Philadelphia City Council is considering a bill that would set up new restrictions for event promoters in the city, which has been met with backlash from myriad events professionals, including those in the LGBT community.
The bill, introduced April 22 by Councilmen Bill Greenlee and Darrell Clarke, would require promoters to apply for a permit with the Philadelphia Police for their event and to share responsibility with the event venue.
Greenlee said the issue was raised by both police and some of his constituents, who’ve complained they don’t know who has the ultimate responsibility for problems — such as fights or illegal parking — stemming from special events at venues like bars or clubs.
The bill defines a “promoter” as any person who is “directly or indirectly responsible for the organization of an event” — including those who select entertainers, invite participants, advertise or rent a venue — and who directly or indirectly share in the admission or entrance fees or other revenue generated from sponsors or other sources.
The measure would mandate that, 30 days prior to the planed event, promoters submit an application for a permit from the relevant police district. The application would need to include the promoter’s business-privilege license number, a copy of a written contract between the promoter and the venue and a detailed security plan.
An “event” is defined as any activity requiring a special-assembly occupancy license. Such a license is required by the city for “restaurants, bars, catering halls, nightclubs and other gathering places with dancing and a lawful occupancy of over 50 people.”
The current law stipulates that the special-assembly licensee ensure patrons don’t congregate in a disorderly manner and engage in illegal activity — a responsibility that, under the new bill, would be shared with the promoter.
Greenlee will meet with a group of promoters May 14 to discuss their concerns.
Chris Hunter, who organizes the Simply Christopher parties, said Greenlee and Clarke need to narrow the scope of the measure.
“They need to have a better understanding of how this business works,” Hunter said. “The language right now is very broad, but I think once they get a better understanding of how a business like this actually works, they will hopefully rewrite it in such a way that it works for everybody.”
The bill is expected to be considered June 1 by the Committee on Licenses & Inspections, if voted out of committee, could see a full City Council vote June 10. Greenlee said he’s hoping to have the measure approved by the time council breaks for summer recess on June 17.
Brian Nagele, founder of nightlife site Philly2Night.com, said that while he understands the reasoning for the bill, it’s not a measure that should be rushed through.
“It’s scary how they’re trying to push something through and take control like this,” he said. “It is a situation that needs addressing. There are some promoters out there and events that aren’t the safest and that aren’t put together in a professional way. But I don’t know if they’ve taken into consideration that this will also affect artists, theater groups, PR agencies, DJs, bands, performers — a lot of people who have legitimate businesses and who conduct safe environments. They don’t understand the world that promoters and event planners live in.”
One major downfall of the current bill is that the police commissioner can deny a permit application up to 10 days before the event, Hunter said.
“That just would not work,” he said. “It’s so not feasible because you spend a lot of time setting up events — sometimes months or even a year or two out — and you have the anticipation and the excitement and people are prepared to come out to the event from all over. You can’t just pull an event once it’s booked and ready to go.”
Greenlee said some reasons a promoter could be denied a permit include the promoter having previous problems with an event, too many events occurring in one area on one night or a promoter’s crowd estimate not being consistent with a venue’s capacity.
“The biggest problem where I see an issue is that this puts a lot of control in the hands of the police districts,” Nagele said. “The police don’t have the budget to spend all of their time approving or declining every event happening in the district every single day of the year and, for a police captain who may not understand the type of entertainment and who doesn’t have the time to try to understand it, it may just be easier for him to stamp ‘deny’ on the permit. It leaves too much up for interpretation.”
The stipulation that permit applications must be submitted 30 days prior to an event could also be problematic for an industry that often sees last-minute decisions.
“Sometimes things happen within that 30-day period,” Nagele said. “Great events can come up or there are also venues where the entertainment has cancelled a week ahead and they need to rebook something to fill the space, and it doesn’t sound like they’d be able to do that.”
Greenlee said he and Clark are planning to examine the timing issues and would consider imposing time restrictions for police to respond to permit applications once they’re submitted. He noted that they are also thinking of putting in place a system so that promoters who hold monthly events can obtain a permit that is valid for a number of months.
Morgan Levine, co-promoter of monthly LGBT parties Stimulus and Arouse, disagreed with the mandate that promoters must include a security plan — complete with weapons-detection measures — in the permit application.
“I agree that a security plan is important, [but] I’m not convinced that the responsibility being on the promoter is the most effective means to do that,” Levine said.
Nagele concurred, noting that venues typically have their own security measures in place.
“It’s usually venues that control the security, and the promoter’s just renting the space from that venue,” he said. “It’d be tough for the promoters to have a security plan in place when they’re not in charge of controlling the security. Where promoters do come into play is the crowd that they’re bringing in and the type of entertainment and how they set the environment, but it’s usually the venues that have the security plan.”
As the bill stands, there is no cost for a permit application, but Greenlee said the administration may not support that aspect and a small fee could be instituted in the future.
Jen Colletta can be reached at [email protected].