[sudo-discuss] [omni-discuss] finance-wg report back

Fri Oct 30 13:36:58 PDT 2015

Re: the technical, legal requirements for 'private events'.. seems worth
repeating here - I mention only b/c I see these q's are being asked
again, to several lists.

Tbc I'm not saying the below is what omni has to do per se or in every case
necessarily, just saying what the law is at least as it applies in Oakland,
if that is helpful.

Technically the term 'Private' here has to satisfy several
non-obvious statutory and municipal requirements spread out amongst at
least 3 different enforcing agencies that engage depending on the type
of complaint, advertising, or city/state application being followed up on.

For example, at a 'private' event in a commercial location, If alcohol is
present in any way, there can be no charge, donation, or exchange (for
tokens etc) - or, in the eyes of the state, it is automatically not a
'private' event anymore, it is technically a 'public' one -- even if there
are only 2 people there and it was invite-only, gated at the door, etc.

Or for ex., If the event is advertised in a way that could be construed
'public', i.e. it is publicly flyered, or it is not
strictly invitation-only with the door gated and a real guest list, then
the event is technically 'public', not private.

An alternate to invite lists is, Private events can stay legally private if
they are only attended by verifiable (at the door) members of an
organization and their 'bona fide' guests. (And of course, you cannot just
let anyone in iff the street)

Whether public or private, absent being issued conditional use permit
(CUP) to operate what is for us effectively a venue, any social function in
a commercial space with 60+ ppl technically requires a one-off special
event permit from the city by which I mean OPD, and by convention they only
allow a small number per year per applicant depending on several factors..
(Small #, b/c if you hold a lot of events, then you are supposed to get a
CUP instead). These special permits should be applied for 3 weeks in
advance (if you are on good terms you can get them sooner), and dep. on the
type & projected attendance of event + premises occupant load, it is very
likely OPD can force you to hire a security firm bonded to do business in
Oakland at a guard-to-attendee ratio of at least 1:50, with
$7.50/hr/guard being a baseline last year, probably more now like
$12/hr/guard.

Also as of this year, for SEPs you need to prove the premises
are officially cleared by Fire for assembly occupancy. I pre-paid for that
last year while we were fixing things, and someone a little while ago told
me that Spencer or another inspector (from BFP) came by in the last couple
months and cleared the ballroom for us.. which is great and by the way,
almost certainly a favor to us because they usually clear entire buildings
if tenant spaces inside them are not properly separated by some fire-rated
wall assembly which our building is def. not, and of course the rest of the
building still needs compliance outlined in the first inspection.. etc. But
anyway if true that is very good.

Probably ppl reading this are like, 'what? I go to events/parties at xyz
place, and they don't have to comply with this or that..' Indeed, my fellow
skeptics, as you have guessed the reality on the ground (as the omni itself
has in a way demonstrated over the last year by operating 'illegally') is
that, many many places violate at least one, usually more of the above type
of laws.

For omni tbh any outstanding noncompliance has been mitigated in part by
(at least during the first year) open dialogue with the city powers that
be in terms of talking with planning dept, e.d., prepping for
city applications, talking with neighbors & local businesses etc etc, which
is a reason why they let us slide, ie are giving us (a lot of) time to be
able to eventually do things the 'right' way.

Again all I ain't saying this is what omni 'should' or shouldn't do, I am
only saying what the letter of the law actually is with respect to events,
parties etc and how I've noticed it's typically enforced.

The truth is, the city lets unauthorized events go 90% of the time --
UNTIL there is a complaint, or, eventually, the owner/city/neighbors wants
to evict. So Basically, IMO, these particular laws are used as a sort
of cudgel when needed, and allows for easy selective enforcement
(8pm bougie gallery opening? Hey, no problem, Drink away. Crusty
2am warehouse party? Nah you're busted, because you see, you broke xyz rule
re: alcohol or you needed an SEP which now OPD will deny you b/ c there was
a complain, etc.)

So if omni doesn't follow these event-hosting 'rules', well fact is we are
completely vulnerable to any official complaint. Im sorta (actually, not
really) sure that we'd probably all prefer not to be sitting ducks in this
way.. right? Well - anyhow, I at least think that could be a relief, to not
have to worry about that. Because if a govt rule enforcer does come to
investigate, and they aren't feeling charitable, well there are still so
many freakin Use and safety violations that they won't have any problem
citing us.

The real bite of any such complaint and citation during this current
time will still cruelly and profoundly impact any application we might
later submit for a real permit, to operate a venue, which if we got one, we
would be comparatively untouchable.

All told, pragmatically speaking, complying with all the above constraints
re trying to make as many events as possible legally 'private' is more than
just a pain in the ass - IMO they are simply not practical or realistic for
omni full stop, and this has been demonstrated I feel over omni's tenure of
event-hosting this far. I mean I think our 'private events' have only
legitimately complied a couple of times.

If anyone is still reading this long-ass email, IMO, Omni needs to step
beyond what was intended to be a temporary state and finally get our MCUP
and a cabaret license to boot. Then, we don't have to worry so much about
'private' vs public, alcohol vs no, charging / not charging, or complaints
- which can potentially at least presently shut any event down.

So IMO, Mari, Robb, Yar & anyone else who may want to work on event
production and/or booking, and wants to operate with the confidence of a
legal, above-ground venue (not saying this is a must, but if you are down
for this), I would approach the use permits again.

Another thing is acquiring restaurant/tavern insurance (covers alcohol) and
a Type 41 or 42 liquor license from ABC. Then we don't need to ask
event-throwers to get their own event insurance every time as we are
presently supposed to, which, tbh, is often an energy-draining rabbit hole
of wasted time and expense for all concerned. Instead, we'd just
compute our cost to the event renter's bill in a way that is fair and
really help simplify the booking process.

Our particular application for a CUP is rather complicated to say the
least, and beyond anything I'll mention here, but it is essential in my
view towards having a financially-sustaining omni.

My time is pretty impacted these days unfo, but if anyone wants to talk
more just lmk.

Hugs,
David

On Friday, October 30, 2015, Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','scylla at riseup.net');>> wrote:

> Thanks you, Patrik!
> The commons working group meets Sundays at 7pm. Please come if you would
> like to help book and produce events. The event production collective idea
> is something that we have discussed but haven't reached agreement about in
> the past. That doesn't mean that we can't discuss it again or do something
> like it to improve our event capacity, quality, and income.
>
> Laura
>
> On 10/30/15 11:03 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Berry Maker <berrythemaker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Who would best be to advise on the current limitations of coordinating
> events at the
> > Omni?  Byob for example? Caberet laws, etc.
> >
> > I'm fairly certain an Omni events collective already exists and it would
> be respectful
> > to ask about creating one first.
>
> There is an events *working group*, who are doing an amazing job
> coordinating all the scheduling, but are also constantly understaffed,
> overworked, and underappreciated. I've CC'd them on this email.
>
> I've suggested before that it might help if there were some financial
> incentive for people who are willing to help bottomline events. I think it
> could make sense to set up a collective that has some profit-sharing
> agreement with the Omni, and a strong (contractual) commitment to also host
> free events.
>
> Patrik
>
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Autonomous <autonomous666 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know the specific codes in Oakland but <100 people generally
> means it's a "private party" with no special permission needed. You could
> get away with much more if there aren't many people milling about outside.
> >>
> >> 4 events per month x 99 attendees x $20 cover charge = $7920/mo gross
> income.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Berry Maker <berrythemaker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Agreed! Several edm event coordinator friends have asked me about
> this. I've heard holding this type of event at Omni is be tricky atm
> though. Oakland needs more edm events.
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 29, 2015 8:07 PM, "Autonomous" <autonomous666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hosting EDM events in the ballroom could more than make up for the
> cash flow shortage:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.sfbayedm.com/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:00 PM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ugg, $2k additional expenses :(
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i really feel renting the common spaces is our only sustainable &
> viable option at this point...along with hosting our own fundraiser events.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> maybe if we had a prodution collective responsible for optimizing
> teh commons for events, we could get more for them ;)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at lists.omnicommons.orghttps://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20151030/f963e27a/attachment.html>