Here is a clip of the City of Racine approving a Bar license for a Minority Bar Tinta / Park 6 in 2007
Even before the business was given a license to operate multiple restrictions were placed on the business.
City of Racine Alderman closed Park 6 and took his license for: Over use of police service, disturbing neighbors, street fights. After taking his license in 2011 the City of Racine also took Thomas Holmes ( Park 6 ) to civil court as a nuisance property.
The racial overtones of the PSLC’s selective enforcement process are made clear in the language used in revocation hearings and the side agreements. Because it is no longer officially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race, efforts to excise racial populations must be made through coded language and race-blind attributions. Aaron Roussell, Ph.D.
At the same time Kenny’s Bar was approved for a License to operate a Bar.( 2007 )
No restrictions were place on Kenny’s Bar when it opened.
But having multiple incidents, including several shootings, as well as fights and noise complaints. License continues to be renewed, despite highest call load of any bar in Racine.
Kenny’s Bar remains in business.
JT. Kenny’s owner, Kenneth R. Meyer, was called before the committee after patrons of the bar — some of them underage — were charged in drunken driving incidents that killed two people and seriously injured others
Public Safety and Licensing Committee members had been expecting to hold a due process hearing later this week when they learned Tuesday that the city’s attorney in the case Kenneth E. Rusch, and Meyer, had reached a “side agreement.”
Aaron Roussell, Ph.D. states from his report:
Relying on the information I have received and reviewed, based on calls for service, taverns owned by Whites and catering to White clientele had 13% more violent calls than minority owned taverns whose licenses were revoked. It is clear that White taverns with serious violence issues were not subject to license revocation, while those in the downtown core that catered to young minorities were driven out of downtown through revocation and hamstrung by side agreements.
Moreover, and again based on the information I have received and reviewed, the White taverns minority owned taverns had five times the reported complaints as White taverns in terms of noise and crowd calls, but two-thirds of those were determined to be unfounded; conversely, in White taverns, the complaints were founded over 50% of the time. Interestingly, both the license-revoked minority owned taverns and all minority taverns considered together had five times as many unfounded calls as the White taverns.
The extreme discrepancy between founded and unfounded implies differences in perception. The assessment of the desirability for any given tavern’s clientele appears to be based on race. When pressed for how they could tell from which taverns the disturbing crowds had emerged, the City’s witnesses at Ginger’s due process hearing indicated race and youthful clothing as the primary means.
For example, one witness was asked how she could tell where the people that disturbed her at night came from:
A: Ginger’s has a different crowd, a different clientele…. …
Q: Describe for me how you know that they are different
. A: They are younger, they are black, they are Mexican, the way they dress, the way they talk…That is not the clientele from Evelyn’s, not the crowd from Ricky’s, it is not the crowd from Ivanhoe’s…
Q: One of the problems you have with this crowd is that it is predominantly Mexican or—
A: I don’t have a problem with the type of crowd, I have a problem with how loud they are, how obnoxious they are, the screaming, the yelling. If they didn’t do that and would leave the bar like normal people do…
Not only does the City’s witness clearly state that her complaint is based on race, but she also determines that “normal people”—that is, people who are not “black” and “Mexican”—do not comport themselves in such a manner.