohibition.

About a year and a half or so ago (when Mitch Johnson was fired), I overhead Zach talking to a couple of his buddies during lunch at Zaytoon's downtown. You should have heard him describe how tough he was behind closed doors and how he worked to broker a deal for Mitch to save face. I almost spat my chicken across the room while having to listen to nearly an hour of self-promotion. I don't think that Zaytoon's serves hotdogs, but they had one in there during lunchtime that particular day.

There is another word. Opportunism.