Safety plans divide downtown : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — Proposals to create a safer downtown at night are being met with mixed reactions from business owners, some of whom feel they are being unfairly punished with restrictions that could drive business away.

Other business leaders, who helped draft the proposals, said the moves are aimed at creating a safer environment.

On Wednesday, City Councilman Zack Matheny laid out 10 proposals to improve downtown safety at night after a shooting on Oct. 28 that injured five people.

Those proposals include: a curfew for people under 18; a $5 fee to park in city decks after 9 p.m.; zero tolerance for disruptive behavior; and an entertainment license that requires tougher security measures for businesses with a capacity of 100 or more people.

Matheny said the proposals are designed to give police more tools to manage problems and to send a message that downtown is safe.

He hopes that many of the measures can go into effect immediately after Tuesday night’s City Council meeting.

Some business owners reached Thursday said the city’s proposals unfairly punish them for the problems associated with a few businesses.

“I think the people behind them, for the most part, have our best interests at heart, but I think throwing a few things on the books isn’t necessarily going to solve the issues,” said Simonne McClinton, who manages M’Coul’s Public House.

“I feel like we can address the issues without punishing everyone for the actions of a few.”

Paul Talley, owner of both Inferno and the Lotus Lounge nightclubs, said he is concerned about the parking fees, which he feels will drive customers to other clubs.

“Why would they pay the extra $5 to come downtown?” Talley asked. “It’s going to make it more expensive to visit downtown. We are operating at a disadvantage to other businesses.”

Talley described the proposals as a “classic overreaction” that punishes good business owners with more expenses that eventually will be passed on to customers.

“Why should I have to do all this stuff when I haven’t had a shooting?” Talley asked. “They are grouping us all up like we have the same business and clientele as the N Club.”

Before the Oct. 28 shooting, police said, two groups had been arguing inside the N Club about 2 a.m. Both groups were asked to leave, and the argument spilled onto the street.

At February One Place and South Elm Street, police said, 22-year-old Quinton Campbell shot four people before he was shot by a patrol officer. Campbell is charged with four counts of attempted first-degree murder.

Police believe the gun used in the shooting had been carried inside the N Club, and they said better security measures could have prevented the shooting.

Katie Southard, owner of the Green Bean coffee shop on South Elm Street, said proposed restrictions on businesses with a capacity of 100 has her rethinking a possible expansion. The shop’s current capacity is 99.

“But if they pass this stuff — we can’t afford cameras and security at our shows,” Southard said. “We have singer-songwriters come in and people don’t get crazy at their shows. It seems like it will make it harder for people with good businesses and good clientele.”

Ed Wolverton, president of Downtown Greensboro Inc., worked with Matheny on the proposals. He said the entertainment license requirements are still up for discussion.

“The entertainment license is used in other communities, and we need to find the right details for how it can fit here,” Wolverton said. “A community may say they want the license for any nightclub that stays open after 11 p.m. or maybe 12 a.m.”

Wolverton said some of the proposals will need to be sorted out among city leaders and likely wouldn’t go into effect next week.

He said the teen curfew proposal is related to two incidents last summer when a club had a “teen night” that led to fighting in a parking lot. Police had to break up that fight.

About the $5 parking fee, Wolverton said the proposal is aimed partly at people who loiter and drink in the parking decks before going to the clubs.

“People are bringing coolers with their beverage of choice, going to decks and drinking in cars — which is less expensive than buying drinks in the club,” Wolverton said.

Milton Kern, a contractor who has renovated many downtown buildings, was another business leader who helped craft the proposals.

“The nightclub owners have to understand they have to be responsible business people and not have a 'shoot ’em up,’ wild night life,” Kern said.

“We are trying to bring back sanity to a night life that has run rampant.”

Kern said he understands concerns that some owners have about the proposals, but safety should be the main goal.

“If (customers) want to go to High Point Road, they are free to go there,” Kern said.

“The point is we want to make sure we are safe downtown. We aren’t trying to do anything else.”

Contact Ryan Seals at 373-7077 or ryan.seals@news-record.com

jeffic_fail

November 12, 2010 - 4:03 am EST

If parking fees are raised to $5.00 I for one will certainly limit my visits to downtown after 9pm.

milo1

November 12, 2010 - 5:31 am EST

How will raising parking fees make it safer. It is the thugs that don't have cars usually, causing the problem.
Any way to raise fees is what the city looks at. Remember this when Zack runs again. You want safer streets get the cops out of the offices and on the streets.

InventorNC

November 12, 2010 - 5:35 am EST

Right on Milo1. You hit the nail on the head.

CherylP25

November 12, 2010 - 9:16 am EST

If my memory is correct, in both recent downtown shootings, the police think that the shooters "went to the car" to retrieve their weapons. Contrary to popular belief, thugs do drive...

Ryan Seals

November 12, 2010 - 11:04 am EST

Actually, in the Oct. 28 mass shooting, police believe the weapon made its way into the club.

Rocco Scarfone, the owner of the N Club, disputed that saying he talked to witnesses who said the shooter retrieved the weapon from a vehicle.

There was never a second downtown shooting, but an incident the following night behind the Greene Street Club in which a man is accused of threatening a group of people with a handgun.

In that case, they believe the suspect left the club, retrieved a weapon from his vehicle and then threatened a group whom he had been arguing with as they were attempting to leave.

There was another shooting last weekend at LAX on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, which is not downtown, but at an establishment owned, in part, by Scarfone.

In that shooting, police believe the suspect also retrieved a weapon from his vehicle before the incident occurred.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

unbiased

November 12, 2010 - 1:19 pm EST

Milo's entry is the most ignorant comment here. There are more cops assigned to downtown than anywhere in the city....by far. Cops were right there to respond to both gun-involved incidents, and are there every other night of the week to respond immediately to everything else, as well as proactively policing the area.

A lot of people don't like the parking fee idea...fine. That doesn't mean that other proposals are bad or that nothing needs to be done to start making downtown safer at night.

Bang201

November 12, 2010 - 4:35 pm EST

I personally like the $5.00 parking fees. If nothing else it would mean the people using downtown would be paying to keep it safer.

November 12, 2010 - 5:43 am EST

As Milo1 says, we need police presence. At the same time we need some intelligence. We need the uniforms and we need the plain clothes cops too.

We must have more video cameras. On the street and in the public garages and parks too. And we must connect all the cameras to the web so everyone can watch every camera whenever they want.

License plate ID cameras and some "bait cars" would help. How about checking for concealed weapons and instituting and enforcing strong laws with lots of time handed out for carrying.

Houston, TX doesnt put up with a lot of nonsense and the result is very apparent!

November 12, 2010 - 1:24 pm EST

Plain clothes officers don't deter crime, they catch it in the act. Uniformed officers have not had any problems catching crimes in the act, because generally there are plenty of them downtown.

More cameras sound great, but paying for them is a different story, especially since everyone is crying about a $5 parking fee. Does nobody understand the corrolation?

Bait cars are used for catching criminals that steal cars. There is not a problem with stolen autos downtown. License reading cameras also cost money, and nobody wants to pay for them.

November 12, 2010 - 7:17 am EST

Police presence isn't the only answer. There were cops standing in the crowd that the idiot was shooting into a few weeks ago.

what16

November 12, 2010 - 7:54 am EST

Its amazing to me that idiots like Zack are able to be elected.

77 Hornet

November 12, 2010 - 8:08 am EST

Only charge if they park less than 1 hour to help discourage any trouble. That way the "real" customers won't have to pay.

citywatcher

November 12, 2010 - 8:14 am EST

Doesn't make any sense. The parking fees would kick in at 9 pm. All anyone one have to do is park in the decks before 9 to avoid the fees...All this does is hurt businesses

So we then encourage the thugs to loiter longer to avoid paying parking fees?

missy

November 12, 2010 - 8:26 am EST

Safety in the absence of civility = control. Youth in a crowded environment partying + drinking + drugs(reality) is all about losing control. Believe that is the objective for many. History indicates compliance to laws(control) in such an environment is an oxymoron. Working to control youth looking to lose a little control(have fun) appears to be the objective but doesn't seem to be the focus. Control of the environment where youth can lose a little control safely is the objective? What is the best way? What is the first thing to be done; Investigate other cities who have successfully overcome the same "safety" issues to learn what was done? Concerned business hiring an expert who has a successful history of controlling the uncontrolled? City leadership throwing out some ideas that seem to make sense but not real sure? What is the due-diligence needed and required to resolve this "safety" issue in the best possible way for all? Thinking out loud.

DonMoore

November 12, 2010 - 9:27 am EST

What's the deal with reports that the shooter left the N-Club and went to Inferno before the shooting? Or that the shooter stated he was not carrying the gun when in the N-Club?

nickolinka

November 12, 2010 - 9:30 am EST

to me the fee to park does nothing other than limit those without the resourses to blow on a night downtown. the parking fee won't hurt the average customer at bin 33, but probably would the average customer at fincastles. way to go greensboro on even more profiling.

Panacea

November 12, 2010 - 9:37 am EST

I really doubt that a $5 parking fee is going to discourage people from going downtown in the evenings. People who want to go to clubs and restaurants to party (since most other businesses are closed) are going to do so, paid parking or not. Since the fee only affects those businesses that stay open late, the impact is going to be limited.

That being said, I cannot for the life of me see how a parking fee is going to make the downtown area safer. Thugs with guns may or may not be the driver. There is NO evidence that a parking fee will deter them from coming down town with guns.

A parking fee is a waste of time, a feel good measure. I have no evidence Matheny intends it to be a revenue generator for the city . . . but that's what it will turn into. Do things for the right reasons, please. Don't blow smoke up the keisters of Greensboro citizens.

Increased police presence is a good idea. Curfew for minors is a good idea . . . they have no business being in a club that serves alcohol anyway. Stricter enforcement of current laws is a better idea. New York cleaned up a lot of its problems simply by enforcing laws on loitering and "quality of life" issues that were already on the books.

Passing new laws is just a politician's way of saying, "I'm doing something" when he's really not.

pragmatist

November 12, 2010 - 9:38 am EST

These proposals will weaken, not strengthen, downtown security. They will force police to be babysitters, instead of keeping their eye on real, potential violence. These proposals are abrupt, ill-thought knee-jerk reactions that will do absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the recent violence downtown, and they could cause mayhem.
Here are just a few observations:
CURFEW: The shooters were not under 18, so the curfew idea makes no sense. A curfew on everyone under 18 can only be enforced when you can prove the individual is under 18. That means instead of patrolling, police will be compelled to do license checks on anyone who looks under 18. That will alienate a lot of would-be downtown customers in the 19-25 range. Plus, it could spark an even more booming industry in fake IDs. If you go after gang loitering and start busting those guys, get ready to spend a lot of money prosecuting them. See the Supreme Court's decision in Chicago v. Morales (1999).
PARKING FEES:Requiring people to pay 5 dollars to park will keep at least 20% of would-be downtown visitors away. People will resent the fees, they won't want to do deal with the hassle, short-time visitors who have no intention of spending the night in the bars will still have to pay the full fee, so say goodbye to window shoppers, plus, unless the decks take cash cards and credit cards, you're forcing people to carry currency, a green light for additional panhandling and crime. If the problem is "people drinking in their cars" then crack down on that. How is a $5 fee going to prevent that?
PANHANDLING: How are you going to enforce this? Arrest homeless guys? While the cops are handcuffing and processing Mumbling Eddie, some guy with a gun can still run right by them and shoot somebody.
SECURITY: It's more important for clubs to enforce security when people walk in, than when they walk out. If you don't catch the gun walking in, by the time everyone gets liquored up and angry, it's too late. The whole idea here should be to make sure the violence doesn't spill outside the club to begin with. Allowing security guards to take action is the streets has nothing to do with the problem and will lead to more violence and huge lawsuits. Besides, what are they doing to do? Chase after a guy? And then what? Get shot themselves? Corner the perps and wait for the cops to finish checking IDs and cuffing homeless guys and make an arrest? Will you paint lines outside the clubs, so everyone knows just how far security can stray? It would be better for security to call 911 than to be responsible for taking action into their own hands.
ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE: It seems to me alcohol permits are defacto entertainment licenses. If a club does not meet the standard for a liquor license, it doesn't get one. This appears to be some sort of double tax on business owners.
In short, you're hassling the same young people you need downtown, hassling all downtown businesses for the problems of a few, plus subjecting everyone in the downtown environment to potential consequences from untrained, unauthorized sources. Focus on the actual problems that led to all this and derive solutions from them. Allow private enterprise time to do what they must do to survive and don't force your cops to take their eyes off the big picture.

November 12, 2010 - 1:50 pm EST

A curfew for minors is not a response to the shooting or other gun-involved incidents. The curfew idea is in response to the many unruly gatherings, and a few near riots (not simply fights as described in this article), that have occurred after "teen night" at the N Club. A curfew would not apply to minors that are with a parent, but those that are unsupervised in any way. A curfew would not preoccupy police with license checks...that's ridiculous. It would mostly eliminate the baby sitting that police have had to conduct while hundreds of teens hang out after leaving special events at clubs. An alternative to a curfew would be to simply forbid clubs from having special events for teens.

I don't really care about a parking fee. It doesn't necessarily have to be five dollars, but if cameras are going to be used more than they have to be paid for somehow.

Panhandling is not a problem downtown, it' already dealt with appropriately, and officers don't let potential shooting suspects run by in order to arrest homeless people. This comment is the second most ignorant entry after milo's.

Your description of security concerns is a rambling, non-sensical mess. Clubs have routinely kicked all parties out together after fighting inside, with no regard for how that dispute is settled outside their doors around everyone else that's just walking by. Increased security training and more accountability in necessary, and that includes not just the club, but the club's property outside. This doesn't mean security chasing people through the streets. It means security not pushing angry thugs fighting each other out the door, turning around and closing the door with zero consideration for what happens next.

You apparently don't understand how entertainment licenses are used in other cities. Nobody is getting hassled, and aside from a curfew for unsupervised minors and a parking fee, nobody except the businesses would know the difference if all these proposals were implemented. These proposals aren't all perfect and more details should be settled before anything is voted on, but it's a start in the right direction.

Abner Doon

November 12, 2010 - 3:24 pm EST

"The curfew idea is in response to the many unruly gatherings, and a few near riots (not simply fights as described in this article), that have occurred after "teen night" at the N Club."

When was there a riot? What is near riot? Could a near riot be "simply a fight"?

My kids, 13 and 16, both girls, have been downtown after 11 at teen events and never had a problem to date.

What teen related incidents are most Greensboro parents unaware of, other than the usual kids acting like kids?

You realize they are kids, right?

I assume you were a kid.

"An alternative to a curfew would be to simply forbid clubs from having special events for teens."

Great idea unbiased, or is your chosen name an oxymoron?

Let's keep them locked up alone at home. If they don't act properly up to your standards, let's send them off to fix it school.

Who are you to say?

"Nobody is getting hassled, and aside from a curfew for unsupervised minors and a parking fee, nobody except the businesses would know the difference if all these proposals were implemented."

Are you saying my kids won't feel hassled if you don't allow them downtown and cancel stuff they enjoy?

Are you saying most won't feel hassled by a parking fee?

Are you saying no one would know the difference?

How old are you?

Do you have kids?

Watch a lot of TV?

Or are you not talking about my kids, but some other kinds of kids you don't care for?

Is this about all kids, or just about some kids that are different looking than you are?

George Hartzman

If you reply unbiased, how about letting everybody in on who you are.

Loved the insults:

"Milo's entry is the most ignorant comment here."

"A curfew would not preoccupy police with license checks...that's ridiculous."

"This comment is the second most ignorant entry after milo's."

"Your description of security concerns is a rambling, non-sensical mess."

"You apparently don't understand..."

Unbiased

Does insult echo insecurity unbiased?

November 13, 2010 - 12:37 am EST

Over the summer there were two near riots that did not become riots due to downtown police and other police responding to these incidents which barely kept them under control. No, not simply a fight, but groups of kids going at each other up and down Elm St. And no, I didn't act that way when I was a kid. I could have fun and actually act right and be responsible.

If the greater good of everyone downtown is compromised by teens acting criminally on a regular basis, then pick a solution...curfew or no teens events. I don't care which, but not letting kids around downtown after 11pm does not equal locking them up, when they should be in the @#$% bed or winding down and getting ready for bed. Your kids might be great, but around 10-20% that hang downtown are not, and they cause a disruption and sometimes much more.

Lord Trigo

November 12, 2010 - 4:08 pm EST

I'm in a band that plays downtown quite a bit. I've also done sound at different venues there, and I have yet to hear anyone mention these "riots" that you speak of. These rules just hassle the innocent and will have no effect on anyone bent on causing trouble.

November 12, 2010 - 4:57 pm EST

Lol. Well, I'll give you credit for one thing, Unbiased. Your statement, "nobody except the businesses would know the difference if all these proposals were implemented" is certainly true. You're right- none of these proposals would make a difference, at least in stopping the kind of violence we saw over the past two weeks. The alleged downtown shooters are 22, 23 and 37. So, none of them was under 18; none of them was a panhandler or a loiterer; none of them was busted in a parking deck and none of them showed up on a surveillance camera.
Your assertion that security guards should not be "pushing angry thugs fighting each other out the door" seems to infer that non-LEO have arrest powers and can detain people. In NC law, a security guard can make an arrest under the reasonableness standard, but they can also be sued over the interpretation of the standard as it was applied.

November 13, 2010 - 12:47 am EST

You continue to ignore the need for more responsible security requirements. Maybe your just doing it on purpose, but you can't seem to grasp the concept that better trained and more professional security would have prevented these incidents. Anyone in the club security business should know that you don't kick out two disputing parties at the same time and turn your back to it. Make one party leave the club and leave the area, allow the other one to stay. If they won't cooperate, call police. Security personnel should have the downtown officers on their bat phones, but they don't because they are not professional and do not care to have a good working relationship with the police. I don't know how you make the leap into thinking that means security has arrest powers, aside from anyone's power to make a citizen's arrest. You simply don't understand the finer points of running a professional security operation. That's fine because most people don't, but Scarfone should know, and he should be doing everything to cooperate and get to that level now that he's been pointed out.

Elmer

November 12, 2010 - 9:39 am EST

Just wondering, if you went outside a venue for a cigarette, or simply a breath of fresh air, could the police scoop you up for loitering?

Zero tolerance, does that mean "It's Giuliani time!" in Greesnboro?

ZamboniMan

November 12, 2010 - 10:40 am EST

I was about to post the same question. How would the no loitering thing impact smokers (bar scene is full of them) who are pushed out onto the sidewalk to smoke now? Same question about somebody who went out for a breath of fresh air or to make a phone call?

November 12, 2010 - 12:18 pm EST

Loitering means hanging around outside a business for an excessive amount of time, without any reasonable purpose.

Going out for a smoke or a breath of fresh air is not loitering. Hanging around side side more than 15 minutes is.

newkid

November 12, 2010 - 10:30 am EST

Don't punish everyone for the problems stemming from a few locations. We KNOW where the trouble spots are; deal with them harshly. Mr. Scarfone and company are trying to share the blame -- and the cost of increased security -- but that's just not fair.

thunderballs

November 12, 2010 - 10:39 am EST

Absolutely ludacris to charge for the decks. Why kill off the economic engine driving downtown's emergence? Greensboro is finally starting to become a real city. When you have a nightlife you need more police presence. Simple.

news-record.com

NEWS