News Tribune

nitrohype 1 year, 2 months ago

WAY TO GO JC Council!!! I'm glad to be part of a city that "ON PURPOSE" stops business from prospering. You wonder why this city is dying.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

wow 1 year, 2 months ago

My concern is that instead of using the already existinbg legal options to correct this problem...the city council felt the need to come up with some "BOGUS" ordinances in order to make the area safe. The JC Council members approved an ordinance that enables the city to revoke a business license if the business operates between the hours of 1:30-4 a.m. and fails to comply with certain fire code requirements and what the city. This sounds like it is directed ONLY at the owner of Club Motivation and no other business....I mean after all there are no other establishments opened at that hour in JC. Yes the crowd at Club Motivation has been involved in more gun play and fights than at the OK Corral. Add in the other criminal conduct and there is more than enough reason to have the Cops come down hard on this place. The building already had a capacity limit....are you telling me that until now, there was no way to enforce that code? Why is this new code only enforceable to a buisness that operates between 1:30 -4:00am? I betcha' Mike Corner Pockert and all the other Yahoo bars are closed by then. It appears as if the JC concil isn't concerned if those places are breaking the fire saftey codes. I guess my only problem is that instead of correcting the problem...the JC Council has choosen to be selective in who they intend to make follow the rules...and quite frankly, that isn't helping anyone at all.

Let's readjust the ordinance to be enforceable to all establishments at all hours of oeration. After all....common sense tell us that fires can happen anytime, aywhere...not just in business that operate between 1:30AM -4:00AM.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

jc_citizen 1 year, 2 months ago

To The Editor:
Public Safety is important to each and every one of us. Certainly, late night club goers who want to go out and dance, party a little--within reasonable bounds of politeness and consideration for others--by dancing, conversing with friends, making new acquaintances, and even having a few drinks--provided they're not driving afterwards and have someone appointed to be sober for the evening out--is nothing at all about which to be alarmed..
I understand that certain late-night venues--especially the former College Club--have been problematical in the past--according to what I've read--and, most certainly, deserve a bit more attention then other, similar venues which haven't shown themselves to be too terrible a nuisance.
What I find intriguing is that, by the looks of this ordinance--at least on the surface--it seems that what the Jefferson City City Council is trying to do is combat a perceived problem by coming at it through the 'indirect approach,' ie, through the adoption of special fire codes and 'safety requirements' that each business owner who operates within the specified hours would have to adopt.
Club Motivation is only one such venue that is open that late at night. Other venues--which are open twenty-four hours a day, include:
Both Wal-Mart Stores HyVee Supermarket Steak & Shake Restaurant Country Kitchen Restaurant
These are the other late-night venues that come to mind. Are they also going to be subject to this ordinance?
My main concern is this: Relative to 'fire codes,' these types of things should already be in force, prior to a businesses opening. Fire codes pertain to how a building is structured, where the exits are located, what repressive (fire extinguishing issues) measures are in place, etc. To me, they are not to be used to force a business to comply with certain, shall we call them, 'undesirable social elements.'
The one part of the ordinance that any business owners would find beleaguering pertains to the part--stated in the article--that would place responsibility on the business owners for things that happen after a person leaves an establishment. Ergo: When a person leaves a business that operates between the hours of 1:30AM and 4:00AM, it is expected that said business owner will take reasonable 'safety precautions' to make sure that the customers 'don't fight' and 'don't discharge firearms.' (These are two comparatively simple examples, the second of which was mentioned directly as pertaining to the ordinance.) ---(continued next post)---

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

jc_citizen 1 year, 2 months ago

---(Continued From Above)---
My main concern is this: Relative to 'fire codes,' these types of things should already be in force, prior to a businesses opening. Fire codes pertain to how a building is structured, where the exits are located, what repressive (fire extinguishing issues) measures are in place, etc. To me, they are not to be used to force a business to comply with certain, shall we call them, 'undesirable social elements.'
The one part of the ordinance that any business owners would find beleaguering pertains to the part--stated in the article--that would place responsibility on the business owners for things that happen after a person leaves an establishment. Ergo: When a person leaves a business that operates between the hours of 1:30AM and 4:00AM, it is expected that said business owner will take reasonable 'safety precautions' to make sure that the customers 'don't fight' and 'don't discharge firearms.' (These are two comparatively simple examples, the second of which was mentioned directly as pertaining to the ordinance.)
I don't see how any business owner--save for having the power of mind control at-a-distance--could influence a customer who leaves their property to one, not fight, and two, not discharge firearms. For the latter to be effective, a business owner would have to, in essence, be a sworn police officer, court official with arresting authority, civil magistrate with arresting authority, or other such credential, either by appointment, or job--in the case of the police officer, with appropriate educational background and training.
Is anyone at any of the aforementioned late night venues possessed of such a credential? If I were a local business owner, operating within the ordinance's specified hours, and expected to 'keep the peace' amongst my customers, I would, by proxy, have to request of the Country Sheriff and a Presiding Judge or Magistrate, a Sheriff's Deputyship, along with the requisite gear required to carry out said position, ie, squad car or motorcycle, radio gear, firearms and training for same, certifications, etc. Otherwise, how would I go about doing what the ordinance proposes, within the boundaries of law and justice?
Business owners may be able to prevent fights in the parking lot--provided no weapons are involved--but unless the business owner also wishes to wield weaponry enough to 'keep the peace,' this presents more social and legal challenges than most business owners care to contemplate.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

jc_citizen 1 year, 2 months ago

---(Continued From Above)--- Finally, if all the ordinance has been drafted for is to get certain late night venues to 'close down due to failure to be able to comply with local ordinances,' 'red tape,' in essence, rules that the rest of the Jefferson City Business Public At-Large does not have to meet, then I must say, with regret, that the Jefferson City City Council members have regressed backward, and are 'running the city on emotion,' and not on 'Reserved, Conservative, Common-Sense-Based Alliances,' both public and private.
Jefferson City City Council: Please Reconsider Your Reasoning Regarding This Ordinance! -- Look it over, to be sure, but be forthright in your convictions as you're so doing. Ask yourselves this: "Am I setting myself up for legal challenges that will make me look foolish down the road?," or "Am I truly acting out of intellectual and social understanding of the matter, or am I merely letting myself be ruled by emotional overflow?"
Thank you for your time. Pleasant Regards, jc_citizen

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

gofish 1 year, 2 months ago

This ordinance makes the JCPD look like sissy's because you are asking the fire dept to do the police dept's job for them. Guess we know who the REAL heroes are! It's okay, I'm being facetious. While I appreciate the city wanting to solve the problem of controlling the behavior of the patrons at Club Motivation, I think their approach is misguided. Every time the city has a "problem business" they legislate it out of business. Most recently, it was the downtown tattoo parlors. What's happening at Club Motivation is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Therefore, the logical response would be to assign whatever police assets are necessary to deal with the problem, whether it be undercover or uniformed, surveillance or plain view. It's foolish to treat this as a building code violation. The police need to do the job they are paid for, prevent crime first and enforce the law when it occurs.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago

Ahhh, the old ace up the sleeve known as the race card. I think I remember that card being played during the Hollywood's days of shoot em' ups down town. That place left and so did the shooting. Birds of a feather flock together.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Taxpayers shouldn't be paying cops to be private security at one club. The club owners have plenty of opportunity to check themselves, and it hasn't worked. Of course the ordinance targets only one business... only one business has been a consistent problem. Why make the law any broader than it needs to be?

Business owners have the responsibility to secure their parking lot. It is their property. If they have a problem with fights on their property, the business needs to HIRE appropriate security. We shouldn't be paying police to do this.

I mean, if there is a hornet's nest in your backyard, do you swat each individual hornet after it stings you, or do you remove the nest?

Tattoo parlors haven't been regulated out of business. There's at least one downtown.

I don't think anyone is wondering why Jeff City is "dying." It's more alive than ever. Close this piece of carp bar, and anyone who thinks fighting is a good time can get lost. There are plenty of great places in town to chill. I hope it is closed by summer.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

wow 1 year, 2 months ago

JC your statements are right on and a breath of fresh air knowing that there are in fact level headed people in this burg. I'd wager you're not originally from this area, but I could be wrong, yet I don't rerally care as long as you're making sense. The police don't have to be paid Security Guards...based on the history of this club...IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE FOR THE COPS, CITY, COUNTY AND STATE TO DO UNANNOUNCED WALK THROUGHS OF THIS PLACE!!! The Cops can deal with whatever they find. Point is...once the issues stop, then the checks stop. Simple fix.

Race ain't got nothing to do with....unless the JC Council contnues to make it an issue.

Let the Cops do their job.....it won't take very long either. One or two incidents where a few heads get knocked and some folks get carted off to jail and properly prosecuted/sentenced. I'd say the place will be cleaned up in no time! The ordinance is really uneccessary

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

TaxPayer573 1 year, 2 months ago

This just shows that racism is alive and well in JC..Guess the good ole boys had a klan meeting and said.."Hell we can get them with the fire code" notice the 1:30am cut off..guess Bones, Spectators, J Phennys, etc...are safe..oh didn't we just recently have a shooting in the alley of Bones and J Phennys..yeah don't hear about that too much do we..But Sorry Good ole Boys we here to stay..get use to it..Instead of wasting money with your BS meetings..put police in the parking lot of the club..that way we can be proactive instead of reactive..you know like you do up town around closing time..

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal