Late-night trading debate now in black and white

COMMENT

Almost the most fun a council nerd can have (with their clothes on) is to make a submission to Council and then, months later, read a point-by-point response to it in black and white.

It’s where two universes meet, where one’s personal world-view intersects with that of a large bureaucracy and the resulting tear in the space-time continuum allows a glimpse into alternative realities beneath the surface of spin and counter-spin.

For some arcane reason the City of Sydney last year invited responses to research it had commissioned to quantify the idea of ‘oversaturation’ of liquor outlets, a concept the anti-alcohol lobby has floated in recent years in its drive to curb the night economy.

The City had leapt on the bandwagon and used the argument to oppose an application to turn the old Hungry Jack’s in Kings Cross into gastropub Springfields, now demised.

But the Land and Environment Court rejected the City’s argument because there was no quantifiable evidence of ‘oversaturation’.

Hence the research in two parts, one studying selected evidence and attempting to link concentration of venues in Kings Cross, Oxford Street and George Street with rising ‘alcohol-fuelled violence’; and the other a vox pop of residents interviewed on the street, aimed at establishing a perception of oversaturation.

The research, unsurprisingly, was said to support the anti-alcohol agenda and Clover Moore triumphantly lugged it around community meetings. Since then Cr Moore’s War Against Kings Cross etc has proceeded in leaps and bounds, with the State legislating a freeze on all liquor-related development in our entertainment precincts, weekend blockades of streets feeding the Cross, unrelenting clawback of conditions previously granted to venues and a consistent campaign against late night food outlets.

My reading of the research, however, revealed some apparently gaping holes in the evidence, and I responded accordingly when Council invited comment.

I pointed out Figure 28 which asked locals how Kings Cross might be improved. Only 16 percent of the 190 surveyed wanted fewer pubs and clubs, even though 50–60 percent named alcohol-fuelled fallout as the worst aspect of living in the area. I concluded that the other 84 percent might indeed think as I and my friends do – that we choose to live in an entertainment precinct because we like it despite the fallout.

At the time, 16 percent was Malcolm Turnbull’s popularity rating as opposition leader – it’s not a sound basis for political leadership or a sweeping anti-nightlife policy.

So I read Council’s response to my comment with bated breath:

“The… Study does not attempt to infer the reasons behind certain responses, as this would only be speculative. The questions were also asked in different contexts: as the 16% were unprompted it cannot be inferred that 84% do not want restrictions.”

There you go then.

Several comments (including mine) mentioned that the research had used alcohol-related violence data only up to 2006. It was said to show a rising trend, supporting the venue-saturation theory. In the three years after 2006, however, the floorspace of big pubs and clubs in Kings Cross increased by a capacity of over 3,000, and if saturation point had been reached in 2006 as the study attempted to show, violence rates should have risen exponentially if the theory was sound. However senior police at community meetings over the same period consistently reported fewer and fewer assaults.

This rather pulls the rug from under saturation theory, and refutes repeated claims by the anti-alcohol lobby that “alcohol-fuelled mayhem” was “out of control and getting worse”.

Council replied to the comments: “The data used in the NDARC Study was the most complete and up-to-date data available at the time…”

Maybe, but it was still out-of-date and completely misleading.

Reading the 31-page report was even more fun for its insight into everyone else’s submissions.

Darlinghurst Resident’s Action Group (DRAG) topped the comment tally with no less than 74 responses. Among other things, DRAG asked for anti-clustering rules, whereby a business of similar type is forbidden to open within a certain distance from another. Council applies such a rule to adult businesses in Sydney, with a 75-metre buffer. The previous South Sydney Council exempted Kings Cross from this rule, for obvious reasons, but the City slapped it on to the Cross in the hope that if a strip club or sex shop went broke, the premises would have to stay vacant until another type of business took the lease. This has indeed happened a few times since, which is probably why Police raided Kings Cross sex shops a few years ago and confiscated all the X-rated videos.

Council’s rebuttal of the DRAG request: “Clustering activity in commercial centres generally reduces migration through surrounding areas…” thus apparently contradicting their own adult premises policy.

Currently, 2am lockouts and other restrictions are imposed on the “48 most violent” pubs in Sydney – none of which are in Kings Cross. But DRAG wants the sanctions applied to all venues in high-density areas.

DRAG also thinks that footpath licences should be frozen; that saturation points should be determined through an annual petition of residents; that Council properties should not be leased to venues in saturated areas; that the City should forbid the conversion of (for example) banks to pubs; that multiple venues in the same premises be banned; that bottle shops should cease trading earlier in saturation areas, and small bars should not be approved at all; that other businesses that feed into late-night venues should be banned; that trial periods should be reduced in length; that all licensing approvals, including for restaurants, should be decided by Councillors, not staff; that all such DAs should be reviewed by independent panels including residents, health and church groups, but excluding the liquor industry; and so on.

Many of DRAG’s suggestions were opposed in the Council response.

There were 30 submissions. Most independent submissions and resident groups supported the research but business and liquor organisations were critical.

But Council’s report on the research said any shortcomings pointed out in submissions were minor and did not affect the conclusions of the research, and Council would continue implementing policies along these lines. So there you are.

by Michael Gormly