logo
Raleigh bar, nightclub owners have ‘notable level of mistrust' of city, report says

Raleigh bar, nightclub owners have ‘notable level of mistrust' of city, report says

Yahoo14-05-2025

There is a 'notable level of mistrust' between nightlife venues and the city of Raleigh, according to a new report.
Enforcement of COVID-19 regulations, struggles after the pandemic and frequent changes to the city's noise ordinance have contributed to the mistrust between the city and bar and nightclub owners.
That's according to a report, commissioned by Responsible Hospitality Institute, that was presented to the Raleigh City Council Tuesday afternoon.
The city spent $100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funding for a Social City Assessment, to analyze the 'strengths, challenges and opportunities within the social economy of the Fayetteville Street and Glenwood South districts.'
'I want to leave you with the idea that the earlier you engage with these folks about what it is that you expect of them as a city, and what you want them to do, and how you are happy they're here and you want to support them, the better,' said Jocelyn Kane, senior consultant for Responsible Hospitality Institute. 'And that night life and the social economy here is vital and important and not a nuisance to just manage it, but to support because of value it brings to your city.'
The report focused on how to improve the two areas of downtown Raleigh — both central to the city's entertainment scene — that have struggled in recent years for different reasons.
Glenwood South, a stretch of several blocks of Glenwood Avenue, bounced back quicker after the pandemic but faced numerous complaints from residents about noise, crime and other 'quality of life' problems. On Fayetteville Street, foot traffic has slowed due to hybrid work and safety concerns.
The tensions go back to the pandemic, when the city was charged with enforcing the state's COVID-19 policies and restrictions.
In April 2020, the city's Office of Special Events took over responsibilities for outdoor seating and private use of public spaces. Since many events were canceled during the pandemic, they shifted to 'COVID enforcement.' That enforcement was focused in particular on limiting capacity in indoor places — and in crowded Glenwood South bars — and mask wearing.
'So we were going to the businesses making sure that people were wearing a mask, that they were seated, that they were abiding by the governor's executive orders at the time,' said Whitney Schoenfeld, with the Office of Special Events. 'So we kind of ended up getting the perception of being the COVID police.'
Since the end of the pandemic, the strained relationship between venues and the city has been exacerbated by changes to the city's noise and nightlife rules.
'Sound is just a very sensitive subject for both our businesses and our residents,' Schoenfeld said. 'So that's part of it it, too.'
The Raleigh City Council updated its noise and nightlife rules earlier this year to crack down on loopholes that bars and restaurants were using to keep the loud music playing after a citation. The new rules, called 'turn down the sound,' require music to be turned down after a citation or face another citation.
Clubs with outdoor, amplified music that get a citation are required to move the music inside for 24 hours.
The News & Observer requested the number of noise violations reported in Glenwood South and downtown Raleigh so far this year.
There were 158 noise complaints from January to September in 2024 with 12 civil violations and 18 criminal citations, The N&O reported previously.
In early 2024, the city also changed from using a decibel reader to a 'reasonable person' standard because it was difficult to pinpoint exactly where the noise came from. City leaders said then it was hard for police to enforce. Sometimes the noise would end before police arrived and it required special equipment and training.
Kane, with Responsible Hospitality Institute, said most of the cities they work with have a decibel-based enforcement.
'The folks that are really good at this and have spent a lot of time on this, also attach a specific number to each venue individually,' she said. 'The more set up for success you can make businesses, the better they can comply.'
Raleigh Mayor Janet Cowell, who was elected last fall, said the noise ordinance change seems to put police and businesses in 'a very awkward position' and leaves 'very frustrated citizens.'
There are large, professional music venues like the city-owned Red Hat Amphitheater in downtown that know how to manage sound and how it impacts the surrounding area, she said.
'And then we have a cliff drop-off to a bunch of backdoor bars that are in an old gas station or a little house, and they're blasting music out,' she said. 'And there really are no standards. Nothing.'
One suggestion is making sure housing developers are aware of the ambient sound on a Friday and Saturday night, Kane said, and making sure bedrooms are placed further away from a lively street.
'There's thousands and thousands of new residential coming that the ground hasn't broken yet,' Kane said. 'And the mixed-use conflict is coming. So how do we given the constraints and rules, encourage thoughtfulness on the side of the development?'
City staff intend to review the report and bring back immediate 'low hanging fruit' that can be implemented soon and recommendations on longer-term plans.
The full report will be shared to the public at 6 p.m. Wednesday at The Chapel at Dix Park.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@

Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean
Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean

Federal and state government officials are axing public health funding—and justifying the cuts with appeals to fiscal this slash-and-burn approach is enormously shortsighted. Every dollar 'saved' now will cost us far more—in both dollars and lives—when the next health emergency inevitably know the toll an infectious disease outbreak can take. We just lived through one. COVID-19 killed over 1 million Americans and cost our economy trillions. Government-funded initiatives—such as federally backed research into mRNA vaccines and 'field team' deployments to local outbreaks—saved us from an even worse those very systems are being torn apart. This year alone, over $1.8 billion in NIH research funding has been terminated. The CDC's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, which sets safety standards for hospitals, was just eliminated. The new federal budget could cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by over a it's not just pandemic preparedness systems suffering from mass layoffs and budget cuts. Institutions designed to protect Americans from foodborne illnesses, antibiotic-resistant infections, and bioterrorism are being gutted as put, this is a catastrophic mistake—one that doesn't merely threaten our health and economy, but also our national officials have long warned that pandemics, bioterrorism, and emerging infections are critical threats to U.S. stability. The Defense Department reported to Congress earlier this year on how it continually works to monitor and prevent infectious disease outbreaks, given that 'a pandemic could potentially impact every component of the Department's ability to perform its mission.'The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology also warned about the growing threat posed by biowarfare in a recent report. Because America's biotech industry is falling behind China's, in part due to the government's dwindling support for research, we're increasingly vulnerable to bioweapon attacks from adversaries, the report United States spends billions to prepare for military threats we hope never materialize. Our leaders need to fund disease prevention efforts with the same urgency we give to tanks and missiles. As we learned from COVID, infectious diseases can cause more death and destruction than even the most powerful conventional also showed us that pandemic preparedness pays dividends. Countries that invested more in limiting disease risks, such as Iceland and New Zealand, experienced lower mortality rates. By contrast, America suffered because we had allowed our public health infrastructure to erode for cannot afford to repeat—or worse, deepen—that mistake. Policymakers can prevent that from happening by restoring funding for public health agencies and investing in resources, such as labs, vaccines, and rapid response teams, that serve as our first and last lines of public health funding may be politically expedient, but preventing infectious disease isn't a partisan issue. Pathogens don't check party affiliation, respect national borders, or stop at state have a solemn duty—both to current citizens and to future generations of Americans—to strengthen the public health institutions that keep us safe. It's time for our leaders to act like Dean is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on

‘We dissent': NIH officials issue declaration, say Trump's agenda puts public at risk
‘We dissent': NIH officials issue declaration, say Trump's agenda puts public at risk

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘We dissent': NIH officials issue declaration, say Trump's agenda puts public at risk

Nearly five years ago, as the pandemic continued to claim the lives of thousands of Americans every day, the public was confronted with a highly controversial joint statement called the 'Great Barrington Declaration.' While the statement endorsed protections for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, it simultaneously argued that public health officials should pursue a radical version of 'herd immunity' by allowing Covid to spread untrammeled through the rest of the population. When Donald Trump effectively stopped trying to deal with the Covid crisis, White House officials said it was because he liked the policy indifference recommended by this 'declaration.' After the president won a second term, he tapped Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of its signatories, to serve as the next director of the National Institutes of Health. Now the 'Great Barrington Declaration' has prompted a sensible bookend called the 'Bethesda Declaration' that's worth paying attention to. The Washington Post reported: More than 90 staffers at the National Institutes of Health signed their names to a letter of dissent to Director Jay Bhattacharya in a rare sign of open resistance by career government employees. The letter warns that Trump administration policies such as terminating peer-reviewed grants, interrupting global collaborations and firing essential staff are wasting public resources, undermining the NIH's mission and harming the health of people in the United States and beyond. 'The life-and-death nature of our work demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted. We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the three-page letter says. 'Many of us have raised these concerns to NIH leadership, yet they remain unaddressed, and we are pressured to implement harmful measures.' The document is called the Bethesda Declaration, of course, because the NIH headquarters are located in Bethesda, Maryland. (Its unsettling 2020 predecessor was prepared at a gathering in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.) It argues that the administration's actions are causing 'a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' with signatories adding that 'For staff across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' In case this isn't obvious, such a statement is far from normal. On the contrary, it's unprecedented for so many current NIH officials not only to denounce their own agency's leadership and the White House's agenda publicly, but to warn the public that the administration is making decisions that put Americans at risk. As for what might happen to those who put their names on the Bethesda Declaration, Bhattacharya said during his confirmation hearings that he would remain open to those with competing ideas. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' As The Associated Press reported, 'That commitment is being put to the test.' This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store