Thoughts on the Ammended Philadelphia Promoter Bill
Now that I have finally had a chance to read through the July 9th amendment to Philadelphia Bill Number 100267, I can help explain it from a promoter's point of view. You can track the progress of the bill and view its full text from the official legislative file.
This amendment is a big improvement on the initial draft: it is a lot less vague and quite a bit more rational. Keep in mind though that, in the game of politics, this may be a very deliberate play. Regulations pertaining to the roles of the venue operator and of the promoter are much more clearly defined. Perhaps the most notable change though is that the bill now explicitly targets music event (live performances, DJ nights, etc.) where attendance exceeds 50 people almost exclusively. This is a big change for the broad definition presented in the first iteration which targeted just about any event, but it was clear from the rest of the content as well as the subtext what the true aim was to be. Venues hosting applicable events must apply for a Special Occupancy license from "the Department", which likely refers to the Department of Licenses and Inspection which is mentioned much later in the document (not sure why the author couldn't just write it out). These cost $100 and last for 2 years. The terms of the license and the application process are spelled out a lot more clearly. The process seems to be similar to that of liquor licensure though not as intense as that mess. Some basic information is provided by the owner, a notice must be displayed on the building, and input is provided by the neighborhood as well as the police department. What they manage to sneak in to the otherwise reasonable process is that after the specifics, "police department views" are taken into account. This is essentially the same arbitrary decision making authority outlined in the first draft.
The venue is responsible for registering events with the neighborhood police commander within 2 weeks of the event or must be able to demonstrate a good cause for the late notice. A major improvement over the first draft is that there is no mention of the police department having the authority to deny these registrations. They only have the power to enforce operational regulations on the venue along with the Department of Licenses and Inspection. Both entities must be permitted to inspect the premises at any time. Opinions on this may vary depending upon how one feels about the whole warrant process.
Oh and venues may not have fireworks, prostitution, drugs, or alcohol being served to minors. Apparently someone thought it was worth wasting words in this text on matters that are already unquestionably illegal.
Promoters must be registered with the Managing Director (of the Department of Licensures and Inspection?) using a form that will be made available somewhere online. Registration requires a Business Privilege license from the city and carries a one-time fee of $40. The responsibilities of the promoter are left largely open-ended so that they can be worked out with the venue. Whatever responsibilities are agreed upon between the two parties must be clearly delineated using a provided form and posted publicly on the Web.
Of course the most fun comes at the end where the bill sneaks in the authority for the Department of Licenses and Inspection to change these regulations at any time and however it sees fit. In the end, it doesn't matter so much what this bill says then because those in power can simply impose whatever terms they want outside of the transparent (comparatively) legislative process. Isn't politics fun?!
Be sure to let the city council members (Greenlee and Clarke in particular) know how you feel about the bill! You can find their contact information here: http://www.phila.gov/cityCouncil/CouncilMembers.html
Reader Comments
No comments have been posted yet.