Old Port can have vibrant, safe night life
E-mail this page Reader Comments (below)
By Erica Schmitz Portland Press Herald Thursday, December 28, 2006
About the Author
Erica Schmitz is coordinator of 21 Reasons, a coalition to support the drug-free development of all Portland youth (
www.21reasons.org).
During the past eight months, it was my honor to serve on the mayor's Old Port Night Life Task Force, charged with developing recommendations for improving and maintaining public safety in the city's entertainment district.
One of our primary tasks -- and the one that has received the most media attention -- was to figure out how to pay for the cost of policing the area. But our overall discussion and final recommendations revolved around a much larger question: How can we prevent problems from happening in the first place?
What we came up with is a list of suggestions that is straightforward, comprehensive, and most importantly -- preventive. These strategies can be boiled down to three key points:
n?Many problems can be avoided through basic planning and design.
In a recent study of 40 cities nationwide, author and retired police lieutenant John Thayer concluded: "Effective entertainment-district policing begins at the district planning and design stage by engineering out features that create demands for police resources."
According to Thayer, effective planning includes avoiding over-concentration of nightclubs and bars as well as sufficient lighting, adequate parking, safe access, plenty of sidewalk space, and public transportation.
In Portland, we have seen these strategies begin to work on Wharf Street, where property owners have taken steps to diversify businesses and improve outdoor lighting. The Task Force is requesting additional physical improvements to further protect public safety.
n?We can't ignore density.
One of the draws of an entertainment district is that patrons can have a choice of places to go, all within walking distance of each other. However, to protect public safety, we must be careful to require enough distance between bars.
Place two bars right next to each other, and no matter how responsibly and conscientiously they are managed, there are going to be more problems than if they were spaced farther apart.
Crime statistics from the Portland Police Department clearly illustrate this. As alcohol outlet density goes up in a community, so do crime, violence and motor vehicle crashes.
The Task Force is recommending a minimum 100-foot door-to-door distance between new bars and nightclubs in the district, which would allow approximately two per block.
My organization recommends a minimum 150-foot distance, allowing fewer than two per block. The goal is to allow as much breathing room as possible between establishments while maintaining walkability.
Existing businesses are not affected, because they are grandfathered in. The dispersement requirement is being tied to entertainment licenses so that restaurants will not be affected. This is because research shows that the density of restaurants is associated with lower rates of reported assaults, while density of bars is associated with higher rates of assaults.
n?A party is all about atmosphere -- and we are the hosts.
We must pay attention to the general atmosphere we're creating in the Old Port. This includes having clear proactive communication and expectations for behavior among all involved -- including bar management, patrons and police.
The Responsible Bar Management Guidelines recently adopted by the Portland Downtown District's Nightlife Oversight Committee lists 29 best practices, from requiring server training to eliminating the aggressive term "bouncer," along with a ban on serving pitchers or shot trays at last call.
As one of our city's greatest assets, the Old Port deserves our care and attention, investment and protection. This includes much more than police coverage. It means paying attention to way we plan and design the physical environment and creating an atmosphere that promotes fun and safety.
The Old Port Night Life Task Force's recommendations provide solid recommendations to make all that a reality.
- Special to the Press Herald
Reader comments
Bob of Portland, ME
Dec 28, 2006 12:32 PM
Dr. Phil, your philosophy is one that lacks any conviction and relevance to this news worthy topic.
Sorry to say Phil, but you lack the facts.
Your tired old argument is nothing more than a solid gust of wind blowing out to sea.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some basic analytical skills rather than "tar and feathering" Ms. Schmitz and her efforts to help make the city you live in a safer place to live.
You should really look up the definition of "teetotaller". Someone's individual choice not to drink intoxicating beverages has little to do with an attempt to increase safety by decreasing the number of bars within specific distances of each other. I think you are confusing it with the term "prohibition".
No one has said anything about closing any bars that are currently in operation.
Again...the factual information escapes your argument.
Thank you Ms. Schmitz for you and your organization.
Dr. Phil of Portland, ME
Dec 28, 2006 10:17 AM
Whoever got the idea that the distance between bars in the old port is significant? An equally convincing argument could be made that doing the opposite, consolidating alcohol serving establishments into one area, would better serve the safety and security needs of the public. It is usually only teetotalling "advocates" who mention distance between bar establishments, because getting their idea incorporated into zoning ordinances would be a way to limit bars which is what they want. It should be noted that according to the URL (21reasons.org) author Erica Schmitz appears to be under drinking age herself and fronts a teetotaller organization.
My comment, not yet posted:
The distance between bars has nothing to do with the safety of an area, and the statistic from which that conclusion was drawn is misleading, for obvious reasons. Say there is a bar that on average handles 50 people per night. and then say there are two smaller bars that both handle 24 people per night, each. Requiring a 100 foot buffer land in between bars would be unreasonable because in the end, you have 48 people separated by 100 feet, and then another 100 feet away you have 50 people in the same spot. This is ridiculous. It will not have any "for sure" effect on density. there will just become a few "popular spots" and people will frequent them more often. Thus making things worse. Clustering, however, allows police to pursue a more active approach in a narrowed area, so that a fight on wharf street does not detract from policing efforts on Fore or Middle. Put them all on wharf, which is essentially only an alley anyway, and keep cops every 100 feet, not bars.
Or, more cheaply, just behave yourselves, people, its really not that hard. I have never, not once, been in a fist fight in the old port, even though I have been approached by many inebriated youngsters looking tough and snarling in my direction. I use the brain God gave me and ignore it.
