Well, ready or not, the City Council is opening the taps and hoping the good times will roll. Last week, the Council requested that open containers of beer, wine and distilled spirits be allowed on the Promenade seven days a week from 8am until 2am.
I’m not convinced that transforming Santa Monica into New Orleans or South Beach is the best path forward, but making the Promenade an “entertainment zone,” to use the correct terminology, isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Given the dire economic situation the city is facing, I’d say the Council’s decision is 50 percent the bold action they repeatedly gave themselves credit for–and 50 percent a Hail Mary.
The Council might argue that their goal isn’t to transform the identity of Santa Monica, and Bourbon Street was never mentioned. But Beale Street in Memphis was cited by Councilmember Jesse Zwick as a place to emulate, and Beale Street has suffered multiple shootings and numerous vandalized vehicles in the past year, despite omnipresent metal detectors and a heavy police presence. Yet the Council clung to the notion that an entertainment zone will eliminate safety problems rather than amplify them.
It was left to Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) to express the caution that was missing from the Council’s discourse. It’s unsurprising that DTSM board members, gathered for their monthly meeting, supported creating the entertainment zone, since they represent business owners who stand to profit from it. But the board members raised questions about potential challenges from inebriated revelers, underage drinking, noise pollution, vandalism, litter, and drunk driving, which coincidentally are the problems reported by other cities with entertainment zones.
City staff didn’t include this in their report. Nor did they mention that the city of El Dorado, in Arkansas, recently revoked its entertainment zone due to rowdiness, fighting, speeding on neighboring streets, and the smuggling of outside alcohol into officially permitted containers. The police chief said he lacked the manpower to properly monitor the zone.
Perhaps this is why Santa Monica Police Chief Ramon Batista requested a minimum of four police officers be assigned to the entertainment zone and that it be established as a pilot program for the first year. But the Councilmembers unanimously voted to override the police chief and make the entertainment zone permanent from day one. They also disputed the need for police officers, suggesting that private security could be sufficient. Again it was left to a DTSM Board Member, Jon Farzam, to express reservations about the viability of private security enforcing municipal regulations.
The Council should be commended for trying to simplify and streamline permitting procedures, given the city’s reputation for doing the opposite, and just because the Council is allowing bars to serve alcohol outdoors 18 hours a day doesn’t mean any establishment is ever going to do so. By allowing the maximum amount of hours, the Council is avoiding the kind of micromanaging that bureaucrats often get wrong, and they’re instead delegating business decisions to business owners. The problem is the Council is also delegating their responsibilities for public safety.
I’ve purposely avoided writing about the new Council the past few months, because I wanted to give the Councilmembers time to find their footing, a task made more difficult by the fires and their aftermath. Putting aside their personal ambitions (and some of them display their ambitions more conspicuously than others), I believe the Councilmembers are sincerely committed to helping improve the city. But if we want to know what happens when politicians move fast and break things without considering the consequences, we unfortunately have too many current examples.
I know the Council desires far more than drunken revelry on the Promenade. Beer gardens, wine tastings, and live music events were proposed and could indeed revive the area. However, such activities aren’t included in the ordinance, which only specifies the public consumption of alcohol. As DTSM board member Leo Pustilnikov put it, “Aside from seeing double, is there anything else that's part of the entertainment zone?” He was informed that there’s not.
I wish the Councilmembers had discussed both the pros and cons of the entertainment zone, rather than competing with each other to prove who was the most gung ho. Councilmember Caroline Torosis, to her credit, noted that the staff had not provided any projections for costs or revenues. Nevertheless, she too joined in the increasingly giddy acclamation as the Council exponentially expanded the proposed zone from three days a year to three days a week to every single day. It was ballsy. It was also the kind of recklessness one expects from spring breakers, not elected officials, but maybe they’re trying to prepare us for what’s coming.
