Well folks, what do you think? Oh, change "a bottle" to "up to a bottle" in the article.
Quote
Law against buying alcohol before 5 p.m. seen as vagrant solutionBy The Times-Union
Jerry Moran runs an Italian restaurant. So it's no surprise that he likes wine.
What he doesn't like is the fact that downtown is being inundated with people who like to drink their wine, or their beer, or other spirits, outdoors - and who beg passersby for money so they can buy more.
"I drink a bottle of wine a day," Moran, owner of La Cena Ristorante on north Laura Street, told me. "I just don't drink it on the streets."
So Moran is pushing for a law that would, between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 p.m., ban stores downtown and in much of the surrounding area from selling people alcoholic beverages to drink off the premises. Moran has been working with City Councilman Don Redman's staff to craft such an ordinance, and he's been talking to merchants and other downtown and Springfield dwellers about the idea.
Right now, alcohol sales resume at 7 a.m.
Such a law is necessary, Moran said, because when vagrants are able to purchase and drink alcoholic beverages throughout the day, they are more prone to commit transgressions such as urinating in public and hitting people up for money to fuel their habit.
And the atmosphere they create can be both dangerous and unpleasant. Dangerous because requests for money can sometimes turn into screams and demands. Unpleasant because people don't like to be accosted for cash when they are eating or enjoying a moment in Hemming Park.
"I spend all my time chasing down vagrants and getting calls from other merchants about vagrants," Moran said. "It's a real problem. ... People are moving out, and we can't get people to move in.
Moran said he believes that by restricting the sale of take-out alcohol before 5 p.m. each day, it would be tough for those who beg for drinking money to find a place to spend it. Restaurants or bars that sell alcoholic beverages to be consumed indoors would not be affected. As for stores that sell it, Moran, who also has a beer and wine license, is betting that most customers who buy alcoholic beverages to take home probably purchase it after 5 p.m.
And if he's wrong, he said, the law would end in two years.
"Many of them [the vagrants who drink all day] are given a bag and a straw, and they drink their alcohol and throw it [the container] on the ground," Moran said. "It leads to all kinds of nuisance crimes.
"What I'm suggesting is that there's no legitimate reason to buy packaged goods [alcohol] before 5 p.m. And with a two-year sunset, we can give this a try."
At least one merchant, however, has questioned the idea, saying that such a broad restriction could backfire on efforts to build a vibrant downtown. Diane Gilbert, who heads the Emergency Services and Homeless Coalition of Jacksonville Inc., would like to see more research.
"What I would like to know is what is the trend of alcohol purchases for the vendors," Gilbert said. "If everyone purchases in the afternoon, that can be a compromise that would address everyone's needs."
But in any case, it all goes to show the challenges that downtown faces by having to battle society's ugliest problems ... while trying to pretty itself up at the same time.
tonyaa.weathersbee@ jacksonville.com (904) 359-4251
I have very real questions with this bill. I don't mind restricting singles, 24/7 (stop that stupid paper bag loophole, for instance), but I should be able to go to Winn Dixie to buy a 6 pack or a case any time I want. What If I want to stay at home to watch a Jags game. I run over to pick up a case and some chips at 11am-12pmish...
Plus, most of the drunken activity I see happens after 5pm anyway, so this is a feel good bill, as written.
Quotebut I should be able to go to Winn Dixie to buy a 6 pack or a case any time I want. What If I want to stay at home to watch a Jags game.
That's the first thing that popped in my head as well.
Here's what Washington State does with areas that have a problem with alcohol consumption:
QuoteWashington State’s Alcohol Impact Area Legislation
WAC 314-12-210 Chronic public inebriation (CPI) and alcohol impact areas (AIA)-Definitions-Purpose.
(1) What is the purpose of these rules concerning chronic public inebriation and alcohol impact areas?
(a) The enabling statutes for the liquor control board are contained in chapter 66.08 RCW. These statutes authorize the board to exercise the police power of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, and safety of the people of Washington.
(b) The board's mandate to protect the welfare, health, peace, and safety of the people is to ensure that liquor licensees conduct their business in a lawful manner and that the presence of a licensee's alcohol sales does not unreasonably disturb the welfare, health, peace, or safety of the surrounding community.
(c) The purpose of these rules concerning chronic public inebriation and alcohol impact areas is to establish a framework under which the board, in partnership with local government and community organizations, can act to mitigate negative impacts on a community's welfare, health, peace, or safety that result from the presence of chronic public inebriation.
(d) For the purpose of these rules, chronic public inebriation exists when the effects of the public consumption of alcohol and/or public intoxication occur in concentrations that endanger the welfare, health, peace, or safety of a neighborhood or community.
(2) What do these rules concerning chronic public inebriation and alcohol impact areas seek to do? WAC 314-12-210 and 314-12-215 seek to:
(a) Establish an expanded local review process for liquor license applications, assumptions.*, and renewals inside a recognized alcohol impact area (AIA);
(b) Create standards under which the board may refuse to issue a liquor license; may refuse to permit the assumption or renewal of a liquor license; may place conditions or restrictions upon the issuance, assumption, or renewal of a license; or may place conditions or restrictions on an existing license inside a recognized AIA;
(c) Allow the board, in specific circumstances, to restrict the off-premises sale of certain alcohol products or alcohol product containers inside a recognized AIA.
.*Note: A liquor license assumption refers to an application by a prospective new owner/operator for an existing licensed business. Under certain conditions, such applicants may apply for a temporary license to continue operations during the new license application review period.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 66.08.030 and 66.24.010. 99-13-042, § 314-12-210, filed 6/8/99, effective 7/9/99.]
WAC 314-12-215 Alcohol impact areas-Definition-Guidelines.
(1) What is an alcohol impact area (AIA)? An alcohol impact area is a geographic area within a city, town, or county that is adversely affected by chronic public inebriation or illegal activity associated with alcohol sales or consumption. The area must be designated by ordinance by the government subdivision and recognized by resolution of the board before any enhanced processes described by these rules are applied.
(2) What guidelines will the board use to recognize an alcohol impact area (AIA)? The board, by resolution, may recognize an AIA adopted by a city, town, or county and subsequently referred to the board by that government subdivision. To achieve recognition, the AIA must meet all of the following conditions:
(a) The AIA comprises a geographic area that does not include the entire territory of the local jurisdiction;
(b) The government subdivision has given a rationale, expressed in the ordinance, for the establishment of the proposed boundaries of the AIA;
(c) The government subdivision has described the boundaries of the AIA in the ordinance in such a way that:
(i) The board can determine which liquor licensees are in the proposed area; and
(ii) The boundaries are understandable to the public at large.
(d) The AIA ordinance includes findings of fact which establish:
(i) Chronic public inebriation or illegal activity associated with alcohol sales and/or consumption within the proposed AIA is contributing to the deterioration of the general quality of life within the area or threatens the welfare, health, peace, or safety of the area's visitors and occupants;
(ii) There is a pervasive pattern of public intoxication and/or public consumption of alcohol as documented in crime statistics, police reports, emergency medical response data, detoxification reports, sanitation reports, public health records, or similar records; and
(iii) A good faith effort has been made by the government subdivision to control the problem through voluntary efforts that may include cooperation with neighborhood citizen and/or business organizations, and must include the notification of licensees within the proposed AIA of public intoxication problems and of voluntary remedies available to them to resolve the problem.
(e) The AIA will take effect on the date of the board's resolution extending recognition to the AIA.
(3) Once an AIA is recognized by the board, what processes, conditions, or restrictions may the board apply?
(a) The board will apply a unique local license review process for liquor license applications, assumptions, and renewals within the AIA.
(b) The board may place conditions or restrictions on the off-premises sale privilege of liquor licenses within the AIA. These restrictions must be reasonably related to reducing chronic public inebriation or illegal activity associated with off-premises alcohol sales and/or consumption. These restrictions may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Restrictions on the hours of operation for off-premises alcohol sale within the AIA;
(ii) Restrictions on the off-premises sale of certain alcohol products within the AIA; and
(iii) Restrictions on alcohol container sizes available for off-premises sale within the AIA.
(4) What are the circumstances required for the board to restrict the off-premises sale of alcohol within an AIA? The board may restrict the off-premises sale of alcohol within an AIA, subject to all of the following conditions:
(a) Product restrictions must be requested by the government subdivision's law enforcement agency or public health authority;
(b) The board must find that the off-premises sale of such alcohol products is reasonably linked to the problems associated with chronic public inebriation; and
(c) The government subdivision must have shown that voluntary efforts have failed to significantly reduce the impact of chronic public inebriation, or that voluntary efforts need augmentation by license restrictions described in subsection (3) of this section.
(5) What type of voluntary efforts must the government subdivision attempt before the board will implement mandatory product restrictions? Before the board will implement mandatory product restrictions, the government subdivision's voluntary efforts must include:
(a) Notification of all off-premises sales licensees in the proposed AIA that behavior associated with alcohol sales is having an impact on chronic public inebriation.
(b) Documentation that the government subdivision has made reasonable efforts to implement voluntary agreements to promote business practices that reduce chronic public inebriation and promote public welfare, health, peace, and safety with licensees within the AIA who sell alcohol for off-premises consumption.
(c) Implementation of these voluntary agreements must have been attempted for at least six months before information is presented to the board that voluntary efforts have failed or need augmentation.
(6) If restrictions are approved for an AIA, the board will:
(a) Notify the appropriate beer and wine distributors of the product restrictions placed on off-premises licensees within the AIA.
(b) When product restrictions on the off-premises sale of alcohol products are placed on licensees within an AIA, no state liquor store or agency within the AIA may sell these restricted products.
(7) What is the process for liquor license applications and renewals for licensees inside a recognized AIA? Subject to the provisions of RCW 66.24.010(8):
(a) When the board receives an application for a liquor license that includes an off-premises sale privilege, the board will establish an extended time period of sixty days for the government subdivision to comment on the liquor license application or assumption.
(i) The government subdivision may and is encouraged to submit comment before the end of this sixty-day period, but may request an extension of this period when unusual circumstances, explained in the request, require additional time for comment.
(ii) The requesting government subdivision will notify the licensee or applicant when an extension of the sixty-day comment period is requested.
(b) For renewals, notice will be mailed to the government subdivision not less than ninety days before the current license expires.
(8) How long will an AIA be in effect? An AIA will remain in effect until:
(a) The sponsoring government subdivision repeals the specific enabling ordinance that originally defined the specific AIA recognized by the board; or
(b) The board repeals its recognition of an AIA as the result of a public hearing, called by the board acting on its own initiative or at the request of a community organization within the AIA, made after the AIA has been in effect for at least two years.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 66.08.030 and 66.24.010. 99-13-042, § 314-12-215, filed 6/8/99, effective 7/9/99.]
WAC 314-12-220 General review.
The board will initiate a study of the effectiveness of WAC 314-12-210 and 314-12-215 one year following recognition of the first AIA under these rules. The study, which shall take no more than ninety days, will recommend the continuation, modification, or repeal of these rules.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 66.08.030 and 66.24.010. 99-13-042, § 314-12-220, filed 6/8/99, effective 7/9/99.]
WAC 314-12-225 Severability.
If any provision of WAC 314-12-210 through 314-12-220 or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or the application of these rules which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of these rules are declared to be severable.
Jerry, Im not sure we have a "problem with alchohol consumption" We have a problem with social services all being put in one tiny part of town.
Listen man, I am with you in your drive, but I really don't think this is the way to get there. If you want to attack the problem, then lets go after the baggies, no concealed drinks... maybe get rid of singles... But I really think that stopping the sale of wine or beer until 5 downtown will do nothing.
Its already illegal to sell it after 2, is the Shell Station selling after 2? Is anywhere else open?
Jerry, if this bill is passed, does it eliminate the possibility of purchasing any alcoholic beverage from Winn-Dixie during the day? Has there been any consultation of this bill with downtown residents? What's been the dominant view so far? What's the pros and cons for downtown residents who will probably have to travel outside of the downtown area to purchase beverages during sporting events like Jags games or college football games?
Let's first have some more comments and questions so I can answer them all at once.
In the meantime:
QuoteJerry, Im not sure we have a "problem with alchohol consumption"
Check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZE29xsZ9JU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZE29xsZ9JU)
"Both individuals are criminal vagrants with lengthy arrest records."
The most important part of the video was written next to it...
I agree with Jerry the single beers and quart sales are a huge problem. Our city is littered with the refuse of these sales and the vagrants spend all day panhandling so they can go get their 16oz Colt 45.
As for Winn Dixie downtown I still for the life of me can't understand anyone patronizing that place. I get those who don't have transportation, but that store sucks, it sells crap and its customer service is the pits. Why by crappy beer from a crappy store anyway?
Is this proposed ordinance any different than banning the sale of mixed drinks to go? (I remember the drive through at Jax liquors would sell these)
Go into any of those pathetic excuses for convenience stores on Main street and you'll see a huge tub full of 16oz singles to go. It does contribute to alchoholism, petit theft, panhandling, drunk and disorderly, littering etc... whats not to see?
The beer lobby will NEVER let this pass! my guess.
Let's not forget that the Winn-Dixie is about to undergo a major renovation and expansion project. It should be a pretty decent place once they pour a couple million into it.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2007, 09:09:11 AM
Let's not forget that the Winn-Dixie is about to undergo a major renovation and expansion project. It should be a pretty decent place once they pour a couple million into it.
ahh yes.. the "million" dollar renovation....since this is Jacksonville.. I won't be holding my breath... will this be like the renovation of the Landing or the Laura St. Trio or the Barnett Bank building? Ok.. I'm sure it'll be GREAT! bet after the renovation they'll have an even bigger single/40oz beer section, perhaps a lottery/cigarette lounge and I'm sure it'll have the great customer non-service that they're known for.
Yeah, can't wait.
I guess, we'll have to wait and see. Only time will tell. However, its still probably not a good idea to blanket an entire section of town with an ordinance such as this because it can potentially affect the quality of life of downtown residents and it doesn't attack the real problem. It will be interesting to see if and what the exceptions are to the rule, once Jerry provides more in depth information.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/505/122/
i enjoy the revenue generated with the sale of ... It afordes free tolleys, ghost busses and skyways to nowhere man. Hey, how about giving the a job instead of jailing them.
Gator, you know its not that black and white. A large chunk of these guys dont want a job.
Walter, I am with you on the banning of singles. What Jerry, and Redman want is to ban sales from 7am-5pm.
Jerrys intentions are good. Redmans I have my doubts on. Why not shot for all of District 4?
Either way, this is a feel good ordinance as most of the drinking I see occurring happens in the evening time anyway. Why not change the law so that drinks cant be put into brown paper bags. Making it illegal to put booze in brown paper bags, then pressing JSO to enforce the law would be far more effective than banning all beer sales until 5pm.
Quote from: walter on August 27, 2007, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2007, 09:09:11 AM
Let's not forget that the Winn-Dixie is about to undergo a major renovation and expansion project. It should be a pretty decent place once they pour a couple million into it.
ahh yes.. the "million" dollar renovation....since this is Jacksonville.. I won't be holding my breath... will this be like the renovation of the Landing or the Laura St. Trio or the Barnett Bank building? Ok.. I'm sure it'll be GREAT! bet after the renovation they'll have an even bigger single/40oz beer section, perhaps a lottery/cigarette lounge and I'm sure it'll have the great customer non-service that they're known for.
Yeah, can't wait.
completely uncalled for....perhaps you should visit the store before making comments....they have done a whole lot over the last year to clean up the store and make it safe and friendly.....and the $3 million renovation starts this week!
Wrong and wronger! Dont take away from me and my purchase for consumption in my $559k condo and other tax payers to make yourself feel good. Rather start ticketing the open container tax payers 50.00. If they don't pay arrest them and work release them to build the Lrt or brt or whatever else we need built. Deal or no deal.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2007, 10:13:30 AM
Quote from: walter on August 27, 2007, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2007, 09:09:11 AM
Let's not forget that the Winn-Dixie is about to undergo a major renovation and expansion project. It should be a pretty decent place once they pour a couple million into it.
ahh yes.. the "million" dollar renovation....since this is Jacksonville.. I won't be holding my breath... will this be like the renovation of the Landing or the Laura St. Trio or the Barnett Bank building? Ok.. I'm sure it'll be GREAT! bet after the renovation they'll have an even bigger single/40oz beer section, perhaps a lottery/cigarette lounge and I'm sure it'll have the great customer non-service that they're known for.
Yeah, can't wait.
completely uncalled for....perhaps you should visit the store before making comments....they have done a whole lot over the last year to clean up the store and make it safe and friendly.....and the $3 million renovation starts this week!
I visit the store, but only when I have to. The service still sucks, and I won't be going back until they finish the remodeling. But they can make the store look like the Taj Mahal, but if the same "enthusiastic" people work there...then the truly need renovation didn't take place.
It seems like this is just creating another law because the first law is not being enforced. It's already illegal to drink on the street, but that hasn't stopped it.
Correct. Just arrest and work release. Would you love to see tax payers in bright orange smocks working for you instead of you working for them?
This goes way beyond a simple drink of alcohol. If the missions and soup kitchens are all downtown, then the street people will stay in downtown. The environment that attracts you and I also attracts them. It's pretty, plenty of clean bathrooms, plenty of shelter from a storm, fountains, places to bathe, places to dress and sleep, nice air conditioned buildings, and lots of people to beg from. What more could a person within that culture want? Beer, singles or no beer or wine, you won't change these things anytime soon. Homeless people have friends too, some who work, some who have cars, and frankly, some who are wealthy (perhaps from vice and crime), will we stop cars entering downtown to do baggage searches for booze? If we don't then the stuff will just be hauled to the market. If the market is in Hemming Plaza, then that's where it will show up. Simple really. These people do not live complex lives but they are very good at getting the few things they want or need to survive.
This whole problem is a sickness of both the society and the individual. Joe Lunchbox over at Metropolitan Stadium, shouldn't have to pay for the sins of the homeless while watching an afternoon NFL game. Mr. Cosmo, in a downtown high-rise, should be able to offer that foreign investor his choice of adult beverages without breaking the law. We need to look at the whole problem and study ways other places have addressed it. Endless arrests and bashing heads - prohibition of any type DOESN'T WORK! Ask yourself honestly, have you ever been drunk? just buzzed? Smoked pot? Prohibition REALLY worked for you didn't it?
We fix this through social services, mental and medical assistance. In South Florida many of the homeless do work, they sell a little paper called "THE HOMELESS VOICE", on the street corners. The paper is the voice of Social Services and outreach missions. Each homeless man or woman gets a chance at a real job, a nice reflective vest and a supply of papers to start their day. As Stephen wrote in another post, "Teach these people to fish for themselves." The same is true for prostitution, we could address all of these problems with some sweeping changes to our basic approach. Taking away the bottle for a few hours will do nothing at all.
Sure glad I don't have an opinion on this...
Ocklawaha
Quote from: tufsu1completely uncalled for....perhaps you should visit the store before making comments....they have done a whole lot over the last year to clean up the store and make it safe and friendly.....and the $3 million renovation starts this week!
oh I assure you its completely called for, unfortunately I HAVE to go there at times. I sure don't want to but its unavoidable and as for its "safe and friendly" atmosphere....that was funny! ;D yeah it remids me of the Rutherford Inn too!
once again, hobos ruin life for everyone else.
it seems like, instead of making more laws they should just enforce the ones we already have, and if that doesnt work, make the penalties worse.
not to get on a side note, but in Deutschland, they will take away your licence for drunk driving instead of wasting their time with morons. (this applies because they should not make more laws, but stricter penalties)
Quote from: walter on August 27, 2007, 03:00:36 PM
Quote from: tufsu1completely uncalled for....perhaps you should visit the store before making comments....they have done a whole lot over the last year to clean up the store and make it safe and friendly.....and the $3 million renovation starts this week!
oh I assure you its completely called for, unfortunately I HAVE to go there at times. I sure don't want to but its unavoidable and as for its "safe and friendly" atmosphere....that was funny! ;D yeah it remids me of the Rutherford Inn too!
I shop there regularly and have had no problems at all.....if its so bad, ask to speak to the GM...his name is Juan....I think you'll be pleasnatly surprised
This is tough one - I see what the point is, but I was thinking the same thing about the Winn-Dixie. What if I want to pick up a 12 pack on the way to the stadium?
To me, this would apply better with single consumption bottles. Other than the "white trash bash" parties that we had in college, has anyone ever bought a 40 for anything positive?
I would say let's enforce public drunkeness laws - let's not create new laws because we can't enforce our old ones.
(http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/News/01/061402/p6585.jpg)
Colombia? YES! A street plan that works.
Okay, quit laughing. Yes, Colombia does have a system that works. A few years ago, while in downtown Bogota, there were horrible riots. A military police APC came flying around the corner and they spotted me in the crowd. (It's easy, what weighs 265 pounds and is 6' tall in South America? = only a Gringo) The soldiers called out, "get out of here, come on! let's go, students and communists." Needless to say, we didn't need any more coaxing. We scrambled out of there and in the morning, the place looked like Berlin after WWII! Wow!
Today, just a few years later, my teen daughters can walk downtown in Medellin at midnight. They tackled the job and today the crime rate is 1/2 or less of Jacksonville's. This was done by enforcing the laws with a tough hand. Offering betterment and social programs to the poor and homeless. One of the most successful was opened every 3 months, for only a few hours, at first. They brought in teachers and they taught the poor all manner of handicrafts. The meetings became more and more popular and soon they had their own office and complex. Today, daily crafts and skills are taught, the homeless sell their handiwork to sponsor their new home. They get free medical and mental care and a small room to call their own. The people get all sorts of small items made by the hands of the former street people. The City gets safe and clean streets and people come in from outside the area to learn or even go after a high school degree (Colombian high school degree is equal to 2 years AA degree in a US university or college, US State Dept Information).
Perhaps the poor backward THIRD WORLD has the answer for us highly advanced creatures, Si Como No?
Ocklawaha
How did the mayor or NYC fix the problems the big apple had when Julianni took office? He started arresting people for discarding cigarette butts. (Has FL ever did this? http://www.tobacco.org/articles/state/FL/?top_only=1 )
The taxpayers there figured, "Wow, if they arrest me for littering, what will they do if I commit a real crime." Same here. Let's just do it.
Arrest the public drinking tax payers, work release them and have them build that ghost rail from timbuktu to the wild kindom. I'm sure ridership would at least grow by 1. I've never been to timbuktu.
rather than creating new laws, lets start enforcing the ones we have. Not to get off subject but this is way too common in legislature from local to federal govt; creating new laws when there are already too many laws not being enforced.
I think that Jerry is also playing into the hands of Redman here too. Redman has stated that he believes the biggest problem downtown is booze. Now, he can try to push the legislation though, but point at Jerry as the reason.
I am disappointed by some of the silly responses this posting has received. We have a very serious problem here in Downtown Jacksonville and it needs to be addressed.
Limiting the hours of alcohol sales for off premises consumption has been my idea for over two years. Susanne Jenkins was not interested in it. Don Redman is the new City Councilman in my district, and, of course, I approached him to put the proposal back on the burner. My poll indicates support for some form of the ordinance from on-high on down. Many communities around the country that have similar problems as we have taken action. We can do that too, but have to work under the constraints of the Florida Statutes.
Suggesting that I am “playing into the hands of Redman†belies an unfounded prejudice. I have found Don Redman, and his assistant, Scott Wilson, to be intelligent, reasonable, and quite available. They return telephone calls and emails. Ultimately, you can always stop by Don’s barbershop on Belfort Road and chat with him. He won’t force you into a flat top. And if you venture a visit, you would find that Redman is not against drinking or entertainment. That’s something the Folio Weekly propagated to create controversy, as the publication is known to do. Don decided to become an athlete later in life, and as a 52 year old myself, I can tell you that intense exercise and alcohol does not mix very well. His abstinence has nothing to do with morals, but rather the ability to run and ride a bicycle competitively.
Here is the ordinance proposal I wrote up and distributed at Jay Jabor’s town meeting last Tuesday. If you have a better idea, I urge you to get up off your numb blogging butts and get it done.
A Proposal for an Ordinance to Regulate the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages for Off Premises Consumption in the Northbank of Jacksonville Florida.
Definitions
Alcoholic Beverage: Any beverage containing more than one half of one percent alcohol by volume.
Northbank: Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Zone 1, Sections A-1, A-2, and A-3. This area is bound by Interstate 95 on the west, and the St. Johns River on the east; mostly State Street on the north, and the St. Johns River on the south. (See reverse side of this page.)
Intent
The generally poor social and physical condition of the Northbank of Downtown Jacksonville, Florida, can in great part be attributed to the illegal public consumption of alcoholic beverages on the streets and sidewalks at all hours of the day. This ordinance will seek to reduce alcohol related crime and nuisance by prohibiting the sale for off premises consumption of all alcoholic beverages between the hours of 2 AM and 5 PM in the Northbank area. This ordinance will not affect bars and restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. All beverage venders will be prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages “to go†between the hours of 2 AM and 5 PM. A two year review and sunset will be included in this ordinance.
History
The public consumption of alcoholic beverages in Duval County is illegal, except at certain sanctioned events located in certain areas. This is commonly known as the “Open Container Lawâ€. Any sale of alcoholic beverages in Duval County is currently prohibited at all venues (restaurants, bars, retail stores) between the hours of 2 AM and 7 AM daily.
Multiple social service agencies, and homeless shelters are located on the Northbank. In this respect, the Northbank is unlike any other area of Duval County. This has caused the Northbank to become a magnet for transients, alcohol and drug addicts, mentally ill persons, and criminal vagrants. Many of these individuals spend the bulk of their time on the public streets and in city parks. Most all share a common denominator, and that is the desire for alcoholic beverages. Since these persons have no source of legitimate income, they are prone to commit property crimes, and panhandle citizens in order to get money to buy the alcohol they so desperately want. As these street people do not have a home, or prefer to live on the street, they have no choice but to consume alcoholic beverages in public. This very often leads to disorderly conduct and intoxication, property crimes, littering, trespass, and camping offenses to be committed by them. The effect this has on the Northbank is to give the area an unattractive and somewhat dangerous “skid row†character. For this very reason, many residents of Duval County are afraid to venture downtown. This is counter productive to downtown development.
The Northbank’s public drinking problem could be remedied by rigid enforcement of existing “open container†ordinances by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. That is, public drinkers would be arrested. The reality is that the JSO does not have the resources or staff to adequately patrol the Northbank. With looming City budget cuts, the JSO will be less able to protect the Northbank. In this near emergency environment, and in consideration of our limited resources, the most efficient way to control alcohol consumption is at the source of supply, and that would be the retailer.
A reasonable approach to controlling illegal public drinking in the Northbank would be to prohibit the sale of “singles†or chilled beverages, or to limit how a beverage could be packaged, such as banning brown can bags and straws. Unfortunately, the only device State Law provides a locality with for controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages is a local option for the hours when alcohol can be sold. That being said, the City can only regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Northbank with an ordinance that contains the following elements:
Prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption on the Northbank between the hours of 2 AM and 5 PM. A two year review and sunset for this ordinance will be in place.
This ordinance will prevent an individual from purchasing a beverage “to goâ€. The intended effect of this ordinance is to improve the image of, and quality of life in Jacksonville’s Northbank Neighborhood.
Jerry, what are some of the cities our size that have passed similiar ordinances in their downtowns?
Jerry,
As a property owner in the area of town you outline in your ordinance, I applaud you for your desire to find a solution to this social issue. However, I do not think that restricitng alcohol sales to 5:00 PM to 2:00 Am is the solution. It places an undue burden on business owners who sell alcohol and punishes non-vagrant citizens by denying them the ability to purchase a six-pack when they want to.
The issue goes further than this proposed ordinance can handle. A multi-facted approach must be taken to resolve the problem. Pan-handling ordinances must be enforced, open container ordinances must be enforced, vagrancy ordinances must be enforced, social programs must be put into place to give these people meaningful opportunities to contribute to society.
But, therein lies the problem. JSO is under-manned and over-worked; just try to get someone to respond to a burglery call in less then two hours. Social agencies are stretched to the max and those who are on the street seem content with their lot in life.
As I said at the beginning of this reply, I own a number of properties in and around the area in question. When we have a clean-out or demo job that must be completed we try to hire people from the groups this ordinance is aimed at. Our thought is that we will pay them a fair wage for a fair day's work and keep them off the streets at least for a little while. The last time we hired two men, one was very hard-working, had a great attitude and blamed no one but himself for his position in life; the other worked half-heartedly, got in everyone's way and complained that the work was too hard. Most of the vagrants in the area have the same attitude as the this second guy. They want money, but they don't want to work for it.
We need to address this entitlement mentality, the city needs to provide social service to assist these people without just shelling out more money that will be spent on alcohol, drugs or worse. Its a complex problem that cannot be solved by merely ceasing alcohol sales.
3 Million dollars for a better store, and from what I've seen and heard, we then cut alcohol sales, the stores revenues will plunge by 85% then it will close. A vacant 3 million dollar store that once sold adult beverages, would make a cool place to sleep and hide from the man! Way to go Jacksonville!
Ocklawaha
It will match nicely with the 2 million dollar homeless camp in La Villa just down the road.
its a reasonable approach. stop selling chilled singles with a bag and a straw, how would that stop any of you from buying your case on the way to the game? It wouldn't.
Stop by some of these "stores" sometime and you'll likely see a cooler filled to the brim with chilled 16oz beers, are you buying those?
I can tell you those same brown bagged beers get strewn around town as litter. There's a nice little pile of them next to where I live. Seems that spot is the point at which the beverage has been consumed and is ready for the pitch.
To the naysayers and doom and gloom predictions, the same was said about restaurants and bars when the smoking ban was proposed....seems they all went out of business just as predicted eh? NOT.
Quote from: walter on September 07, 2007, 11:03:15 AM
its a reasonable approach. stop selling chilled singles with a bag and a straw, how would that stop any of you from buying your case on the way to the game? It wouldn't.
Stop by some of these "stores" sometime and you'll likely see a cooler filled to the brim with chilled 16oz beers, are you buying those?
I can tell you those same brown bagged beers get strewn around town as litter. There's a nice little pile of them next to where I live. Seems that spot is the point at which the beverage has been consumed and is ready for the pitch.
To the naysayers and doom and gloom predictions, the same was said about restaurants and bars when the smoking ban was proposed....seems they all went out of business just as predicted eh? NOT.
Here's what Jerry posted...
"A reasonable approach to controlling illegal public drinking in the Northbank would be to prohibit the sale of “singles†or chilled beverages, or to limit how a beverage could be packaged, such as banning brown can bags and straws. Unfortunately, the only device State Law provides a locality with for controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages is a local option for the hours when alcohol can be sold. That being said, the City can only regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Northbank with an ordinance that contains the following elements:
Prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption on the Northbank between the hours of 2 AM and 5 PM. A two year review and sunset for this ordinance will be in place.
This ordinance will prevent an individual from purchasing a beverage “to goâ€. The intended effect of this ordinance is to improve the image of, and quality of life in Jacksonville’s Northbank Neighborhood."Unless we're reading into it wrong, this covers singles at Scottie stores as well as six packs at Winn-Dixie or imported brews at the proposed grocery market in the old Haydon Burns Library building.
The use of the words "to-go sales" is whats throwing everyone off, and I dont believe for a second it was done by mistake. Why not call it what it is. The prohibition of all sales of beer and wine until after 5pm.
This is probably the best true debate I've seen on this board. Some thoughts and questions...
What are the counter-proposals of those who disagree with Jerry's policy? If the reality is that the current laws on the books can't be enforced due to limited police resources, then what's the alternative?
How much of a decrease in "downtown disorder" would result from the policy? Zero? Some? Lots? Would daytime alcohol simply be substituted by daytime narcotics by causing the disorder?
Which is the greater inconvenience - not being able to buy booze down the street before the Jaguars game or the incremental (downward) change in disorder from implementation of the policy? (I am assuming that there will still be a level of problem activity post-policy implementation.) What would citizen's be "buying" in the form of reduced disorder by narrowing their alcohol purchasing/selling privileges?
Would implementation of the policy merely shift disorder to another part of town? What would be the ramifications of such a shift?
I think it's very wise to build in a sunset clause into the policy. If something gets implemented, monitor and measure the heck out of it, and then reconvene and assess whether the policy is worth renewing. Perhaps a shorter one-year experiment might suffice?
Best to all,
Pavers
Quote from: walter on September 07, 2007, 11:03:15 AM
its a reasonable approach. stop selling chilled singles with a bag and a straw, how would that stop any of you from buying your case on the way to the game? It wouldn't.
Stop by some of these "stores" sometime and you'll likely see a cooler filled to the brim with chilled 16oz beers, are you buying those?
I can tell you those same brown bagged beers get strewn around town as litter. There's a nice little pile of them next to where I live. Seems that spot is the point at which the beverage has been consumed and is ready for the pitch.
To the naysayers and doom and gloom predictions, the same was said about restaurants and bars when the smoking ban was proposed....seems they all went out of business just as predicted eh? NOT.
1.) It is never reasonable to punish law-abiding citizens for the crimes of the wrong-doers. Limiting alcohol sales does just that. Social issues can never be solved strictly by legislation.
2.) Occassionally, I do prefer to buy a single beer or two as opposed to an entire six-pack. I am not much of a drinker and do not rarely have more than one beer in a sitting. And no, I do not drink it with a straw or straight from the bag.
3.) The issue of litter is an entirely different issue that has little to do with the issue of vagrancy and public intoxication. Jacksonville has long been known as a city that discards its trash on the public thoroughfares -- stand at any busy intersection and try to count the cigarette butts...
4.) Doom and gloom has nothing to do with it -- economics do. If you take away a man's livelihood under the guise of social reform you are setting a dangerous precident. This proposal reduces the amount of time a store can legally sell alcohol by half thereby reducing the profits the owner can earn. This will create business failures which then create vacancies which contribute to blight. The idea is to attract businesses to these areas, not drive them out.
Gotta run, there's a Ms. Carrie Nation on my other line....
I'm not reading the proposed legislation as a complete ban on all alcohol sales until 5pm, but I could be wrong. If Jerry could clarify this point perhaps.. as I would be against a complete ban.
As to the economic issues, yes a complete ban would impact business no doubt, so I agree with that analysis. If it is to curb single sales I don't believe the economic impact would be that great as to cause a business to fold. If they are selling that many singles perhaps the business isn't all that beneficial to downtown anyway.
As to the legality of the product. A rose in a glass tube is a novelty, by itself its completely legal and should be sold right? However, it is used for illegal purposes and contributes to drug addiction and blight in the neighborhood, so banning the sale of them is valid no? Selling single, chilled beers in brown bags contributes to alcoholism and blight, I would say banning their sale during certain hours is equivelant to banning the rose.
bottom line for me though is this proposal should only target the sale of single beers, anything else six-packs etc.. I'm against that. I know that there is going to be a really cool beer selection in the new city market and I surely don't want to have to wait until 5pm to buy a sixer.
We all thought it was singles at first too, Walter, but when Jerry came the SPAR monthly meeting, he made clear it was ALL sales of beer and wine downtown, and he would like to include Springfield north in that too.
I agree, if we could ban singles sales, or at least enforce public drinking laws, and make it illegal to knowingly give those little baggies to singles sales, I would support it.
Go look at hogans creek. Its not filled with empty 12 packs.
Quote from: downtownparks on September 07, 2007, 03:04:27 PM
We all thought it was singles at first too, Walter, but when Jerry came the SPAR monthly meeting, he made clear it was ALL sales of beer and wine downtown, and he would like to include Springfield north in that too.
if thats the case, thats ridiculous, sorry Jerry I can't support that.
I don't know how I can further clarify the provisions of the proposed ordinance. If you have a question, please go back and carefully re-read what I posted.
As for including Springfield (Section B of Zone 1), it was purely an accommodation to Springfield. If Springfield would like to absorb the daytime inebriates that will leave the Core by not participating in the ordinance, it's Springfield's choice.
As for what other communities do, here is one of many. Unfortunately, all we can do in FL is to limit hours of sales:
QuoteBooze ban
Seattle will prohibit fortified wine and malt liquor in Pioneer Square.By Rick Anderson
Saveway was at one time selling 800 gallons of 40-ounce beer per month.
Robin LaananenNO MORE Mr. Nice Guy. City Hall is sacking its longtime good-neighbor program intended to voluntarily limit the sales of cheap, high-alcohol products to chronic street alcoholics in Pioneer Square.
Instead, city officials for the first time will ask the state to impose compulsory product bans and other forcible restrictions by legally declaring Pioneer Square an official Alcohol Impact Area. Similar mandatory changes may also be imposed on the International District, Capitol Hill, and other city neighborhoods where voluntary programs have produced only limited success.
"In a nutshell, our report's going to say we failedâ€"the voluntary system just didn't workâ€"and we're going to ask [the Seattle City Council to] direct us to go to the State Liquor Control Board and ask that restrictions be made mandatory in Pioneer Square," says Gary Johnson of the Department of Neighborhoods.
The council should take action next month. That's the next step in a formal alcohol-impact process that began in August last year when the city's voluntary, good-neighbor areas were drawn up under a new state law (earlier good-neighbor plans dating to the mid-1990s also failed but didn't have the new legal component of eventual mandatory restrictions).
Liquor board spokesperson Bob Riler says that besides forcibly banning to-go sales of specific types and brands of alcohol, formation of a mandatory Alcohol Impact Area under the two-year-old law would allow the city more time to review and comment on liquor applications and limit hours of liquor sales.
Some officials think Seattle could end up with a citywide sales ban on bargain-priced fortified wine and malt liquor that are favored by street drinkers. The voluntary program showed sales restrictions to be unworkable if they're imposed in one area but not in another nearby; that merely moved the problem around.
Most importantly, the city found that one reluctant retailer can single-handedly sink the plan if it's voluntary. In Pioneer Square, officials say, that retailer was the little Saveway Market on Occidental Avenue South, where the biggest sign in its front windows is a beer logo.
"Saveway was the only holdout," says Nancy Woodford, a Pioneer Square community advocate who met with retailers and landlords. "They continue to advertise the sale of prohibited products." That "hurts the good-neighbor stores who are in full compliance," she says.
(One other store had been holding out. But that outlet, the historic Campbell & Fuller deli on Yesler Way, quietly went out of business a few months back.)
A Saveway spokesperson, who wouldn't give her name, says the store owners felt the restrictions were unfairly applied. Though several other Pioneer Square outlets restricted sales, Saveway balked after watching potential customers stroll or ride a free bus a few blocks to the Chinatown/ International District and buy 40-ounce beers, $2 wine, and other items on the city's 24-page list of restricted products.
"It's not like we were the bad people," the Saveway spokesperson says. "We didn't have a problem signing the agreementâ€"if everyone else signed it."
Liquor board records list Saveway's owner/licensee as Jay Y. Hur, who has filed to transfer the license to a family member, Patty Ann Hur.
The store is a half block from Occidental Park, a chronic drinkers' hangout. City records show Saveway was at one time selling 800 gallons of 40-ounce beer per month.
Patrick Vanzo, a supervisor in the King County Department of Community and Human Services, says "It's very easy to walk that neighborhood and see stores that previously sold [cheap booze] and they don't have people coming in and out of them inebriated. Then stand in front of this store [Saveway] and watch the sales, the overservice and the people coming out, and the drinking behavior that begins in that area."
That could change if mandatory controls are imposed, possibly by early next year, officials say. City Council member Margaret Pageler thinks the threat of extending mandatory restrictions and the license hassles that goes with them could cause retailers in other areas to opt for strict voluntary compliance.
"If we enact this ordinance for Pioneer Square," she says, "the merchants in Capitol Hill [for example] will understand that if they continue to contribute to the death of chronic inebriates by feeding their habits, we'll extend the ordinance to Capitol Hill, and it's in their own survival interest as businesses to be good neighbors."
Though treating alcoholism is vastly more complicated than just limiting sales, council member Richard Conlin says restrictions have proved to be a creditable contribution to the effort (each chronic street drunk can cost taxpayers an estimated $100,000 a year in medical and public-safety expenditures). Once reluctant to back the ban, "Right now," Conlin says, "I'm at the stage where I'm saying: How fast can we move?"
Here's a few other links for now:
Seattle: http://www.cityofseattle.net/BAN/public_safety_AIA.htm (http://www.cityofseattle.net/BAN/public_safety_AIA.htm)
Vallejo, California: http://www.fight-back.org/vprojects.html (http://www.fight-back.org/vprojects.html)
Los Angeles: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_148_cfa_20050705_130105_asm_comm.html (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_148_cfa_20050705_130105_asm_comm.html)
Oregon: http://www.leg.state.or.us/97reg/measures/sb1000.dir/sb1011.int.html (http://www.leg.state.or.us/97reg/measures/sb1000.dir/sb1011.int.html)
Thats great Jerry. Did you actually read the story you posted? They aren't looking for a blanket ban either. They have a list of items they want prohibited. This is in essence some posters on here have said they would support. Ban the sales of singles, and you will get the desired effect.
Please, correct me if I am wrong, what you and Redman are asking for is a prohibition of all non- restaurant alcohol sales until 5pm, correct?
This means that if I want to go to WinnDixie before the jags game to buy some Yingling (hardly the preferred beer on the street) I wont be able to so. Is this correct, or is it not?
From Seattle
QuoteBeside alcohol content, these products differ from most other beer and wine. They're cheap with a high sugar content: they're sweet. For chronic street inebriates, the sugar kills hunger. They rush and crash.
4000 other brands of beer are available in Washington State.
Beer and Malt Products
*
Bull Ice 8%
*
Busch Ice 5.9%
*
Colt 45 Ice 6.1%
*
Colt 45 Malt Liquor 6.4 %
*
Hurricane Ice Malt Liquor 7.5%
*
Keystone Ice 5.9%
*
Lucky Ice Ale Premium 6.1%
*
Mickey's Iced Brewed Ale 5.8%
*
Mickey's Malt Liquor 5.6%
*
Miller High Life Ice 5.9%
*
Milwaukee's Best Ice 5.9%
*
Milwaukee's Best Premium Ice Beer 5.9%
*
Natural Ice 5.6%
*
Old Milwaukee Ice 5.9%
*
Olde English "800" 7.5%
*
Pabst Ice 4.8%
*
Rainier Ale 7.3%
*
Red Bull Malt Liquor 5.5%
*
Red Dog 4.9%
*
Schmidt Ice 5.8%
*
Special 800 Reserve 6.0%
*
St. Ide's Liquor and Special Brews 7.3%
*
Steel Reserve (Five different types â€" 8.1% for four types, 5.5% for one type)
Wine Products
*
Cisco 18.0%
*
Gino's Premium Blend 14.0%
*
MD 20/20 13.5%
*
Night Train Express 17.0%
*
Richard's Wild Irish Rose 13.9%
*
Thunderbird 18.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QuoteThats great Jerry. Did you actually read the story you posted? They aren't looking for a blanket ban either. They have a list of items they want prohibited. This is in essence some posters on here have said they would support. Ban the sales of singles, and you will get the desired effect.
Please, correct me if I am wrong, what you and Redman are asking for is a prohibition of all non- restaurant alcohol sales until 5pm, correct?
This means that if I want to go to WinnDixie before the jags game to buy some Yingling (hardly the preferred beer on the street) I wont be able to so. Is this correct, or is it not?
One more time... Carefully read my postings.
QuoteThe generally poor social and physical condition of the Northbank of Downtown Jacksonville, Florida, can in great part be attributed to the illegal public consumption of alcoholic beverages on the streets and sidewalks at all hours of the day. This ordinance will seek to reduce alcohol related crime and nuisance by prohibiting the sale for off premises consumption of all alcoholic beverages between the hours of 2 AM and 5 PM in the Northbank area. This ordinance will not affect bars and restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. All beverage venders will be prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages “to go†between the hours of 2 AM and 5 PM. A two year review and sunset will be included in this ordinance.
Work with me here Jer. You are hanging your hat on the "to-go" wording. Does this, or does this not mean cases of beer as well as single? Will I be able to go to WinnDixie at noon on a Sunday and buy a 12 pack?
Why are you so against getting input from the people who live and work around downtown? Myself and others keep trying to tell you, go after singles, and you will have some support.
QuoteMoran is pushing for a law that would, between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 p.m., ban stores downtown and in much of the surrounding area from selling people alcoholic beverages to drink off the premises. Moran has been working with City Councilman Don Redman's staff to craft such an ordinance, and he's been talking to merchants and other downtown and Springfield dwellers about the idea.
That's the most ridiculous solution...why should the decent people be punished for what the low-lifes are doing? That's just flat out wrong. As if restricting the sales would change anything, when we all know that it won't. Why not direct that effort into doing something about these people, instead of trying to impose restrictions on those of us who aren't lounging around, begging for money and making downtown look like a homeless camp?!
Quote from: downtownparks on September 07, 2007, 06:27:01 PM
Work with me here Jer. You are hanging your hat on the "to-go" wording. Does this, or does this not mean cases of beer as well as single? Will I be able to go to WinnDixie at noon on a Sunday and buy a 12 pack?
Why are you so against getting input from the people who live and work around downtown? Myself and others keep trying to tell you, go after singles, and you will have some support.
That's more like it, and that's where the problem is...it's not the decent people who want to buy a six pack or something like that, who are causing the problem.
Does it seem to anyone, that if we can control a little of the public intoxication problem, by creating a partial ban on alcohol purchases, then we should be able to control all of the public intoxication, with a total ban!
Woman's Temperance Union and Carry A. Nation; saloon smasher and prohibitionist rides again in Jacksonville?!?
You might do well to remember that prior to prohibition, women drank very little. It was prohibition, the blooming of the speakeasy clubs, flappers, and the Jazz age, that brought about a huge surge in alcohol consumption. In other words, this was tried before and it had the opposite effect!
4:20 anyone? Yeah, you know...
Ocklawaha
Is the converse of that true as well? Public intoxication is a result of alcohol sales in the downtown area only between north of the St. Johns river and south of Laura street. What if I buy and fly from the west sidee? Or get my drink on at the airport and take the ghost bus downtown? Are you saying you want public intoxication from purchases outside the downtown area. I don't think that's go to sink...or swim. Do you own package stores outside the downtown area? ;D
Why make it a good ordinance that can have a positive impact over the entire urban core when you can make it a bad ordinance that will do nothing, and never pass?
After a year of consideration by the City's General Council, and then the Sheriff's Council, it has been determined that any ordinance enacted would have to include "all sales of alcoholic beverages". This means that sales for on premises consumption would be prohibited as well as sales for off premises consumption. That would affect on premises sales at downtown hotels, bars, and restaurants, which is counterproductive to downtown development, so the issue is dead.