In the world of hip-hop, there is an "artist" named Waka Flocka. He has graced our presence in the city of Greensboro with an appearance at Rocco Scarfone's former "N" Club, and also at Club Touch on High Point Rd. Below you will find a video of his appearance at the "N" Club. It is profane and vulgar, so do not view the video if you will be offended:
You will note that the disturbance spills out onto Elm Street; and you can even see the facade of the International Civil Rights Museum in the video.
Waka Flocka has had his tour bus shot at in Charlotte; and has surrendered to authorities on gun, drug and gang-related charges. This is the type of thing that Rocco Scarfone has brought to Greensboro.
In any event, we have had many media and Melderec voices locally hailing the resuscitation of downtown over the last decade because of the infuence of the downtown clubs; but what you see in the video is the ugly reality that was unleashed.
Downtown is our idol; and now it is our task to contain it.
Greensboro's hip-hop entertainment industry attracts fans from well beyond Greensboro. We draw young men and women from surrounding counties, and even, I am told, from the state of Virginia for these events. The young man who was killed in connection with Superjam at the Greensboro Coliseum, I seem to recall, was from the Mebane area.
Greensboro's hip-hop problem also extends to a small handful of other clubs, and most notably, of course, to Superjam at the coliseum. But if my sources are correct, our city is now one of the top locations in the country for showcasing hip-hop "talent".
That is quite a distinction. Is it not?
In any case, the Melderec crowd and city staff-- in conjunction with Councilman Zack Matheny-- are now advancing an onerous series of regulations on clubs. They want to require not only licensure, but also certain security requirements. Their primary concern is downtown. It is quite telling that no one is saying a word about Superjam at the coliseum, which is the worst of all. But that is a city-sponsored event, so it is getting a pass with the current discussion-- at least, so far.
They are quite happy to place onerous requirements on the many clubs that have not been a major problem; but they are silent about Superjam at the coliseum. What an irony. They don't want merely to go after the bad actors; instead, they want to regulate all the businesses, while leaving the problem at the coliseum unscathed.
Leaders should express unequivocally that they do not want this trash in our community; and that all ethically challenged parties who bring it here will be held accountable if problems ensue. And that should include coliseum staff, and those to whom they report.
We now are going to have an increased police presence downtown, and a new approach to policing. Let the police put pressure on those clubs that are creating problems; and let's assure police have the support of city legal staff to pursue the problem club owners if the need arises.
It is not the job of the police to "put pressure" on anybody. It is to enforce the law. By adding new requirements to city ordinances, Matheny may well be giving law enforcement more options to pursue legal remedies for the problems you bemoan. While I too hope whatever City Council comes up with does not overreach or impose new burdens on businesses that are not contributing to crime, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that Matheny is off track. He could well be syncing up the law with the kind of enforcement you want to see.
Posted by: Roch101 | February 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Do the Show Pro security employees the CVM uses qualify under the proposed rules, guidelines, ordinances, laws for security personnel? Anybody know?
Posted by: Mick | February 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM
You will note that the disturbance spills out onto Elm Street; and you can even see the facade of the International Civil Rights Museum in the video.
Waka Flocka has had his tour bus shot at in Charlotte; and has surrendered to authorities on gun, drug and gang-related charges. This is the type of thing that Rocco Scarfone has brought to Greensboro.
You know I'm not a big fan of this crap either but one can argue it was brought here purely as a business venture because of its attraction by that violent, drug infested, usually Urban element! I sure wouldn't deal with it but I'm sure Rocco saw some big bucks to be made, so the hell with any ethical or safety issues of Greensboro, I doubt Rocco lives in the neighborhood! Beau
Posted by: Beau | February 24, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Yes, Beau, I doubt Scarfone lives in the neighborhood.
Mick, I do not doubt the coliseum has good security internally when it brings all that crime to Greensboro. The problem is what happens on the streets in the High Point Road corridor and downtown, and it cannot be adequately policed.
Roch, there are alternatives to regulating businesses in a manner that automatically increases their costs unnecessarily, regardless of whether they are creating problems. You can enforce existing ordinances, or craft new ordinances as needed. You can pursue the business owners under nuisance provisions. And I think when police work proactively with these businesses that are starting to show problems, there is an important role for them to set and communicate expectations. I think that is entirely appropriate.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 24, 2011 at 01:02 PM
Ushers are already thinking of ways to get out of it. DL (lady in charge) will hold it against them if they do not work it.
Posted by: GSOCO | February 24, 2011 at 01:49 PM
GSOCO, it is an amazing spectacle that the city would be outright inviting thugs to a hip-hop event at its coliseum, to then create havoc in the streets-- and then for the city to penalize private business for doing similar things. I could not blame coliseum employees if they try to avoid working that event.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 24, 2011 at 02:01 PM
I'm just disturbed by the lack of diversity in that video and how it reflects on that group's tolerance and inclusiveness.
Posted by: cheripickr | February 24, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Joe:
Your dissection of the core issue here is quite good Joe, which is not to say that it was not in Part One. However, it is cleaner here.
It reminds me of another issue faced by the various states in connection with dram shop acts, governing liability of establishments serving alcohol where an individual consuming an excessive amount of alcohol causes harm to others.
In some states, the server, whether business or individual, bears some liability. (Even in the absence of "regulations" and "ordinances," lawsuits are arguably just another form of government sponsored regulation. If the courts did not find certain conduct "actionable," then the servers would not be liable.)
In other states, that is not the case. The reasoning is that it is not the server who over-imbibed, but rather the drinker. As the reasoning goes, the drinker/consumer should bear responsibility not the server.
Arguably the same reasoning applies to guns: It is the user of the gun who causes the damage, not the gun manufacturer, and thus we should not regulate or place restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, and sale....
There is a whole body of law on what is termed "business invitees." When a business invites the general public to patronize its establishment, and makes money from it, one of the costs of doing business are the consequential regulations and legal liability that accompany the operation of the business.
Out of curiosity, should there be restrictions on the top speed that a car manufacturer can produce, or should we leave it up to the driver to drive as fast as he or she desires with the biggest engine they can afford, and then simply fine or jail the offending speeders?
Posted by: Reggie Greene / The Logistician | February 24, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Also we have Lil Wayne coming to us April 8th. You can scan internet to check out his "records".
Posted by: GSOCO | February 24, 2011 at 05:19 PM
GSOCO, we will look into it. Thanks.
Cheri, it is obvious you don't know what diversity means. For the diversity-purveyors, that video has EVERYTHING to do with diversity.
Reggie, thanks for the comments. Obviously, the city of Greensboro is trying to move toward a framework through which the club owner shares responsibility for what might theoretically happen. But it is proposing to do so by levying costs against all the clubs, regardless of whether they have been a problem. I obviously think there is a better way to do it.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 24, 2011 at 05:29 PM
People pay to see that? I would not go if they offered to hire me to watch.
Posted by: Ken Hill | February 24, 2011 at 06:15 PM
Joe:
The cost being levied against all clubs is arguably consistent with the "spread the risk" legal philosophy applicable to many business laws. In theory, it allows more businesses to stay in operation and survive, as opposed to killing off offenders, or purported offenders, which reduces the business population.
Posted by: Reggie Greene / The Logistician | February 26, 2011 at 02:38 PM
"Out of curiosity, should there be restrictions on the top speed that a car manufacturer can produce....."
I would argue for a 150 mph limit. Anything higher is a little excessive on the street.
Posted by: bubba | February 26, 2011 at 02:44 PM
Reggie, the flip side to that contention is that the costs levied could be enough to sink marginal businesses-- and those businesses might not necessarily be the troublemakers we might want to close.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 26, 2011 at 05:58 PM