voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... Waxing Philosophic on Prop. D

Thankfully we are all privileged and lucky to live in a free country. However, the term free is not a single thing, but it is a much larger sum of smaller bits and pieces of rights, freedoms, and privileges. The very process by which I am expressing my own thoughts is something I do not take lightly, yet it is only a small portion of the term "living free."

In the past few years, we as Americans have been complacent by giving away these bits and pieces without much thought or resistance. Instead we have focused on small issues and traded them off with little or no gain.

Take for example, the new "hands free" cell phone law we happily allowed to pass last year. We looked at a few isolated times we got upset at some other driver, and thought "sure, ok� I guess, yeah teach that knucklehead a lesson and make them put on a headset." We conveniently ignored the hundreds of thousands of times we've passed people talking on cell phones and driving responsibly.

The real problem is not whether the phone is pressed to the side of the head, but it is the real problem of people not paying attention while driving. Reckless driving is already a crime, so was it necessary to make a person recklessly driving with a cell phone now "doubly" a criminal? We allowed this to pass without one shred of evidence that says use of a "hands free" device will make the roads any safer. Yet, now when you have an important call come in while you're driving that you HAVE to answer� you are now a criminal regardless of your ability to responsibly to drive and talk.

The beach alcohol proposition is merely another one of these debates: Do we give up our right to enjoy community parks responsibly at a picnic or barbeque with an alcoholic beverage because of the less than one percent of people who act poorly? And if we do give up our freedom, what do we get in return?

On the proponent side of Proposition D side you have frustrated beachfront property owners concerned over "binge" drinking behavior in an isolated two block portion of Pacific Beach. Rather than focusing on this issue in this area, Proposition D covers over 26 miles of coastline and 2000 acres of parks. Beaches, bays, and parks that have had zero problems are also included in this ban. Not only does it cover the 5-7 busy weekends where a problem might happen, it also includes the balance of the 365 days where the beaches look like a desert in Arizona.

Never mind the fact that all of those "binge" behaviors are covered by over 30 existing laws, what do we get if we ban alcohol?

Interestingly in this case we are coming out of a short experiment (the temporary ban) and we can examine a few effects. So what did we get in a six-month trial ban? First and foremost, fewer people at the beach, a lot fewer. Twenty percent fewer on average this summer and nearly 50 percent fewer people on the holiday weekends (San Diego Lifeguard Beach Statistics). Sure you could blame a poor economy, but why would a "free" public resource see a severe downturn in attendance when things such as the San Diego Fair and Track Season did not? Clearly the ban is the driving factor.

We also saw an increase in DUIs, over 37 percent according to crime mapping statistics from Automated Regional Justice Information System, or ARJIS (May through July, year on year). This number jumped significantly along with public drunkenness being up nearly 10 percent; all of this in the face of fewer people visiting our community.

The homeless didn't pack up and leave as promised, they just moved into our alleys behinds our homes and businesses.

So as a tradeoff, we're asked to sacrifice the privilege to CHOOSE to have a beer or not at MANY parks and beaches throughout the City of San Diego, not just the beach. For what?

It's no coincidence that you see the most "Yes on D" signs on beachfront homes. I'm sure if I had the ability to have a beer in my private yard and enjoy a deserted beach, I would be pro ban too.

However, I realize that it is important to preserve those little freedoms, the things that make paying the paradise tax worthwhile, even if I only choose to have a beer on the beach one or two times a year.

Please join me in Voting NO on Prop D and demanding that we find a real solution that addresses the issues and does not take away our freedoms for nothing. If we chip away at this freedom, what's next? What freedom do you value, and why do think it's an exception to sliding down this slippery slope?

-- JEREMY MALECHA

The beach alcohol ban is just the start. We need to get rid of the drunks at the beach, then get rid of the drunks at the bar crawls and other special events, then we need to get the number of liquor licensee's to a manageable number. I moved here 10 years ago and am sick of the young drunks at my beach, lack of parking and all the noise after dark. I'll be happy when this law goes thru and we can close the bong stores and more. This is all about public safety and the drunk drivers who leave the bars and pub crawls late at night.

Posted by Steve Scheer | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 12:22 pm

Steve, I too have lived here for 10+ years. I didn't like it where I used to live (DC), so I moved here & I love it here. I you don't like living here, its simple, move somewhere else. This is an amazing vibrant commmunity, STOP trying to sanitize it! Thousands of people love it here, so YOU are the minority. If you really can't stand it, move to an old folks home. People are quiet & only drink metamucil, so you don't have to worry about young people being loud and having fun and living life to the fullest.

Posted by Gordon | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 2:04 pm

You would think the city council would have banned beer bongs and drinking games before punishing everyone for the actions of a few. Thankfully, we have a chance to tell the city council we want a real solution that does not punish responsible adults by Voting NO on Prop D.

Posted by Costas Rafailakis | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 12:27 pm

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Posted by wayne | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 12:28 pm

The beach alcohol ban is a classic ELITISM, a group of people is blatantly stating that they want the entire beach for themselves and are unwilling to share it. There are many better and manageable solutions that would provide the ‘pro-ban’ people areas that are alcohol free so they can ‘feel safe’ as well as allow those who do not consider alcohol to be the devil and area to enjoy the beach with a cold one. The chief of police predicted that homeless and partying would move inland into our own backyards if alcohol was criminalized on the beach… he was right, and now we are all paying the price because the richest 1% wants their beaches for themselves. Just like our economy, the many who obey the rules are going to pay to please the rich. Vote No On Prop-D

Posted by Andy | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 1:20 pm

The booze ban does not do nearly enough to clense our community of unwanted trash. By allowing booze on the beach we are encouraging the lower class residents of la mesa, chula vista, and all the other minority areas to come infest our communities of high moral standing. Why cant they just stay in their area, its not like I want to go to theirs. The DUI check points could also be used to check residency to keep out the unwanted crowd.

Posted by Otis | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 1:53 pm

Steve - you are a prime example of why this law SHOULD NOT be passed. You are the minority in Pacific Beach. It was still a "younger" area with bars, smoke shops and drinking on the beach ten years ago when you moved there! You are just older now and want everyone to think the way you do. Hmmm, you sound kind of similar to someone else in history.....Hitler perhaps?

Posted by beachgirl | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 2:43 pm

Great points Jeremy! Unfortunately, the booze ban IS a prime example of negative liberty. As mentioned before, we have plenty of laws on the books that allow the regulated positive liberty of enjoying a cold one at a location determined by the state of California to be one open to all. I wonder if we could challenge the booze ban on those merits. How can a law that TOTALLY prohibits certain kinds of activities be legal in an area the state says is owned by ALL? I could see the city banning booze at its parks but how can it and other municipalities be allowed to overstep their bounds? If it were legal to drink at ALL our beaches, state-wide, people wouldn't feel corralled like cows into going to one location or another without getting cited or arrested. Instead of limiting our freedoms, let's open them back up!

Posted by CLB | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 3:45 pm

I still haven't decided how I'm going to vote on Prop. D, but opponents haven't been able to answer a logical question for me. You can't walk the streets of downtown with an open beer, so why is it okay to this at the beach? Same with driving with an open container. The argument against Prop. D could be applied to drinking and driving, which no one will argue is acceptable. Couldn't you make the argument that DUI laws punish those who are able to successfully drive under the influence but never cause an accident?

Posted by eas2 | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 4:33 pm

Responsible people can drink a beer, know the limits (0.08% bloood alcohol level) and then drive. The argument here that would relate more is with street racing, although people street race we don't ban cars. Most people are responsible so punish the people who cause a problem on the beach with the existing laws for drunk in public or fighting.

Posted by Costas Rafailakis | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 6:11 pm

Plenty of other countries allow people to drink a beer on the street too. We're not talking about third world places either. France, Italy, Japan, Korea...all of them are A-okay with people drinking a beer on the sidewalk. My students come to the US from these countries and are stunned at the extent of our alcohol restrictions. They laugh that we call ourselves the land of the free, yet we're seemingly willing to make every nuisance illegal once a squeaky wheel starts doing what a squeaky wheel does. My philosophy: If you can't make up your mind, or if you have doubts, vote freedom by default and ask for more pragmatic solutions. Vote NO on D.

Posted by Vinny Paesano | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 8:58 pm

Hi eas2, the beach is a designated recreation park. it's meant to be enjoyed and is set aside for recreation. We all pay the taxes for the lifeguards, restrooms, etc... Don't be fooled; I've met the main supports of the Ban, and they really are elitists. They are rich property owners who want ALL of us to leave because they believe it’s their private beach. If you met these people, it’s clear they have never been to the beach or parks and never plan to go. They want YOU to leave though so they can claim they have a private beach and higher property value.

Posted by mbarzilli | reply to this comment
October 2, 2008 12:11 am

An argument I also hear is that we already have laws in place that should be enforced. Coming back to the DUI example, couldn't you make the case that it shouldn't be illegal to drive drunk since there are already laws in place that cover speeding, reckless driving, etc.? How is banning alcohol on a beach any different than telling me I can't drink a beer in my car if I'm not violating any traffic ordinances?

Posted by eas2 | reply to this comment
October 2, 2008 9:08 am

Otis, your response makes me sick to my stomach. You sound more like a supporter of ethnic cleansing than booze banning. "Your area" is also "their area," and a DUI checkpoint for residency? That doesnt even make sense - thats not a DUI checkpoint, thats a border patrol. By the way, there are never ever DUI checkpoints in Pacific Beach, which is beyond me. It can't be a money issue, because whatever cost is associated with putting up a DUI checkpoint would probably be made back very quickly. Word would get out and no one would drive drunk in our out of the town. No on Prop D!

Posted by Whitney | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 6:11 pm

Right on Jeremy! Your facts explain a lot. People say you are safer, less crime, blah blah. As you can see in Jeremy's article his facts are from legit sources. I like having the choice to have a beer when I want. I don't want some people telling me what I can and can't do. Hey Steve, I know when I finally get sick of PB I'll be moving. Why would I want to stay in an area if I'm not happy with the people in it. We are not the ones making you miserable - you are. I think it's time to move on. I'll be voting NO on Prop D. I believe in real solutions such as a holiday ban.

Posted by Tom | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 9:36 pm

Regarding walking down the street with a beer. Think of a drink on the beach as a drink in a park. People enjoy family reunions, bbq's, relaxing and a lot of that times it involves having a glass of wine or beer. There is nothing wrong with doing this in an open environment as long as you do it responsibly. Also the beaches are a beautiful place and that's why people flock there just as they do to parks. It's not a matter of why or why not you can walk down the street. It's a matter of your right to choose what you want for yourself without other telling you what they want you to do. Think long and hard before you vote yes. Force Faulcolner to come up with real solutions - holiday ban. Yes is permanent.

Posted by Tom | reply to this comment
October 1, 2008 9:52 pm

The beach draws nearly 20 million visitors a year. There are going to be arguments - somethimes fueled by drinking alcohol. That is why we have the police department - isn't it? So there are maybe five days a years when the east of I5 crowd comes to the beach. Memorial Day, Labor Day, July 4.... The beaches are not owned by the beachfront property owners. Where else in San Diego does Park and Recreation groom your front yard for free? - removing seaweed and raking the sand YEAR-ROUND so the occupants are not offended by the odor. ...where owners hide the public beach access with trash cans and cars? We are voting NO on D because it is just one more example of the have's taking even more away from the have nots. The wealthy will thern continue drinking on the beach by buying a drinking" permit -like OMBAC was allowed too.

Posted by PB non-drinker | reply to this comment
October 2, 2008 6:45 am

Great article. I am disappointed every time politicians like Falconer use an anecdote to drive policy decisions instead of statisitics. It seems to happen all the time. Isolated abuses of existing law do not warrant sweeping changes of a system that worked 99.9% of the time. We can keep striving to have it work 100% of the time, but the answer is not the beach alcohol ban- which punishes the 99.9% while only slightly reducing the 0.1% problem. It's insanity.

Posted by Henry | reply to this comment
October 2, 2008 8:04 am

To me the point is not alcohol consumption at all. This is one more "Big Brother" government taking of our liberties. We can not make a law that takes away rights for all every time one, two, six or ten or even a hundred people do something wrong. We have sufficient laws. It is already illegal to be drunk in public leave it at that and prosecute those who are drunk, do not take away my right to have a picnic, watch the sunset and enjoy a glass of wine with my dinner. It is not necessary nor beneficial.

Posted by Catherine | reply to this comment
October 3, 2008 7:17 am

Proposition D really bothers me, but what bothers me more is the incredibly limited view taken by so many voters. Why do so many people feel that it is completely justifiable to limit liberty and freedom as long as they don't really like the liberties and freedoms being limited? I've seen homes with "No on Prop 8" signs along side "Yes on Prop D" signs. Sweet. Its like a buffet of freedom; put the one you like on your tray and leave the rest behind. That is now how freedom works! Agreements that an alcohol ban makes beaches cleaner angers me even more. I'm sure that deporting every person in San Diego who makes less than $40,000 a year would do wonders for crime and litter, but we cannot limit freedoms based on a positive outcome. All freedoms are the same freedom!

Posted by Andrew | reply to this comment
October 16, 2008 10:08 am

Waxing Philosophic on Prop. D

Published: Wednesday, October 1, 2008 12:59 PM PDT

-- JEREMY MALECHA