By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
Everyone was all smiles at the knitting factory two weeks ago when gretchen dykstra, the commissioner of the department of consumer affairs, announced the proposal to abolish the city's controversial cabaret law. Andy gensler, eric demby, and adam shore of legalize dancing nyc, one of the groups at the forefront of fighting the cabaret law, seemed stunned as they stood on the stage next to Dykstra when she proclaimed, "We will no longer be the dance police."
But after the news sank in about the law's replacementan all-encompassing nightlife license that would regulate establishments with continuous sound past 1 a.m. that serve liquor and/or foodclub owners and dance advocates, who had sometimes clashed in the past, began to grumble. David Rabin, the president of the industry's only lobbying organization, the New York Nightlife Association; the organization's lawyer, Robert Bookman; Slipper Room co-owner James Habacker; Centro-Fly co-owner Tom Sisk; and former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union Norman Siegel all expressed reservations over the proposed nightlife license.
While most applaud and welcome the move to eradicate the 1926 no-dancing law and the DCA's newfound focus on noise problems, they are wary of the DCA's proposal. While the DCA says it will no longer be the dance police, the zoning laws, which control where dance clubs can be built, will not change. That raises the question: Who will become the new dance police?
At a private meeting the morning the announcement was made public, Norman Siegel reports, "[The DCA] were telling us they would entirely focus on noise and not dancing." But when asked about "the zoning laws that still are on books, they didn't have an answer," he says. "I hope this isn't a three-card monte. We won't have Consumer Affairs being the dance police but maybe the buildings department will. And no one can give me a straight answer." Dykstra herself, when interviewed by the Voice last year, said, "Dancing is not regulated. The places that allow dancing are regulated. Deregulated dancing is a misnomer."
This notionthat it's not dancing that's regulated, but the places hosting dancing that are under the microscopeleads many to believe that the DCA is essentially passing the buck to another city agency, namely the Department of Buildings. "Before everyone high-fives each other and breaks the champagne out, we still have to change the zoning law," says Siegel.
"You don't pass a law saying 'Paris has been liberated!' when that is not the case," says Robert Bookman. "The zoning law is what really regulates where dancing can be held in the city. The cabaret law is an enforcement tool. What [the DCA] are proposing is to take away one of the enforcement mechanisms." But Dykstra defended the DCA's proposal, saying, "The DCA had a law it's supposed to enforce that doesn't address a problem, and that'll be true for the buildings department, too. There are folks who would like us to go farther outside our purview and that's not my job," she says. "We are not the Department of City Planning."
The city's zoning was set up in the 1960s, when Soho was a vast wasteland and long before the meatpacking district was home to Stella McCartney and other high-end fashion retail stores. In the last 40 years, you could argue that the entirety of Lower Manhattan has become residential, making the distinction between "residential," "commercial," and "mixed-use" zones increasingly murky. Under the current law, establishments that want to host dancing can only be in certain mixed-use or commercial zones, areas like far west Chelsea, where the new Crobar is due to open in December, or the meatpacking district, home to Filter 14 and Rabin's Lotus. Some are hoping that, during the hearings on the law scheduled in the coming months, there will be an opportunity to write zoning law changes into the bill. "The question is, if we don't change zoning law, should we pass this?" says Norman Siegel. "That's a tricky strategic question. You do it once and do it right, because you might not get another shot at it for five or 10 years."
While a prominent city official indicated it would be unlikely that the DOB would place the enforcement of dance venues at the top of its list, one could expect that its agents will do their jobs, especially when making their rounds as part of the MARCH (Multi-Agency Response to Community Hotspots) nightlife squad every weekend. Robert Iulo, the DOB's assistant commissioner of citywide inspections and the agency's spokesperson, Ilyse Fink, indicated they would write citations if a venue was not in compliance with zoning. "Dancing isn't really the issue," says Fink. "The issue would be what use group is this particular premise zoned for, and whether or not you are compliant. We look at what the zoning law saysand if it says you can't have X establishment in X area, we'd be writing a zoning violation, not a dancing violation." But, she adds, "We're not going to be the dance police."
"For us it hasn't changed," says Iulo. "Our issues deal with safety. A crowded dancefloor is a problem in an emergency if the place wasn't designed to deal with a crowded dancefloor." While DCA's new nightlife license would allow an under-75-capacity bar like Plant to have dancing, Iulo stressed that if there is "obviously an area cleared for dancingnot just an aislethen dancefloor regulations would become effective." He added that it might not be a problem if there are "only one or two people dancing. [But] 10 or 20 people or morethat sounds like dancing to me." And, he adds, "I think our inspectors would know a dancefloor when they saw it."