We went through the entire ordinance, section by section. Here's what we'd change.
Since we published our breakdown of the 2026 Felder Amendment, we've spent all of our time working on a better solution. I'd rather offer solutions than just criticize people who are trying to make our city better.
As a veteran late-night bartender of nearly two decades, I have a vested interest in and love for Birmingham's nightlife. I've seen the best of it and the worst of it. I've had guns pulled on me. I've watched people get hurt. I care deeply about the safety of the people who work in and visit these venues.
So we went through every section of the ordinance line by line, talked to bar owners and managers across the city, researched how Nashville, New Orleans, Seattle, and Cleveland handle venue safety, and dug into the city's own enforcement track record.
What came out of that is a set of proposed revisions to the amendment. Not a protest. Not "less regulation." A genuine attempt to make the ordinance work — for the city, for the venues, and for the people who go out in Birmingham.
The council's goals are right. Better documentation, better training, better cameras, better incident response. Nobody in the industry is arguing against safety. But the way the amendment is currently written, it will hurt the venues that are doing things right while failing to address the ones that aren't.
We've put together a full proposed revision that you can download here (PDF). Below is the reasoning behind it.
What we kept
Credit where it's due — several parts of the proposed amendment are good policy and we didn't touch them:
- Safety plans expanded to 12 sections — every venue should have a documented plan covering security positions, capacity, screening procedures, training, crowd control, evacuation, and site layout. This is the foundation of accountability.
- Training documentation with specifics — the 2026 expansion requiring type of training, provider, date, and a roster of who completed it is a real improvement over "we do de-escalation training."
- Expanded camera coverage — interior, exterior, parking, facial quality in all lighting, 30-day retention. Modern and reasonable.
- 36-hour incident reporting — already existed, still good.
- Emergency evacuation plans and site plans — basic safety every venue should have.
- Safety plan access restricted to police and enforcement — a patron shouldn't be able to demand your security plan. Smart change.
These requirements make venues safer and they're achievable. We kept all of them.
Replace the midnight threshold with incident-based tiers
The proposed amendment creates a "Late Night Establishment" category for any venue open past midnight. That captures virtually every bar in Birmingham — around 115-120 out of over 130 venues we identified. A cocktail bar with zero incidents in a decade gets the same requirements as a venue with a history of violence.
No comparable city does this. Cleveland uses an incident-based nuisance system. Seattle's chronic nuisance ordinance has been applied only 17 times in 16 years because it targets actual problem venues. Neither city classifies venues by hours of operation.
What we propose — three tiers based on behavior:
Tier 1 (all venues): Safety plan, cameras, training docs, incident reporting, 24-hour owner/manager contact, security ratio of 1 per 150 from 10 PM through close, no audio recording on cameras, visible surveillance signage, adequate lighting on venue-controlled parking.
Tier 2 (1 serious incident in any rolling 12-month period): Everything in Tier 1, plus the venue submits a corrective action plan to BPD within 14 days identifying what went wrong and what they're changing. Monthly check-ins with the Business Compliance Unit for 6 months. If the plan isn't implemented within 30 days or a second incident occurs, enhanced security ratio of 1 per 100 kicks in.
Tier 3 (3+ serious incidents in any rolling 12-month period or continued failure at Tier 2): Everything in Tier 2, plus APOSTC certified officers, a security deployment plan developed with BPD specific to the venue's layout, quarterly review, and operating hour restrictions at council discretion. This mirrors Cleveland's nuisance abatement model which uses a similar 3-incident threshold.
Any venue with a clean record for 12 months can petition to move down a tier. There's always a path back.
This drops APOSTC officer demand from 265-290 on a weekend night to roughly 5-15 — the actual problem venues. The math works. The cost is proportional. Good venues are incentivized to stay clean.
Redefine "serious incident" based on outcomes, not headcount
The proposed amendment defines a serious incident as a physical altercation involving 3 or more people, shots fired, or bodily harm. The problem is that a 3-person altercation happens regularly in nightlife — someone starts something, a friend steps in, security breaks it up. That's not a safety failure. That's Tuesday.
Under the current definition, that routine incident triggers 12 months of enhanced requirements that could cost a venue tens of thousands of dollars.
What we propose: Define serious incidents by outcomes, not participant count:
- Discharge of a firearm on the venue's premises
- Use or brandishing of a weapon
- Any incident resulting in hospitalization
- Any incident resulting in criminal charges
A fight that security handles in 30 seconds with no weapons and no hospitalization should not carry the same weight as a shooting.
Define what venues are actually responsible for
The proposed amendment references "accessory premises," "adjacent" areas, "immediate vicinity," and "offsite parking utilized by patrons" without defining any of them. A venue in a shared plaza can't install cameras in a parking deck they don't own. "Immediate vicinity" could mean the parking lot or the gas station across the street.
What we propose:
Venues are responsible for their premises, any area where they station staff or manage patron lines, and parking they own or lease. That's the "venue responsibility area."
They are NOT responsible for criminal activity on public streets by people with no connection to the venue, violence in shared parking structures they don't control, or actions of people who were denied entry or previously ejected — provided the venue followed proper dispersal procedures.
For entertainment districts where multiple venues share space, we propose allowing shared safety plans for common areas with costs split among participating venues. This already happens informally in places like Lakeview — make it official.
Add a dispersal duty
When you eject two people who were fighting, you can't just throw them both out the same door and walk away. But the ordinance doesn't address what happens after ejection at all.
We propose a dispersal duty: staggered ejection, separate exits where possible, visual confirmation that the first party has left before releasing the second. If an ejected person refuses to leave the area, the venue calls police and documents the call.
If the venue follows these procedures and an incident still occurs on public property — that shouldn't count against the venue. The venue did their job. At that point, police response is the city's responsibility.
This is based on security industry best practices recommended by the International Foundation for Protection Officers and other professional security organizations.
Train the security we already have
The proposed amendment says nothing about the quality of door staff. It just counts bodies and mandates cops.
From 19 years working in Birmingham bars: the single most effective thing that prevents violence is a competent door person who can read the room, screen patrons, and de-escalate before things get out of hand. Good security is about managing people. A staff that communicates well — radios between the door and the bar, hand signals, fast coordination — contains problems before they escalate. That comes from investing in the people already doing the work every night.
Nashville passed Dallas' Law in 2022 after a security guard killed a patron through improper restraint. Since January 2023, all security guards at Tennessee alcohol-serving establishments must complete de-escalation training, safe restraint techniques, and CPR/First Aid certification. The penalty for non-compliance is a mandatory 30-day liquor license suspension per violation, per employee.
What we propose for Birmingham: A city-approved door staff training certification covering de-escalation, safe restraint, CPR/First Aid, legal use of force, patron screening, and incident documentation. Required within 90 days of employment, refresher every 2 years. Enforcement through mandatory 30-day license suspension — the Nashville model.
This is affordable (~$150 per guard), scalable (any venue can comply), and addresses the actual point of failure in most bar violence. The supply problem disappears because you're improving existing staff, not competing for a limited pool of off-duty cops.
Fix the security gap after midnight
The original ordinance required the 1-per-150 security ratio "after 10:00 PM" — no end time, meaning through close. The proposed amendment changes it to "between the hours of 7:00 PM to 11:59 PM."
As I read and interpret it, they expanded the start time but put a hard stop on it at midnight. After midnight, the only staffing requirement would be APOSTC officers. A venue could potentially send home all dedicated security at 12:01 AM.
Your security staff — the people checking IDs, managing the line, monitoring capacity, handling situations on the floor — that's not what off-duty officers do. Removing the security ratio after midnight puts that work on bartenders and servers who aren't trained for it.
The fix: Security ratio from 10:00 PM through close. No end time. 7 PM adds cost without safety benefit — no bar has a security problem during happy hour. 10 PM was the standard for 13 years and it was appropriate.
Give private clubs a path, not a death sentence
The proposed amendment says one serious incident permanently revokes a private club's license. No suspension. No appeal. No chance to fix the problem.
Private clubs need guardrails — later hours do create more risk. But permanent revocation after a single incident, with no due process, is disproportionate.
What we propose — graduated enforcement:
Private clubs follow the same tier system as everyone else — because the tiers are based on incidents, not hours of operation. A private club with a clean record stays at Tier 1. One serious incident triggers Tier 2 — corrective action plan, monthly check-ins, and enhanced security ratio if they don't implement the fix. Three serious incidents in a rolling 12-month period puts them at Tier 3 — APOSTC officers, deployment plan, potential suspension of after-hours privileges.
Revocation only comes after sustained failure — continued pattern of incidents after Tier 3 escalation, or refusal to comply with requirements. At that point it's justified. But it takes a demonstrated pattern, not a single bad night.
Appeals process at every step. Clean record for 12 months allows petition to de-escalate back down.
Cameras are accountability, not prevention
The expanded camera requirements are reasonable and we support keeping them. But the proposed amendment seems to treat cameras as a safety measure. They're not. A camera doesn't stop a fight — it records one.
Cameras are an accountability tool. They help you prove what happened, identify who was involved, and protect everyone's version of events. That's valuable. But prevention happens at the door and on the floor, with trained people managing the room.
We also propose adding two requirements from the Late Night section to ALL venues: no audio recording (privacy issue) and visible signage notifying patrons they're on camera (deterrent). And at least one camera-trained employee per operating shift — not just one person total who might be off on Saturday when something happens.
Clarify what counts as "entertainment"
The current definition of entertainment includes "sporting events and live or taped shows/performances" including "music venues, disc jockeys." Read literally, a bar with a Spotify playlist and a TV showing football qualifies as an entertainment establishment subject to this entire ordinance.
We propose a threshold: live performances, live DJ sets, or events promoted and advertised as entertainment. Incidental background music and TV broadcasts shouldn't trigger the full ordinance.
Make compliance achievable
Section 12-10-47 requires employee certificates "on forms made available by the city." We looked for these forms online and couldn't locate them — we checked the city website, the Business Compliance Unit page, the City Clerk's office, and the business license portal. They may exist somewhere we didn't look, and if anyone can point us in the right direction we'd appreciate it. But if venues are going to be held to this requirement, the forms should be easy to find and readily accessible — ideally online.
The approval process for employees with certain criminal history currently requires written consent from the full city council. We'd suggest moving that authority to the Business Compliance Unit with a defined processing timeline. That keeps the safeguard in place while making it practical for day-to-day hiring.
The proposed amendment also requires camera inspections by the Chief of Police before a venue can operate. That's a reasonable goal, but with over 130 venues potentially needing inspections, a clear process would help — designated inspectors, a scheduling system, and a reasonable response window so that a venue doing everything right isn't held up by a backlog.
Compliance is a two-way street
Every requirement in this ordinance is on the venue. We think that's only half the equation. If venues are expected to meet higher standards, the city should be providing the tools and support to make that possible.
Here's a real scenario that plays out regularly: a venue ejects someone who's being disorderly. That person refuses to leave the sidewalk outside. They're harassing patrons, trying to pick fights, creating a dangerous situation. The venue calls police. Nobody shows up — or they show up 45 minutes later. We understand BPD is busy and understaffed. But if a venue does the right thing — ejects the problem, calls for help, documents everything — and police can't respond, that shouldn't count against the venue. The bar held up their end.
That's what we mean by two-way street. Venues take responsibility for their operations. The city provides the infrastructure to support compliance.
What we'd propose the city commit to:
- Provide the tools to comply — create and publish the employee certificate forms, publish a safety plan template with guidance, make compliance achievable instead of a guessing game
- Staff the enforcement — designate sufficient inspectors for camera reviews and maintain reasonable timelines so venues aren't shut down waiting on a backlog
- Support the training — designate approved door staff training providers so venues know where to send their people
- Be transparent — publish annual metrics on BCU staffing, inspections conducted, violations issued, and safety plans on file. If we're asking venues to be accountable, the enforcement side should be accountable too.
- Respond to calls — when a venue contacts police about a situation they can't legally handle themselves, that needs to be a priority. A venue following proper procedures shouldn't be penalized because the response didn't come.
- Coordinate entertainment districts — for areas like Lakeview, Avondale, and Five Points where multiple venues share space, facilitate shared safety plans for common areas instead of making each venue individually responsible for a parking lot none of them own
We tried to find out how many officers staff the Business Compliance Unit and how many venue inspections they've conducted. We couldn't find that information publicly available. We think that data would be informative to have before writing an ordinance that affects over 130 businesses.
What we do know from public reporting is that in several cases, venues with documented patterns of problems — repeated calls, known safety issues — operated for years before any action was taken. The legal tools to intervene already existed under the current ordinance. The authority to revoke licenses was already there. What was missing wasn't the law.
We're not pointing fingers — we're saying that before expanding what's required of venues, it's worth making sure the enforcement infrastructure is in place to support it. More requirements without more enforcement capacity just creates more rules for responsible venues to follow and more rules for irresponsible venues to ignore.
Give venues a real timeline
The proposed amendment gives existing establishments 45 days to comply with everything — 12-section safety plans, site plans, camera upgrades, inspections, staff training documentation, employee certificates, and potentially finding APOSTC officers and obtaining $500,000 in liability insurance (per Alabama Code § 6-5-338 as amended by HB202).
What we propose:
- 30 days: File safety plan and site plan
- 90 days: Camera systems compliant, staff training documented, door staff certification completed
- 120 days: Camera inspections completed, employee certificates filed
Documentation first, then operational compliance. Prioritized by what's most impactful.
Incentivize honest reporting
Bars already underreport incidents. An ordinance where reporting a single altercation can trigger requirements for off-duty officers at $500 or more per night and the cost of carrying a $500,000 liability insurance policy (per Alabama Code § 6-5-338 as amended by HB202) is going to make that worse. Venues will handle things quietly, avoid calling police, and minimize documentation — the exact opposite of what the ordinance wants.
Under our tier system, the first incident triggers a corrective action plan — not financial devastation. That makes venues more likely to report honestly.
We also propose that failure to report an incident should be treated as its own violation, independently triggering tier escalation. Getting caught hiding something should be worse than reporting it honestly. And BPD should classify incident severity — not a bar manager making a legal determination at 1 AM.
What this is really about
I want venues to be safer. That's not a talking point — it comes from almost two decades of working in these places. I love Birmingham's nightlife. I've built a career in it. And I want to see it thrive and be safe for everyone.
The council wants the same thing. The goals behind this amendment are the right ones. We're just proposing a different path to get there — one that focuses resources on the venues that need the most help, invests in the people actually doing the work on the floor, and asks both sides to hold up their end.
An incident-based tier system means problems get caught early and addressed quickly. Training requirements make the security we already have better at their jobs. Clear responsibility boundaries let good operators focus on running their business. And graduated consequences give every venue a real chance to improve before facing the worst outcomes.
We think this version is safer. We think it's fairer. And we think it's something Birmingham can be proud of.
This is meant to be the start of a conversation, not the final word. We welcome feedback from the council, from venue owners, from BPD, and from anyone who cares about getting this right.
The full proposed revisions, section by section, are available here: Download the proposed ordinance revisions (PDF)
The original amendment text is available here: Download the 2026 amendment (PDF)
Sources
- Our proposed ordinance revisions (PDF)
- Full 2026 amendment text (PDF)
- Current Birmingham General Code — Sec. 12-10-40 through 12-10-54 (Municode)
- Tennessee Dallas' Law — security guard training requirements (HB0322)
- Cleveland nuisance abatement ordinance — escalating enforcement model
- Seattle chronic nuisance ordinance — incident-based enforcement
- BPD staffing report, May 2026
- Alabama Code § 6-5-338 — off-duty officer liability insurance requirements