Scott Hutcheson from the Mayor's Office of Cultural Economy plans to make navigating City Hall red tape easier for businesspeople.
Email this page"Can you do what you want to do where you want to do it?" According to Scott Hutcheson, Cultural Economy Advisor to Mayor Mitch Landrieu, that's the question. Recent controversies involving The Circle Bar and Siberia have caused some to think the Mayor has declared war on live music, but Hutcheson doesn't see it that way. "What you saw happen was not against musicians or the music. It was a business who was not in compliance with the licenses they had. The impact happened to be on musicians. This isn't about valuing or not valuing music. It's about a business owner satisfying his obligations as a business owner."
In the case of The Circle Bar, city officials helped owner Dave Clements get his paperwork in order so that he could once again have live music in slightly more than a week. People in Councilperson Kristin Gisleson-Palmer's office are similarly working with the owners of Siberia to help them work through the zoning maze they ran into. To help avoid similar situtions in the future, the Mayor's Office of Cultural Economy will roll out "Permits and Licenses for Cultural Businesses: A Basic Guide" this fall, ideally next month. It's a step-by-step guide to the process of opening a business, particularly with regards to zoning, licenses and permits, and in its draft form, it boils the process down to 10 pages starting with "Zoning 101." The remaining 23 pages lay out the legalese summarized in the guide.
"This is a tool," Hutcheson says. "It doesn't change the law, but it lets people come in knowing your first question should be about zoning, your second question should be about your occupational pieces, and walk them through that and connect them to the people who have those answers."
Clearly, City Hall's historic reputation as a bureaucratic tangle is a sensitive point, and the guide is only part of the effort to clarify the process. Zoning Administrator Edward Horan recognizes that the zoning map on the city's website has its shortcomings. Interested parties can't search by address, but instead click on a series of map coordinates to download a corresponding pdf. Finding zoning for a specific address requires downloading a series of pdfs to hunt "Battleship"-style for the actual target location.
"I've been working with the GIS - the web-based mapping - to get a more public-friendly zoning interface," Horan says. "We're not there yet, but we're going to get there."
Many problems that business owners face arise from changes that come about to address financial concerns. Collector of Revenue Romy Samuel believes restauranteurs, for example, "probably really want to open a bona fide restaurant but it evolves into something else. We want to make sure you're compliant." To that end, she suggests that people opening businesses be as upfront as possible not only about planned uses but possible uses. "You have to tell us what you'd like to do. That's what we operate on. You can't leave out that you want to do live entertainment, even if it's a thought. Let us know because that's the only thing we can operate off of."
In conversation, Hutcheson echoes a theme Landreu sounds frequently: balance. It's clearly the view of this administration that its role is that of facilitator; it gets the various interests to the table to talk. It's up to the parties to reach agreements. "Government as a whole works to be responsive, but it is responsive to the whole constituency," he says. "Our philosophy is to take that 40,000-foot view of the landscape and see what can we do as a government to create an environment where arts and culture can flourish. Sometimes that bumps up against a business practice and we have to work through that."
One of the challenges, Hutcheson says, is dealing with the law as written. The existing sound ordinance was written in 1956, but since it hasn't been re-writen, street musicians fall under it, and while he agrees that live music occupies a special place in New Orleans, efforts to clarify their place in the French Quarter have to come through a revision of the sound ordinance. He acknowledges that there are meaningful differences between types of sound, but says, "It's not a music ordinance; it's a sound ordinance. We didn't put them there; they were in there."
So far, the working group assigned to the task of proposing revisions to the sound ordinance has addressed loudspeakers, but Hutcheson recognizes that what's at stake is more than just the volume of canned zydeco blaring out of T-shirt shops and dance music thumping on Bourbon Street at night.
"The purpose of that working group and the purpose of this office [is] to start looking at equity, and not just musicians playing on the street. It's social aid and pleasure clubs, it's Mardi Gras Indians," he says. "It's our indiginous culture that's going to happen whether there's a law around it or not. I think the Mayor made it really clear when this came up some time ago when he said we have to balance the value of a living neighborhood, cultural origination, [and] a visitor destination. What's so great about New Orleans is that it's a living cultural experience. It does not stop. You don't cage it. My office's role and certainly the Mayor's philosophy is not to put a cage around culture but to establish a stronger platform on which it can sit. But, we have to work with the tools that we have and change them as we move along. That's a governmental process. That's a long process. We are the government. We are a process because people have to live with it for a long time. The sound ordinance that exists now was written in 1956 when New Orleans was a different place and the French Quarter was a different place.
"By its nature, New Orleans is a city of celebrations of joie de vivre. We wouldn't want to make it not what it is. Our goal is recognizing that government is not the purveyor of taste. It's not the purveyor of what's good, what's not good; where you should be, where you shouldn't be to create. Our job is to make sure that there's a balance and that the laws recognize that. We don't approach it as, 'It's better if it only happens here.' or 'It should never happen here.' And if some government took that stance - I don't think this administration's going to take that stance - New Orleans by its nature for almost 300 years now has created its own identity and it would continue to create that identity. That's the beauty of New Orleans. It transcends an ordinance; it transcends a government."
Your Spilt Milk
Alex,
Has city hall ever actually outlined what the purpose of a live music permit/license is? (Not it terms of noise, which is a separate issue, but the provision of allowing live music in a business) What does it provide the holder? What rules does it impose on the holder and the musicians who perform under it's permitted use? What protection or service does the city provide the holder in return for holding the license? What regulations can be enforced under it's use? Is there a regulatory group or marshaling agent or agency that enforces it's rules and provisions? In short, why does a business need one, what purpose does it serve and where does the money go? I have yet to hear any explanation regarding this permit that doesn't sound like straight up extortion. I'd like to think that's not what it is but, well, that's pretty much what it looks like.
So far, my experience reading ordinances and regulations is that they say what you can or can't do, but not why. I know that when I've talked to city representatives, they've pointed to things like the impact on a neighborhood - traffic, parking, noise - but for me to say more would be speculating.
Alex, thank you for the post. I have to say, I'm skeptical whenever I hear: "It's clearly the view of this administration that its role is that of facilitator; it gets the various interests to the table to talk. It's up to the parties to reach agreements."
It is the role of _facilitators_ to facilitate. It is the role of leaders to lead. You don't run for mayor to facilitate. Is there a vision or isn't there? If the mayor believes in a cultural economy then he needs to take a leadership position and _advocate_ for this.
Live music in New Orleans _predates_ the zoning code. Corner bars in New Orleans predate the zoning code. Corner grocery stores predate the zoning code. Mardi Gras Indians predate the zoning code.
If the city made a mistake in 1956, our task as sentient beings and current inhabitants of the city is to use our lessons learned to correct the mistakes. Not to be bound by them as if they are some mystic truth.
Geoff - I'm with you in the desire to have the Mayor's Office advocate more forcefully for New Orleans' culture, but my talk with Scott Hutcheson was completely consistent with a conversation I had with Mayor Landrieu in terms of the role of government. That said, I think they've also been consistent in their desire to let New Orleans culture be New Orleans culture, and many of the occasions that prompted what have been seen as anti-culture actions were actions on businesses that weren't in compliance, and that unfortunately affected musicians.
I didn't take what Hutcheson said about 1956 to be an indication that the laws of 1956 are now set in stone. The working group's task is to recommend a new noise ordinance that reflects current realities including live music in the streets. In a part of the conversation I didn't use in the story, I asked about the process to change the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance because its definition of "live entertainment" covers not only live music but DJs, plays, poetry readings and mimes. I suggested that the definition was so all-encompassing that it didn't reflect the different natures of the draws and neighborhood impacts that these different forms of entertainmnet brought, and that it likely needed to be changed. As he walked me out, Hutcheson agreed that that likely needs to be revisited. Will it happen soon or be a priority? Who knows, but my impression is that the adminstration would like older governing documents to be brought up to date to reflect the way we live now.
Venues pre-dating zoning - the CZO was written in 1970, I think - were generally granted non-conforming use status (or that's what I was told. I haven't researched this). Tipitina's is in a residential neighborhood, so it and the auto repair around the corner continue as they were as non-conforming uses. I suspect this part of your note was largely rhetorical, but since I actually had something on this, I figured I'd throw it in.
My big picture take is that in general, zoning ordinances and the various controlling documents are traditionally written to favor property values and business conditions. I take the Mayor's Office at its word in its desire to support culture in New Orleans, but it has to start with a network of culture-unfriendly (or at best, culture-neutral) documents in place.
Alex,"I take the Mayor's Office at its word in its desire to support culture in New Orleans, but it has to start with a network of culture-unfriendly (or at best, culture-neutral) documents in place."The one consistent problem with your takes on this (and this carries through to your criticisms of my article), is that you behave as if the mayor's office is trapped by existing ordinances and is now compelled to go through this rather novel enforcement effort. This has no basis in fact and amounts to bending over backwards to exonerate the mayor. There is absolutely *nothing* preventing the mayor from simply calling back this enforcement effort or at least allow music venues to continue to operate pending resolution of zoning and permitting issues. The mayor has a great deal of discretion in the manner in which he enforces these rules and regulations. Right now, he's being fairly strict about it, and that's his choice.Siberia is a great example. You've said over and over that they "voluntarily" stopped having live music, but why would they do that? The only reason they've stopped having live music is because the mayor's office hasn't told them that they will stop any enforcement efforts against them pending a decision on their zoning application. It is the threat, or at least the fear, of action from Safety and Permits that is causing this problem. Siberia would have live music tommorrow if the mayor would simply write a letter to the owners saying that he understands their problem and the city won't move against Siberia if it continues to have live music while it works with the city. He has not done so. There is no straight-jacket on the mayor here, and I don't know why you continue to act as if there is. You've changed "the buck stops here" to "what buck?"
Alex, Thanks for the thoughtful follow up. In general, I agree with your assessment. Where I would put a finer point on it -- and this definitely gets into policy wonk land so my apologies -- is when we talk about "actions on businesses that weren't in compliance." In some instances this is blatant on the part of a business owner (shame on them), in some cases it is ignorance, but in many cases the new rules and regulations in place simply do not allow for the cultural ecosystem to replicate itself and grow.
The larger, structural issue remains and continues to do damage to the cultural ecosystem. You hint at this when you mention non-conforming use status. Yes, a corner bar in existence when the CZO was written was grandfathered in. However, if / when that corner bar / music venue / grocery store / po-boy shop whet out of business -- especially if it remained closed longer than 6 months -- it lost its non-confirming use status.
Drive around uptown or mid-city and note all the corner commercial buildings and restaurants that have been converted to residential uses. No one objects to this and this is the default action encouraged by the regulations. Now think of all the fights when someone attempts to re-activate one of these buildings as a restaurant / bar / music venue / po-boy shop.
The net result is 30+ year on-going reduction in the physical space available for cultural creation -- and, I would argue, economic development. So looping back to my original concern about enforcing regulations on businesses that are not in compliance -- many of the businesses we want and need in this city can't exist under existing regulations -- if a corner po-boy shop needs 5 parking spaces (or whatever the number is) it cannot by definition be a corner po-boy shop. And what I haven't heard from the mayor is a forceful laying out of this fundamental conflict. There is much talk about "cultural economy" -- every city is now doing this -- but little detailing of the specific path forward by which we restore balance that has been lost.
Again, I think we are mostly on the same page. I am just looking for a bit stronger leadership on this issue as opposed to a more politically safe position of facilitation.
I'm with you in the desire, but the alternative is what we've lived with for years - administrations selectively enforcing laws and ordinances when they want to and the way they want to. When that selective enforcement works for you, that's great but when it doesn't, you have no recourse. Instead, I think they're working within the frameworks they inherited and are trying to effect the best results possible within those frameworks, at the same time seeing what can be done to change them as well.
Alex,"[T]he alternative is what we've lived with for years - administrations selectively enforcing laws and ordinances when they want to and the way they want to."Which is exactly what an executive is supposed to do, and what Landrieu is doing now. A mayor has to allocate enforcement resources selectively. There is no option of rigorously enforcing everything. Even now, Landrieu is focusing only on the permitting for live music. Now, some bars have other forms of live entertainment -- like DJs, for example -- but that doesn't require a live music permit. Landrieu is choosing to enforce the laws requiring mayoralty permits and requiring zoning compliance in conjunction with those permits, but he does not appear to be performing a broad crackdown on zoning violations. Doesn't that strike you as selective? And even when Landrieu does enforce zoning and permitting laws, he can lessen the impact of enforcement by agreeing to maintain the status quo pending decisions by the city. Conversely, what you're presenting is a false choice between corrupt enforcement and mindless enforcement, as if Landrieu has to either engage in cronyism or enforce zoning and permitting laws to the maximum without regard to the harm caused. That is not the case, and never has been the case.
Owen -
A few quick points/clarifications:
You're right in that there's always a selective dimension to enforcement, but when I talk about selective enforcement, I mean that the same infraction isn't dealt with equally.
You wrote, "Even now, Landrieu is focusing only on the permitting for live music." That's not true. Ask Snake and Jake's, Cooter Brown's and Dos Jefes got popped for underage drinking. Wit's Inn, TJ's Bar and Nia's Half Time also were cited for various infractions.
In general, your stance seems to be that because the city's not handling live music-oriented issues in a more live music-friendly way, that's evidence of its hostility to live music. I'd like to see the Mayor's Office be more aggressive in its support of live music too, but I don't see the fact that they're not doing more as a sign of malign intent. To me, it looks like a government behaving a lot like a government.
Alex,I didn't mean that Landrieu isn't enforcing any other law relative to bars; I meant that he's selectively enforcing zoning restrictions insofar as they relate to the archane mayoralty permit requirement but is not doing a general crackdown on zoning violations. This puts live music at a particular disadvantage due to selective enforcement as opposed to other uses. But since you mention it, the recent crackdown on "nuisance bars" for violations that are frequently trivial at best is yet more evidence that Landrieu's policies are damaging to live music. I don't care whether it's malign intent or just negligence -- the outcome is the same.
Do you know for a fact that the city isn't checking for other zoning, permit and license violations? Or is it possible that we simply aren't hearing about them because they're not as dramatic as something that affects The Circle Bar?
"Malign intent or just negligence" - that's really the sticking point. "War" implies an act of aggression with hostile intent, which is something I've never seen. But have enforcement decisions harmed live music? Sure. Could City Hall be more supportive of live music? Sure, but that's not the narrative you've been advancing.
Alex,I haven't see evidence that Landrieu is doing enforcement sweeps for violations of zoning regulations apart from permitting issues, at least in the absence of complaints. I have also not seen anything like this done before. I've heard anecdotally that a similar crackdown was done in the early 90's, and of course when a venue generates complaints it can be targeted, but this is the first time I've seen the city telling venues to stop having live music sua sponte. As for "hostile intent" versus "negligence," I'll just say this: Mayor Landrieu is the chief executive and chief enforcement officer. The buck stops with him. If the executive does something -- anything -- every citizen should assume Landrieu intended it and hold his feet to the fire for it. The current enforcement drive may or may not be on auto-pilot with Landrieu over-delegating to his subordinates, but if the outcome is that the city is telling music venues to stop having live music, even as they work through the system, I'll give Landrieu 100% of the blame for that, and yes, I'll call it a war. The problem I have with your narrative (aside from the fact that you sandbagged me with it) is that it presumes Landrieu isn't fully responsible for the actions of his administration, and that the city can threaten draconian enforcement measures and if a venue shuts down in response, it's "voluntary." You seem to think that enforcement threats either aren't the mayor's responsibility or aren't something he can control, and heck, they don't even qualify as coercion anyway.
Owen - I'm going to stop now because we're looking at the same circumstances and coming to very different conclusions. We've illuminated our points of view and where they come from and that's valuable, but I don't see how this is going to move forward as anything but a retrenchment and restatement of positions.
Alex,
To be fair, you did more than just differ with my point of view in your earlier piece; you basically accused me of sensationalism, and worse, of sacrificing the truth. I was blindsided because we had talked before you wrote the piece and you never suggested any of this. It's something I feel the need to respond to vigorously, particularly given how you're accepting what Landrieu says uncritically.
When we talked, I was interested in where you were coming from. I didn't have a point of view on the story yet, but from the start I've thought you pointed at an important area to examine - the zoning ordinance. Still, our conversation was before I had talked to any of the parties and before I knew any of the actors' stories. I didn't start out looking to sandbag you, but in the time I was reporting the story, "war on live music" became a meme, and the interviews I did led me to a different story.
Let me be clear. I think "war on live music" is sensational, yes, but I don't think you "sacrificed the truth." I don't think we agree on what the truth is, though, and that underlies our disagreements.
I am less concerned with the permitting issue, being that there are more live stages to play in New Orleans than any city I have ever been to and honestly have never had a problem getting a gig. I am however, as an artist and a musician, really upset about the flyering laws. I really think it has impacted our community adversely, and I wonder why no one really wants to spend time on the issue. Is it because it's a done deal? In my other career as an art restorer I would note that posters and flyers are some of the most valuable artifacts of rock history both monetarily and as historical documents. Did the city address this?
Somewhere yesterday I heard that there's been an agreement that flyers can't be more than one-deep and that they have to come down within five days after a gig, but I can't remember where or how official what I heard was. Subject for further investigation.
Pages
Add new comment