Downtown Drinking

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Dulouz
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:01 pm
Contact:

Postby Dulouz » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:47 pm

spanky wrote:
Dulouz wrote:
spanky wrote:How does a plan that reduces licenses through attrition help the situation when the problem bars continue operate and cause problems without being affected by this proposed resolution cum ordinance.


It will encourage the city to go the arduous process of revocation. Once that process begins, it will be in the owner's best interest to sell the bar or risk losing 100% of the value of the business once the site is banned from a license.


The laws to revoke are already in place with the result being uh, revocation. Why would the density Plan (limiting licenses through attrition) provide any encouragement similar to what you outline above: short answer? It won't.


Wrong. The incentive is to sell the bar instead of fight revocation. Once revocation succeeds, then the establishment cannot be a tavern (under the denisty plan) and the owner loses their investment.

Currently, the owner could fight and lose, sell the bar to a new owner who could then get a license. Essentially, the density plan provides a stronger penalty for revocation and makes it too risky to fight thereby making it more likely for the city to spend the time and money to go that route.

Darthcrank
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: bus stop on Gorham

Postby Darthcrank » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:56 pm

Stu Levitan wrote:Limiting the number of bars downtown addresses more public health and safety issues than just excessive drinking, primarily assaultive violence. Or do you discount the many studies that show a strong correlation between density of alcohol outlets and rates of violent crime?


Hey, you know...
Eliminating the mandatory bar time would help with the assaultive violence as well. As we have seen demonstrated with Halloween as an extreme example, there is nothing like pushing a bunch of drunks into the street all at the same time, and then just hoping for the best.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10061
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:56 pm

Chuck Schick wrote:... wouldn't the better plan be ... oh, I dunno ... eliminating the problem establishments and letting those upstarts who demonstrate they can operate a bar responsibly do so?


If you want to eleminate the problem establishments you have to make people not want to go there. The easiest way to do this would be to start enforcing the laws already on the books. Make it known that shenanigans will not be tolerated at specific bars by targeting and ticketing them. Who wants to hang out at a bar with a nearly constant police presence? Actually hand out underage drinking tickets - to both patrons and establishments. Wait nearby problem bars and pull over everyone driving away who looks even slightly impaired. Issue tickets to the bar for serving already-intoxicated customers. And so on.

In other words, the tools already exist to address these problems without enacting new, useless legislation.

lordofthecockrings
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:06 pm

Postby lordofthecockrings » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 pm

Stomach wrote:
I see drunken partiers rushing to the bars with later bar times and problems stacking up there.

Good point.
Lemme think on this some more.

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building
Contact:

Postby Stu Levitan » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:06 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote:
lordofthecockrings wrote:
Stu Levitan wrote:the fewer bars the police have to monitor, the more monitoring they can give to the problem bars and house parties. Doesn't that seem logical?

No.
Follow your own logic: fewer bars means more people packed into already existing bars, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence breaking out.

Not to mention that fewer bars means more house parties, which are harder for cops to patrol in the first place. Again, if you think this law would make life easier for our men and women in blue, you're a straight-up fool.

So again, I ask you (not that you'll entertain my questions, 'cause you're a friggin' dodging-and-weaving lightweight), wouldn't the better plan be ... oh, I dunno ... eliminating the problem establishments and letting those upstarts who demonstrate they can operate a bar responsibly do so?


This was my immediate reaction to the density plan as well -- that it would make bars more crowded, and increase incidents of house parties. But then I actually talked to the people who do this for a living, and reviewed the police reports, and read the abstracts of the research, and did a ride-along, and interviewed some students and bar owners and, you know, thought about it instead of just reacting and engaging in ad hominem insults. You oughta try it sometime.

You apparently think there should be no limit on the number of bars downtown. Most people who have studied the relationship of alcohol to violence and other antisocial behaviors, or who have to deal with the affects of alcohol and violence, disagree.

Darthcrank
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: bus stop on Gorham

Postby Darthcrank » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:07 pm

dstol62 wrote:I hate to repeat myself from earlier threads along a similar topic, but here goes.

The University once again has succesfully kept itself out of this equation by not insisting that students who do not exercise in civilized conduct have no punitive response for their behavior. At the minimum, any student who commits battery to another person or vandalism to any local business should be suspended as a student. The University seems to be more concerned about it's image than coming up with solutions to this issue-but hey, there are more important things to think about, like the football coach's salary...


Wow, is this true? *No* repercussions for unlawful conduct?
Then again, if we are treating these people like the adults that they are, they wouldn't get fired from a job for an altercation in their free time, so maybe demanding penalties like that isn't in the interest of preparing students to be responsible adults.
No, the legal system should handle these young adults, and the front line of the legal system are police.

lordofthecockrings
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:06 pm

Postby lordofthecockrings » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:11 pm

Stu Levitan wrote: You oughta try it sometime.

Has anybody told you to go fuck yourself in the last few minutes?
If there's a smarmier mutherfucker than you on the Internet, I've never encountered him.
Stu Levitan wrote:You apparently think there should be no limit on the number of bars downtown.

Please cite an example of anyone on this thread suggesting anything along these lines.

Darthcrank
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: bus stop on Gorham

Postby Darthcrank » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:17 pm

Stomach wrote:I see drunken partiers rushing to the bars with later bar times and problems stacking up there.


You could quit letting people into the bars, but not force people out, which would still allow people to drift off gradually, and would actually encourage people to start leaving as friends in other bars start calling each other for afterbar parties....

The trick is to make the situation fair for all the bars involved.

spanky
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:57 am

Postby spanky » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:30 pm

Stu Levitan wrote:You apparently think there should be no limit on the number of bars downtown. Most people who have studied the relationship of alcohol to violence and other antisocial behaviors, or who have to deal with the affects of alcohol and violence, disagree.


Just wondering Stu - Do you know the percentage of bars to restaurants/cafes in district in question?

I do.

Do you know the distribution of all business in the BID into the categories of Service/Restaurant & Bar/Retail?

I do.

Do you know that the other cities that are referenced as models for this type of ordinance don't relate whatsoever to the distribution of licenses that Madison has?

I do.

Do you know that a study correlating the success of this type of density plan to a reduction in alcohol related illegal activity in a city similar to Madison doesn't exist â?? or at least canâ??t be presented by the sponsors of the ordinance?

I do.

Looking at the actual numbers might actually give you an informed opinion of so-called license density as opposed to some gut feeling you established based on a "ride-a-long".

Saying that because people don't see the sense in denying responsible business owners from operating establishments with liquor licenses that they "apparently think there should be no limit on the number of bars downtown" is more laughable than Shcick calling you a prohibitionist (mainly because that label is starting to ring true).

You should try digging a little deeper yourself.

roadkill bill
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:33 am
Contact:

Postby roadkill bill » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Darthcrank wrote:The trick is to make the situation fair for all the bars involved.


My guess would be that staggering bar times - forcing some bars to close earlier than others - would not be considered fair to everyone.

As has been pointed repeatedly regarding Halloween, bar time is set by state law. Madison does not have the flexibility to unilaterally decide when bars are to close.

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:49 pm

Stu Levitan wrote:But then I ... you know, thought about it instead of just reacting and engaging in ad hominem insults. You oughta try it sometime.

Ad hominem?

Blow me.

There's your ad hominem.

You apparently think there should be no limit on the number of bars downtown.

Please quote the relevant clause in which I make such opinion apparent.

Good to know you yourself understand the distinction between "ad hominem" and "just plain making shit up."

Most people who have studied the relationship of alcohol to violence and other antisocial behaviors, or who have to deal with the affects of alcohol and violence, disagree.

Maybe so. Again, my point is that limiting the number of bars does nothing to limit the amount or problem drinking transpiring around town. It merely moves the drinking and subsequent antisocial behavior away from the bar scene. That might make you feel better, but the guy who pisses off the raging alcohol at the house party rather than the bar still gets his face pushed in.

No doubt there's a correlation between drinking and violence. But you're not actually proposing doing anything about the drinking, s'what I'm saying. You're just changing the venue.

Quiz question (to which I do not have the answer, admittedly): Where are violent acts against women more likely to occur--on the streets at bar time, or in the frats during or after the kegger?

If you agree with me that many frat parties are, in part, a gateway to acquaintance rape, then you have to give some credence to my suggestion that underage drinkers will drink, the violent-prone will become violent and ugly shit is going to happen regardless of where the drinking goes down.

That doesn't mean we don't do anything about it, or that I favor a bar in every other storefront. But it does underline the need to expend our limited resources where they'll do the most good addressing the root of the problem (which is much harder than dusting over it thusly, I'll grant you).

And Wagstaff: As for your suggestion that we focus on enforcing existing laws instead of creating ineffective new ones ... well, stop talking crazy. You're crazy. Go back to Crazytown, Crazy.

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:52 pm

You can certainly expect the powerful after bar lobby to oppose a change allowing bars to stay open later.

Seriously though, why doesn't Madison have any decent after hours parties on Friday or Saturday nights. I travel a lot and in other cities that have bar time between 1 am and 3 am I can almost always find a club or bar or venue that has after hours parties that start at bar time and have live music or DJs or whatever and stay open until 6am or so. Obviously they don't serve alcohol but they usually have a $10 - $20 cover charge that I assume makes up for it and they usually serve food and non-alcoholic beverages.
Last edited by ShaneDog on Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Spoken Word
Forum Addict
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:49 pm
Location: Subconscious

Postby Spoken Word » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:54 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote: Again, my point is that limiting the number of bars does nothing to limit the amount or problem drinking transpiring around town. It merely moves the drinking and subsequent antisocial behavior away from the bar scene. That might make you feel better, but the guy who pisses off the raging alcohol at the house party rather than the bar still gets his face pushed in.

No doubt there's a correlation between drinking and violence. But you're not actually proposing doing anything about the drinking, s'what I'm saying. You're just changing the venue.


Exactly. Precisely. A sentiment that is being echoed by many here and elsewhere, including by Stu's hero Paul Soglin.

Cue Kenny Loggins, Stu is Footloose and fancy free, and he's talked to people in the know, like real police officers and shit

yeah, shit

Darthcrank
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: bus stop on Gorham

Postby Darthcrank » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:46 pm

roadkill bill wrote:
Darthcrank wrote:The trick is to make the situation fair for all the bars involved.


My guess would be that staggering bar times - forcing some bars to close earlier than others - would not be considered fair to everyone.

As has been pointed repeatedly regarding Halloween, bar time is set by state law. Madison does not have the flexibility to unilaterally decide when bars are to close.


First, my opinion of laws is that they are there to be broken and/or changed when they no longer make sense.

Second, my idea of fair is some sort of staggered schedule, whereby bars take turns being the bars that stay open later/close earlier. One year on, one year off perhaps.

Darthcrank
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: bus stop on Gorham

Postby Darthcrank » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:55 pm

ShaneDog wrote:You can certainly expect the powerful after bar lobby to oppose a change allowing bars to stay open later.

Seriously though, why doesn't Madison have any decent after hours parties on Friday or Saturday nights. I travel a lot and in other cities that have bar time between 1 am and 3 am I can almost always find a club or bar or venue that has after hours parties that start at bar time and have live music or DJs or whatever and stay open until 6am or so. Obviously they don't serve alcohol but they usually have a $10 - $20 cover charge that I assume makes up for it and they usually serve food and non-alcoholic beverages.


It has been said that the average person comes up with a Million $$$$$ idea once a week.
There is your million dollar idea...who will act on it?
I don't see your idea flying as such in this town, but I am amazed at the profound lack of all-night places to go here. But that might be because few places are equipped to deal with drunk people en masse at 3-4 am.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests