CITYWATCH Is more nightlife regulation a done deal? BY IAN DONNIS

Anyone attending a public hearing of the Providence Board of Licenses on Monday, March 22 would realize there’s a sharp split about the wisdom of imposing new rules and regulations, including a 1 a.m. deadline for admission, on local nightclubs. But as licensing board members accepted testimony before an audience of about 50 people, it was hard not to suspect that proponents, by having advanced their concerns this far, had already carried the day.

Some of the opponents seemed to recognize as much. Michael Kent, for example, who owns the Complex and NV at the Strand, among other clubs and restaurants, described how he has already filed a lawsuit against the city and is seeking an injunction in Superior Court to prevent implementation of the new rules. Kent calls the proposed regulations – which, basically, define nightclubs as alcohol-serving establishments with a capacity for more than 200 people — discriminatory, since they would apply to some nightlife establishments and not others. "It’s prejudiced against larger facilities," Kent says.

Critics cited a litany of other concerns. Mike Corso, who owns Tazza, a café on Westminster Street, questioned whether the new regulations would require him to hire police details or make minors coming in for a morning coffee to wear a bracelet indicating their under-21 status. Steve Brown, associate publisher of the Providence Phoenix, asserted the new rules would be bad for business in the city, adding, "This is not a suburb, this is not North Providence." Similarly, Bert Crenca, the artistic director of AS220, and John Dorr, the owner of Mira Bar, a gay bar on Richmond Street, described vibrant nightlife as an essential part of Providence’s enhanced appeal. Cat Anderson, a 29-year-old transplant from New York City, cited how property values have soared in Boston’s South End, a neighborhood with many nightlife destinations, and expressed her hope that there could be more such local options for adults.

Some proponents of stiffer nightlife regulation, like Sharon Steele, president of the Jewelry District Association, and Jewelry District resident Curt Worden, cited quality of life issues in explaining their stances. Similarly, Lieutenant Timothy Lee of the Providence police pointed to more regulation as a way to reduce problems with underage drinking. In political terms, though, such comments seem almost moot.

In theory, members of the licensing board are supposed to incorporate input from the public hearing into the final regulations that will be considered by the city council. Yet even though police credit a crackdown on underage drinking that began last year with having already yielded progress (see "Battle for the night," News, January 16), it’s clear that the council and Mayor David N. Cicilline intend to charge ahead in squelching Providence nightlife.

Several years ago, regulation proponents began their effort by unsuccessfully trying to roll back the closing time for bars and clubs to 1 a.m. Although that effort came up short, leaders of the effort, such as Michael Hogue, the former president of the Jewelry District Association and Daniel Baudouin, executive director of the Providence Foundation, were savvy enough to assemble an influential coalition encompassing local universities and neighborhood groups. By the time of the hearing earlier this week, the ostensible merits of greater regulation seemed almost besides the point, as evidenced by Baudouin’s mention solely of the breadth of this coalition.