Banning hip-hop.

October 27, 2002 10:49 AM

Banning hip-hop. Police in San Francisco control the kinds of music clubs may play and promote. In key parts of the city, rap music has basically been outlawed.
posted by xowie (58 comments total)

San Francisco man, you used to be cool. Now it's like I don't even know you anymore. I hate to say it, because you're my homie and all, and we've been through a lot together, but you've sold out, man.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:02 AM on October 27, 2002

please let techno be next
posted by tsarfan at 11:08 AM on October 27, 2002

"What kind of music do you usually have here?"
"Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western."
posted by UnReality at 11:12 AM on October 27, 2002

Is this legal? The police are part of the government, so by banning hip-hop (and heavy metal, as well as other genres) aren't they violating the first amendment? If I were in San Francisco I'd start a nice Country and Western band, and after that was shut down a nice Polka band and... Why would these be shut down? Well, you can take all of the parts of music that the cops find negative about hip-hop, rap and heavy metal and move them to any genre of music.
posted by substrate at 11:14 AM on October 27, 2002

techno be next? techno was first.
posted by atom128 at 11:17 AM on October 27, 2002

Baloney. This is a purposefuly inflammatory article. 1015 Folsom is inhabited almost entirely by white people. It plays Techno and Dance music. No hip-hop. Many of the bars they discussed are not hip-hop bars. Baloney.

And it's true that there is frequently more violence at hip-hop concerts and venues. It's just, quite simply, the cold hard truth. You don't hear of shootings and gang-related activities after a Dave Matthew's Band show or Moby's Area2 concert at the Shoreline or a Sasha & Digweed show at 1015 Folson, but after hip-hop shows (I've looked for links but I can't find them...but I read about it all the time) there are frequent violent activities. And at hip-hop house parties all over the bay area, after they end, the violence just happens. And the police and neighbors pay for it.

I don't think they want to outlaw hip-hop shows, what I've mostly read about is that they want the promoters to provide adequate police presence and to have control of their events. Which doesn't happen now. If there were gang-relating shootings and violence after other shows, they would want to control those too. It's not racism, it's getting control over an out-of-control and irresponsible situation. It just happens that it's mostly black people at the hip hop shows.
posted by aacheson at 11:18 AM on October 27, 2002

"there shall be no live rap, heavy metal or hard rock music at the premises."
According to that limitation, it appears that more than rap is affected, thus nullifying this as a race issue.
posted by Darke at 11:21 AM on October 27, 2002

I, for one, would like to welcome our musically-challenged overlords...
posted by spirit72 at 11:38 AM on October 27, 2002

Robertson, a first-time business owner, had no idea he needed a place of entertainment permit to have DJs perform at his bar.

Of course the thread fails to mention that the cops are not banning a particular type of music or the playing of any music at all. It sounds like if a club wants to play any kind of music all it needs is a simple permit. Of course tactics have been a bit heavy handed, but I guess a thread about censorship is a lot sexier than a thread about expensive permits

But his neighbors in the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association knew it and called the cops.

Sounds like this is a case of members of the community, not the government, deciding what music is being played. Makes this statement "There's something wrong when we empower the police department to choose our music," just untrue or at least lacking an intelligent assessment of the facts.

"The Civil Grand Jury recommends a reconsideration of the permit process to ensure equal treatment of applicants and permit holders."

Sound like an 14th amendment Equal Protect Clause issue, and not a 1st Amendment Freedom of expression issue.
posted by Bag Man at 11:41 AM on October 27, 2002

"You don't hear of shootings and gang-related activities after a Dave Matthew's Band show.."

maybe not gang-related, but the other weekend, several guys coming out of a party (blaring david matthews band) decided to trash my friend's car by throwing nearby cinderblocks at it. she wasn't even at the party; she was just a neighbor, sleeping in her house. her car just happened to be parked outside. heh, i heard that all of them were white.

i heard some crazy things happened at woodstock '99, too.
posted by lotsofno at 11:57 AM on October 27, 2002

I second lotsofno's comments. Two years ago in CT, DMB fans rioted after a concert.
posted by Bag Man at 11:58 AM on October 27, 2002

I am being held hostage by Dave Mathews Band fans right now.
posted by Hildago at 12:02 PM on October 27, 2002

"it appears that more than rap is affected, thus nullifying this as a race issue."

Not really. For one thing, someone from the police was quoted talking specifically about "hip-hop" and how it attracts a "certain element that may or may not be undesirable". (Not sure if that's an exact quote but the cowardly "may or may not be" stuck in my mind.)

The article was not just about race, or any one specific problem. It describes a tangled mess of problems with permits being used as political tools.

JWZ wrote about it in 1999, sounds like not much has changed since then.
posted by sfenders at 12:04 PM on October 27, 2002

In most cases, clubs have agreed to stop playing rap and hip-hop, music that attracts young people, many of color.

Interestingly, here in NY, most of the people at hip-hop events are white. Go figure.
posted by haqspan at 12:13 PM on October 27, 2002

Some permits are simpler than others. Liquor licenses in the state of Washington are controlled by an unelected, unreviewed board that allegedly doesn't like some kinds of music, or has personal grudges against particular owners. As for hip-hop, the local alterna-weekly often has articles about hip-hop clubs having trouble with the city.

Most people seem to be willing to admit that hip-hop clubs are often magnets for violence; the city's response is to attempt to ban hip-hop, despite some club owners' willingness to go to great lengths to have a nonviolent club.

posted by hattifattener at 12:19 PM on October 27, 2002

sfenders, if you're going to quote something, to support an argument, the least you can do is attribute the quote properly. This quote:

"Rap music attracts a certain 'element' that may or may not be desirable,"

are the words of John deCastro, President of the Potrero Hill Boosters, the group that called the cops.

The police captain they spoke to, Captain Corrales, made no claims of any specific racial 'element' causing problems, only that there are problems at hip-hop events. As unsupported as his claims are (in the area being talked about), it by no means suggests targeting on a racial issue.
posted by mikhail at 12:27 PM on October 27, 2002

<obvious>I thought Kevin Bacon dealt with this sort of thing.</obvious>
posted by holloway at 12:55 PM on October 27, 2002

pretty sad. San Fran and the Bay Area have some great artists under the radar as far as hiphop is concerned right now (Anticon and 75 Ark). Of course, these artists are the minority in hiphop, no bling bling and such, but political, positive and actually creative.
posted by robotrock at 12:56 PM on October 27, 2002

It just happens that it's mostly black people at the hip hop shows.

Because black people are always more violent than whites, right?
posted by trioperative at 12:56 PM on October 27, 2002

It describes a tangled mess of problems with permits being used as political tools.

As mikhail correctly points out (as I do too), the City of San Francisco is not the one who is using the permits for a political goal. If anyone is "banning" music it is the citizens of San Francisco. Hence, neither the police nor any other government official is trying to ban speech or music. Therefore, there is unlikely to be a 1st Amendment issue here.

It seems the only reason the permit requirement is in place is generate revenue for the city. Which, comes at the expense of all types of clubs. Further, the only issue is whether the price of permit is so high that it makes it too costly to exercise speech. There is absolutory no evidence of that here.
posted by Bag Man at 1:02 PM on October 27, 2002

triop, I think you misread aacheson's comment, although I'll agree that it's ambiguously worded. I believe he was saying that hip-hop shows tend to draw violence; it's just coincidental that it's mostly black people at the hip hop shows.
posted by argybarg at 1:05 PM on October 27, 2002

Sorry about the misquote. Still, what Corrales was quoted as saying is essentially the same thing. I agree that the prejudice against whatever subculture is associated with a particular kind of music is probably not motivated primarily by racism.

No matter what does motivate it, there must be some pretty strong feelings involved to have the police openly willing to admit that they base their decisions on the preferred musical style of the people they deal with. ("We often prohibit hip-hop music" -- sounds like a 1st amendmant issue to me.)

The generally burdensome nature of the permit system is another question entirely. It looks to me like its complex and bureaucratic nature leaves it open to easy abuse.
posted by sfenders at 1:37 PM on October 27, 2002

Bag Man said, "It seems the only reason the permit requirement is in place is generate revenue for the city. Which, comes at the expense of all types of clubs."

I think you've hit it on the head. I've never heard of anybody having an easy time opening a club in a large city. It seems like it's always set up to shake down small business people for permit fees or to gentrify neighborhoods.
posted by RylandDotNet at 2:06 PM on October 27, 2002

i've been known to wear a backpack at times and i'd still say that maybe 75 ark is ok, but i wouldn't say anticon are particuarily that good at all. my opinion, nothing more. i could defend my opinion, if anyone cares. i'm sure no one does.
posted by the aloha at 2:20 PM on October 27, 2002

The Bling King offers a celtic cross in case there are any House of Pain fans left.

Anyone know where I can get a tasteful St. George's cross in white diamonds and rubies? It only seems fair.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:21 PM on October 27, 2002

I don't want to start a pissing match, as it is a matter of opinion, but Anticon has some great records. Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away....
posted by robotrock at 2:31 PM on October 27, 2002

I can't seem to find a summary of the Potrero Hills Boosters argument for blocking Lingba's permit, but they could possibly argue that the venue could not contain loud music (hence the ban on rap, rock and metal). deCastro was asked specifically about rap music, and responded in a manner to make himself seem like a complete fuckhead; maybe he has some sort of coherent argument for blocking the permit, but it didn't show up on their website.

aacheson: And at hip-hop house parties all over the bay area, after they end, the violence just happens.

Most of the problems in the East Bay are with underground parties, mostly linked to a single unscrupulous promoter. If you get a thousand kids milling outside a space designed for a few hundred, it would be pretty surprising not to have some kind of incident. With Lingba lounge, we're talking about maybe a few dozen kids listening to a dj. There is absolutely no comparing the two. Lingba apparently caters to the hipster set anyway. WTF?

Here's a link to the San Francisco Late Night Coalition.
posted by eddydamascene at 2:45 PM on October 27, 2002

As far as I can tell from the article, it's not the police banning the music. It's the neighboring business owners. The guy needs some sort of special permit to use DJs and the neighboring businesses are the ones limiting the type of music under threat of protesting the permit.
So it's simple. Move the location to some other place that doesn't need a special permit. He can play all the hip hop he wants.
posted by stevefromsparks at 2:54 PM on October 27, 2002

"there shall be no live rap, heavy metal or hard rock music at the premises."

Is everybody (except Darke) just ignoring this very significant line on purpose?

If you need a permit, get it and stop whining, or don't.
posted by hama7 at 3:00 PM on October 27, 2002

hama7, community associations can sometimes block the permit process based on irrational arguments, because often the police are more sympathetic to the community associations than the venues. it's not as simple as you state it.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:19 PM on October 27, 2002

argybarg, you are right. I was saying exactly what you clarified. Thank you. (BTW, I'm a "her" not a "he.")
posted by aacheson at 3:40 PM on October 27, 2002

Exactly how can a permit prohibiting certain genres of music be enforceable? It's like those clauses in certain deeds that specifically prohibited selling the property to certain "genres" of people. The police can't legally enforce that - it's unconstitutional. Right?

I can understand a prohibition on loud music, for the sake of peace and quiet, but to prohibit, say, classical music, because you don't want those shifty classical music fans wandering through your neighborhoods causing trouble, is just not allowed. Freedom of speech means freedom of expression, and there ain't no more appropriate time, place or manner for musical expression than a nightclub.
posted by skoosh at 3:43 PM on October 27, 2002

So mean to tell me that the people of a community are deciding what activities they will and will not permit in the community? Gasp!

This is very similar to the Grateful Dead concert that almost did not happen here in Wisconsin this summer...

The Walworth County Board denied the band a permit to play at Alpine Valley, due to their concerns of concert goers (and wannabe concert goers) overwhelming the local police, and concerns of local residents and business owners of the trash and vandalism that the 'Dead Heads' would create...

Only after the promoter hired sufficient security to instill confidence in the county board was the permit issued.

Resident have a right to peace and safety, Concert/Club goers do not have a right to party. (Though the Beastie Boys may disagree)

The owners of these clubs need to show that they are working with the community (that they too belong to)

If violence is a issue, then the club owners need to provide security. They need to eliminate the reasons that the community associations protest them.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:58 PM on October 27, 2002

footloose
posted by eddydamascene at 4:10 PM on October 27, 2002

It is all becoming moot since current legislation is being amended to create an Entertainment Commission which will assume permitting and licensing responsibility, as well as other duties.
posted by mikhail at 4:12 PM on October 27, 2002

Freedom of speech means freedom of expression, and there ain't no more appropriate time, place or manner for musical expression than a nightclub.

This is not a Freedom of Speech issue: No one is stopping you from listening to 'hip-hop'

You can not yell in a library. If a librarian comes over to tell you to stop yelling, that is not infringing on your freedom of speech, you can go out side or some were else to talk loudly... It is just not acceptable in that environment.

Like wise if your neighbor is cranking up the latest Eminem track at 2 am, and you call the police and lodge a noise complaint, you are not hindering his freedom of speech... No one is stopping him from listening to that CD a level that will not disturb his neighbors.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:17 PM on October 27, 2002

I am being held hostage by Dave Mathews Band fans right now.

Isn't every person within 25 miles of a frat house/cubicle farm/red light suffering from this same fate? Liberation now!
posted by maura at 4:21 PM on October 27, 2002

Neat link, sfenders. It's interesting to read about all the stuff that goes into opening a nightspot...stuff I never would have considered.

It only confirms my impression that while I think owning a bar would be cool, I'd never want to actually own one.
posted by Vidiot at 4:37 PM on October 27, 2002

I love, too, how these things always get cast as some kind of "Footloose"-esque war of uptight, borderline racist fogeys against those willing to fight for the Right To Party - as if it wasn't one of the basic tenets of anarchism that people who live in a place have the right to determine the character of that place.

I think y'all have already done a sound and impressive job of demonstrating that this is not about race, not about music, not about oppressive police or government. Isn't it valid if I say I want to live free from the depredations of crowds sandbagged by fly-by-night promotoers with shitty, overcrowded venues, with no adult supervision?

I wouldn't want my favorite band, a symphony orchestra, or Survival Research Laboratories playing next door to me under these circumstances either. Would you?
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:56 PM on October 27, 2002

"Time, place or manner" is a phrase that I borrow from numerous Supreme Court decisions precisely because the Court has repeatedly held that content-based restrictions cannot be justified as legitimately upholding an appropriate time, place or manner for expression. No one disputes that neighborhood associations have a legitimate interest in the livability of their neighborhoods. You can enact a statute that forbids playing any music louder than 100 decibels after 9 pm. However, you cannot enact a statute that forbids the playing of Wagnerian opera after 9 pm. That is a content-based restriction that would fail to meet constitutional muster.

Similarly, it only makes sense for a neighborhood association concerned about noise levels to stipulate a certain maximum noise level, or a certain amount of security, before granting a club permit. However, when specific genres of music - specific modes of musical expression - are barred outright, the association crosses the line into letting content determine what expression is to be allowed and what is not. In other words, if I play my Eminem at a reasonable volume, my neighbors do not have a right to sic the cops on me just because they don't like Eminem. They also don't have a right to require me to sign a no-Eminem agreement before letting me move in.

So what leg do the cops have to stand on, when enforcing these permit clauses?

And what's with the scare-quotes around "hip-hop", Steve_at?
posted by skoosh at 5:51 PM on October 27, 2002

Hip hop is merely the catalyst for mind blowing violence. Or mind blowing hotties, depending on which direction you'd like the evening to take. And yes, there are two in the living room. Break of dawn. You know.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:53 PM on October 27, 2002

what's with the scare-quotes around "hip-hop"

The non-scary quotes are due to the lumping of Rap, Heavy Metal and Hard Rock in the label of "hip-hop"

However, you cannot enact a statute that forbids the playing of Wagnerian opera after 9 pm.

There is no statute that forbids the playing of Rock, Rap, of "hip-hop". The Potrero Hill Boosters has a list of music it dosn't want in the area, but that is not law.

So what leg do the cops have to stand on, when enforcing these permit clauses?

Re-read above post...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:00 PM on October 27, 2002

"People always say, 'You're advocating the murder of police officers by making these records'. Well, nobody asked the cops that beat Rodney King's ass what tape they were listening to."
- Rap musician Paris, who recorded "Bush Killa" in 1992.
posted by tpoh.org at 7:05 PM on October 27, 2002

The rules that police are called upon to enforce assume the status of de facto law. Like any government regulation, they (or at the very least, government enforcement of them) can then be challenged on constitutional grounds. I can't say I know San Francisco municipal law very well, but I'm guessing that if the police are called upon to enforce a permit issued by a neighborhood group, that group was given the power to issue such permits from government statute and regulation (i.e. zoning ordinances).

In any case, if the police are doing something, the judiciary has the power to scrutinize what they are doing.

By "above post", do you mean the one where you mention libraries and Eminem, or the one about the Dead show in Alpine Valley? Because if it's the latter, I have to contest your representation of the facts a little - this Janesville Gazette story asserts that the county relented when Clear Channel (the concert promoters) threatened to sue if the concert was banned, not when the promoters hired extra security. Apparently, they hired more security anyway, or at least did something to placate authorities; according to the article, "Clear Channel Officials worked with [Walworth County Sheriff David] Graves," but is vague about what that exactly means. In any case, the Gazette article I've linked lists several changes to Walworth County ordinances stemming from that and other conflicts over Alpine Valley, none of which say, "No touring jam-band hippie music," or anything like it. The new ordinance, as far as I can tell from the article, is entirely content-neutral; it does not seek to ban future Grateful Dead concerts.

I'm not sure I made myself clear, but I do not object to time, place, and manner regulations of speech, per se. Prohibitions against yelling in a library or playing loud music at 2 am are content-neutral and serve a legitimate public interest, and therefore are okay in my book. It is when statutes and regulations prohibit certain forms of expression based on the content of that expression that they run afoul of the Constitution.
posted by skoosh at 7:32 PM on October 27, 2002

It is when statutes and regulations prohibit certain forms of expression based on the content of that expression that they run afoul of the Constitution.

Once again:

There is no statute that forbids the playing of Rock, Rap, of "hip-hop". The Potrero Hill Boosters has a list of music it doesn't want in the area, but that is not law.

There is no local ordnance that says what types of music are not allowed...

My question is: How much influence does Portero Hill have over the police. The article is very vague... Does the community association represent a over-whelming majority of the local populous, that the police must pay heed to it?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:25 PM on October 27, 2002

i'm so sick of the guardian. if it'll stop sounding so vehement it might actually start gaining credibility among people who don't agree with it already.
posted by elle at 9:11 PM on October 27, 2002

This isn't actually a new issue in San Francisco. here's a 1998 article of a similar bent Then it was especially regarding all the yuppies moving into SOMA lofts and trying to shutdown some staples like the Paradise lounge and Slim's, a friend of mine helped when Butter was opening (9th and Harrison area). For them to get appropriate zoning they had to serve food so they sell tater tots and corn dogs (the kitchen consists of 4 microwaves and that's it) and the DJ is technically a "busboy"

One of the banes of San Francisco (and I've lived here my whole life) is the strength of it's community groups. The Mission district has made it virtually impossible to open a new restaurant there.
posted by bitdamaged at 9:20 PM on October 27, 2002

"Rap music attracts a certain 'element' that may or may not be desirable,"
According to Captain Corrales, hip-hop music often draws gang members.

I can't see the difference between this and banning country music in clubs because it may attract some racist or homophobic fans.

If violence is a issue, then the club owners need to provide security. They need to eliminate the reasons that the community associations protest them.

Right, SaL. But doesn't it make more sense for the permit to contain a clause about providing adequate security, crowd-control measures, and sound-proofing than to restrict the type of music? The problem isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) the kind of music or the kind of people who listen to it, but how large groups of those people--or any people--may behave.
posted by hippugeek at 9:38 PM on October 27, 2002

It's just like footloose.
posted by holloway at 10:23 PM on October 27, 2002

Sounds like a scheme by the rap industry to promote sales.....
posted by troutfishing at 5:27 AM on October 28, 2002

"there shall be no live rap, heavy metal or hard rock music at the premises."

Is everybody (except Darke) just ignoring this very significant line on purpose?

Yeah I think so. It was painted as a race issue to make it sound more taboo. It was convenient. The jist is that they don't want certain kinds of gigs at their town's clubs. Non-issue. I don't care.
posted by ed\26h at 7:42 AM on October 28, 2002

Steve_at_Linnwood said:

"There is no statute that forbids the playing of Rock, Rap, of "hip-hop". The Potrero Hill Boosters has a list of music it doesn't want in the area, but that is not law."

According to the article, some club owners were required by the police to sign agreements that banned these types of music as a condition of getting a permit. Excercise of the police power is subject to constitutional scrutiny just as much as written laws.

I don't know if the article's claim is accurate (the SF Bay Guardian is indeed pretty sensationalistic), but if it is, this kind of content-based restriction is clearly unconstitutional and would not hold up in court. But no one is going to go to court over this, because then the police will never give them any other permit again.
posted by maciej at 7:51 AM on October 28, 2002

Only in America...the land of the free;)
although it sounds like sensationalised bullsh*t to me.
posted by mary8nne at 12:56 PM on October 28, 2002

I'm here in SF and while the Bay Guardian is often the height of biased journalism, it has a point.

San Francisco is full of xenophobic, unfriendly and socially-hostile NIMBY groups that try their best to close down any "disturbance" in the neighboorhood. The police are merely serving the public, but the public in this case are the loudest ones (politically) — the neighborhood groups. If any jerk resident has a problem with the nightclub down the block, they can file a truckload of grievances that the police can no longer ignore, so they'll take it out on the clubowner through fines and unreasonable permits. The result is that there's one less venue for live music, and one less reason to enjoy San Francisco's music scene.

One group where I live has members that want to shut down our local recycle center. They say it's too noisy… I live closer to the center than these complainers, and it's not the least bit noisy. I've also lived here my whole life, and most of the members have barely been here a decade. Why would you move to a dense urban city in the first place if you can't stand the noise? Go to Daly City if you want dull peace and quiet.

It's these hostile yet influential committees that are crushing all the life and culture out of this once vibrant city scene, and I think it's a shame.
posted by Down10 at 1:56 PM on October 28, 2002

crap. closed quote.
posted by Down10 at 1:57 PM on October 28, 2002

The conditions of the permit(s) are:

The place of entertainment permit is necessary for all clubs that offer live or recorded music. The dance-hall keeper's permit was needed by clubs that allowed dancing on premises. Then there was the cabaret permit required by venues staying open past 2 a.m.

and

Paul, who is currently doing pro bono work for CELLspace, an artist collective in the Mission trying to win an entertainment permit, questions the "flavor limitations" the SFPD will lay down when deciding what is good music

Where does it say "no hip-hop"? The article does not explain what "flavor limitations" are. Sounds vauge, but it does not mean "no hip-hop."

"The Civil Grand Jury recommends a reconsideration of the permit process to ensure equal treatment of applicants and permit holders."

"[E]qual treatment" = Equal Protection issue. Note the concern for the equal application of the law and no concern for speech. It's plain as day.
posted by Bag Man at 4:50 PM on October 28, 2002

For instance, according to guidelines given to Robertson by John De Castro, president of the Potrero Hill Boosters, Lingba Lounge must agree "there shall be no live rap, heavy metal or hard rock music at the premises." In addition, the bar wouldn't be allowed to promote its events "on any electronic media outlet that features rap, heavy metal or hard rock

Wow! It is that last clause that really caught my interest. In order to get a permit the club owner had to agree not to advertise on a rock or rap radio show. What is the reasoning behind that? Is it just that the community doesn't want anybody who enjoys rock or rap music to come to the bar? That is a pretty big cross-section of America. And what kind of Rock, exactly? Is golden-oldies Rock and Roll considered "Rock"? What about "soft Rock"? Bubble-gum Music? Apparently it is allowable to advertise on C&W or classic music stations.

The place of entertainment permit is necessary for all clubs that offer live or recorded music. The dance-hall keeper's permit was needed by clubs that allowed dancing

Imagine the confusion if you got the first but not the second permit. "I'm sorry, Sir, you have to go back to your seat. We are not allowed to have any dancing on the premises. Oh, you just had to go to the bathroom really, really bad? Well try not to wiggle so much."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:36 PM on October 28, 2002

SLG,

The article is ambigous whether or not the "guidelines" are a clause in the permit or just the type of music that the Potrero Hill Boosters don't like. It seems that the Potrero Hill Boosters, not the SF police, are the ones who are cracking down on clubs that play certain types of music. What seems to be going on is that whenever the Potrero Hill Boosters hear that a club is playing music they don't like they call the cops. The cops check the club for the proper permit. If the club does not the proper permit the cops take action. The cop's conduct seems to be blind to the type of music. If the Lingba Lounge had the proper permit the cops could take no action and the Potrero Hill Boosters would have to live with the rap (or find another way to shut the place down).
posted by Bag Man at 9:33 AM on October 29, 2002