What is it at City Hall that keeps making the City Council stop worrying about the real problems of the citizens, like the accelerated loss of affordable rental housing, to get mired in another boondoggle.

The latest one actually was born in the mayor's office in an obvious over reaction to problems in the downtown war zone also known as Pioneer Square. There were real problems in that area with drunken crowds of crazies running amok. But the mayor's police chief has done an excellent job in taming those beasties.

Nevertheless, spurred on by a few neighborhood complaints, suddenly bars outside the downtown are being attacked with a hazy proposal to create another enforcement department to issue $300 annual nightlife licenses and threats of putting offenders out of business.

The legislation may require an estimated 300 businesses that serve alcohol to meet crowd density standards and patrol 50 feet around their establishments at closing to stop rowdiness. (See Rebekah Schilperoort's report on Page One).

Why do we need a new set of laws and another layer of government?

The city has established high occupancy zones to handle all of the new residents expected to flood into our area in the next few years. With the flood of new condos and the conversions of apartments to condos, we can expect neighborhood business to increase too. That includes bars and restaurants - and that also includes restaurants that serve liquor after the kitchen closes.

One of the problems with the proposed nightlife ordinance is what is really going to be in it. First there was the mayor's proposal that some council members said they did not like. Then comes a hazy new proposal from Councilwoman Jan Drago and newcomer (and up for election) Councilwoman Sally Clark. They have not said what will be in their ordinance, but they say they expect to pass it on June 21.

"We don't know any of the elements of the new proposed license...," said nightlife industry lobbyist Tim Hatley. "I've never seen anything like this in nearly 20 years of working in and around legislative bodies."

Neither have we.

But that doesn't seem to bother Clark a bit as she claims she is protecting the nightlife industry.

"It's part of what we're known for and we can encourage and keep that," Clark said. "But you have a right to a safe neighborhood, as well as a vibrant one, and residents have reasonable rights to levels of noise and chaos in their neighborhoods."

We already have laws that do that, Ms. Clark. Why not use them?

What is wrong with enforcing the noise ordinance and all of the other ordinances that control loud and boisterous public behavior?

Let's put this nightlife ordinance proposal in the same discard stack as the one controlling circus animals. We do not need another law that makes campaigning council members look like heroes while accompishing absolutely nothing except damaging an industry, perhaps fatally.

- Jack Mayne