Aggressive enforcement

What is a nuisance bar? Nuisance to whom?

The proposals often have pitted bars and their owners against nearby residents and other businesses, with bar operators contending that the new rules will hurt an industry that's important to tourism and the city's easygoing culture, while their opponents want more city actions against nuisance bars that disrupt neighborhoods' quality of life.

The contours of the most recent fight were set in large part under Mayor Mitch Landrieu and the previous City Council. In 2017, former Councilwoman Stacy Head put forward new rules, supported by Landrieu, that at one time or another included a requirement that bars install exterior surveillance cameras tied into the city’s crime camera network, a ban on outdoor seating, and rules that would have prevented a bar counter from being within 10 feet of a business’ door, among other provisions.

A lot of the time this just means there is activity in the neighborhood after dark. Some people have a very low tolerance for that. Not everyone does.  But the assumption when this comes up is invariably that everyone shares that same low tolerance.  Some of us actually kind of like it when, say, the laundromat across the street is hosting a late night all ages show. It doesn't have to be something we necessarily want to participate in. It's just kind of neat to see that someone is enjoying something. I'd say that's good for my "quality of life."  But our use of that term also is loaded with the fears and hostilities shared only among a specific class of property holders.

Our city government will always act to protect this class first. Yesterday City Council moved closer to passing a set of rules that will grant the Chief of Police, the Chief of the Fire Department, the ABC board, or the Department of Safety and Permits "emergency" powers to unilaterally shut down a bar deemed to be.. well.. a nuisance according to the prejudices of the protected class of property holders concerned about "quality of life issues."  The delay now is only about what the appeals process might look like. Originally, there wasn't even going to be one.

One thing worth remembering also is that these rules are left over from a process begun under the Landrieu administration. They were designed with input from attorney Scott Bergthold who Mitch brought in specifically for his expertise in shutting down strip clubs across the country. The purpose of these laws is to have a little due process built in as possible. The city has already decided whose side it is on.  Right now they're just figuring out how aggressive they can get away with being.

And we can expect that to be, well, pretty darn aggressive.  At least that is what LaToya Cantrell said during her budget town-phone-ca-hall thingy this week. 

After a French Quarter resident complained about a lack of public bathrooms and a lack of enforcement of laws against public urination, Cantrell said she was looking to "retool" the French Market Corp., though she didn't provide specifics. She also suggested a crackdown on quality-of-life violations in the tourist district.

"We will be enforcing the laws on the books relative to the quality of life. This is going to be more aggressive as time goes forward but also more consistent," Cantrell said.

Now one could read a question like that and consider that maybe it's the actual lack of public bathrooms and other such support for the city's homeless that is negatively affecting their "quality of life."  But we know that isn't what LaToya is talking about.  Her solution is "more aggressive" enforcement of  "laws on the books."  Because the law already favors the side she cares about.