KCRag Forum

Discussion on 980 now about the proposed dress code for the district.

MightyKC wrote: Good article is the star this am. 

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/519049.html

The "Dress Code" seems a bit heavy handed to me.  Look, I don't dress this way and won't be affected by the policy.  However, as any reasonable, rationale person would recognize, I see exactly who will be affected by this policy.  Young, black males.  In general, I think each bar/club should be free to implement its own dress code.  At the same time, I think it is borderline outrageous that a portion of the city would implement a blanket code.  Furthermore, I think its outrageous because it is obviously a pretextual policy excluding young black males.  Why?  Because they want it to be safe and friendly.    If I were black, I'd be filing a law suit.    

No bandanas or baggy pants, please
The Cordish Co. has implemented a dress code for events at the Kansas City Live block. It’s a move that has stirred controversy elsewhere.

“We believe it will be a safe and friendly environment,” said Jon Stephens, Power & Light District marketing director. “The live courtyard is built to be an environment that can be controlled. … all events will require wristbands and IDs to purchase alcoholic beverages.”

The dress code will include prohibitions on “bandanas, work boots, and ripped and excessively baggy clothing.” Stephens said the code would be posted prominently. He said Cordish was working with City Councilwoman Melba Curls on an ordinance that would establish citywide standards for implementing dress codes. Curls could not be reached for comment. Cordish ran into criticism and legal challenges when it implemented a dress code at its Fourth Street Live entertainment district in Louisville, Ky. That project opened in 2002, and at the time the dress code restricted patrons from wearing athletic jerseys, sleeveless shirts and hats turned backwards. Critics of the policy said it discriminated against young blacks and poor people. Published reports indicated Cordish dropped much of its dress code policy in 2004.

KC-wildcat wrote: The "Dress Code" seems a bit heavy handed to me.  Look, I don't dress this way and won't be affected by the policy.  However, as any reasonable, rationale person would recognize, I see exactly who will be affected by this policy.  Young, black males.  

Correction - young, black males dressed like thugs.  Just like young white males dressed like thugs will be affected and 65 year old women dressed like thugs for that matter as well.  There is nothing in the dress code to suggest that anyone of any color, not dressed like a thug will have any problem. 

KC-wildcat wrote: If I were black, I'd be filing a law suit.    

Good luck with that - will the theory of your claim be "tortious interference with bad fashion choices"?

this isn't  a dress code against young, black males.  I see just as many young, white males that would violate this dress code.

At least they dropped the ban on sports jerseys. That would have been extremely stupid considering they are next to a sports arena.

Somehow I am pretty sure if one of the younger black Chiefs players shows up in any of that garb, they will be admitted.  Not all black youth that wear those clothes are "thugs".  It is aimed at young black males and paranoid suburban whites.

its the thug attitude...nothing to do with color....quit race baiting.

KCPowercat wrote: its the thug attitude...nothing to do with color....quit race baiting.

Exactly. Don't feed the troll.

Leave the thug attire at home and you'll have no problem, black or white.  Seems pretty easy to me.

Whose race baiting. 

The fact that a black kid dresses in baggy clothes and wears Timberland work boots does not make him a thug.  It doesn't mean that he dresses like a thug either. 

Look, I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart ACLU representative but I think I know injustice when I see it.  I'm seeing white people making generalizations about how black people dress and how they should dress.  I just have a problem with people perpetuating a casual stereotype that guys who wear baggy pants and workboots are thugs.

And please, don't even try to make this dress code out as a race neutral, color-blind, policy.  Sure, some white kisd dress this way, but step into the real world, we know exactly who this policy is targeted at.       

i agree that not everyone (white, black, or otherwise) who dresses in a hip-hip influenced style is a "thug," but i am not sure why it is so upsetting that a private development is trying to execute a dress code.  lots of bars and restaurants do it.  it isn't like the government has banned this style of dress, it's just a private company trying to keep a troublesome element out of the district.  is it a bit overinclusive and does it extend to perfectly fine people?  sure, but it isn't unreasonable to ask those people to pull their pants up a bit and ditch the XXXXXXXLT t-shirts when they visit an entertainment district - and a rather upscale and expensive one at that. 

i agree that it might be a bit paranoid, but one need to look no farther than westport during the summer to understand why cordish might want to do this. 

i think the ban on excessively "ripped" clothing evinces some attempt to keep it race-neutral and just establish a relatively classy environment. 

KC-wildcat wrote: I'm seeing white people making generalizations about how black people dress and how they should dress.     

Not black people - thug people.  Are you suggesting that the two are somehow synonymous?  Sounds to me like you are the one making racial stereotypes and innappropriate generalizations.  

There is no reason to think this policy will be applied differently to people of different races - If cordish did that than they would open themselves up to liablity and would rightfully face probable litigation.  

NDTeve wrote: Exactly. Don't feed the troll.

And because I think this policy is racist, I am a troll?

LenexatoKCMO wrote: There is no reason to think this policy will be applied differently to people of different races - If cordish did that than they would open themselves up to liablity and would rightfully face probable litigation. 

actually, i fully expect the dress code to be applied differently to people of different races.  if i showed up at the p+l with work boots and baggy jeans, i bet i would be let in.  the policy itself isn't necssarily racist, but i bet it will be applied that way a lot.

chrizow wrote: actually, i fully expect the dress code to be applied differently to people of different races.  if i showed up at the p+l with work boots and baggy jeans, i bet i would be let in.

Not if Cordish's compliance department is worth a shit - they have faced challenges to their dress codes before - you have to figure they have learned to avoid the one big pitfall.  Its all about training. 

i think it would be awesome if the dress code were applied to the workers currently building and finishing the district.  many of them wear bandanas, ripped jeans, sleeveless shirts, etc. 

Quit defending people that cause trouble. Black/White/Green whatever. People that wear baggy pants are usually the ones that cause trouble. Ask the Brooksider.

They're certainly free to do it, but I don't like it either. Seems like a blanket profiling which usually troubles me. I'd rather see specific behavior punished, not clothing or profiles.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Not black people - thug people.  Are you suggesting that the two are somehow synonymous?  Sounds to me like you are the one making racial stereotypes and innappropriate generalizations.  

There is no reason to think this policy will be applied differently to people of different races - If cordish did that than they would open themselves up to liablity and would rightfully face probable litigation.  

First, you are making the gross generalization that people who wear baggy pants, jerseys, work boots, etc. are thugs.  
Second, you claim that this generalization about thugs is race neutral.  

I think this is funny.  And I think you're being dishonest with yourself.  

It is FALSE that wearing these clothes makes you a thug.  
It is FALSE that this generalization is race neutral.  Give me a break.  Most of us have grown up in the MTV generation.  We are immersed in pop culture.  It is not a novel idea that rap music has had a profound effect on generations of young, black males.  http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15282517.html.  It has also had a profound effect on how people view and categorize young black males.  Sure, there are white kids who are influenced by the hip-hop and rap culture, but don't be intentionally naiive Dave, we know whose buying the music.  Name me a white artist.  Give me some lyrics poeticizing the oppression of the white man.  Have me not heard of BET?  
The statement that black kids' dress and clothing is influenced by hip-hop and rap more than white kids is not an innapropriate generalization.  It is reality.  And, since I don't see anything wrong with wearing baggy pants and work boots, I fail to see how my observations are inapropriate.  

KCMax wrote: They're certainly free to do it, but I don't like it either. Seems like a blanket profiling which usually troubles me. I'd rather see specific behavior punished, not clothing or profiles.

i agree, but at the same time it is a sad reality that it just takes one "Skybox"-esque incident to (fatally?) damage the P+L in the eyes of the tourists and suburban/exurbanites who cordish needs to come to the district. 

i don't like this overinclusive policy either, but i think it is totally understandable.  i also think that the good folks who dress that way would understand as well and put on some more appropriate attire. 

although really, are there going to be any "hip hop" style clubs in the district?