New Haven Independent

posted by: Mike on June 8, 2010  7:23am

Dont ban the booze, its useless unless there are cops to actually enforce it and from what I see the few cops in lighthouse on weekends have their hands full without even getting out of the car.

The best thing for the weekend crowds would be cops on bikes or foot from noon until closing.

posted by: Mike on June 8, 2010  7:35am

If you set up a DUI check on Lighthouse Road on a busy Saturday or holiday afternoon you will see how dangerous this situation is. It seems like a lot of aldermen are making a decision without ever seeing things first hand. Take a field trip on July 4th and then make your decision after.

posted by: Sean M. on June 8, 2010  7:35am

I’d like to know why Goldson thinks its okay to be drunk in a public park?

Or how it suddenly became “elite” to have a backyard?

These ... toss around whatever pops into their heads, and meanwhile Lighthouse Point still has the issue of having drunken fools who ruin people’s afternoons. Their solution is to let the drunken fools run wild in *every* city park.

I guess not wanting to deal with drunken morons, in Goldson’s mind (such as it is), is now elitist.

....

posted by: Townie on June 8, 2010  7:43am

Since when it is a right to be able to drink alcohol at a public park? The issue is not just public drunkenness, but also drinking and driving. How are the people at the beach, who have been drinking, getting home? I would guess most of them do not take the bus. It is ridiculous that some Aldermen are actually arguing for the allowance of public drinking at the parks. And then they compare it to “creating a prison without walls”. Grow up, please, for the sake of the city. If these Adlermen cannot mature maybe they should resign as council members. The city has bigger issues to deal with.

posted by: Uncle Egg on June 8, 2010  7:57am

I don’t like the idea of banning booze at the beach, particularly since I’ve been known to crack a beer from time to time myself. But a recent visit to Lighthouse Point made it clear to me that it’s become something of a party spot.

Before going all nanny state, what about banning hard liquor and kegs, but allowing beer and wine—and at the same time, cracking down hard on disruptive behavior. If that doesn’t work, a full ban might be in order.

posted by: Bruce on June 8, 2010  8:16am

Please don’t waste time generating new laws to cover activities that are already illegal.  If public drunkenness is a problem (regardless of a ban), you need to hire policemen to maintain the peace.  This sounds like a simple enforcement issue.

Sean M: Nobody said it’s ok to be drunk in a public park.  Please read the article.

posted by: MM on June 8, 2010  8:17am

Having an ice cold beer on a real hot day is one of life’s greatest pleasures. It should not be a crime in a city park. Its there for the enjoyment of all citizens.

Having six ice cold beers and behaving abusively is anti social and driving drunk is a crime.

The answer is easy. Write an ordinance that fines people who are above the legal driving limit. $2,000 or $3,000 minimum would be a good harsh amount. Get community cops out of their cars on July 4th to breathalyze suspects. When the word gets out I’ll bet the hard core drinkers stay in their own backyards.

Just think of what these fines would do to solve the budget problem.

posted by: john on June 8, 2010  8:36am

I agree with commenter Mike.

The last think we need are more New Haveners, whose judgment requires no further chemical impairment (generally speaking), boozing on the beach.

And what on earth is Castro talking about? ... The right to assemble drunkenly? ...

As for “draining police resources”, let’s see what kind of drain there is on the police force when you get disruptive, probably violent behavior in parks across the city.
....

posted by: anon on June 8, 2010  8:48am

No way should New Haven allow drinking of alcohol in all of the city parks.  Already our parks suffer from irresponsible people littering and homeless setting up camp for 10 months of the year.  If the city allows public drinking parties (yes, we would have them), caring and responsible people will abandon many of the parks.  As it stands now, the Parks Dept. staff cannot keep up with maintenance due to low staffing. Volunteers do much of the clean-up.  Let’s not abandon our parks to the litter, noise, and lawlessness that comes with public drunkenness.

posted by: Darnell Goldson on June 8, 2010  8:49am

To Sean M:

Did you even read the story? Please do so before commenting. I did not suggest that it was OK to be drunk in a public park, nor did I suggest that it was “elite” to have a backyard. That comment was attributed to someone else.

Your assumption that everyone who has a glass of wine or two is drunk is absurd.

The local ordinances already allow for the drinking of beer and wine at Lighthouse Park, the debate yesterday was on whether or not we should take that right away. I have been to that park many many times, and have yet to witness any sort of public drunks running wild. Perhaps it happens, but I have not seen it.

When are we going to trust that adults can act like adults? Why does the government seem to think that they have to treat all citizens as though they are potentially to commit a crime? Why should all be punished based on the bad acts of a few? I resent that the acts of a few “knuckleheads” drive this debate, and that law abiding citizens will lose a right because of these troublemakers.

I have yet to have a drink at the Lighthouse, I don’t understand why anyone would want to drink alcohol in 90 degree weather, but just because I am not one to imbibe at the beach doesn’t mean that I should take that right away from other responsible adults that do so. And, how about all of those folks that indulge themselves at the concerts on the Green or Edgenton Park, there doesn’t seem to be an outcry to lock them all up, even though public drinking at those parks is expressly forbidden by law presently.

posted by: Mike D on June 8, 2010  8:50am

After thinking about this a little more, the comments made by some of the aldermen are absolutley ridiculous. elite???? come on… we are talking about the responsibility and safety of people in and out of the park. How can public alcohol comsumption in any form be acceptable? I was in Virginia Beach last year and guess what? Public drinking at the beach or boardwalk is not allowed and it was a great fun place to be.

posted by: Tom Harned on June 8, 2010  8:57am

This is good, common-sense proposal. People are already consuming alcohol in parks across the city, and the overwhelming majority of these folks are doing it responsibly and without incident.

Goldson is absolutely right. People shouldn’t have rights taken away because a small percentage of the population chooses to behave badly.

posted by: streever on June 8, 2010  9:00am

Awesome!

All over the world, people are allowed to drink in public, with less problems & incidents than we have here. Yale researchers showed very convincingly that people were apt to behave “as expected to” when drinking: meaning, if you setup a prohibitionist nanny state, they are likely to act out. If you create a permissive atmosphere of acceptable public drinking, people are more likely to behave.

Let’s open up all the parks to responsible drinking. Set up some low-key signs that are nicely done encouraging adults to use their discretion when drinking & behave “as fitting an environment full of children and neighbors”.

@Sean M. Goldson, Lemar, Shah, and the others who have cautioned against whole-sale bans aren’t speaking out in favor of public drunkeness. Rather, they are asking that we consider allowing responsible people to continue being responsible while focusing enforcement on people who cause problems.

@Townie:
I’d love to see drinking allowed—responsibly—at East Rock Park, which I do walk to. Your argument has a huge logical fallacy in it. You are ignoring the fact that restaurants exist which serve food & alcohol, and have parking lots, and yet do not have an epidemic of drunken driving around them. People are able to be responsible. If we’re that worried about driving while drunk, set up a checkpoint on the way out of Lighthouse & test EVERYONE a few weekends in a row. It will eliminate drunk driving very quickly.

posted by: Townie on June 8, 2010  9:26am

Quote from Goldson, “Why does the government seem to think that they have to treat all citizens as though they are potentially to commit a crime? Why should all be punished based on the bad acts of a few?”

It’s not an issue of punishment, it’s an issue of public safety. I have nothing against the individual’s right to have a few drinks, but I cannot support the idea that the individual has the right to drink in public, especially at a high volume park/beach.
As I said before, responsible adults will realize that it is better to err on the side of caution and prohibit all alcohol from the parks. By doing this we avoid most, if not all, of the problems that come with drinking, i.e. DUI, violence, crime, swimming/boating accidents, etc. Responsible and reasonable people will gladly forgo the luxury of public drinking in order to create a more inclusive and fun environment for their neighbors.

posted by: Darnell Goldson on June 8, 2010  9:49am

One more comment.

We keep hearing the argument about “public safety”. We provide permits to establishments, restaurants, bars, etc., that are in the business of providing/selling alcohol. Our own downtown is partially powered by the nightlife/bars that exist to draw out-of-towners to New Haven to spend money. There is a whole lot of drinking going on. In the matter of fact, the whole purpose of many of these bars are to provide alcohol to people, mostly non New Haveners, definitely folks that DO NOT live downtown. Yet, there isn’t a “public safety” movement to ban drinking downtown or at other restaurants and bars in New Haven, even though there is a whole lot more drinking and driving happening.

posted by: Doyens on June 8, 2010  9:53am

Drinking should not be banned at Lighthouse and drinking should be allowed at all city parks. First, people already drink at all city parks. They are only arrested when they cause a problem. Second, it is about freedom and it’s also about personal responsibility. It’s past time to start expecting adults to act responsibly and quit looking to the government for nanny services. Third,we have a very large police force. The idea that this will somehow drain resources is just silly. This is a continuing specious and shallow rationale that also lead to us having to file our alarms with the police department and face fines if we have a false call.

If there is a problem at Lighthouse now, set up a checkpoint right outside the gate and post a sign as people go in - in fact, post several notifying them that a sobriety checkpoint may be set up at the park exit. Drunken drivers will be arrested. That should encourage desiginated drivers and less overall drinking.

posted by: Moira on June 8, 2010  10:54am

I agree with Mike and Townie; the situation is dangerous. It’s an issue of drinking and driving, with only two main roads out of the area populated by beach-goers who have been partying since the morning. As if speeding isn’t already a problem, people careen down Townsend and Woodward Aves after drinking all day at the park.

If drinking is banned in other parks, it should be banned in Lighthouse Park. I suspect it will mean what it has come to mean at other parks: Police will look away unless things get out of control; if needed, a ban gives them leverage. There is no way to police every beach-goer any more than there is a way to monitor every person in the wine-and-cheese crowd during concerts on the green. The big issue here is that many people are not drinking “responsibly” at Lighthouse. It’s been out of control for some time. To turn it into an issue of class/race/“elitism” is weak and petty. The ultimate concern should be for the safety of *all* park-goers. So far, it has been a privilege, not a right, to drink at Lighthouse Park. Meanwhile, swimmers are not allowed floatation devices of any kind at Lighthouse. Do empty kegs count?

posted by: Townie on June 8, 2010  11:05am

Posted by Streever
@Townie:
I’d love to see drinking allowed—responsibly—at East Rock Park, which I do walk to. Your argument has a huge logical fallacy in it. You are ignoring the fact that restaurants exist which serve food & alcohol, and have parking lots, and yet do not have an epidemic of drunken driving around them. People are able to be responsible. If we’re that worried about driving while drunk, set up a checkpoint on the way out of Lighthouse & test EVERYONE a few weekends in a row. It will eliminate drunk driving very quickly

Streever-
I don’t see the fallacy. Restaurants and bars are privately owned establishments that usually deal with a smaller volume of patrons than a municipal park. Also, you might ask MADD if drunk driving is an epidemic or not, if not an epidemic it certainly is a serious problem. Why potentially increase the amount of drunk drivers on the streets? I agree, people should be allowed to be responsible, but maybe it’s the cynic in me when I say that people have generally failed to be responsible in many situations, drinking is just example .The City of New Haven should not allow a situation that could effectuate an increase in DUI. They should prohibit all alcoholic beverages from the city’s parks and beaches. If the people of New Haven want to drink so badly the city is littered with liquor stores, bars and night clubs. Or go to a State Park or sit in your house and drink.

posted by: Hmmm... on June 8, 2010  11:10am

...
As for banning drinking… just tell me how much the fine is so I can start saving up because I’m going to have a beer or two when I’m hanging out at the beach. If I get stupid drunk then by all means take me away… for my safety as much as anyone else’s.  Otherwise pass me a cozy and leave me the hell alone!

posted by: john on June 8, 2010  11:39am

let’s try this again.

as a measured codicil to the above, i find it frustrating that yale (largely undergraduates) has a voice on the BOA on a matter such as this. i say this even as a member of the yale community. this is *not* an ad hominem remark in any way whatsoever, but rather a comment on how this BOA world. to word it uncontroversially, the reality is that:

A) most yale undergraduates (by whom Jones is elected) will never set foot in many of the public parks in new haven (the green has special status, does it not, owned by the trust? wooster sq. seems a likely exception for some)

B) this particular issue touches broadly upon quality of life in neighborhoods that, again, most yale undergraduates will never spend time in. it’s easy to take policy positions on directives that may affect quality of life for other city taxpayers, but arguably unfair: the fact that yale has its own, well-staffed and highly responsive security force—which, frankly, is fundamentally a customer-service operation (i speak, of course, of the YPD)—calls into question the legitimacy of its representative’s position on the matter.

That is why Jones could say in a YDN article in February that “There isn’t a ton that students in Ward 1 need out of the city’s government.” (http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2010/02/26/jones-11-pursues-ambitious-agenda/)

Precisely. And I’m not sure the city’s taxpayers don’t need “a ton” from the Yale undergraduates in this matter: they, after all, can drink with near-impunity at any age in their well-guarded cloisters.

posted by: john on June 8, 2010  11:50am

(apologies for the several typos)

posted by: Mike on June 8, 2010  12:01pm

1. 4 beers in a bar/restaurant cost $12.
2. That same 12 dollars can buy you 18 beers that can be brought to a park, hence more alcohol for a lesser price = more consumption.
3. It is very very easy for underage people to bring alcohol into a park vs. being served at a bar.
4. I can go on an on

There is a HUGE difference between bars/restaurants and large open public parks. To compare the 2 is a waste of time.

posted by: John Dattilo on June 8, 2010  12:20pm

Has anyone read the article in today’s NH Register on how Milford addresses this issue?
All groups need a permit along with insurance. The permit has to be signed off by the town attorney with the Police Chief’s approval.
Someone should get a copy of the Milford policy and read it through.

posted by: Taxpayer on June 8, 2010  12:28pm

Goldson: I know you are new to the board, but your argument makes no sense. Drinking at other parks has not risen to the level at has at Lighthouse. Drinking at other parks is prohibited already. Just because some people violate the law doesn’t mean the law should not be on the books. Drinking at Lighthouse is condoned by the city. Is this a good idea?

posted by: Greg on June 8, 2010  12:37pm

Allowing drinking in all of the public parks makes sense to me.

posted by: Mike Jones on June 8, 2010  12:38pm

John,

I have to say that although I read almost every comment on articles here that cover the Board, I rarely jump into the conversation. I usually enjoy reading all of the opinions that represent the diverse experiences and perspectives that we have here in town—especially when the suggestions for how the Board or the City should act aren’t qualified by political realities. So I usually just read and stay on the sidelines.

But since this is an issue that really concerns me—and since my very legitimacy was questioned so directly—I figured I would respond.

Let me say first that I understand your frustration about me having a vote on matters such as these (and perhaps even being on the Board at all). It’s no secret that I haven’t lived in New Haven for very long, I live in a very different part of New Haven than most of our city’s residents do, and I don’t own a home—although pauper laws were taken off the books some time ago.

But let me be clear: I do live in this community, as do the people who I represent.

If you have some issue with the University as an institution, please feel free to direct those complaints to the administration.

I know plenty of Yale students who visit a number of city parks and public spaces on a regular basis—including myself. And yes, we visit the green (its governance aside) more often because it’s closer. How many people do you know from East Rock and Westville who visit Goffe St. Park or Scantlebury Park regularly? Visiting parks (or doing so in other parts of town) is not required for city residency, and all of these spaces belong to all of us.

My point here is that parks are inherently public spaces. Yes, there are quality of life concerns that affect the surrounding neighbors that should be considered. And I understand that some of the activities that neighbors of Lighthouse have seen in their community (like people who were likely drunk changing in their front yards, or urinating in public) are downright disgusting…and already illegal. We should allocate more resources to protect those neighbors from that behavior.

But parks are inherently public spaces. They don’t just exist for the purpose of pacifying the surrounding neighbors; in the great tradition of American public parks, these spaces are places for the entire city to use responsibly as an escape from the realities of everyday life in the city. They belong to all of us. And as long as it can be done responsibly, folks out to be able to have a drink.

posted by: john on June 8, 2010  2:02pm

@mike jones: thanks for your thoughtful reply. i’ll simply add that i, too, agree that parks are fundamentally public spaces, which (as you note) entails mutual respect among users, and that the “quality of life concerns that affect the surrounding neighbors” must be attended to.

agreed that relevant behaviors are already illegal. you note, therefore, that “we should allocate more resources to protect those neighbors from that behavior.” but if we had to do that in every neighborhood in which a park was located and in which alcohol could be consumed, this would inevitably demand the allocation of more resources. (unless you are aware of any good “innovation-based budgeters”...)

now, i know that pauper laws qua pauper laws are thankfully no longer on the books, but this is where having to pay property taxes may offer a perspective quite distinct from the one offered by a vantage point of one shielded by a university that, in addition to advocating on (y)our behalf via other bureaucratic channels, also provides you with a private security force and an enforceable code of conduct thanks to its vast financial resources. (in fact, given those resources, yale undergraduates look less, um, pauperly.)

anyway, the bottom line, as i see it, is that if—as you grant—increased allocation of resources is needed to protect public safety as a consequence of alcohol use in or near parks, we will need more such resources if leniency is exercised in the other parks. there are too few resources in terms of public safety to go around anyway; how will the city pay for these additional ones? perhaps by a proportionate increase in yale tuition and fees? surely that would be as welcome as a tax increase.

but you’re right: “...as long as it can be done responsibly, folks out to be able to have a drink.” however, that’s quite a proviso. i suppose a DUI checkpoint would settle the matter.

posted by: Townie on June 8, 2010  2:34pm

I have an idea: Let the citizens vote for either a ban on alcohol in all city parks or the allowance of alcohol at all city parks. The issue will be settled and then we, the citizens, will have no one to blame when/if things go wrong.

Also, off the topic, Yale University should not have a seat on the BOA. No other corporation in the city has their own rep and Yale should not be given special status. Oh wait I forgot, Yale owns New Haven.

posted by: robn on June 8, 2010  3:21pm

Yes, please lets extend drinking to all other public parks…and while were at it, just to protect us all, please set up a fine for litterbugs who improperly discard their bottles, cans, used condoms and hypodermic needles on the ground, instead of a trash barrel.

posted by: Doyens on June 8, 2010  3:30pm

Townie:

There may be smaller numbers of people at a bar or restaurant, but they make up for it in sheer volumn of establishments. One need only go downtown Thurs - Sat to see the result.

Re: MADD - While they do good work and certainly have lead to a robust and continuing conversation and awareness of drunk driving, only MADD would consider it an epidemic. Once again, we are talking about personal responsibility and accountability.

And no, there should not be a vote by citizens. That’s why we have too many alders. Call your alder - maybe they’ll listen better on this subject than they did on taxes and the budget.

posted by: Bruce on June 8, 2010  4:13pm

John: Additional resources will be required regardless of whether or not a ban exists.  Rowdy drinkers are not going to stop their behavior just because there is a new sign at the gate.  At the very least, can we simply attempt to work with the existing laws before passing new laws that will not be enforced anyways?

posted by: Duh! on June 8, 2010  4:37pm

First of all, I spend a great deal of time at Lighthouse Point Park. I have never seen or even heard of any dangerous, drunken situation there. It seems every time there is further testimony at the BOA, it becomes more exaggerated and sensational. What do I see? I see all sorts of families and groups enjoying a day at the beach, kids running through that freezing cold splash pad, laying around the sand and walking the boardwalk. They come early, they stay late, some fish. They enjoy those moments of free time in the summer, as they should. Are there some foolish people? Of course, but the park managers are strict and firm. Is there a police presence at the front gate, you bet. I have been aghast at the coverage of this issue from the very beginning. The only people who seem to be pushing this are the people who live along Lighthouse Road. Do people park in front of their homes to avoid the entrance fee? Absolutely. This entire issue would go away if they had resident only parking. People looking to avoid the entrance fee would have to pay it, or get a ticket, I am fine with that. And as far as alcohol in other parks, please. If a group wants to have alcohol for some reason, then when they get their permit, ask for permission, get the insurance, and have them hire a cop. The director of parks, under the city charter can already approve that. Read the city charter and stop with this ridiculous conversation. The half-truths and reality are far different than the assumptions of far too many!

posted by: bill Saunders on June 8, 2010  5:58pm

Mike,

The HUGE difference between public parks and bars/restaurants you claim is patently false.  How many restaurants have outdoor seating on our public sidewalks, and serve alcohol?

As for the argument about straining our police resources, I don’t know if anyone has noticed it, but for every routine traffic stop, there ends up being at least three responding cop cars.  Sounds like they don’t have enough to do….....

posted by: Jon on June 8, 2010  6:42pm

Make it illegal and see what happens. Jumping off the pier is illegal too. So is riding a jet-ski without a PWC license. So is smoking crack/meth/]... in the woods.

Is anything ever done about it?

NO.

posted by: walt bradley on June 8, 2010  7:26pm

I like me a nice cold 40 oz. on the green right in front of the mayor’s office.  Tastes like freedom.

posted by: 6983968937673 on June 8, 2010  9:30pm

We’ve all suffered the tyranny of the private sector (low pay, little vacation, no pensions—and little or no say).  It would be nice if our taxes would buy us at least a little democracy and freedom in our few rare but supposedly public spaces.

posted by: Townie on June 9, 2010  6:56am

To Doyens, Et al.

To say that restaurants/bars and a public park are comparatively similar is erroneous. Restaurants/Bars are privately owned and serve a fewer amount of people than a municipal park and even if the difference in volume were similar the comparisons fails because restaurants/bars have controls about who drinks and how much they drink. That is why a restaurant/bar can be criminally charged if they knowingly let an intoxicated drive and that driver gets into an accident. Drunk driving is a serious problem in this nation which leads to thousands of injuries and several deaths per year. I do not think it is right to have a municipal administration allow for an environment where potentially more people could end up behind the wheel while intoxicated. But, you’re right it is about personal responsibility, however, the city’s administration has an obligation to create a safe environment for the entire citizenry, even it that means curtailing a few individuals “right” to imbibe. Therefore the Aldermen have no choice but to ban alcohol from the parks in order to ensure a higher degree of public safety, even if it is just a small degree.

As for the idea for a referendum, I think it is a great idea and the people of New Haven should petition for it, not just on this issue but on any issue that effects the public. Small towns have referendums all the time, entire European nations use the system, why can’t New Haven? Direct Democracy is possible and this is one instance where it could be used. Don’t dismiss an idea because it falls outside the boundaries of the conditioned orthodoxy. One of the greatest disappointments about New Haveners is that they initially seem so passionate about issues, but they don’t seem to follow through and ultimately surrender to the power and influence of the administration. It’s an apathy that should be cured.

posted by: William Kurtz on June 9, 2010  8:16am

Townie wrote:

the city’s administration has an obligation to create a safe environment for the entire citizenry, even it that means curtailing a few individuals “right” to imbibe. Therefore the Aldermen have no choice but to ban alcohol from the parks in order to ensure a higher degree of public safety, even if it is just a small degree.(Italics mine)

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning doesn’t hold water; by your logic, city government should also ban driving within the city limits because that, too, would “ensure a higher degree of public safety”—in fact, a substantially larger degree than banning alcohol in public parks. 

This false dichotomy illustrate how binary thinking has once again failed in this debate and how the “battle lines” are improperly drawn.  This debate shouldn’t be pitting people “for” a ban against people “opposed to” a ban; more properly, people concerned with the polite, safe, enjoyable, and responsible use of public space should be opposing those who are not committed to those same values.

posted by: LighthousePark on June 9, 2010  9:01am

How about the guy who died off the pier last year, was he drunk??  These laws are for the people who cannot control themselves and have do not have self restraint.. Drinking and the Hot sun= danger, Danger to your health, your judgement and your driving.. Will it take another death or a drunk driver to kill someone as the pull out of Lighthouse Park to pass this.. All for one, one for all- this is the only park that allows drinking.. Which park would you go to??

posted by: Townie on June 9, 2010  9:09am

Will Kurtz-

My reasoning is sound, but when taken to its hyperbolic extremes it could be construed to be unreasonable. You’re right the city administration could ban driving to ensure a higher degree of safety for the public. As a non-auto owner I’m all for it. But, we also cannot forget that the administration must find a balance among the various public interests. Safety is an interest to the public, but so is driving. Of course, we don’t illegalize driving we illegalize unsafe driving, i.e. intoxicated driving. This seems like common sense. It also seems like common sense for the city’s administration not to condone public drinking and the creation of a potential increase in the number of unsafe drivers on the city streets. No municipal administration or government can legislate personal responsibility, it is impossible. As stated in this comment thread, a certain amount of people will always break the laws. However, laws of prohibition do deter most from irresponsibility. Take away the opportunity to act irresponsibly and most people will “behave”. This seems paternalistic because it is, but it also is effective. (Good example, this year’s St. Patty’s Day parade). It is a sad fact that our society is ruled by an ethos of irresponsibility and selfishness and usually I could care less about what society does. But, in this instance the behaviour of the irresponsible and selfish, directly impairs others’ liberty to enjoy their leisure time in relative safety and comfort, it especially unfairly endangers children. Maybe if certain people would grow up the need for a prohibition would cease to exist. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Also, I think people forget this city was founded by Puritans and we have a tradition to uphold. If you don’t like it you’re more than welcome to move to a state that will abide drunken debauchery, I hear New Jersey is a nice place to live.

posted by: William Kurtz on June 9, 2010  10:29am

Townie, you’re making it so easy that I wonder if you’re not having me on.  First, That’s not a hyperbolic extension; it’s a completely reasonable one.  Second, one of the public interests that should be balanced is the right of adults to responsibly manage their own behavior during their leisure.  You are completely correct that some cannot or will not do so and there are existing laws prohibiting this kind of behavior.  If they don’t work, what makes anyone think new laws will do so?  I don’t think the evidence is there to suggest that “laws of prohibition (such as, well, Prohibition) deter most from irresponsibility.”  This year’s parade is perhaps not a useful example, given that the bad weather probably drove a lot of the boorish behavior inside. 

As far as our obligation to uphold the Puritan tradition, be careful what you wish for, lest Lighthouse Park drinkers suffer the same fate as George Spencer.

posted by: Ali on June 9, 2010  12:03pm

It is unfortunate that the bad behavior of some takes away the rights of potentially responsible people, but I’ll survive if I can’t bring some wine to the beach. I honestly didn’t know until this debate that it was allowed.  I assumed that is was banned as I think it is at most beaches.

In general, we need to think about reality.  If everyone was so responsible the parks would be free of drug users, prostitution and littering. If only signs were the solution. Clearly that isn’t enough even to get people to put their trash in a bin.

If you’re talking about opening up the right to drink in other parts, think about the enforcement problems. It seems like Lighthouse is an easier place to patrol (assuming their is the staff to do it) and keep track of visitors.  It’s mostly open, one entrance/exit that is often staffed. I do wonder about the drunk driving aspect and whether or not that leaves the city open to some liability. What about places like Edgewood and East Rock with the woods and multiple entrances and exits?  These places are already a haven for illicit activity..what do you think would happen if alcohol were allowed?

posted by: Townie on June 9, 2010  12:05pm

Kurtz-...  The city administration does balance the individual’s rights, but I am sure that such rights do not weigh as much as the public interest to safety. As anyone would tell you, government is a constant balancing act in which the perfect medium is always sought but rarely achieved. I would usually agree with you 100%, the administration has no right legislating morality and personal choice/behaviour. However, this is a matter of public safety. The safety of the drinkers is not only important, but perhaps more important is the safety of the non-drinkers at the park and the drivers who occupy the same roadways as the potentially inebriated. It might be a small amount of people, but stopping one drunk driver is worth it, in my opinion. Laws of prohibition do help to deter irresponsibility. In this instance the irresponsibility is not the drinking itself, but it is the over-drinking and then driving. If people weren’t allowed to bring booze into the parks than the number of drinkers would be significantly reduced ergo the number of over-drinkers as well. Only those who are not concerned with possible legal prosecution and/or a ticket, would try to evade the regulation.
And something that has never been addressed, when did it become a “right” to drink in a public park? To me, drinking in public spaces falls into the ‘privilege’ category. A privilege that can and should be taken away.
But, again, I reiterate that New Haveners should petition for a referendum, let the people decide. If I am in the minority so be it, I’ll just avoid the city parks, at least Light House Point. 
One final note; some people in New Haven could benefit from some quality time in the stocks, per our Puritan ancestors. Hanging is a bit extreme, but a less severe form of public punishment might work.

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 9, 2010  12:43pm

Townie:

Public Safety is usually the nebulous, unmeasurable, ‘sky is falling’ mantra that the City uses to extend it’s authoritarian arm.

More rules justify more manpower.

posted by: anon on June 9, 2010  2:35pm

Like Townie, if public drinking is allowed in public parks, “I’ll just avoid the city parks, at least Light House Point.”  Townie makes an excellent point.  Many of the people who take care of and who clean up the New Haven parks will lose interest if the New Haven parks are turned over to public drinking. Many of the people who want to party with alcohol in the parks leave their litter and garbage behind.  Who will clean up after them?  There are already too many people who leave their trash in the park.  Don’t add a whole lot more.

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 9, 2010  4:19pm

Anon & Townie:

I have absolutely no problem with a $1000 fine for littering.
Pack out what you packed in, as the old boy scouts used to say.

posted by: Threefifths on June 9, 2010  4:25pm

This is how you can solve this problem. Do like other states do and that is start a Auxiliary Police Program.

Who are the Volunteer Auxiliary Police?

They are civic-minded men and women who volunteer to assist their local Police Precincts, Housing Police Service Areas, and Transit Districts, by performing uniformed patrol in their communities. They are recruited, trained and equipped by the Police Department. They come from many diverse backgrounds and a myriad of occupations throughout the City, such as computer programmers, mechanics, merchants, nurses, security guards, school teachers, students, etc. 

 
What are their functions?

Auxiliary Police provide extra “eyes and ears” for the Police Department by performing uniformed foot, vehicle and bicycle patrols. They are trained to observe and report conditions requiring the services of the regular police. Whenever possible, they assist in non-enforcement and non-hazardous duties. The following are some areas in which the Auxiliary Police assist the Police Department:
Residential and commercial areas
Community festivals, parades, concerts, street fairs, park patrols
Subway entrances and token booth areas
Perimeter of Houses of Worship
Crime prevention activities
Traffic control

 
What are the requirements?

At least age 17
Live or work in New York City
Be in good health
Must pass a drug/alcohol screening and sign an affidavit acknowledging compliance with NYPD Zero-Tolerance drug policy.
Able to read and write English
Never been convicted of a felony or have a previous arrest record that would prevent acceptance
A U.S. Citizen or a permanent resident who has a valid visa or alien registration card
Be of good character
In some state they have the power of arrest..or to give out tickets.West Haven calls them Public Service Officers.

http://www.whpd.com/psu.htm

posted by: Jon on June 9, 2010  6:43pm

I like the stocks idea and always have. When did we become a nation of overly compassionate ninnies? Many if not most of the people getting locked up these days have friends in jail, we pay out the arse for their stay while they watch TV and do no work to help the community. They even gain weight from eating too much… I bet a day or two of getting pelted by rotten vegetables and fruit on the green would do them all a world of good and save us all a BOATLOAD of money as well as make the community a nicer place to live.

I love the idea of creating a volunteer police force in this town as well. I will volunteer first because I use this park and I know what goes on in this park and where, the cops would too if there was enough money/desire to get out of their car and actually look around. Do the cops that drive by the pier while people are jumping use the park? I doubt it.

I’m for the ban of alcohol in this park. 90% of parks in this country are alcohol free, I know because I’ve been to them. There is a way around this law and that is being smart about it, same with having a drink or two and driving, one must be smart about it.

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 9, 2010  8:11pm

Not to be vulgar, or anything, but doesn’t everything ultimately boil down to “Don’t be a dick.”

posted by: Lighthouse Road Resident on June 9, 2010  8:49pm

To all of you who think it is ok that people drink in the park, live on Lighthouse Road li and see at least two parked cars every summer get hit by drunk drivers. These are cars that are parked…. what would happen if they were children instead of parked cars that got hit. Ban the alcohol!! Also I was not to thrilled to have had to pick up a dirty diaper in front of my house on Memorial Day. Pick up your trash and please leave our neighborhood clean.

posted by: Townie on June 9, 2010  8:54pm

A volunteer police force? Just what we need, unpaid overzealous power-hungry meatheads patroling our parks. I can just imagine the endless flow of brutality law suits and investigations. The idea is well intended but I don’t think it is practical, not in New Haven.
I’ll say it one more time; let the people vote on the alcohol issue. After the vote the administration can ensure the people’s will is followed, that is what they’re paid for.

posted by: William Kurtz on June 10, 2010  8:04am

Unpaid and overzealous, perhaps, but think about how all those extra eyes and ears can help catalog the offenses that will get people into the stocks where they can be pelted with rotten fruit while being placed in stress positions.  Brutality complaints indeed!

posted by: Threefifths on June 10, 2010  9:12am

posted by: Townie on June 9, 2010 9:54pm
A volunteer police force? Just what we need, unpaid overzealous power-hungry meatheads patroling our parks. I can just imagine the endless flow of brutality law suits and investigations. The idea is well intended but I don’t think it is practical, not in New Haven.
I’ll say it one more time; let the people vote on the alcohol issue. After the vote the administration can ensure the people’s will is followed, that is what they’re paid for.

Well brutality law suits can happen with regular police officer. So what is your point. As I have said I have seen them used on the west haven beaches and on the west haven green.So if you feel that power-hungry meatheads patroling our parks which by the way the statement that you made that you said power-hungry meatheads patroling our park is a
generalization. Can you prove that power-hungry meatheads will patroling our park. ...

posted by: Uncle Egg on June 10, 2010  11:51am

Something Streever said a while back hit a nerve in the little libertarian in me. We wouldn’t be talking about bans and volunteer police forces if Joe Average Citizen took a more active role in setting expectations for behavior.

As citizens, we’ve abdicated enforcement of good behavior and citizenship to government and police, which are ill-suited to respond to it. Government’s only real tool is to create new laws and ordinances, and police must enforce them indiscriminately. That tends to lead to all-or-nothing solutions to problems that (common sense dictates) require a bit more nuance.

In modern society (in contrast to the past) individuals are strongly discouraged from making public judgments on the behavior of others. If we see someone misbehaving, we look the other way—god forbid we offend someone by opening our mouths and saying something. Even in more clear cut cases where others are engaging in dangerous or illegal behavior, many of us won’t even pick up our phones for fear of “getting involved.”

Well, community is all about “getting involved.” I think if people were more apt to stand up for themselves and call others out when they misbehave, it would help to reset the standards in favor of more civilized behavior.

posted by: Townie on June 10, 2010  3:22pm

The question remains: Why can’t the people vote on the issue? I think it is a valid question and, hopefully, I am going to use this forum to plug the Direct Democracy Project, visit the blog.
http://directdemocracynewhaven.blogspot.com/

posted by: Darnell Goldson on June 10, 2010  4:20pm

@Townie:

The Answer is that we can. I will shortly post info as to how it can be done.

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 10, 2010  6:57pm

If anybody wants to bring up public safety, see how well community snitches for minor infractions work out in the long run. 

We can’t even get people to talk about unsolved killings.

posted by: Darnell Goldson on June 11, 2010  7:00am

@ Townie

As promised:

City Charter - Referendum

Sec. 2-348.  Advisory referendum established.
(a)  Upon a written request by any person, and a two-thirds ( 2/3) majority vote by the full board of aldermen, said board may submit a non-binding referendum to the city’s electorate at the next regular state or municipal election.
(b)  [Petition papers; action of board:]
(1)  Any city elector may apply to the city clerk for petition papers for an advisory, non-binding referendum on any question. The application shall contain a statement of the question for which the referendum is sought. The city clerk shall provide the elector with sufficient copies of petition papers within five (5) business days of such request for soliciting signatures. All petition papers shall contain the same statement of the referendum question, bear the city clerk’s certificate showing the date that the petition papers were issued, and shall indicate the name and address of the person to whom they were issued. In order to bring the referendum question to the board of aldermen for consideration, the petition papers must be signed by eight (8) percent of the city’s electorate.
(2)  The petition papers must be filed with the city clerk within ninety (90) calendar days of their issuance date. The papers must be the same as those that were provided or approved by the city clerk, and must contain the circulator’s name and address, a statement that the circulator either knows, or was given satisfactory evidence of each signer’s identity, and all the signatures on each page must have been obtained no earlier than six (6) months before the filing of the petition. The circulator must be a registered voter in the city, and must sign and date each petition paper under penalties of false statement.
(3)  The city clerk shall certify to each petition paper’s validity, and refer it to the registrar of voters on the next business day after its return. The registrar of voters shall verify the signatures to be those of registered voters, endorse the findings, and return all petition papers to the clerk within ten (10) business days of such referral. On the next business day after a sufficient number of verified signatures have been returned to the city clerk, the clerk shall submit the petition papers to the board of aldermen for its consideration at its next regular meeting.
(4)  Upon receipt of the petition papers, the board shall refer the referendum question to the appropriate aldermanic committee for a public hearing before the next regular board meeting. At the board meeting following the public hearing, the board by a majority vote of those present may submit the referendum question to the city’s electorate as described in subsection (a) above. If the board of aldermen takes no action on the referendum within forty (40) days after the board receives it, the referendum question shall be deemed approved.
(5)  If a petitioner pursues the procedures described in this section, and the number of verified signatures equals or exceeds twelve (12) percent of the city’s electorate, the advisory, non-binding referendum question shall appear on the ballot of the next regular state or municipal election.
(6)  The form of petition papers provided by the city clerk under this section shall be substantially in the following form:
We, the undersigned electors of the City of New Haven, hereby demand the following question be placed before the voters of the city in an advisory, non-binding referendum at the next state or local election.

posted by: Townie on June 11, 2010  8:29am

Does a non-binding referendum have any effect on the creation/repeal of a city ordinance? And why does the BOA have to vote on whether to have the referendum presented? Why can’t the citizens just submit a petition to the city clerk? As it is written, the BOA still has final say in the presentation of the referendum and the repeal or creation of a city ordinance and/or budget issue. True Direct Democracy would render the BOA into an advisory board and not a board of legislation. All the power would rest with the people.

posted by: Darnell Goldson on June 13, 2010  12:56am

@ Townie

“Does a non-binding referendum have any effect on the creation/repeal of a city ordinance?”

NO

“And why does the BOA have to vote on whether to have the referendum presented? Why can’t the citizens just submit a petition to the city clerk?”

If the petition has 12% of the registered voters, it does not need BOA approval.

“As it is written, the BOA still has final say in the presentation of the referendum and the repeal or creation of a city ordinance and/or budget issue.”

The BOA has final say on the referendum approval is there are less than 12% signatures.
Yes, the BOA has final say on the repeal or creation of city ordinance. I’m not sure if this is by City Charter or State Statutes. I can try to find out for you if you are interested.

“True Direct Democracy would render the BOA into an advisory board and not a board of legislation. All the power would rest with the people.”

Sure would