Club owner, attorney say dancehall permit still unfairly targets minority businesses

In October 2013, Charlotte resident Manning Sweat’s recording studio on West 24th Street hosted a girl’s Sweet Sixteen birthday party.

After the party had started, Sweat said his son – who was at the front door of his club – turned two people away because he didn’t think they had been invited. In addition, the party was already full. There was a confrontation. One of the men shot his son in the leg.

A few days after the shooting, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police issued a warrant for Sweat’s arrest. The reason: He held the birthday party without a special “dancehall” permit.

Sweat fought the charge, and a District Court judge found in September 2014 that the city’s 2001 dancehall ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague” in that it was written so broadly that it could be applied to numerous businesses for which it was never intended.

Even more embarrassing for the city: The judge, Donnie Hoover, found that of the 15 dancehalls cited for not having a permit between 2009 and 2014, 13 were owned by African-Americans, one by a Hispanic and one by someone who is white.

The Charlotte City Council last Monday tried to change the ordinance to make it less vague and pass judicial muster. But council members were unable to reach a conclusion to the proposed changes and sent the ordinance back to the Community Safety Committee.

Sweat said the ordinance isn’t necessary for a teen birthday party where no alcohol was served and said he believes Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police unfairly enforce the ordinance.

“We should all be on the same level,” Sweat said, adding that fighting the decision cost him $2,500 a month in lost party rental revenue for nearly a year.

Katie Clary, an attorney who represented another dancehall owner, said the ordinance has been used to target minority club owners.

“The only people in which they are creating mug shots are black people,” Clary said. “It is the most overt surcharge on minority businesses I have seen.”

Crackdown on raves

The ordinance was enacted 14 years ago in response to impromptu raves, and the popularity of club drugs like Ecstasy at those events.

The ordinance defined a dancehall as any place open to the public that has music, has space for dancing (even if there is no dancing actively taking place), and allows admission by payment or donation.

There are exclusions, including private residences, government-owned and -operated buildings, schools, “bona-fide” religious buildings, and any business regulated by alcohol control laws.

Sweat’s recording studio also has a party room that he rents out for gatherings.

He ran afoul of the ordinance because he collected $1 from each guest at the door. He said the parents of the girl were collecting the money for a birthday gift.

In Sweat’s case, his defense team demonstrated – in an almost comical way – the overly broad language of the ordinance.

Samuel Williams, a law student, visited the Harris YMCA. He showed his membership card that costs $66 per month. He said he heard music by Rihanna playing over the building’s sound system, and he found a space available for dancing.

“He danced in view of YMCA employees, who permitted him to do so,” according to Hoover’s court order dismissing the charges against Sweat.

The law student did the same thing at the Phillips Place movie theater. He bought a ticket and began dancing to music playing from the televisions in the lobby. No one stopped him.

He did the same thing at other institutions: The Levine Museum of the New South. The NASCAR Hall of Fame. Even Monkey Joe’s, the children’s indoor playground.

“... (He) found space available to dance and began dancing in view of Monkey Joe’s employees, who permitted him to do so,” Hoover wrote. “Further, when informed of Mr. Williams’ purpose, a Monkey Joe’s employee told him he had just missed a group of children doing the dance known as the ‘Cha-Cha.’”

City changes ordinance

In response to Hoover’s order, the city has tried to change its ordinance.

The new language defines a dancehall as a place “where a dance open to the public is held.”

The previous language said a dancehall could be any place “with space available for dancing.”

In the City Council agenda, the city listed examples of five businesses that would still qualify as dancehalls under the ordinance.

Clary, the attorney, said four of the clubs are minority-owned. Another is a gay club. “Minority businesses have suffered selective enforcement,” she said.

She said her client, Mary Springs, has paid $30,000 for permits over the last 10 years for her club, Crystal on the Plaza.

The city said a dancehall fee now totals just under $4,000. It collected just under $32,000 last year.

Some council members were concerned as to whether the city’s revised ordinance was still too restrictive.

Mayor Dan Clodfelter asked: “Do we still need this (ordinance) at all?”

Council member Patsy Kinsey said the ordinance “is still a little murky to me.”

During the debate, City Manager Ron Carlee asked that council members send the ordinance back to the Community Safety Committee.

The committee Thursday asked that the police study the issue.

“We need to make sure we do this fairly,” said council member Claire Fallon.

This story was originally published May 18, 2015 at 2:00 AM with the headline "Club owner, attorney say dancehall permit still unfairly targets minority businesses."