A Downtown Dallas nightclub at the center of several public crime scandals has 18 months to turn its act around, the Dallas City Council ruled last Wednesday — although representatives of the club and some council members in favor of the establishment argued it is being held to an unattainable standard for a nightlife venue.
Club Vivo is a two-story Latin dance club at the corner of Harwood Street and Pacific Avenue. Its months-long, complicated special use permit (SUP) renewal process has put the business on hold. The council sees at least a dozen SUP-related zoning cases each month, but divided opinions over Club Vivo resulted in the council sending the case back to the City Plan Commission in October for a second look, at which point the bar voluntarily closed. Wednesday’s discussion was the council’s second time debating the permit renewal.
Club Vivo General Manager Angel Lopez told the council that the bar’s ongoing closure has hurt his staff, who aren't being paid.
“We have individuals who are single moms who are in school trying to finish law school,” Lopez said. “I have multiple texts from [employees] requesting an email from myself showing that we ceased operations because they're applying for benefits in this time of need. I know we are in the new year, but we did cease operation very close to the holiday.”
The Observer left multiple messages with Club Vivo owner Kevin Kelley’s office, but did not hear back. (Kelley, an attorney, also owns the restaurant chain Kitchen + Kocktails, whose flagship location is next door to Club Vivo.)
Some council members didn’t seem convinced the bar should reopen at all, pointing to hiccups in Club Vivo’s history as evidence that the bar is unfit for a multi-year permit renewal. It took two hours of conversation — largely heated and sprinkled with several pointed, cross-horseshoe barbs — and two votes for the council to decide how long Club Vivo should have to prove it belongs in Downtown Dallas.
A vote for an 18-month permit renewal ultimately passed, but the council’s frustration was palpable by the meeting's end. Council Member Carolyn King Arnold described the conversation as a “slap in the face” to the community, while Council Member Omar Narvaez warned his colleagues their ongoing pontificating was a “waste of taxpayer dollars.”
“I'm just really appalled that we are trying to say that this club area should not have any crime,” Arnold said. “Let's get a grip. We have crime right down here in front of the [City Hall] plaza, 1500 Marilla.”
Judge and Jury for a Downtown Club
The first roadblock in Club Vivo’s SUP renewal was the fact that its previous permit had expired in April 2023, so for over a year the club had been operating without a permit. The second issue, which drew the overwhelming amount of council ire during Wednesday’s two-hour long discussion, was all the negative press the nightclub received last year following several crimes involving underage patrons.
In June, an 18-year-old Denton resident sued the club and alleged she was raped inside the bar’s bathroom the prior year. The lawsuit alleges that the victim’s friend alerted a security guard to the assault as it was happening, but that security failed to intervene. The complaint also claims that the victim was served alcohol by Club Vivo bartenders, despite large X marks on her hands indicating she was underage.
“We have cooperated fully towards that investigation,” Santos Martinez, a planning and zoning consultant and a Club Vivo representative, told the council during a Dec. 5 City Plan Commission meeting. “We can’t ignore or deny that it did happen.”
In July a 14-year-old was grazed by a bullet outside of the club following a back-to-school event hosted at the venue. The bar had been closed for around 45 minutes when the incident occurred, but security had stayed on the club’s property as a group of individuals who had been attending the event congregated across the street. Representatives of the bar said parents were present at the event and no alcohol was served.
Santos gave the council crime statistics that show 130 calls to 911 have been made from the bar's premises over the last four years, 82 of which were made outside of the club’s operating hours. Fifteen of the calls resulted in police reports, Martinez said. Representatives argued that Club Vivo has a better or equivalent crime and TABC record compared to similar downtown establishments.
Some council members were frustrated that the crime data did not include 911 calls from the parking lot directly across the street from the club. Martinez said Club Vivo does not own the lot and patrons from other area establishments also park there, but Council Member Cara Mendelsohn argued that Club Vivo should be proactively implementing security measures in the lot to prevent car theft.
“The number one location for stolen cars is District 14,” Mendelsohn said. “I've heard a lot of people tell me how much fun they've had [at Club Vivo,] so thank you, we need more fun in Dallas. I like that. But we also absolutely have to be focused on our public safety side, and there's issues here.”
Proponents of the club added that the council should consider the good-faith efforts of club owner Kelley — such as offering scholarships and running food drives — as further evidence of the bar’s benefit to the community. Arnold, one of several council members who offered unequivocal support for Club Vivo, added that she attended a panel raising awareness for sex trafficking at the nightclub.
Council Member Kathy Stewart, vice chair of the council’s public safety committee, was not moved by the appeals and appeared deeply disturbed by last year’s allegation of rape at Club Vivo. Although the nightclub meets several of the land use criteria, Stewart stressed that the crime record should be considered by the council, even if it is not completely disqualifying.
(City staff told the council that SUPs should be granted using a compatible land use criteria, which evaluates the compatibility of a proposed business with the existing area and requires the establishment “not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.”)
“I applaud the work that you're doing on trafficking and all of that but that's not persuasive. It is interesting but it's not persuasive,” Stewart told Club Vivo’s representatives. “You've got work to do in the [next] year from my perspective.”
Stewart and Mendelsohn — along with Council Member Paul Ridley, whose district includes Club Vivo — were the holdouts against the nightclub, voting first against a proposed two-year SUP renewal, which did not pass, and then against the 18-month renewal that did pass. Ridley, who argued that 12 months was a sufficient amount of time for the club to operate before applying for a renewal, said that a clean record during that time would open the door for another SUP extension, while “multiple crimes” reported would be something that the future council could take "into consideration.”
To expect zero crime of a downtown nightclub, Martinez argued, would be “unrealistic.”
Council Member Adam Bazaldua, who voted in favor of Club Vivo, offered the council a gentle scolding, stating that spending several hours discussing allegations that have not been proven in court instead of considering straightforward land use was “disappointing.”
“We know nothing other than there were allegations, and I don't believe that it is fair in a public forum to cast that spell on [Club Vivo],” Bazaldua said. “We are not the judge and jury in this case.”
