New Haven Independent

posted by: juli on November 19, 2009  2:03pm

what will the policy be for all of the weddings and other events in the carousel building?

posted by: Morris Cove on November 19, 2009  4:25pm

Great news for families who want to enjoy the park and for the neighborhood. Good job Arlene, but a ban is usless if there is no full time enforcement of these laws.

I know that there is a Police officer on the weekends, but is there someone stationed at the park during the week?, maybe we can get a beach patrol ala Bay Watch, I wouldn’t mind that job.

posted by: streever on November 19, 2009  4:35pm

What a poor idea.

I’ve said this before and been labelled an alcoholic and dependent on drinking here. The reality is it’s fun to have a beer or two while you toss a frisbee on the beach. It’s good to have a healthy relationship with alcohol, especially if you want your children to have a healthy relationship with alcohol. Abstinence only is a poor policy, and doesn’t work well.

Why do we need to take away freedoms and liberties? Isn’t it ironic that the sole republican on the board wants to limit individual freedoms and liberties?

I think this is a misguided idea because if the issue is that people get out of control and the police don’t do anything, how will a blanket ban on alcohol affect this? If the police are not dealing with problem people, then how will this fix that issue?

posted by: Brian on November 19, 2009  4:42pm

I see no need for this law.

There is no enforcement of the current laws, which if enforced would make the need for this law useless. Stop people from being publicly intoxicated, driving drunk, littering, being excessively noisy (all of which there are laws for).. but let me have my beer at the beach in peace. Don’t ruin it for everyone because the cops can’t stop a few from getting out of control.

posted by: Mister Jones on November 19, 2009  5:25pm

Streever, Walton and Brian are absolutely right.  It’s more of the New Prohibition.  Instead of targeting the bad behavior, responsible folks will be punished.  Adding new laws without enforcement of problem behavior will not solve the problem.  It only encourages more disrespect for law, and allows for selective enforcement. 

“Whether it’s a drinking ordinance or no drinking ordinance, people are gonna drink,” said Walton. “I’m more concerned about the incidents of residential violation, or violation of property that Arlene spoke about.”

posted by: ROBN on November 19, 2009  7:31pm

This law is designed for one thing…protecting lazy officials who don’t want to deal with kicking drunks out of the park. Rather than enforce the law against abusive drinkers (and litterers which I can’t believe are being lumped in with this to justify the law) the city seeks to ban what would otherwise be perfectly acceptable behavior of alcohol consumption.

posted by: Park Friend on November 19, 2009  10:09pm

If you frequented the park you’d understand.  Do you think a guy having a beer or two is gonna be arrested?  They’re targeting the large parties of mostly underaged drinkers…You can still throw your wobbley frisbee…Also, the whole board passed the motion…not just the Republican…sounds like she’s been listening to her constituents…unlike the rest of the politicians. The staff at the beach are the hardest working people in the city.  They deal with abusive park users who call them racial slurs and threaten them.  They also chase away the perverts keeping the children safe while their parents are off drunk under a tree.

posted by: asdf on November 20, 2009  7:53am

This will have an effect on revenue.  I’ll give you one example—we have our office picnics there (with families and certainly not in any way unruly).  Most of the families don’t live in New Haven and pay for parking.  We will go somewhere else if the ban is in place.  I’m sure there are many other groups like us.  Maybe that doesn’t work out to too much money, but at the least it shouldn’t be shrugged off as no effect.

posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2009  9:42am

Park Friend: I once got a hefty ticket in a state park for drinking the one and only beer I brought. 

What is stopping them from targeting these large parties of underage drinkers now?  They are already breaking the law, so just kick them out—no new laws are needed for that.  I’m sure this was presented with the best intentions, but it will only affect responsible drinkers.  Enforcement seems to be the only issue here that needs to be addressed.

posted by: Mark on November 20, 2009  10:06am

This is me waving goodbye to more rights enjoyed by responsible adults. The authority is too lazy to take care of the minority of people that use the park and cause problems. Instead, punish everyone! This alderwoman isn’t listening to her constituents because my tax dollars pay for this damn park too!
If you don’t want to wake up at three am, don’t live next to a fire station. If you don’t want to wake up at seven am, don’t live near a school. If you don’t want noise in the afternoon and some litter in your yard, don’t live next to a popular public park.

posted by: Walt on November 20, 2009  10:18am

Looks almost unanimous. 

Well said above by many.

Will just harass the responsible imbibers and the troublemakers will continue as before.

posted by: ltmike on November 20, 2009  10:28am

KEEP NEW HAVEN GREEN AND CLEAN with clean larger

posted by: LtMike on November 20, 2009  10:33am

Enforcement is the key.  Not allowing a person to enjoy a cold beer during an outting seems extreme.  Policing under age drinking and littering seems like the logical solution.  I do not use the park much at all, but an all out ban to me just seems too extreme and less practical to enforce.

posted by: Morris Cove on November 20, 2009  10:59am

I won’t waste my time trying to change peoples minds of the importance of drinking, to each it’s own, but what I will say is that it’s obvious that most of these people that posted weren’t at the beach to witness the fights, fueled by liquor and the general disrespect shown to families trying to enjoy the hot summer days.

This perposal was brought up because this is Arlene’s ward, the fact that she is Republican has nothing to do with it, and to relate the two is ridiculous. Let me ask you so called experts, if there was a ” two beer limit “, how do you enforce that?, do send a cop around telling people that they hit there limit like a bartender?, would it not be more simple ( not lazy ), to just ban the liquor all together? Or maybe the city can invest in a huge velvet rope and have door men, bouncers, bartenders, and bar backs in speedos tending to the beach goers.

In the future try actually coming to the park on the Fourth of July and see for yourselves what I’m talking about, try a witty response when you witness this first hand.

posted by: DEZ on November 20, 2009  11:34am

I have to say, I’ve enjoyed great sunsets at the beach with a bottle of wine and friends.  I echo most statements above that this is short sighted at best.  Also, who owns the beach up to the high tide line?  Is it technically “park”?  I’d happily move my chair below this point and still enjoy a glass or two if that’s what it takes!

posted by: Ned on November 20, 2009  12:13pm

Funny all of the alcohol defenders on here.  I can just imagine the reaction if someone wanted to sit on the beach, smoke a joint, and chat with friends…

posted by: Mike on November 20, 2009  12:18pm

Littering is already illegal, do the cops do anything? not that I see.

Sodomy in the woods near the boat launch is illegal, do the cops do anything about it? no.

Riding dirtbikes and ATVs in the park is illegal, do the cops do anything about it? no.

Diving off the pier has always been illegal, do the cops do anything about it? no.

Parking cars at the boat launch is illegal, do the cops do anything about it? no.
Lighthouse could create 100 more rules that would not be enforced.

to me the best thing they could do is put more garbage cans out all over the park. recycling cans too.

posted by: wtf on November 20, 2009  1:10pm

while the board of alderman is at it also prohibit and enforce no drinking at the soccer games and at east shore park

posted by: Brian on November 20, 2009  1:15pm

For our own good they should probably prohibit all alcohol consumption in the city, I heard it led to a fight once.

posted by: streever on November 20, 2009  6:05pm

Morris Cove, Park Friend, etc, you are missing the boat.

Our problem is that the laws that prevent underage drinking and fighting drunks are already on the books. These laws exists. Why the heck would you make a new law to combat a problem that is ALREADY ILLEGAL?

By your logic we should ban having a single glass of wine because SOME PEOPLE drive drunk and cause deaths. That’s ridiculous.

ALL WHO AGREE: Let’s go to this board of Aldermen meeting. There is legal precedent to stop this ridiculous motion. There is no solid rationale for this law. The problem is not ALL drinking, but excessive and under-age drinking.

posted by: streever on November 20, 2009  9:25pm

I’d like to know the date of the public hearing. I will come out to oppose this and would like to see others there too.

Park Friend:
Right, but look, the issue is that DePino wants to ban all drinking: not the behavior you describe.

Why? Because the police do not enforce the CURRENT law.

So why pass one more law that the police—apparently—won’t enforce?

It’s misguided and a clearly bad idea. The reality is that plenty of laws already have jurisdiction on the behavior that makes you unhappy without you telling me I can’t have 1 or 2 beers while I throw a frisbee. Like Bruce, I too have been ticketed for enjoying a beer in public, despite not being rowdy/drunk.

Look, spend a weekend in ANY COUNTRY besides America. You will find that people enjoy hot drinks on the streets of Canada with no rise in violence/littering, and cool drinks in Puerto Rico on the beach with no rise in violence/littering.

It’s a puritanical, small-minded, and misguided policy, which will only increase the level of taboo associated with drinking. We need to move away from these pointless laws and to sensible policies which reward smart behavior and penalize poor.

posted by: Crying in my beer on November 21, 2009  9:49am

I am not a New Haven resident and have only been to Lighthouse Park a few times in my life…But here is my 2 cents…It was a unanimous vote…These are the Aldermen you as a town voted in to office…You have no one to blame for there decisions but yourselves…I could care less either way but crying in your beer over this seems a little rediculous…Put your energy into a few other things that out of towners can see that you can’t, like getting rid of it’s ...Mayor and his cronies…Start there and you’ll be amazed at how things change.

posted by: ParkStTaxPayer on November 22, 2009  9:51pm

if it’s policy in every other park in New Haven to not allow drinking, then why is it still allowed at Lighthouse?

My vote goes for consistency. If you’re allowed to drink at Lighthouse, why not East Rock Park? Unless you’re a cyclist or avid walker, there’s no other way to get to those parks without a car. The checkpoint at the entrance to Lighthouse should be staffed, and there should be regular patrols of the park. Bicycle cops could easily patrol, and a cruiser could be stationed during busy times for more rapid response.

If there’s a presence of police, a feeling of safety for visitors, I don’t see what banning alcohol will accomplish.

However, it appears the parks aren’t adequately patrolled, and there doesn’t seem to be the resources to staff the park with security. Therefore, a ban on alcohol sounds reasonable. While “good, honest” people end up being punished due to the misdeeds of a few, it is important to note that in these cases, a responding officer has little time to decide who is abiding by the law and who is an underage drinker.

it’s a tough choice overall, but my personal belief is that one should be drinking plenty of fluids while out in the sun. alcohol is not one of them!

posted by: Morris Cove on November 23, 2009  2:31am

Streever

First off, I hope your feeling better, I was saddened to hear about your accident. Streever I think your missing the boat, the fact of the matter is no one mentioned anything about underage drinking, I have witnessed grown ups (ADULTS), drinking and carrying on like fools in the park.

I saw a groups of people being carted off to jail, this past 4th of July, but don’t take my word, Walter Traninum ( park and rec supervisor ), was present, and saw the brawl, ask him yourself he’s at the park everyday. The facilitator was liquor. If you impose a two drink minimum as you suggest, who’s going to regulate that?, would it not make more sense to just ban it all together? The problem isn’t underage drinking , it’s irresponsible behavior. Oh and btw, the cops did a bang up job, by locking up I believe 15 or so drunks that night.

posted by: Norton Street on November 23, 2009  5:13pm

Morris Cove,
You are correct. In order to ban irresponsible drinking behavior, you must ban the act all together. Just like the way we should ban driving in order to stop irresponsible driving behavior, right?

Or like a sane person, we enforce the current laws that would reduce problems, while also addressing the larger social issues that produce the undesirable behavior. Unpleasant drunk people should be kicked out of the park, arrested, and/or fined. Pleasant people who happen to be drinking can be left alone. Just like people who drive dependently and recklessly should have their licenses permanently revocked, while people who do it occasionally and in a socially responsible manner are perfectly acceptable.

All of this is irrelevant unless police/authority figures enforce it. If it is made illegal to drink on the beach but no one prevents it, then it might as well be legal. The problem is lack of authority figures/police that are currently addressing problems when they arise, whether they’re drinking related or not.

As long as you are drinking responsibly, you can go about your business at the beach; we can call it the “Streever Clause”.

posted by: Morris Cove on November 24, 2009  8:57am

Norton St.

Why is that every issue with you has to come full circle and revert to your rants about motor vehicles and driving, we get, you prefer that all vehicles be banned okay. To get back to the issue ( Drinking in the park ), the police don’t have an assigned beat, the enforcement is done on the weekends and it’s done on an overtime/ extra duty scale for a few hours.

Since you seem to have the answer to every issue, what do you purpose?, and how is going to be funded? Just asking, but when was the last time you actually visited the park and seen the problems for yourself?, try that before you comment.

posted by: Norton Street on November 24, 2009  10:20am

Morris Cove,
I do not support a ban of vehicles, try actually reading and understanding my comments please.
The solution comes from enforcement, not more words on pieces of paper.
I take the bus and/or ride my bike to the beach several days a week during the summer and I’ve witnessed inappropriate behavior before. Nothing that personally bothered me, but did appear to be bothering families. A couple times I asked the people to respect the children who were there, once the people were very nice and calmed down, the second time I was given a big “f you”, which was nice and if I had felt particularly motivated I would have called the police, but they ended up leaving after about 20 minutes anyways.
If nothing is currently done to prevent over consumption of alcohol, then what is going to change? The change has to come from the quality of enforcement. A beat cop at peak beach use times might make sense.

posted by: B. Crocco on November 24, 2009  10:34am

How about if we stop drug deals and drag racing at the seawall first.  Then we can address drinking at lighthouse.

posted by: Morris Cove on November 24, 2009  3:11pm

Norton St.

I agree, it would be nice to see a cop during the week days. I walk the park just about every morning and in the summer I’ll walk in the afternoons as well and a cop at the beach makes sense but how do you pay for this? I don’t forsee the city assigning a beach patrol, and I don’t think the park generates enough monies to pay for the added security.

That is the point I’m trying to make if you bothered to read my comments and understand it. That why a ban on liquor just makes sense.

posted by: Norton Street on November 24, 2009  3:50pm

So, if we can’t get what is needed, ask for something else? Or continue to fight for enforcement. Why does a beat cop need to cost extra? police who currently do patrols in the district could just be assigned a few hours a week at the beach, no?