More evidence for those of you that didnt think the Warehouse district, could see the same fate the flats did. 

 

Solution is simple.  No loitering.  Either you're in line for the bar/club or you're just hanging out.  If you want to hang out, go somewhere else & get off the sidewalk.  If you're in line for the bar/club, better be old enough to get inside & have $$$ for a cover charge.

 

I'll do you one better: the solution is clearly to repeal the 21st Amendment.

 

This is extremely frustrating because these stories hurt the perception of my neighborhood and there's nothing I can do about it.  So these kids wouldn't leave a club and got roughed around a little by the bouncer / off-duty police officer.  BIG DEAL!  This happens every weekend to kids in the WHD that are drunk and have a superiority complex

 

This is much closer to the correct answer. Where there is alcohol, there is vulgarity. It is the nature of humans. If one expects otherwise, stay at home or work toward reinstating prohibition. Lines of police or blocked streets will do nothing to aid the situation or influence drunken behavior.

I'll be hitting up W6 either Friday or Saturday this week.  Will be sure to report what happens.

 

And ccars, I have to disagree with your last statement.  A large police presence makes for a safer atmosphere.  Maybe it won't prevent all violence, but it certainly improves the overall situation and makes people feel safer.  A cop arresting a drunk kid certainly improves the situation as opposed to the drunk kid starting fights left and right if there are no police to stop him.

that's great. Forbes and the NAACP have been bringing race into

way to many things recently. Hopefully this will make them stop and actually get details before running their mouths

 

You  would think, but yet it wont, they will just grasp at even more ridiculous and unrelated situations.

It's quite sad, to be honest. Yes, the WHD is going through problems. But why can't they let the police and city worry about fixing the problems? The NAACP should be directing their efforts towards more serious problems like the abnormally low graduation rate in the Cleveland school district. Or perhaps teenage pregnancy in the inner city. Or maybe the violent crime issues in the inner city.

 

They could actually make a positive difference, but instead they push their ridiculous agenda which does more harm than good.

This is much closer to the correct answer. Where there is alcohol, there is vulgarity. It is the nature of humans. If one expects otherwise, stay at home or work toward reinstating prohibition. Lines of police or blocked streets will do nothing to aid the situation or influence drunken behavior.

But drunken behavior isn't the only problem. Too many underage kids are loitering, trying to start fights, being rude to people (mostly women), etc. Those kids are the source of many problems, perhaps even more than the drunken idiots. If you can cut out the underage crowd, the area becomes noticeably safer. Will it ever be crime and issue free? Of course not. But blocking off the streets & making the area 21+ would be a step in the right direction.

I see some of the usual sugarcoating/coddling/excusing/turning a blind eye to the inappropriate behavior is happening again!  Its really laughable. Keep it up and watch The Parking Lot District go into the toilet. I won't even debate this anymore because it is pointless when people don't wake the "bleep" up and see it for what it is.  :laugh:

I'm mostly with you ETC, though I'm not ready to give up on the Warehouse District yet.  Still, and I'll tread lightly, it's just shocking that with all of the vast inner city problems, the NAACP and other alleged leaders of the community decide to launch a Velvet Dog press conference about the situation involving those two banking interns and make it about race in order to draw self-pitying attention.  THAT'S what the NAACP is focusing on?  THAT'S where their priorities seem to lie?  Why aren't they having press conferences outside of known local gang hostels?  Why not in front of broken schools?  Crack houses?  Foreclosed homes?  Heck, push some of the cameras on the underage kids who are loitering outside the W6 district and ask why aren't you home?  No, it has to be a racially charged and prejudicial press conference outside the Velvet Dog about an incident that had nothing to do with race!!!  Couldn't they at least wait until more facts came out before throwing out the good ol' race card?

 

It's pathetic and ignorance at its finest.  You want to keep W6 safe and vibrant, well, it's not going to stem from the publicity hounds we saw at last week's conference.

that's great. Forbes and the NAACP have been bringing race into

way to many things recently. Hopefully this will make them stop and actually get details before running their mouths

 

You  would think, but yet it wont, they will just grasp at even more ridiculous and unrelated situations.

It's quite sad, to be honest. Yes, the WHD is going through problems. But why can't they let the police and city worry about fixing the problems? The NAACP should be directing their efforts towards more serious problems like the abnormally low graduation rate in the Cleveland school district. Or perhaps teenage pregnancy in the inner city. Or maybe the violent crime issues in the inner city.

 

They could actually make a positive difference, but instead they push their ridiculous agenda which does more harm than good.

This is much closer to the correct answer. Where there is alcohol, there is vulgarity. It is the nature of humans. If one expects otherwise, stay at home or work toward reinstating prohibition. Lines of police or blocked streets will do nothing to aid the situation or influence drunken behavior.

But drunken behavior isn't the only problem. Too many underage kids are loitering, trying to start fights, being rude to people (mostly women), etc. Those kids are the source of many problems, perhaps even more than the drunken idiots. If you can cut out the underage crowd, the area becomes noticeably safer. Will it ever be crime and issue free? Of course not. But blocking off the streets & making the area 21+ would be a step in the right direction.

 

Instead of actually trying to help the black community, they rather try to bash and find fault in the white community.

Some of you need to take a look at the NAACP's day-to-day activities and accomplishments over the decades.  If you were talking about Forbes, individually, I may agree that his focus should be elsewhere.  But the organization as a whole is well-intentioned and does much more than just hold press conferences and point fingers. 

Unless the NAACP and Forbes has some evidence beyond the security cameras, I would say an apology is in order for this off-duty police officer:

 

Police say race not issue in 2 men's Warehouse District arrest, much of which is on video

I am absolutely shocked!  :roll:  :drunk:   

 

Depending on what occured when out of view of the cameras, there may be a use of force issue, but alleging racial animus appears to be nothing more than speculation on the NAACP's part.  If I was working on this case with the City, I would also be investigating Forbes and his daughter for any subterfuge.

 

100% agree.  The fact that Forbes' daughter picked them up from jail is very suspicious.

The oncoming cold Cleveland winter will fix these problems because nobody wants to loiter when it is 20 degrees and snowing outside

I see some of the usual sugarcoating/coddling/excusing/turning a blind eye to the inappropriate behavior is happening again!

 

Call it excuse-making if you will, but as was repeated before above, this is a very minor problem in the grand schemes of things. Those police should be out making sure people walking home alone don't get mugged or murdered, instead of babysitting drunks. And I'm aware that none of you like people under 21, but they're doing nothing illegal by catcalling at 2 AM. And that seems to be the extent of the excuses for the paramilitary crackdowns being called for. Ludicrous.

If you think a large group of 19-year-olds screaming at my girlfriend and her friends, "Yo b-word, give me some of that sloppy p-word" is just innocent catcalling, then you have a lot of growing up to do.  It's abusive and harassing and obscene and not typical of entertainment districts in our country, at least reputable and safe ones.  In the grand scheme of things, this is an epidemic that needs to be controlled before we lose one of our few entertainment districts in the downtown area.  It is serious, and you are taking it way too lightly.  Even at  their drunkest, none of my friends in high school or college would ever behave that way - this is not normal, acceptable teen behavior. 

I didn't say it was innocent, nor did I say it was appropriate behaviour. Legislating or using police to strongarm "good morals" however is worse. I find myself turning the other cheek every day to rude people. It is a reality with which everyone who lives in a city must deal, especially when all the clubs close simultaneously. And although I can't produce any statistics in opposition, I take issue with your statement that this is not typical of "entertainment districts" in other areas.

 

I agree with TBideon. It's harassment. Trying to look like an alpha male to impress your friends while you're drunk isn't an excuse. If women have to put up with stuff like that when going out somewhere, they're not going to want to go there again and women are the driving force for any entertainment district's prosperity. 

I didn't say it was innocent, nor did I say it was appropriate behaviour. Legislating or using police to strongarm "good morals" however is worse. I find myself turning the other cheek every day to rude people. It is a reality with which everyone who lives in a city must deal, especially when all the clubs close simultaneously. And although I can't produce any statistics in opposition, I take issue with your statement that this is not typical of "entertainment districts" in other areas.

 

There's a huge difference in large crowds in an entertainment district with people being dumb, drunk, and rude and what we've seen this summer in the WHD where after 1am, everyone starts to get on edge and concerned for their safety. 

 

Go to the west end of Lakewood or Coventry any weekend and all the bars close at the same time and most people coming out of the bar at that time are pretty drunk.  Go to any college campus and you see the same thing.  But the environment is vastly different than what you see in the WHD.  There isn't this subculture of people who are just going down there to see what they can get into at 1 am.

I actually think we have widdled this dicussion down quite nicely from what started as a bash-fest on the owner of Lust.  Sure, there are going to be some people who will never accept the notion that the problems are not solely due to.... ummmmm...... "changing demographics" or however else you may want to "tread softly" around what you really want to say.  But at least I think we all agree that the source of any increased problem THIS summer, whether it be very real or simply percieved/exaggerated through surbanite beer goggles, is that we need to find lawful means of keeping the underage, non-patronizing crowd away from this district so that the rest of 'us' can feel safe falling drunk into the street and using picket-fence approved profanity to entice our female targets.  For the betterment of the neighborhood, I would say that the Forbes family needs to stay away as well.

 

For once, I hope we just let the cops do their job.  It will take an iron fist approach to keep an entertainment district this popular and dense under control.  I accept that and approve of such tactics so long as the use of force remains proportional and reasonable.

So a quick synopsis of the Warehouse District night-time scene from my perspective.  Last night, I arrive at 9:30pm with my girlfriend, and the street is utterly dead.  In fact, I would say there are more police officers and bouncers than actual patrons on the street and sidewalks.  We head to Velvet Dog and notice the entire bar save for upper deck patio is closed.  What the heck?  That's incredibly lame. 

 

We leave before 10 and and head to D'Vine Wine Bar which is technically not on W6.  On the way, there are clearly more people on W6 but still, even at the relative early hour, it's quite a bit emptier than in years past around this time.  D'Vine is awesome, and we meet with several of my super smart PhD friends, one of whom I find out just moved to E.55/Lakeside. I guess they have apartments by the lake there.

 

Around 11:30 or so, we leave and head back to W6.  Outside of a brief moment where a couple jerk-types start staring me down (they're standing at the outdoor patio of Paninis and I stare right back), there are no incidents.  This isn't a big deal - my girlfriend is Dominican-Cuban whereas I'm Turkish-Russian - and so we do kind of stand out a bit when together.  The physical street itself has very light foot and auto traffic; come to think of it, I can't remember any cars driving down W6 though I don't think the street was blocked off.

 

The clubs seem to be a little light on the outside, as Sin, Lust, and Bar Fly have no lines and very few people are hanging around outside the actual clubs.  Again I chalk this to the early hour, but still, 11:30pm is probably a good time for people to start coming.  We go to Barley House, which is just packed.  So that's where everyone is.  There is a fairly high meathead to girl ratio, but it's all in good fun generally, and I notice that security there is very very VERY good.  Every so often it seems the guys are escorting people out, but in a non-aggressive, calming manner.  Plus the bouncers have cool ear-pieces. 

 

Also, that one older guy who always shows up in a suit shows up.  You know who I'm talking about, tan skin, mustache, early 50s, looks like he's in real estate, bleached teeth, perpetual smile.  Nice guy and works the cornball angle well enough to get constantly greeted and hugged by girls.  I say hi as I take a break from the outdoor patio and say hey as well.  Looking outside, I see the cops are being a bit over flirty with the girls, but it's all in good fun.

 

About 12:45 we leave (yeah it's early, but we started early).  Looking outside, W6 has a nice presence of people of apparent legal age on the streets and bars, but again it isn't as crowded as it was last year around this time.  There are no significant lines outside the clubs, at least from my view at Barley House; getting into Bar Fly or Blind Pig or Liquid/Fusion wouldn't be a problem; then again, I wasn't looking that hard.  Leaving I notice there are virtually no people at the club adjacent to Lakeside across from Liquid/Fusion.  I'm not even sure if that place is open tonight.

 

And that's that.  I will say that there were a lot of cops and bouncers making an outdoor presence.  I wish I had walked by Lust again to see if there were large crowds of obnoxious kids - maybe next time.  I also would have liked to stay past 2 when I could more accurately judge whether or not the PD is all hyperbole; while I've heard enough accounts of the area to determine there probably are problems, I'd prefer to see it with my own eyes.  Still, the area seemed pretty safe and relatively quiet from 9:30-1am, that's for sure.

Most of the problems occur after this time.

You're right on the fringe on when potential trouble starts happening.  Not every night is bad, but if it is bad, it's post 1am.  I don't know what time Club Alchemey (in the flats, next to the Flat Iron) opens, but on Saturday almost like clockwork, it goes from dead to tons of people hanging out in the parking lot outside around 1am.  It's weird how they aren't arriving and waiting to go in.  It's arriving, socializing in the parking lot while some people come in and out of the club.  Like the club is one venue and the parking lot is another.  If I'm home and awake at 1am, I've sat on the stonebridge and observed from afar.  It's rather entertaining.

 

Anyway, the crowd on W 6th causing problems is the same crowd that shows up at 1am at Club Alchemey.  Apparently 1am is the time to be out!

Club Alchemy is a mess.  The parking lot outside has everything from guns to drugs & everything in between.  Diamond's next door is suffering because patrons don't want to leave their cars outside with all that mess going on...

We live on the corner of West 6th and St. Clair and it is true, the crowds of underage people only appear after 1:30 am.  It is kind of strange, one minute there is the usual crowd and then all of a sudden it changes.  I have stated in other posts that without reading about this in the PD we probably would not know about it because we are seldom out after 1:30.  I think if the PD did not make a big deal about this it would not be a problem.  Certainly when the weather changes this will all go away.

Your problem is that you went on a Friday in September when the nighttime temp was 60 degrees. The problems occur on high school summer break in June-August when its 75 at 3am. The problems typically begin around midnight as was mentioned, but UNUSUALLY only on Saturdays, which leads me to believe that IMO, it is HYPE driven due to the amount of media exposure. Its true, cold weather deters outdoor crime, and summer is over (which means the DV's will pick up). But they do still have the extra police details as of tonight, and I do not know how it went as I was not down there, but i suspect they will be winding down the extra police presence soon. Due to the weather.

Whatever... executives or not, the point was that they were not your garden variety 'thugs' as so many would have presumed if not otherwise stated.  For the purposes of any point I (not Forbes/NAACP/PD) was making, it doesn't matter if they were executives or secretaries.   

Perhaps you and I have a different definition of the word thug?

 

From what I see, the "thug" lifestyle is rather expensive; Cadillac Escalades with custom 24 inch rims, a gigantic sound system, gauche jewelery, overpriced sunglasses at night, and hundred dollar custom jeans aren't cheap.

 

Sure there are plenty of "poor thugs" but there are plenty who come home from work at their respectable job and take off the necktie and put on the alarm clock necklace. From my experience, being a thug isn't about your economic standing in the world its about being the guy in control. Not all that different from people who glorify the mafia lifestyle in my opinion.

 

Look at the NBA. I would classify most NBA stars as thugs with a little bit more money on average.

 

 

Really?  Based on what personal knowledge and/or interaction with a player(s)?

Some of you need to take a look at the NAACP's day-to-day activities and accomplishments over the decades.  If you were talking about Forbes, individually, I may agree that his focus should be elsewhere.  But the organization as a whole is well-intentioned and does much more than just hold press conferences and point fingers. 

 

Also, the NAACP is not solely a "black" organization.

Some of you need to take a look at the NAACP's day-to-day activities and accomplishments over the decades.  If you were talking about Forbes, individually, I may agree that his focus should be elsewhere.  But the organization as a whole is well-intentioned and does much more than just hold press conferences and point fingers. 

 

Also, the NAACP is not solely a "black" organization.

 

True they operate under the guise of: "Its mission is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination".

 

So I wonder why their image awards are only for people of color:

"The NAACP Image Awards are awards presented annually by the American National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to honor outstanding people of color in film, television, music, and literature."

 

Shouldn't all minorities be eligible then?

Some of you need to take a look at the NAACP's day-to-day activities and accomplishments over the decades.  If you were talking about Forbes, individually, I may agree that his focus should be elsewhere.  But the organization as a whole is well-intentioned and does much more than just hold press conferences and point fingers. 

 

Also, the NAACP is not solely a "black" organization.

 

True they operate under the guise of: " Its mission is "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination".

 

So I wonder why their inage awards are only for people of color:

"The NAACP Image Awards are awards presented annually by the American National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to honor outstanding people of color in film, television, music, and literature."

 

Shouldnt all minorities be elegible then?

 

No, just people of color as indicated.  And since White people are still the majority in the country...you get the picture!

sigh....they refuse to drop it. Now Councilman Jeff Johnson wants the safety committee to review the investigation. This is ridiculous.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/cleveland_councilman_jeff_john.html

"These are public servants trained to deal with disputes," Johnson said. "If they can't resolve disputes beyond hitting someone in the face, it's unacceptable."

 

That's a fine example of simple minded thinking, and insulting to cops.  Varying degrees of force must be used to "resolve disputes" depending on the circumstances.  You can't expect cops to resolve ALL disputes beyond hitting someone in the face.  Heck, the circumstances sometimes call for shooting someone in the face.

 

 

Haahhah yeah if someone points a gun to a cops head, punching the criminal in the face is unacceptable

What a despicable man.

gets him votes

sigh....they refuse to drop it. Now Councilman Jeff Johnson wants the safety committee to review the investigation. This is ridiculous.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/cleveland_councilman_jeff_john.html

 

This guy seems like part of the problem not part of the solution.

It certainly won't be the last time a single councilman from the City goes out on a limb for political reasons.  And it does appear to be one, single councilman who is trying to drag this out.

 

I do, however, get the notion that use of force investigations should be handled by someone outside the police department.  But I am somewhat confused as to what 'hat' this 'off-duty' cop was wearing at the time of the incident.  Was he there working a private gig?  Was he working an overtime assignment in plain clothes?  Was he just there as a citizen and put his 'public servant hat' on to make an arrest?  Answers to those questions would materially change the analysis and, consequently, what the City can and/or should do in response.

^Well, the off-duty cop in question was in uniform as seen in the video that was released.  And I believe that some of the articles stated that he was working private security duty that was approved by the Cleveland Police Department. 

Then he was 'acting under the color of law' and the City would face some exposure if a civil suit is filed.  Regardless, the issue is simple... did the officer use reasonable and proportional force?  Punching someone in the face may or may not be reasonable and proportional.  It all depends on the circumstances.  If the Ruiz guy was simply yelling, refusing to leave, and/or even putting his hands on the cop, then a strike to the face is probably excessive.  But if was physically fighting, not just resisting, then he got what he deserved.

 

It's weird in a way.... I think I would rather be punched than either maced or tasered.  Yet, the cops actualy punching someone in the face is considered a greater and more drastic use of force than using their mace and/or taser.

sigh....they refuse to drop it. Now Councilman Jeff Johnson wants the safety committee to review the investigation. This is ridiculous.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/cleveland_councilman_jeff_john.html

 

Jeff was one of my classmates.  Although I can't say he was my "cumpanio", he was reasonably sharp and I thought showed good judgement under stress.  I was disapointed that he allowed himself to fall into the corruption culture at city council.  He really wasn't that type of person and I think that is why he got caught, he just didn't know the ropes of criminal culture. I hope he doesn't pick this issue to ride back to respectability on. 

We've mentioned this in this discussion, so I'm gonna post here.  The City of St. Louis revoked the liquor license of their "problem" club.

 

Lure nightclub loses fight with St. Louis, vows appeal

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_9d8f40b0-7312-54f4-b6cc-a8e8d67c17af.html

 

 

^Thanks, Doc.  It seems that the residents are similarly torn in St. Louis based on the comments.  I will say that the process for revoking a liquor license in St. Louis is going to raise some red flags.  However, it seems like the City had its ducks in a row in terms of evidence.  I would have to guess that the gunshots were probably the deciding factor.  But I still don't get how a private business owner can be held accountable for 'loitering' on the street.

^Thanks, Doc. It seems that the residents are similarly torn in St. Louis based on the comments. I will say that the process for revoking a liquor license in St. Louis is going to raise some red flags. However, it seems like the City had its ducks in a row in terms of evidence. I would have to guess that the gunshots were probably the deciding factor. But I still don't get how a private business owner can be held accountable for 'loitering' on the street.

 

Yes, I've been following this story as it's progressed, and the comments section on stltoday has been very similar to the comments about W. 6th on cleveland.com.  We'll see if Lure can overturn this decision.

^Thanks, Doc.  It seems that the residents are similarly torn in St. Louis based on the comments.  I will say that the process for revoking a liquor license in St. Louis is going to raise some red flags.  However, it seems like the City had its ducks in a row in terms of evidence.  I would have to guess that the gunshots were probably the deciding factor.  But I still don't get how a private business owner can be held accountable for 'loitering' on the street.

Well, it seems you either hold the owner accountable or have to have a significantly increased police presence in the area. St. Louis went with the former and Cleveland went with the latter. Perhaps Cleveland opted to go with the latter because there weren't any gunshots (as far as I know?) so making the case would've been more difficult. I'm still slightly confused as to why the city let the owner of Lust change to a dance club even though the lease explicitly said it was for a restaurant - and then they extended it! Oh well.

 

It's hard to compare the efficacy of each course of action now because the weather is getting worse, but it'll be interesting to see what happens in the respective areas once it warms up again.

^It seems St. Louis had a lot more on the owner of Lure than Cleveland does on the owner of Lust.  Meaning, the problems emanate from the club.  Here, the majority of reports are that the problems are coming from crowds on the street who are just loitering.   

 

On the loitering point, here's my thing.  If I am a business owner and undesirable crowds are loitering unchecked outside my business causing trouble, I would expect that I have a beef with the City... not the other way around.  It's one thing if my patrons, who I liquored up, were causing problems in the street... but if it is just kids who I won't let into my club, who are not old enough to even patronize my business, then they really are not my problem IMO.  In fact, as they become a problem, I expect the police to respond and clear them out.

 

I also think that the better way to deal with business nuisances is to make them pay for the increased police presence, as opposed to shutting them down.  Or at least give them that choice if the business itself is doing nothing illegal.

It's kind of a tough situation IMO. For the police to handle it, they would need more officers, which either a) takes away officers from other areas, or b) forces officers who were supposed to be off to come in every Friday, Saturday, and possibly Sunday night for the warmer months. With the first choice, that obviously makes other parts of the city more vulnerable, so that should be avoided. The second option is better, but forcing someone to come in when they were supposed to be off is kind of unfair to them especially if the problem is stemming from a lone club. Plus this problem lasts all throughout the warmer months. If it were a one-time event that required increased security, that would be different. But to require increased security every weekend for months because of the clientele a single club is attracting....eh, kinda tough.

 

If they aren't going to close the club, I think at least making the owner of Lust pay for the police would be a step in the right direciton. But do you think he would be open to that? Obviously it would take more money out of his pocket....so I'm guessing he'd pull the race card again and make a big fuss out of it like he did before. If he wouldn't object to paying, then sure, make him pay for the police (or try to shut it down if he refuses).

 

Trust me, many cops would jump at the opportunity for overtime assignments, which is how this type of situation is handled.  Finding volunteers would not be an issue.

 

The problem, as I see it, with approaching the owner of Lust for the costs and not any other club owner is that the link between his patrons and the problems has not been established.  The two men who got arrested the other week were not even at Lust, for example..... they were at one of the other bars.  And as I said before, the owner of Lust cannot be financially accountable for some 16 year old kid who has never set one foot in his club.  I would not want to ask this guy to pay for police presence necessitated by these loiterers or necessitated by fights/drunks/crowds/etc coming out of the numerous other clubs, bars.

If these are 16 year old kids, the easy answer is to bust them for curfew.  My guess is that most of the loiterers are older, though, many may even be old enough to go in, but choose not to because they are broke and/or having a good time starting trouble.

Trust me, many cops would jump at the opportunity for overtime assignments, which is how this type of situation is handled.  Finding volunteers would not be an issue.

 

The problem, as I see it, with approaching the owner of Lust for the costs and not any other club owner is that the link between his patrons and the problems has not been established.  The two men who got arrested the other week were not even at Lust, for example..... they were at one of the other bars.  And as I said before, the owner of Lust cannot be financially accountable for some 16 year old kid who has never set one foot in his club.  I would not want to ask this guy to pay for police presence necessitated by these loiterers or necessitated by fights/drunks/crowds/etc coming out of the numerous other clubs, bars.

The two men who were arrested were likely drunk and acted like idiots. The only reason it received so much publicity is because the two men were black. If they were white, it's a non-issue. Drunk idiots of all races are going to be at almost every club sooner or later, and I don't really see that as a problem as long as it is contained fairly well (ie: no huge riot-esque fights breaking out, no weapons, etc). That seems to be the case with the people who are actually allowed to enter the clubs.

 

With the loitering and fights caused by the loiterers though, why can't you put the cost on one owner? The loiterers don't seem to be coming out of other clubs at the end of the night. They are staying outside all night. If a single club is attracting the 16yo demographic, why should other owners pay?  Again, I'm not talking about the fights started by drunken idiots...those happen in all club areas and can usually be contained by the normal security in the area. I just don't see why other owners should be responsible for problems caused by the crowd a certain club is attracting. And it's pretty clear that club IS attracting those people, even if they aren't old enough to enter it.

 

Anyway, this is appearing in the PD again, with focus on the affect this is having on residents and businesses in the area.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/as_the_warehouse_district_roar.html

 

The first half of the article is troubling, but the end is fairly encouraging. I just hope the city handles the problems without worrying about the reaction from the NAACP or whoever else.

A lot more responsibility needs to go to the parking lot owners too.  They're letting kids loiter, smoke up, harass passersby, and so on.

^ You're exactly right. Problem is, too many turn a blind eye to the kind of elements such a club attracts (even if they are not directly in the club, and rather remaining nearby)...that will have it floating around the whole area.

 

They deny the associations and links with too much sugarcoating so therefore no one will ever be held accountable. There is a such thing as being so overly politically correct that the truth gets buried. That is a statement some on this forum are in denial about....hence why I have basically ignored this subject by saying that if it is left unabated, the decline of The Parking Lot District is a given. 

 

There have always been some rowdies in clubs since the hey day of the Flats, for example, granted...  But in all my time going there, I have not witnessed the degree of issues like from from a good percentage of the element associated with the themes a place like Lust will attract.

 

Its reaching a whole new level and ball game and cannot be compared to an 80's club playing Boy George and Culture Club or Duran Duran. Its simple...you want rats...then put out rat food....and Mutha F'er this and that along with a host of all the other poets of limited vocabulary and degrading themes that have reached a whole new plateau... is that kind of food.

 

Sorry, but that's the inconvenient reality that is continually denied, sugarcoated or coddled. And it does not matter what flavor you are...If you are engaging in inappropriate goings on...  You're going to get punished equally... But some see the kind of goings on as perfectly normal because they have not been used to respecting any rules in society, let alone laws...so when laws are finally enforced or beefed up....offenders are like.. "WTF... I'm entitled... I have a right... you're profiling/picking on me...me..me!".  Its time to remind some that they never had "the right" in the first place.

 

 

Its reaching a whole new level and ball game and cannot be compared to an 80's club playing Boy George and Culture Club or Duran Duran. Its simple...you want rats...then put out rat food....and Mutha F'er this and that along with a host of all the other poets of limited vocabulary and degrading themes that have reached a whole new plateau... is that kind of food.

 

If that's how you feel, then by all means lobby your Assemblyman to ban that type of music in public clubs.

 

I have never heard such disdain for the preferences of others as I have in this thread. I hope you don't style yourself open-minded after making this kind of statement: in this country, if we don't like certain types of expression, we are free to avoid them. None of us should abide the likening another's speech, music or expression to more serious crimes. Rap music is not rat food and catcalling is not rape.

 

We must draw reasonable boundaries as to where our rights end and where others' begin--in this country, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy when words have been spoken; the balancing factor is that no one may similarly expect not to be offended by anyone's expression.

 

I'm going to say this again: why is it such a hard concept for people to simply accept others' preferences and live and let live? If you are offended by the debauchery of West 6th Street, you have two options: (1) buy property there and try to make a concerted change, or (2) avoid exposing yourself to that atmosphere. The third option, to complain and clamor about rude people until the police are politically pressured to club and tazer people until no one shows up anymore, is not a legitimate option in my book.

Its reaching a whole new level and ball game and cannot be compared to an 80's club playing Boy George and Culture Club or Duran Duran. Its simple...you want rats...then put out rat food....and Mutha F'er this and that along with a host of all the other poets of limited vocabulary and degrading themes that have reached a whole new plateau... is that kind of food.

 

If that's how you feel, then by all means lobby your Assemblyman to ban that type of music in public clubs.

 

I have never heard such disdain for the preferences of others as I have in this thread. I hope you don't style yourself open-minded after making this kind of statement: in this country, if we don't like certain types of expression, we are free to avoid them. None of us should abide the likening another's speech, music or expression to more serious crimes. Rap music is not rat food and catcalling is not rape.

 

We must draw reasonable boundaries as to where our rights end and where others' begin--in this country, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy when words have been spoken; the balancing factor is that no one may similarly expect not to be offended by anyone's expression.

 

I'm going to say this again: why is it such a hard concept for people to simply accept others' preferences and live and let live? If you are offended by the debauchery of West 6th Street, you have two options: (1) buy property there and try to make a concerted change, or (2) avoid exposing yourself to that atmosphere. The third option, to complain and clamor about rude people until the police are politically pressured to club and tazer people until no one shows up anymore, is not a legitimate option in my book.

Because certain "preferences" are extremely rude and not how a mature human being should act? Look, you may not be offended by catcalls or excessive swearing or intimidation, but people, particularly women, evidently are. And it's causing those who live there to leave (or at least consider leaving) and people who go there for other clubs, restaurants, and the like to just not go to the area as much, if at all. With fewer paying customers (you know, the people who actually help the area and don't screw around in the street), businesses look to leave and developers avoid the area. Do you want that? I certainly do not. Especially with the casino on the horizon and the prospect of having the WHD, casino, East 4th, and Quicken Loans Arena/Progressive Field all along the same stretch of downtown. There is great potential there and losing one of those major attractions would be significant.

 

I understand accepting others preferences. That's fine as long as their preferences are within reason. For example, if someone wants to practice a different religion than I do, fine, great for them. If they want to listen to a different type of music, fine. And so on. But if they want to act like little kids with absolutely no respect for the people around them....then no, I won't stand for that and I do not think others should be expected to either.

 

My stance towards hip-hop clubs is not to the same extent as EC's, but you just can't ignore the crowds that hip-hop clubs attract. Are the people inside the hip-hop club OK? For the most part, yes. And if not, the security inside can handle it. But those clubs attract the younger, less mature demographic too. That's a problem. Would closing Lust fix the problems in the area? I'd say it would fix most. But that's not necessary if other steps are taken. What's so wrong about getting the underage crowd out of the area? That'd result in less catcalling, less intimidation, less lack of respect, and less problems overall. Now the area is appealing to outsiders and residents alike again.....AND it still has a hip-hop club for those who enjoy that music. Is that not a fair solution?

Its reaching a whole new level and ball game and cannot be compared to an 80's club playing Boy George and Culture Club or Duran Duran. Its simple...you want rats...then put out rat food....and Mutha F'er this and that along with a host of all the other poets of limited vocabulary and degrading themes that have reached a whole new plateau... is that kind of food.

 

If that's how you feel, then by all means lobby your Assemblyman to ban that type of music in public clubs.

 

I have never heard such disdain for the preferences of others as I have in this thread. I hope you don't style yourself open-minded after making this kind of statement: in this country, if we don't like certain types of expression, we are free to avoid them. None of us should abide the likening another's speech, music or expression to more serious crimes. Rap music is not rat food and catcalling is not rape.

 

We must draw reasonable boundaries as to where our rights end and where others' begin--in this country, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy when words have been spoken; the balancing factor is that no one may similarly expect not to be offended by anyone's expression.

 

I'm going to say this again: why is it such a hard concept for people to simply accept others' preferences and live and let live? If you are offended by the debauchery of West 6th Street, you have two options: (1) buy property there and try to make a concerted change, or (2) avoid exposing yourself to that atmosphere. The third option, to complain and clamor about rude people until the police are politically pressured to club and tazer people until no one shows up anymore, is not a legitimate option in my book.

 

This isn't about restricting personal expression or respecting personal tastes.  I like rap music and listen to it all the time.  I also don't behave like a degenerate.  Your answer to avoiding debauchery is to not go somewhere it exists while the answer should be "don't engage in debauchery".

 

However it's clear that many people aren't capable of behaving appropriately so what do we do about it?  Like with anything else, if a crowd can't handle the responsibility that comes with something, then you take it away.  So if the crowd that likes this type of club can't behave appropriately, then you take it away.

Here's the 'easiest' solution - no black people allowed in the WHD.  It will take away any racial tension and fears.  It will eliminate the undesirable underage crowd currently causing havoc.  It would have prevented the fiasco that followed the "executives-in-training" story.  Time to stop 'sugarcoating' it, right?  Can anybody deny that such a rule would solve the issues presented?  It's the easiest way from point A to point B.  So... why not?

 

Perhaps because it is not a realistic solution.  You can't ban black people.  You can't ban hip-hop music in these clubs, either.  They are private establishments.  And let's not sugarcoat this fact either, Lust is hardly the only club on West 6th that plays hip-hop music.  Nearly all of them do, so that complaint really is a bit of a red herring.

 

Personally, I try to be pragmatic when analyzing these types of problems.  I believe everyone acknowledges there is a problem.  I think the general consensus is the problem exists, or at least to such a noticeable point, due to the loitering of underage kids (especially if the estimate in the PD article of 200-300 at a time is accurate).  Let's see what we can do about that FIRST before we take drastic action that will put us in the national spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

 

There are always two questions that must be asked when faced with this type of problem.  (1) What can we do?; and (2) What should we do?  They are separate questions, but the options for #2 are limited by the options presented in the answer to #1.

 

For those that want to close down Lust, take away its liquor license, etc., you have to ask the question of whether that is even a viable option at this point.  The City cannot do so arbitrarily.  There is a whole process that must be satisfied for the property to be declared a nuisance under Ohio law.  Sorry... dang due process.