Richmond leaders should proceed with caution on Cherry Pit
I once worked in local government out west at a time when cities were rolling in the dough they received from our state government. Life was good, and Sacramento was footing the bill for a party that seemed like it would never end. As such, a few council members had ideas about the way excess city funds should be spent.
The pet peeve of one council member was pole signs – towering advertisements that pitched Denny's, Shell, Exxon, whatever. This council person couldn't stand the signs, thinking they were a blight on the landscape of our fair city.
Without really thinking through where her anti-pole sign campaign would lead, said council person directed our city attorney to write an ordinance banning pole signs. Letters were written to the offending businesses and to the owner of the signs – a little upstart business called 3M - ordering them to comply with the new city law.
Our city officials boldly tugged on the coats of 3M bigshots, but we were regally ignored. We took the company to court, and to make a long story short, their lawyers beat up our lawyers.
When all was said and done, the city settled to have two pole signs removed at a cost of a cool $1 million a piece. Our city had gotten itself into legal brawl it couldn’t possibly win, the state economy collapsed months later in the recession of 1991, and the budget was devastated when the state cut funds to small cities.
Millions were spent ridding the city of two pole signs, and it turned out the city really could have used that money when the operating budget was slashed later on.
I'm reminded of that case now that some folks are calling on the city to close down a local nightclub, the Cherry Pit.
Some citizens suggest the city should put pressure on the business by taking the owner to court or strictly enforcing nuisance laws. There's one little problem, though. The owner of that establishment, like it or not, has legal rights, too, and I’m guessing city officials would have to decide whether it’s worth devoting a wheelbarrow of money to try to remedy the problems in that area.
To business, home and apartment dwellers who live nearby, I'm certain the answer to the question of whether it’s worth going after the club is an adamant 'yes.' They might say it's worth it because people have to obey the law, and if illegal activity is occurring at or around the club, with or without the consent of the proprietor, the city should avail itself of every opportunity to prevent it.
It sounds easy, but there's more to it. It involves decisions about diverting some of the city's resources, and, like in the case of the city where I worked, going down that path can have dire unforeseen consequences.
For example, what if the latest incident is an anomaly – occurring during a trend where things were actually calming down in that neighborhood over the last two or three months? Moreover, what if that quieting trend continues, yet in the meantime, the city expends significant resources to close an establishment that's no longer the main concern of local law enforcement?
I realize people might readily dismiss that argument citing the "broken window' theory. Ignore this problem, they might say, and the city of Richmond will be sending a message that will invite more or worse crime. And, they'd probably add, the city doesn't want it to get worse than an attempted homicide.
Of course, Richmond city commissioners could put their foot down and say in no uncertain terms that they want any funny business at or around the club to stop. They could insist that the city send police officers in to raid the site from time to time. Maybe they'd rack up a swath of misdemeanor arrests, and perhaps even the occasional felony arrest if they were lucky. But would it be worth it? If concentrating efforts on one business ultimately results in higher incidents of crime in other areas of the city, would most city residents feel they were getting their monies worth?
Again, it might seem like a pretty easy call. But making a choice to confront a business will have repercussions. For example, if the city elects to take them to court, the money to do that has to come from somewhere, whether its parks, sidewalks, or maybe even the police department’s campaign to fight crime in other areas the city.
I don't know what the city will do. But having witnessed the effects of the pole sign debacle, I hope Richmond city leaders proceed with caution.
The pet peeve of one council member was pole signs – towering advertisements that pitched Denny's, Shell, Exxon, whatever. This council person couldn't stand the signs, thinking they were a blight on the landscape of our fair city.
Without really thinking through where her anti-pole sign campaign would lead, said council person directed our city attorney to write an ordinance banning pole signs. Letters were written to the offending businesses and to the owner of the signs – a little upstart business called 3M - ordering them to comply with the new city law.
Our city officials boldly tugged on the coats of 3M bigshots, but we were regally ignored. We took the company to court, and to make a long story short, their lawyers beat up our lawyers.
When all was said and done, the city settled to have two pole signs removed at a cost of a cool $1 million a piece. Our city had gotten itself into legal brawl it couldn’t possibly win, the state economy collapsed months later in the recession of 1991, and the budget was devastated when the state cut funds to small cities.
Millions were spent ridding the city of two pole signs, and it turned out the city really could have used that money when the operating budget was slashed later on.
I'm reminded of that case now that some folks are calling on the city to close down a local nightclub, the Cherry Pit.
Some citizens suggest the city should put pressure on the business by taking the owner to court or strictly enforcing nuisance laws. There's one little problem, though. The owner of that establishment, like it or not, has legal rights, too, and I’m guessing city officials would have to decide whether it’s worth devoting a wheelbarrow of money to try to remedy the problems in that area.
To business, home and apartment dwellers who live nearby, I'm certain the answer to the question of whether it’s worth going after the club is an adamant 'yes.' They might say it's worth it because people have to obey the law, and if illegal activity is occurring at or around the club, with or without the consent of the proprietor, the city should avail itself of every opportunity to prevent it.
It sounds easy, but there's more to it. It involves decisions about diverting some of the city's resources, and, like in the case of the city where I worked, going down that path can have dire unforeseen consequences.
For example, what if the latest incident is an anomaly – occurring during a trend where things were actually calming down in that neighborhood over the last two or three months? Moreover, what if that quieting trend continues, yet in the meantime, the city expends significant resources to close an establishment that's no longer the main concern of local law enforcement?
I realize people might readily dismiss that argument citing the "broken window' theory. Ignore this problem, they might say, and the city of Richmond will be sending a message that will invite more or worse crime. And, they'd probably add, the city doesn't want it to get worse than an attempted homicide.
Of course, Richmond city commissioners could put their foot down and say in no uncertain terms that they want any funny business at or around the club to stop. They could insist that the city send police officers in to raid the site from time to time. Maybe they'd rack up a swath of misdemeanor arrests, and perhaps even the occasional felony arrest if they were lucky. But would it be worth it? If concentrating efforts on one business ultimately results in higher incidents of crime in other areas of the city, would most city residents feel they were getting their monies worth?
Again, it might seem like a pretty easy call. But making a choice to confront a business will have repercussions. For example, if the city elects to take them to court, the money to do that has to come from somewhere, whether its parks, sidewalks, or maybe even the police department’s campaign to fight crime in other areas the city.
I don't know what the city will do. But having witnessed the effects of the pole sign debacle, I hope Richmond city leaders proceed with caution.