Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 23
Sign: Cancer
City: San Diego
State: California
Country: US
Signup Date:
04/22/07
|
Blog Archive
[ Older
Newer ]
|
|
 |
|
June 16, 2007 - Saturday
|
The Prohibitionists Write to the Beach & Bay Press
Well, as expected, the prohibs have written their letters in to the Beach & Bay Press expressing their disgust with Councilman Faulconer for his unwillingness to cave in to their pressure. Realizing that they're the minority, their strategy of controlling smaller entities in order to create the phantom of representing the masses is again utilized, this time in the Beach & Bay Press. (see Pacific Beach Planning Commission and the Mission Beach Town Council for further reference.)
Check the link to the Beach & Bay Press online. Their letters start on page 8 and continue to page 9.
Click here to check out the PDF of the letters.
FreePB.org encourages everyone to write a letter in response to the prohibitionists, at least to demonstrate to the casual reader that the prohibs don't represent the majority of the residents of the beach communities. Send them in to bbp@sdnews.com. Councilman Faulconer would probably appreciate if you copied his office as well. That address is tcurtis@sandiego.gov.
Nick
FreePB.org
11:49 AM
-
4 Comments - 4 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
June 8, 2007 - Friday
|
Carl's Blog Post is Amazing.
Category: News and Politics
From the blog of Carl Moczydlowsky at: > http://carlmoz.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/beach-alcohol-task-force/
On Monday June 4th, I attended a meeting of the San Diego Beach and Alcohol Task Force. For those of you not familiar with the issue; a small percentage of residents of the San Diego Beach communities (Pacific Beach [PB], Mission Beach, & Ocean Beach [OB]) want alcohol banned on the beach. The prohibitionists consist almost entirely of upper middle class, white, homeowners, over the age of 50. To be fair, these people have some legitimate concerns over an onslaught of nuisance crimes that occur in the communities. These crimes consist mostly of public urination, littering, and public drunkenness. A myriad of other problems are routinely stated by the prohibitionists including nudity (public sex), swearing, noise, etc. These issues are directly related to public drunkenness. They also have expressed concerns over safety and have thrown in the usual right-wing rhetoric about sanctity of the family. These crimes are committed by a very tiny minority of the people that drink on the beach.
The prohibitionists are extremely short sighted however. Pacific Beach has a homeowner occupancy rate of about 25%. The primary housing type is run down apartment complexes of the 6 to 8 unit variety that are leased to students or young adults. I'm going to crank out some GIS analysis soon and look at the demographics more closely, but I think that the average age has to be under 35. Futhermore the PB area has the highest concentration of liquor licenses of any where in the city. The Garnet Street corridor has the highest concentration of bars in the city with the exception of the Gaslamp District (Downtown). Obviously (to most people) the issues confronting the prohibitionists are much more complicated than banning alcohol on the beach.
My observations and reactions to the discourse at the meeting were varied. Although one overriding theme was increasingly obvious, this is a class issue. Wealthy-ish white people are trying to restrict the freedom of others in an effort to have the community that they want, rather than the one that they bought into. It has racial undertones against Hispanics and African Americans that use the public beaches on the weekends. It is a classic battle between generations. On several occasions some of the older prohibitionists used the age old cliche "what is wrong with these kids today." Frankly, the prohibitionists want to live in La Jolla Shores, but can't afford it. They want their property values to go up and they want the students and young adults run out of town. But it isn't going to happen. There are too many landlords making too much money off of the young people that want live at the beach and there are too many bars serving cocktails to the entire city.
What it comes down to is a two pronged issue of resource availability. Existing laws and regulations are aimed at preventing the behaviors the prohibitionists are up in arms about. The police do as good a job as they can policing the area. On a per capita basis the beach communities have far more officers than any other area of the city including the Latino street gang infested regions of Barrio Logan and Logan Heights. Unfortunately the police don't have the resources they need to stem the problems. San Diego is broke. Everyone knows it. Everyone voted for someone that had a hand in creating the financial mess that the city won't be out of for years. San Diego has the highest attrition rate of officers of any large city in the US. They are also among the worst paid in a city that is near the top in cost of living. Most San Diego officers can't afford to live in the city limits. When we can afford more, well paid, officers we will have lower nuisance crimes at the beach. The police have routinely stated that they are against the alcohol ban. The issues that occur on the beach now occur in a defensible space, it will be much harder to police if the crimes move into the neighborhoods in the form of house parties and bar goers.
The other issue is that there are a lack of services provided by the city. There is a lack of trash and recycling receptacles, the ones that are provided aren't emptied or serviced often enough. There are a lack of bathroom facilities. The ratio of beach goers to restrooms is absurdly low. There is a lack of public parking. This causes long walks through neighborhoods and further decentralization of defensible space. Criminals are generally lazy, they wouldn't walk through your neighborhood if they could park a block away. Since the city is broke, none of this is likely to change anytime soon (freepb.org has tried to address the trash and recycling issue).
What is amazing is that the same demographic that is trying to restrict the freedoms of others is the same demographic that routinely votes down tax and fee increases. San Diego has the lowest fees of any major city in California. Maybe if there weren't so many constituents lined up at City Council to protest an increase in trash fees then the trash would get picked up?
I like to finish all my posts with some suggestions and alternatives rather than just ranting. Perhaps the City Council should pursue increasing the fines and punishment for the nuisance crimes. A $1000 littering fine or a $1500 public urination fine would curb those behaviors pretty quickly. It would also put money into the city coffers that is desperately needed. Rather than having the option of Community Court for petty offenders, require it, then put the people out on the beaches during high profile times. Increase signage, outreach and publicity efforts. Garner support from the local bars and liquor stores and ask for contributions to fund programs and facility upgrades. Ask the liquor companies and distributors for contributions and help.
Be creative. Don't limit freedoms.
4:37 PM
-
7 Comments - 7 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
June 5, 2007 - Tuesday
|
June 4th BATF outcomes
First off, we need to extend big thanks to those of you who made it to the BATF meeting on Monday. If you hadn't been there, surely all the public comments would have come from that same group of prohibitionists that won't ever be satisfied.
The meeting was held to decide upon which beach-use issues had Task-Force consensus and so could be passed along to the San Diego City Council for enactment. If there was any kind of significant objection to the idea, then it was judged that consensus hadn't been built and the issue was left to rot (hopefully forever).
So here are the results:
Item 1: Increase seasonal restrooms. DECISION: Consensus built; advances to City Council for consideration.
Item 2: Rotate SDPD Storefront through beach communities. DECISION: Consensus built; advances to City Council for consideration.
Item 3: Increase number of concrete barriers for maintenance of the lifeguard emergency routes in high-volume areas. DECISION: Consensus built; advances to City Council for consideration.
Item 4: Increase trash receptacles along sand, boardwalks and adjacent parks. DECISION: Consensus built; advances to City Council for consideration.
Item 5: Increase number of police officers assigned to the beach team. DECISION: Consensus built; advances to City Council for consideration.
Item 6: Install security cameras to monitor beaches and boardwalks. DECISION: Consensus built; advances to City Council for consideration.
Item 7: Ban alcohol on San Diego beaches during July 4th holiday. DECISION: No consensus possible. This issue will not advance to City Council for consideration.
Item 8: Create family-zones - only allow alcohol consumption on specific sections of the beach. DECISION: Will be debated in further detail at the next BATF meeting.
Item 9: Complete alcohol ban on all San Diego beaches. DECISION: No consensus possible. This issue will not advance to City Council for consideration.
So it looks like these so-called "family zones", which councilman Faulconer even recommended re-badging as "alcohol-free" zones instead, are the next thing to think about. The frame-up of "family zone" is already a ploy by the prohibies to portray this as something that families couldn't survive without, even though we all know that plenty of families enjoy just about every part of Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Ocean Beach and Mission Bay on any day of the week that ends in the letter "y". We have all seen how many families are there enjoying the beach whenever the sun is out.
Those in favor of these zones have already suggested that they be right where everyone wants to be: By the pier in OB and in front of commercial areas, not in front of houses in PB for some reason (which translates to PB Drive and in front of Lahaina's). Why wouldn't you want your alcohol-free zone to be in front of a residence? Would homeowners disagree with families frolicking in front of their homes? Why would you ever want to put zones like this in front of commercial areas, such as bars? Sounds like more prohibitionist "logic".
In other words, since they can't take away our fun and freedom completely, they're going to use the guise of "family" to try to push everyone out of the already-existent fun areas.
Are you ready for yet another battle?
Nick
Membership Director
FreePB.org
3:06 PM
-
11 Comments - 14 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2007 - Saturday
|
A letter from Robin, San Diego native
One of the best letters I've seen since we started FreePB.org:
Everyone should have the freedom to enjoy the beach in his or her own way. Our society is eclectic, full of various groups with various needs and wants. Some adults have kids and want to spend time with their families at the beach, but some adults do not have kids and would rather spend time at the beach with friends. That doesn't make one better or more morally correct than the other. Just because someone would rather spend his or her day drinking a beer, listening to music, and hanging out with other adults does not degrade the moral fiber of our society, nor does it create all the problems that many are trying to attribute to it. To say that the sight of a little boy carrying a boogie board, heading out to the water is better than a college student drinking a beer, talking with his friends is passing a moral judgment that the citizens do not have a right to make.
Our country is based upon freedom and choice. How people choose to spend their time at the beach should be up to them. As long as people are obeying the laws and practicing good judgment, they should have the freedom to choose how they want to spend their day at the beach and according to the San Diego Police, the majority of beach goers adhere to this.
The beach is not just for families. There are plenty of people who would not want to spend their relaxing day at the beach next to a family with a bunch of rambunctious kids screaming and running all over the place just as much as the people who would not want to spend their day next a bunch of college age students drinking and playing loud music. But the beauty of our society is that there is space and freedom for all people to enjoy the beach in the way in which they desire.
-Robin, 32, San Diego native
7:24 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
May 25, 2007 - Friday
|
E-mail from the Prohibitionist Perspective
From: --------------@----
Date: May 24, 2007 6:48:03 AM PDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Mon June 4 meeting about alcohol issue
Please try to attend, and forward this information to everyone!!!!!!!!!!
Subject: Important meeting on beach alcohol-mark your calendar for June 4
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:44:45 -0700
>Monday, June 4 may be the critical day for drinking on the beach.
>Kevin Faulconer has finally scheduled a session of the Beach Alcohol
> Task Force to discuss this very contentious issue, and he hopes to
> arrive at a consensus on what to do about it. The meeting is at
>Santa Clara Rec Center, 6:30 PM on June 4th.
>
>One thing is certain: there are a substantial number of people,
>including every liquor store and market owner in the area, who LOVE
>the situation just as it is and will resist any change. The store
>owners and the young singles who love to party on the beach
>regardless of the impact on residents, will be there in force and
>try to intimidate the panel.
>
>It is incumbent on those of us who live near the beach and are tired
> of the high crime rate, the vandalism, the trash on the sand and
>in our yards, the public urination, the gang bangers and rowdies
>and all the other problems caused by the current rules turn out to
>show support for a change. If we don't demand it, it won't happen.
> Please come, and invite your neighbors.
>
>NAME REMOVED
>
4:54 PM
-
3 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - Tuesday
|
Post a bulletin for FreePB.org
Thanks to everyone who has posted and re-posted bulletins to support us. If you want to set up a simple bulletin in the future, follow this link to a page on our actual site that has a pre-made code waiting for you:
http://www.freepb.org/myspace-code.html
This link is not a virus. Notice that it leads to the FreePB.org website.
6:51 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
April 27, 2007 - Friday
|
Do the right thing...
Fix that kid a drink before he sets out on a life of adult douchebaggery
by EDWIN DECKER
I read a story in the San Diego Union-Tribune the other day about a recently released study on teen drinking. The article was your standard missive about how the country is going to Hell on a Hell-shuttle because teenagers are --shudder-- drinking alcohol.
In order to prevent teen drinking, Fred Becker of the Becker Institute in Carlsbad offers the following advice:
If a parent really wants to make a good impression on a child, take all the booze you have in the house and put it somewhere.
Whoa! Hold on there. Put my booze somewhere? I don't understand. It already is somewhere. It's in the booze cabinet. If I put it somewhere else, then that'll be the place where the booze is. Will I have to put it somewhere else again? Or is he suggesting I should spirit the spirits out of the house entirely? Like maybe rent a storage unit so that every time I want to make myself a got-am drink, I gotta drive out to got-am Mission Valley to access my stash?
Becker also said that parents should stop drinking in front of their kids. I ask you, when, oh when, does a parent need a drink more than when in the presence of one of those insufferable me-me-me midgets?
Besides, do you really want to raise a child who won't drink alcohol? Because those are the ones who become adults who don't drink alcohol, and aren't they just the biggest assholes you ever met?
Well, OK, not all non-drinkers. Not the kind of non-drinker who used to be a boozer but had to quit because his life was bed-spinning out of control. Thats a guy you can admire. But it's these Never-had-a-drink-in-my-life-because-I-believed-everything-my-mommy-told-me twerps that you have to watch out for. I mean, think about it: When that guy was a kid, right smack in the middle of the age of wonder and experimentation, he wasn't even curious enough to want to know what the hubby-bubby about alcohol was about? Who the hay wants a kid like that? Who the hay wants a kid who won't blow off his homework just once to get twisted with his pals on the hill behind the Wal-Mart for the sheer exploration of it?
Not me.
Because that's a sign he's going to grow up to be a major assface. That's a sign he's going to grow up to be one of these guys who signs petitions to keep alcohol off the beaches on 4th of July, who won't watch Deadwood because of all the bad language and who closes his eyes real tight when he thinks about how much he loves Jesus.
It's a sign he's going to grow up to be an insufferable bore. Because he's never going to have any interesting party anecdotes about the night he spent in the drunk tank, or that time he vomited on the lap of the hooker he cried in front of, or that fateful evening when he sang bellicose show tunes with his pants down at a corporate Christmas party at the cost of a great job.
It's a sign he's going to grow up to be that utterly unremarkable guy who murders your dinner guests with yarns about his days of glory when he was a professional extreme shuffleboard player.
You must not let your child become that person. That's why it's imperative you get him on the grape by his 18th birthday. I know, I know, you're worried what might happen when your kid discovers alcohol too early. Thing is, if your kid hasn't experimented with the hooch by the time he's 18, that's when you have to worry. That's a sign that something's wrong.
Christ knows I will never procreate, but if I did, say, have a son, not only would I drink in front of him, I would let him drink, too. I'd probably give him his first sip of spiked eggnog by age 14. By age 16, I'd let him drink a can of beer. For his 18th birthday I'd take him out to a nice restaurant and get buzzed together over a couple of hot toddies. And all the while I am dispensing liquor to him, I'll be right there, teaching everything he needs to know about it: how to order correctly from a bartender, how to make a proper toast, how to pull a happy-peppy party girl out of the happy-peppy-party bar and how to drink flaming shots without setting your face on fire.
I'd hammer home the perils of drinking and driving, the horrors of liver damage and the folly of drunk-dialing. I would explain how people who don't respect this strange and chaotic broth called alcohol eventually wake up to find themselves in jail, interred or worse-- naked and duck-taped to the top of the high school flagpole.
On his 19th birthday, I would buy him a car. I'd hand him the keys and say, "Here's the deal, boy: If I ever find out you drank alcohol and drove this car, if I ever found out you let somebody else drink and drive this car, if I ever find out you drove this car while your passengers drank alcohol even though you didn't, if ever find out you got into somebody else's car who was driving under the influence, if I ever find out you ever had thoughts about driving while at the same time having thoughts about consuming alcohol, if you ever do or say anything ever to make me think you do not totally and utterly understand the ramifications of drinking and driving, I will take a sledgehammer to your car and bash it back into the raw materials from whence it came."
Then I would cross my fingers, because after all that, there's still no guarantee that he won't drunkenly crash his car into a propane filler station and go out in a fiery holocaust. After all that, it's still just a crapshoot whether you get one of those out-of-control alcohola-kids or a normal one. Still, my son's odds would be better than those hide-the-alcohol people's sons' odds because my son came prepared for the real world. And I prepared him without turning him into one of these no-booze-on-beach-petition-signing, non-Deadwood-watching, extreme-shuffleboard-storytelling, Jesus-eye-scrunching, tee-totaling douchebags.
E-mail ed[at]edwindecker[dot]com and editor[at]SDcitybeat[dot]com.
7/26/06
8:36 PM
-
1 Comments - 2 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
Letter to the Editor of the Union Tribune
Pacific Beach parties and our forefathers
I just finished reading "No booze on beaches July 4, group urges" (Our Region, April 17). I found this particular line, uttered without a hint of irony I might add, by Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee Chairman Mark Mitchell to be a pretty telling statement: "I don't think our forefathers intended the younger generation to celebrate our Independence Day with a drunken party."
Would Mitchell think our forefathers would have intended for the government to take away various rights of the people when a portion of the community becomes merely put out or annoyed by them? I sincerely doubt if our forefathers didn't overly indulge themselves in celebration from time to time.
STEPHEN HANNING
Pacific Beach
in response to...
No booze on beaches July 4, group urges
Task force looking into alcohol issues
By Chet Barfield
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 17, 2007
PACIFIC BEACH – Contending that holiday revelry has gotten out of hand, a Pacific Beach planning group is asking the San Diego City Council to ban drinking at the community's beaches and bay shores on the Fourth of July. Faulconer's council district covers Pacific Beach, Mission Beach and Ocean Beach. A group fighting new alcohol restrictions in all three communities, FreePB – which stands for "parks and beaches," not Pacific Beach – wants "better enforcement of existing laws and education of the public," said board member Rob Rynearson. In a letter yesterday to Councilman Kevin Faulconer, the group's chairman said the Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee unanimously voted to request the one-day ban to reduce alcohol-related crime, trash and police expenses.
"The town just turns into a drunk haven the Fourth of July," chairman Mark Mitchell said yesterday. "I don't think our forefathers intended the younger generation to celebrate our Independence Day with a drunken party."
Faulconer was out of town yesterday and could not be reached for comment. He had empaneled a task force in September to study beach-alcohol issues in his district. After months of community forums, the 12-member task force will begin debating proposals this month and expects to make its recommendations by June.
Mitchell said his planning group didn't want to wait for the task force, because July 4 is the biggest party day of the year in Pacific Beach.
"I've caught people, both men and women, urinating in my front yard during the day because they're drunk," he said. "We want a more family-oriented beach."
Faulconer's council district covers Pacific Beach, Mission Beach and Ocean Beach. A group fighting new alcohol restrictions in all three communities, FreePB – which stands for "parks and beaches," not Pacific Beach – wants "better enforcement of existing laws and education of the public," said board member Rob Rynearson.
"We want to prevent erosion of our personal freedom," he said.
Leaders of planning and community groups in Mission Beach and Ocean Beach yesterday said they've taken no official positions in the long-standing debate over alcohol while they wait for the task force recommendations. Drinking on the beach is banned at La Jolla but is permitted noon to 8 p.m. at Pacific Beach, Mission Beach and Ocean Beach.
Ocean Beach Planning Board past chairman Tom Gawronski said the board included a referendum in its last election asking residents whether they want more limits on beach drinking, and three out of four said no.
"Our position here is if the city is going to ban alcohol on the beaches, they should ban alcohol on all the beaches," he said. "We certainly don't want Pacific Beach and Mission Beach to ban alcohol and leave Ocean Beach as the only place."
Mission Beach Town Council President Mary Swanson said her community is sharply divided. "There are a lot of people in favor of a July 4th ban, giving it a try, and a lot of people opposed," she said.
Pacific Beach is also split, said Town Council President Ruby Houck. She said a community vote last year narrowly favored seeking a year-round beach-drinking ban.
7:59 PM
-
2 Comments - 2 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
