A Case Against the Office of the Nightlife
The assumption that creating an Office of Nightlife in New York City will lead to a positive effect on nightlife, is an erroneous and misguided political initiative based on sentiment and nostalgia, instead of a response to a real need in the industry.
Christopher M. Morrow
There are numerous issues within the nightlife and entertainment industry that the city can and should resolve, but none of them will be accomplished through this office. For example, how will the office tackle issues such as high rent, worker safety, rampant exploitation and discrimination? Will they have any legislative power to make changes? Will they have any jurisdiction to investigate or interfere with private businesses? What would be the exact duties and powers of the office and whose interests will be served? These are critical questions to assess the effectiveness of the office on the public good.
The argument in favor of the creation of the Office of Nightlife is two-fold: that through extensive policy research that it would lead to economic benefit and that it would promote peaceful co-existence between venues and the surrounding neighborhood. Both of these objectives are for the benefit of the public good. However, when you examine the context the value of this office will be extremely limited.
While this initiative was prompted by the 20 percent closure of clubs in the City, it obscures the corporatization of most clubs and venues. In 2016 there was a bill that proposed to intervene on behalf of small businesses called the Small Business Jobs Survival Act. The SBJSA introduced guidelines to regulate commercial leases, which are the primary obstacle in maintaining an independent business. The bill was subsequently buried by New York City politicians including the De Blasio administration which outright opposed the act and attributed it to government overreach. The administration had an opportunity to support independent businesses with the SBJSA, and they actively rejected it. Perhaps this is a glimpse into how powerful the influence of real estate and developers is on legislation.
The extinction of independently owned clubs has been facilitated over the past decade. Most of the clubs in Manhattan and Brooklyn are owned or run by corporations now. Many clubs and venues serve populations that are intoxicated and engage in high risk behavior, making the nightlife industry a high liability business. This risk factor has created an environment where large corporate entities have displaced or subsumed independent venues.
Los Angeles based AEG and Texas based Live Nation are the major players in this region, controlling clubs such as: Terminal 5, The Gramercy Theatre,The Bowery Ballroom, Brooklyn Steele, Webster Hall, Mercury Lounge and many others. In this context the office of nightlife would primarily be dealing with this corporate duopoly.
Corporate owned and operated venues present 2 distinct problems. The Office of Nightlife would have no jurisdiction to impose on private business, especially corporations of this scope. Without the ability to enforce any regulations or interventions there would be no point to the office. The second issue is that if the individual appointed to head the office of nightlife is from the corporate or real estate industries what guarantee is there that industry interest will not supercede the public good. In the end we would be using public resources to fund a private interests.
Finally, there are already structures and procedures in place to negotiate on behalf of the community. There would be no substantial function that the office would provide that is not being fulfilled by community boards, the N.Y.C Department of Environmental Protection, The Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment, 311 or any of the other numerous agencies already in the City. The Office of Nightlife is not a useful addition to the already expansive New York City bureaucracy.
