Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Nightlife Advisory Board: More Police Presence, Please

The city’s nightlife advisory board presented its recommendations for new nightlife rules, a year and a half in the making, to the city council’s civil rights committee this morning. The advisory board, created by the city more than three years ago, was supposed to help defuse tensions between the city and bars and clubs. In practice, however, the commission hasn’t done much since its creation; in fact, the group didn’t meet for nearly six months because they couldn’t find a police officer willing to serve on the board—a situation committee chair Nick Licata calls “benign neglect” on the part of Mayor Greg Nickels and former SPD chief Kerlikowske.

Once Kerlikowske was replaced by interim chief John Diaz, however, things started to move forward again, culminating in yesterday’s recommendations.

The most interesting suggestion on the list: Giving the Seattle Police Department more authority to crack down on unruly club patrons who yell, fight, and disrupt the peace outside bars and clubs. Committee chair Nick Licata says the seemingly counterintuitive recommendation actually makes sense: Club owners protested nightlife rules proposed in the past precisely because they put too much responsibility on business owners to police the area outside their property. Meanwhile, line officers have felt they don’t have the authority to enforce rules against disorderly behavior, leading to a situation where everyone is annoyed by nuisance crimes, but no one feels responsible for dealing with them.

“The clubs felt they were being unduly punished for the behavior of people outside their clubs, and of course they do not have the authority, nor should they have the authority, to patrol the area outside their establishments,” Licata says. He says he wants to move forward with the recommendations as quickly as possible, “so we don’t drop the ball.”


  • commenter

    it’s not counterihntuitive at all to suggest the cops should enforce the laws. Inside, outside, all around. They go inside homes, don’t they? They need to get out of the squad cars roaming around and into bars and onto street corners and be mor part of what’s going on.

  • commenter

    it’s not counterihntuitive at all to suggest the cops should enforce the laws. Inside, outside, all around. They go inside homes, don’t they? They need to get out of the squad cars roaming around and into bars and onto street corners and be mor part of what’s going on.

  • Timothy

    Echoing @1…why, exactly, do the police feel they don’t have the authority to deal with unruly individuals in the streets?

  • Timothy

    Echoing @1…why, exactly, do the police feel they don’t have the authority to deal with unruly individuals in the streets?

  • Meinert

    @2 – because Nickel’s policy I believe. He didn’t want to go after individuals. Instead, the policy seemed to be to hold businesses responsible for ALL of their patrons activities. The way the defeated Nightclub License was written, clubs and bars would eve be responsible for the actions of their “potential” customers within 50′ of the venue.

    Now, some venues do operate poorly and should be held accountable when they break the law. But when their patrons do, the individual needs to be held accountable, AND prosecuted. If the cops arrest someone but that person isn’t prosecuted, what’s the reason to do the arrest, paperwork, and court appearance? Policing doesn’t stop with the Police.

  • Meinert

    @2 – because Nickel’s policy I believe. He didn’t want to go after individuals. Instead, the policy seemed to be to hold businesses responsible for ALL of their patrons activities. The way the defeated Nightclub License was written, clubs and bars would eve be responsible for the actions of their “potential” customers within 50′ of the venue.

    Now, some venues do operate poorly and should be held accountable when they break the law. But when their patrons do, the individual needs to be held accountable, AND prosecuted. If the cops arrest someone but that person isn’t prosecuted, what’s the reason to do the arrest, paperwork, and court appearance? Policing doesn’t stop with the Police.

  • Perfect Voter

    People engaged in “unruly behavior” outside of nightclubs should be given breathalizer tests. If they blow more than 0.08%, then they are intoxicated and the club where they drank has overserved them — the liquor board should be notified.

    Venues may not like it but they should be accountable when people leave their establishment shitfaced and create problems — even if that problem is not drunk driving. Overserving (serving people over 0.08%) is illegal. Period. Get used to it.

  • Perfect Voter

    People engaged in “unruly behavior” outside of nightclubs should be given breathalizer tests. If they blow more than 0.08%, then they are intoxicated and the club where they drank has overserved them — the liquor board should be notified.

    Venues may not like it but they should be accountable when people leave their establishment shitfaced and create problems — even if that problem is not drunk driving. Overserving (serving people over 0.08%) is illegal. Period. Get used to it.

  • Algernon

    Sidran started this movement to have businesses police themselves or shut down. Police police. Bouncers bounce. That’s the way it should be. In spite of dropping crime rates, we hire more police. That’s a good thing, but they need to police. Carr’s “good neighbor” program is nothing more than forcing businesses out of business where some elected official doesn’t like the business.

  • Algernon

    Sidran started this movement to have businesses police themselves or shut down. Police police. Bouncers bounce. That’s the way it should be. In spite of dropping crime rates, we hire more police. That’s a good thing, but they need to police. Carr’s “good neighbor” program is nothing more than forcing businesses out of business where some elected official doesn’t like the business.

  • Giffy

    @4 The standard for over-serving is ‘apparent intoxication” not .08. That’s for driving.

    And believe me, if they started cracking down on on such a low level of intoxication that law would not last long.

  • Giffy

    @4 The standard for over-serving is ‘apparent intoxication” not .08. That’s for driving.

    And believe me, if they started cracking down on on such a low level of intoxication that law would not last long.

  • Meinert

    @4 – that’s naive. Sorry.

    A couple of things. If is “unruly” alone, that’s not enough to stop and test them, and if we were to stop every person who was “unruly” on the street we would need many additional officers patrolling just for that, but I assume you are into a tax increase, so let’s do it.

    If they are doing something illegal on the street, whether outside a bar or not, why not just arrest and prosecute them for breaking the law? Hold the individual responsible.

    But in your scenario, when someone was found to be outside, say on the north side of Pike between 10th and 11th, which bar or club gets a ticket? Havanah, Cha Cha, Wild Rose, Comet, Neumos, Tribunali, or Quinn’s? And just because a person is drunk in that block, does it mean they were at any of those places? And if even if they were, would they tell a cop they know would report the bar to the LCB? Or could they possibly lie and name a bar they happen to not like?

    Those questions are why Carr’s plan to do this didn’t work, and partly why Carr was voted out of office. Your theory on policing was supported by Carr, Nickels and Sidran, and not only was it at times declared unconstitutional, it was also roundly and soundly rejected by a majority of the voters.

  • Meinert

    @4 – that’s naive. Sorry.

    A couple of things. If is “unruly” alone, that’s not enough to stop and test them, and if we were to stop every person who was “unruly” on the street we would need many additional officers patrolling just for that, but I assume you are into a tax increase, so let’s do it.

    If they are doing something illegal on the street, whether outside a bar or not, why not just arrest and prosecute them for breaking the law? Hold the individual responsible.

    But in your scenario, when someone was found to be outside, say on the north side of Pike between 10th and 11th, which bar or club gets a ticket? Havanah, Cha Cha, Wild Rose, Comet, Neumos, Tribunali, or Quinn’s? And just because a person is drunk in that block, does it mean they were at any of those places? And if even if they were, would they tell a cop they know would report the bar to the LCB? Or could they possibly lie and name a bar they happen to not like?

    Those questions are why Carr’s plan to do this didn’t work, and partly why Carr was voted out of office. Your theory on policing was supported by Carr, Nickels and Sidran, and not only was it at times declared unconstitutional, it was also roundly and soundly rejected by a majority of the voters.

  • just wondering

    Two questions:
    1) Has there been an increase in unruly behavior outside bars since the smoking ban took effect?
    2) @3: Why do you think have police been reluctant to go after individuals? To avoid the appearance of harassing members of the counterculture, non-whites, young people, etc.?

  • just wondering

    Two questions:
    1) Has there been an increase in unruly behavior outside bars since the smoking ban took effect?
    2) @3: Why do you think have police been reluctant to go after individuals? To avoid the appearance of harassing members of the counterculture, non-whites, young people, etc.?

  • ilovegovernment

    How do we see the presentation to the Council, if we missed it?

    @8 – I would argue that the tradition of dumping over 10,000 drinkers onto the streets of Seattle at 2 AM every Friday and Saturday is more of a cause for concern than people smoking outside. To your second point, going after obnoxious individuals (drunk/angry/otherwise disorderly) is a sticky business because of its subjectivity. I think the presence of police officers a staggered last call (pun just noticed) could do a lot to address these concerns.

  • ilovegovernment

    How do we see the presentation to the Council, if we missed it?

    @8 – I would argue that the tradition of dumping over 10,000 drinkers onto the streets of Seattle at 2 AM every Friday and Saturday is more of a cause for concern than people smoking outside. To your second point, going after obnoxious individuals (drunk/angry/otherwise disorderly) is a sticky business because of its subjectivity. I think the presence of police officers a staggered last call (pun just noticed) could do a lot to address these concerns.

  • Newell

    @9–you can see the presentation here. Scroll down on the right and click on Nightlife Advisory Board, it’s the last item.

  • Newell

    @9–you can see the presentation here. Scroll down on the right and click on Nightlife Advisory Board, it’s the last item.

  • Meinert

    @9 – I think everyone is for some sort of staggered or just later closing times. Now we just need to make it happen. I hope to see that done by summer.

  • Meinert

    @9 – I think everyone is for some sort of staggered or just later closing times. Now we just need to make it happen. I hope to see that done by summer.