"Under the old rule, city regulators could respond to complaints about loud noise or violence inside or outside a business. Now they can only respond to problems that take place on the premises -- not, for example, on the street outside."
Why on earth would the bar owners object to police presence in the vicinity of their establishments to get the drunks off the streets after they've been 86ed??? Give the legislators in the hip pocket of the Restaurant Assoc. your views!!

geno, the issue was more about City regulators, not police presence, as the quote you use suggests. Under the TPM ordinance, the City could take specific restrictive actions (limiting "time, place, and manner" hence the name of the law) against alcohol-serving establishments based upon repeated problems occuring in their vicinity.

I say that not because I think gutting the City regulation is right (it's not), but just to make sure we understand what the issue is.

off topic, but congrats are in order. Jack gets mad props in the local fishwrap.

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6615

can i reserve my 'You Don't Know BoJack' and 'Blog This' t-shirts now?

Why on earth would the bar owners object to police presence in the vicinity of their establishments to get the drunks off the streets after they've been 86ed???

I think one reasonable objection would be from bar owners located in a cluster of bars--once people get out onto the street and start acting like louts, how can you say which bar in the area should be responsible for overserving them? On some blocks of downtown there are a large number of bars, and so if someone makes a noise complaint against patrons outside bar A, who can say whether or not it was bars B-E that got them drunk? And there are pretty stiff penalties for bar owners in this scenario, so I can see that they'd be worried about this.

That being said, it's pretty clear that this is a blatant example of the alcohol lobby buying yet another bill from the legislature.