`AMERICAN DREAM' RUINED BY TAVERN OWNER, NOT POLICE

MICHELLE Malkin's recent column regarding the City's drug-abatement action
to close Oscar's II Tavern ("City officials are ruining family's American
Dream," March 17) presents a moving portrait of a business owner struggling
against a plague of crime and drugs who, despite his best efforts, is
nonetheless shut down by the City, leaving him wondering "Why?"

Any fair-minded, thoughtful review of the evidence would provide a simple
answer: After years of drug trafficking and related crime at Oscar's and
many efforts by the police and the community to stop it and help the owner
establish control, he did not do all he could and should have and the drug
trafficking and violence continued.

A fundamental premise of our laws is that property owners are responsible
for the consequences of what they permit on their property. When a business
breeds crime and the crime harms the neighbors and threatens public safety,
it is not just the owner's efforts that count, it is results. And contrary
to Malkin's view, there is overwhelming evidence that both the efforts by
Oscar McCoy and the results fell far short of what the community has a
right to expect from any business.

In the past five years, Oscar's has generated 324 calls to 911 for
everything from drugs to shootings. The police have repeatedly offered
suggestions to the owner on prevention strategies, including a two-page,
15-step "drug elimination plan" (DEP) provided in 1994. Did the owner
follow through on these suggestions? Listen to what the State Liquor
Control Board had to say following a hearing to suspend Oscar's liquor
license in 1997:

"Mr. McCoy failed to make a serious effort to comply with the DEP. He did
comply with some of the steps . . . but failed to follow through with many
portions of the plan."

The Board found he did not install a video surveillance camera (even an
inexpensive "dummy" camera would have complied with the directive). He did
not lock the restrooms and allow only one person in at a time. He did not
remove the pay phone. He did not charge a re-admittance cover charge or
prohibit "in-and-out" privileges if customers left. He did not install an
alarmed "exit only" on the back door to control coming and going. All these
steps help make drug trafficking more difficult, but as Mr. McCoy
testified, he didn't follow through because he started to lose money when
he did.

Malkin states not a single arrest resulted from 18 "controlled drug buys"
set up by police using "shady informants." The purpose of such buys is to
gather intelligence, not to make arrests (which would "blow" the
informant's cover). The Police Department also takes steps to assure the
reliability of informants.

More importantly, there were 11 felony drug arrests at Oscar's between 1995
and 1997. The drug dealing inside Oscar's was open and obvious, including
evidence that the bartender made change for buyers and sellers. Responding
to the owner's claim that he had no knowledge of the drug dealing, the
Liquor Board found, "This denial is simply not credible."

When the Liquor Board closed Oscar's because of the drug dealing and then
allowed it to reopen 30 days later, the drug dealing immediately resumed
even though Mr. McCoy had been told by both the police and liquor agents
that his door person and bartender were suspected of being involved. The
Board found that Mr. McCoy "did nothing to investigate the situation" and
his liquor license was again suspended.

Malkin suggests that McCoy "diligently" followed suggestions regarding
improving security, including hiring guards and using metal detectors.
But the "guards" were untrained, the "head of security" had a long string
of felony convictions and the metal detectors went largely unused. The
Liquor Board found, "(S)ecurity does not make a good faith effort to check
customers for weapons," and generally did a "poor job."

So poor, in fact, that on Aug. 9, 1997, three men were shot inside the
bathroom at Oscar's, the bathroom McCoy declined to lock and limit to one
person at a time. At least two guns were recovered. The Liquor Board found,
"Based upon numerous observations of inadequate security procedure, it is
more likely than not that the weapons gained entry due to the negligence of
security staff."

The Liquor Board concluded that, "All of the . . . facts led to the
conclusion that Mr. McCoy was in fact `looking the other way' at criminal
activity, and knowingly allowing narcotics activity at Oscar's II." This
Liquor Board action was not initiated by the Seattle Police nor did the
City Attorney's Office participate in it. But based very much on the same
evidence and concerns that motivated the Liquor Board to suspend Oscar's
liquor license, we began a drug abatement in court to close the business.

We are committed to doing all that we can to help responsible,
well-intentioned business people succeed in preventing crime in and around
their premises. Abatement is a drastic measure that is considered as a last
resort when sincere and concerted efforts to solve a problem are ignored or
otherwise do not succeed.

The police have an important role to play, but cannot do it alone.
Certainly, our job should not be made harder by irresponsible business
owners, nor should we allow limited police resources to be excessively
consumed by those who are contributing to the problem instead of helping to
solve it.