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

[robb]

what about byob?

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 3:18 AM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:

> good to hear from you, david.
>
> a stagehand union member, jon, has been coming around teaching sound
> training sessions for people at the omni & i've been talking to people for
> months now trying to figure out the best arrangement for a production
> collective @the omni. jon is/was very motivated & wants to help us get the
> ballroom up to snuff w/sound & lights so i think now would be a really good
> time to restart the push to broaden our capacity for events.
>
> only hang up is it will take even more $ that we don't have
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oops - last thing, I need to add a correction / caveat to one example I
>> mentioned:
>>
>> "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."
>> ...yes the above would not be a private party, IF there was no ABC permit
>> pulled or in place for that event.
>>
>> Whereas, If there WAS a one-time (aka 'daily') alcohol license pulled for
>> that scenario, or omni had it's own permanent license that covered the
>> types of alcohol served at that event, then, yea that event could still be
>> considered private, provided of course it met other conditions including
>> the other examples above..
>>
>> (There's a lot of caveats to these sorts of things.. Please take my
>> ramblings more as something written off-the-cuff whilst doing laundry, n
>> less as somethin comprehensive or even proofread :)
>>
>> Dk
>>
>> On Friday, October 30, 2015, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20151031/4b6eab6a/attachment.html>