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

[David Keenan]

Ps. I meant to add that, somewhere, I did have a one-page set of
specific guidelines I came up with, which, if followed to the
letter, would ensure most kinds of 'private events' are
also 'legally' private - and therefore largely protected from cops, ABC,
zoning citations etc.

It's a short system of sorts for technically ensuring full compliance
that I came up with out of necessity basically, but the bottomline is, we
found that even this 'boiled-down' reduced instruction set still required
just too much hoop-jumping, of ever-changing pool of volunteers / staff /
renters to be realistically and reliably deployable in real life.
 (So, it's basically still moot..)

d

On Friday, October 30, 2015, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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/20151030/941620a1/attachment.html>