Council Expands Open Container Ordinance

Share:
At Tuesday’s City Council Meeting, the Council voted to extend the Open Container Ordinance to greenbelts and bike paths and also add the N Street Park to the regular open container ordinance. Eventually it is likely that all parks will require a permit in order for visitors to have alcoholic containers.

Undoubtedly many probably view this ordinance as a common sense approach to create a safe family atmosphere at the park. In fact, one individual asked for a complete ban on alcoholic beverages at all parks.

On the other hand, the ordinance disproportionately effects two population groups–one being the homeless and the other being students.

The impact on students is on convenience. During my years as a student, we would at times have BBQs in the park. Sometimes we had these BBQs impromptu, sometimes we would have them planned in advance. On a hot day after being couped up studying, sometimes it was just nice to get together in the evening at the park and have a few beers. Requiring a permit would take away from those kind of events and force that all such BBQs be planned in advance and permitted. It is a matter of convenience of course, but I think that the rule would take away from the ability of otherwise harmless and law abiding citizens to engage in recreational fun in the parks and that would be a shame.

The far bigger impact is on a population group that most in the city of Davis probably have little sympathy for–the homeless population.

Advocates of the homeless such as Richard Cipian came out on Tuesday night to speak against the extension of the open container ordinance.

As Cipian explains there are a number of reasons for the homeless to engage in alcoholic consumption:

“A majority in the homeless community drink alcohol for three reasons. The first reason is that many in the homeless community do not have jobs. The second reason is that the homeless do not have a motivation to get shelter because there are long established waiting for affordable housing along with the other barriers to housing that I do not have to mention. Just refer to the 2007 Homeless Yolo Homeless Summit document. The third reason is that mental illnesses and painful physical disorders run very high in the homeless community and like students and housed community members, we turn to alcohol consumption to reduce stress in our daily lives.”

I understand the concerns of residents who complain of large numbers of people drinking in the parks. In fact, I spoke to residents about the N Street Park, many of them warned the homeless who had used that park that they should alternate parks in order to prevent one neighborhood from becoming tired of their presence. The homeless did not heed this advice and the result is now another park where they cannot drink.

I understand the concerns of parents who fear sending their kids to the parks when people are there drinking. There is no doubt in my mind that these are legitimate concerns.

On the other hand, I suspect that this solution is more of a band aid than a cure. The results of the early bans on alcoholic consumption were simply to shift the drinking population from one park to another. It is undoubtedly clear that this pattern will continue until the city bans all drinking at all parks without a permit.

I also understand that law enforcement prefers to be able to stop people from drinking than to respond to problems that result from people drinking.

But I wonder what the ultimate outcome will be of this ordinance. At the end of the day, the homeless that reside in Davis, many of whom will continue to drink. The only question is where.

And in some ways, banning public drinking might make the problem worse rather than better. For example, there is a good deal of evidence that a youth curfew does not reduce crime, it merely forces youth from public city centers where they are visible to neighborhood houses where they are not. The same will likely happen with homeless. In some ways, it may be easier to deal with a few problem people in a visible public area than a less visible area. It was even suggested that a specific drinking area be created where the police could fully monitor the activities.

Ruth Asmundson at the council meeting on Tuesday suggested that if people could purchase the alcohol, they could purchase a permit. Assistant Chief Steve Pierce agreed and stated that he had not heard of the price being prohibitive. Only Councilmember Heystek seemed sympathetic to this problem.

Cipian, however, as a homeless advocate sees the picture differently.

“A key issue brought up at last nights meeting was about the fact of homeless people not being able to afford permit’s in order to consume alcohol beverages in Central Park. A person from the Davis Police Department suggested that if a homeless person has the money to buy a beer at a liquor store, they have the money to buy a permit to consume alcohol beverages in the park. This can be the furthest from the truth. Homeless people rarely have money for money beyond money for a drink of alcohol at a liquor store. If the former was the case in the Davis PD’s eyes, why would homeless people panhandle? There is no need to panhandle if a homeless person has a abundance of income to pay for a permit fee.”

Many Davisites will undoubtedly lack sympathy for this situation, implying paternalistically that homeless people need to stop drinking. While that is undoubtedly true, that simplistic approach overlooks a variety of factors that lead to drinking problems to begin with, the difficulty for people who have homes and resources to stop drinking, and the lack of social services available to aid the homeless.

I mentioned previously that this was a band aid to the problem rather than a solution. One reason for that is that drinking is not the problem, but a symptom of a much broader problem that leads a sizable number of people onto the streets. If the city, county, and community were serious about addressing this problem, they would be looking toward social services and housing solutions in addition to open container laws. While fully recognizing that the city and county governments lack such resources for many services, it is also true that creating and providing basic services to help the homeless including homes and treatment services are very low on the list of priorities. It is far easier to pass open container laws and hope that you shift or pass the problem elsewhere.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

68 thoughts on “Council Expands Open Container Ordinance”

  1. davisite

    “Ruth Asmundson at the council meeting on Tuesday suggested that if people could purchase the alcohol, they could purchase a permit….”

    Unbelievable! Are you sure that she didn’t follow this up with “Let them eat cake!”

  2. davisite

    “Ruth Asmundson at the council meeting on Tuesday suggested that if people could purchase the alcohol, they could purchase a permit….”

    Unbelievable! Are you sure that she didn’t follow this up with “Let them eat cake!”

  3. davisite

    “Ruth Asmundson at the council meeting on Tuesday suggested that if people could purchase the alcohol, they could purchase a permit….”

    Unbelievable! Are you sure that she didn’t follow this up with “Let them eat cake!”

  4. davisite

    “Ruth Asmundson at the council meeting on Tuesday suggested that if people could purchase the alcohol, they could purchase a permit….”

    Unbelievable! Are you sure that she didn’t follow this up with “Let them eat cake!”

  5. Anonymous

    You’re kidding me. An open container ban discriminates against students and the homeless? You’ll look at every issue and find something that discriminates against someone, huh? I suppose a ‘no public nudity ban’ discriminates against rich pop stars like Britney Spears, who frequently exits vehicles, sans underwear.

    The homeless shouldn’t be drinking, and if students can’t have an impromptu BBQ with soda, then that’s one socially inept group of students. (I’m assuming these students are over 21, right?)

    I suppose the smoking ban discriminates against the poor, since many of them smoke in greater numbers than the rest of the population?

    And the two hour parking limit downtown discriminates against us who like to loiter.

  6. Anonymous

    You’re kidding me. An open container ban discriminates against students and the homeless? You’ll look at every issue and find something that discriminates against someone, huh? I suppose a ‘no public nudity ban’ discriminates against rich pop stars like Britney Spears, who frequently exits vehicles, sans underwear.

    The homeless shouldn’t be drinking, and if students can’t have an impromptu BBQ with soda, then that’s one socially inept group of students. (I’m assuming these students are over 21, right?)

    I suppose the smoking ban discriminates against the poor, since many of them smoke in greater numbers than the rest of the population?

    And the two hour parking limit downtown discriminates against us who like to loiter.

  7. Anonymous

    You’re kidding me. An open container ban discriminates against students and the homeless? You’ll look at every issue and find something that discriminates against someone, huh? I suppose a ‘no public nudity ban’ discriminates against rich pop stars like Britney Spears, who frequently exits vehicles, sans underwear.

    The homeless shouldn’t be drinking, and if students can’t have an impromptu BBQ with soda, then that’s one socially inept group of students. (I’m assuming these students are over 21, right?)

    I suppose the smoking ban discriminates against the poor, since many of them smoke in greater numbers than the rest of the population?

    And the two hour parking limit downtown discriminates against us who like to loiter.

  8. Anonymous

    You’re kidding me. An open container ban discriminates against students and the homeless? You’ll look at every issue and find something that discriminates against someone, huh? I suppose a ‘no public nudity ban’ discriminates against rich pop stars like Britney Spears, who frequently exits vehicles, sans underwear.

    The homeless shouldn’t be drinking, and if students can’t have an impromptu BBQ with soda, then that’s one socially inept group of students. (I’m assuming these students are over 21, right?)

    I suppose the smoking ban discriminates against the poor, since many of them smoke in greater numbers than the rest of the population?

    And the two hour parking limit downtown discriminates against us who like to loiter.

  9. brian in davis

    One can support both improved social services for the homeless as well as a ban on alcoholic containers in parks, particularly neighborhood parks. The ban has proven to be effective where it has been implemented. We recently had it extended to Chestnut park where loitering, undesirable activities, and unpredictable behaviors were occurring. Chestnut, like most neighborhood parks, are child and family-oriented neighborhood parks.

    I don’t think, however, that the ban at neighborhood parks disproportionately affects students any more than other residents as I haven’t seen them consume alcohol more than any other residents at neighborhood parks, save for the occasional sloshball game.

    Following your suggestion, it would be logical to allow open alcohol containers at Central Park and perhaps Community Park on large event days because they are very visible and easy to control.

    To the extent that the ban will shift the behavior to other parts of town, we don’t know that for sure, and it may in fact be preferable to neighborhood parks. Using the assumption provided in your article that many homeless suffer from mental illnesses, I can’t think of a less desirable combination than overintoxicated, unpredictable people and children.

    The ban may not solve the homeless social problem, but it will make parks more desirable to visit for the people who have paid for them and maintain them.

  10. brian in davis

    One can support both improved social services for the homeless as well as a ban on alcoholic containers in parks, particularly neighborhood parks. The ban has proven to be effective where it has been implemented. We recently had it extended to Chestnut park where loitering, undesirable activities, and unpredictable behaviors were occurring. Chestnut, like most neighborhood parks, are child and family-oriented neighborhood parks.

    I don’t think, however, that the ban at neighborhood parks disproportionately affects students any more than other residents as I haven’t seen them consume alcohol more than any other residents at neighborhood parks, save for the occasional sloshball game.

    Following your suggestion, it would be logical to allow open alcohol containers at Central Park and perhaps Community Park on large event days because they are very visible and easy to control.

    To the extent that the ban will shift the behavior to other parts of town, we don’t know that for sure, and it may in fact be preferable to neighborhood parks. Using the assumption provided in your article that many homeless suffer from mental illnesses, I can’t think of a less desirable combination than overintoxicated, unpredictable people and children.

    The ban may not solve the homeless social problem, but it will make parks more desirable to visit for the people who have paid for them and maintain them.

  11. brian in davis

    One can support both improved social services for the homeless as well as a ban on alcoholic containers in parks, particularly neighborhood parks. The ban has proven to be effective where it has been implemented. We recently had it extended to Chestnut park where loitering, undesirable activities, and unpredictable behaviors were occurring. Chestnut, like most neighborhood parks, are child and family-oriented neighborhood parks.

    I don’t think, however, that the ban at neighborhood parks disproportionately affects students any more than other residents as I haven’t seen them consume alcohol more than any other residents at neighborhood parks, save for the occasional sloshball game.

    Following your suggestion, it would be logical to allow open alcohol containers at Central Park and perhaps Community Park on large event days because they are very visible and easy to control.

    To the extent that the ban will shift the behavior to other parts of town, we don’t know that for sure, and it may in fact be preferable to neighborhood parks. Using the assumption provided in your article that many homeless suffer from mental illnesses, I can’t think of a less desirable combination than overintoxicated, unpredictable people and children.

    The ban may not solve the homeless social problem, but it will make parks more desirable to visit for the people who have paid for them and maintain them.

  12. brian in davis

    One can support both improved social services for the homeless as well as a ban on alcoholic containers in parks, particularly neighborhood parks. The ban has proven to be effective where it has been implemented. We recently had it extended to Chestnut park where loitering, undesirable activities, and unpredictable behaviors were occurring. Chestnut, like most neighborhood parks, are child and family-oriented neighborhood parks.

    I don’t think, however, that the ban at neighborhood parks disproportionately affects students any more than other residents as I haven’t seen them consume alcohol more than any other residents at neighborhood parks, save for the occasional sloshball game.

    Following your suggestion, it would be logical to allow open alcohol containers at Central Park and perhaps Community Park on large event days because they are very visible and easy to control.

    To the extent that the ban will shift the behavior to other parts of town, we don’t know that for sure, and it may in fact be preferable to neighborhood parks. Using the assumption provided in your article that many homeless suffer from mental illnesses, I can’t think of a less desirable combination than overintoxicated, unpredictable people and children.

    The ban may not solve the homeless social problem, but it will make parks more desirable to visit for the people who have paid for them and maintain them.

  13. brian in davis

    DPD is right in that the drinking will shift to parks that still allow it. That is what happened at Chestnut. Out of nowhere, we suddenly had this problem with homeless and drinking. Probably occurred at N Street too. You can look at it two ways: 1. Ban prohibit it at all parks or, 2. Don’t revoke the privilege until a problem is demonstrated.

    Ultimately, for better or worse, the ordinance will probably be enforced selectively so there is a basis to remove undesirable behaviors from neighborhood parks. Reasonable people can debate whether that is the best approach.

    I don’t know which parks are not on the list, but it will be interesting to watch what occurs at those parks in upcoming months.

  14. brian in davis

    DPD is right in that the drinking will shift to parks that still allow it. That is what happened at Chestnut. Out of nowhere, we suddenly had this problem with homeless and drinking. Probably occurred at N Street too. You can look at it two ways: 1. Ban prohibit it at all parks or, 2. Don’t revoke the privilege until a problem is demonstrated.

    Ultimately, for better or worse, the ordinance will probably be enforced selectively so there is a basis to remove undesirable behaviors from neighborhood parks. Reasonable people can debate whether that is the best approach.

    I don’t know which parks are not on the list, but it will be interesting to watch what occurs at those parks in upcoming months.

  15. brian in davis

    DPD is right in that the drinking will shift to parks that still allow it. That is what happened at Chestnut. Out of nowhere, we suddenly had this problem with homeless and drinking. Probably occurred at N Street too. You can look at it two ways: 1. Ban prohibit it at all parks or, 2. Don’t revoke the privilege until a problem is demonstrated.

    Ultimately, for better or worse, the ordinance will probably be enforced selectively so there is a basis to remove undesirable behaviors from neighborhood parks. Reasonable people can debate whether that is the best approach.

    I don’t know which parks are not on the list, but it will be interesting to watch what occurs at those parks in upcoming months.

  16. brian in davis

    DPD is right in that the drinking will shift to parks that still allow it. That is what happened at Chestnut. Out of nowhere, we suddenly had this problem with homeless and drinking. Probably occurred at N Street too. You can look at it two ways: 1. Ban prohibit it at all parks or, 2. Don’t revoke the privilege until a problem is demonstrated.

    Ultimately, for better or worse, the ordinance will probably be enforced selectively so there is a basis to remove undesirable behaviors from neighborhood parks. Reasonable people can debate whether that is the best approach.

    I don’t know which parks are not on the list, but it will be interesting to watch what occurs at those parks in upcoming months.

  17. brian in davis

    I flip-flopped. In my first post I said we don’t know that drinking will shift to other parks and then I said it would. Silly me. Based on experience, it probably will. But we don’t know for sure until it does.

  18. brian in davis

    I flip-flopped. In my first post I said we don’t know that drinking will shift to other parks and then I said it would. Silly me. Based on experience, it probably will. But we don’t know for sure until it does.

  19. brian in davis

    I flip-flopped. In my first post I said we don’t know that drinking will shift to other parks and then I said it would. Silly me. Based on experience, it probably will. But we don’t know for sure until it does.

  20. brian in davis

    I flip-flopped. In my first post I said we don’t know that drinking will shift to other parks and then I said it would. Silly me. Based on experience, it probably will. But we don’t know for sure until it does.

  21. brian in davis

    Finally,

    Again, I don’t know that students are disproportionately affected. It’s a safe assumption that students drink more often than other adults. However, I don’t know it’s safe to assume they prefer to drink more at neighborhood parks than do other adults. The example of the impromptu barbeque could apply to anyone, family, or group of people.

  22. brian in davis

    Finally,

    Again, I don’t know that students are disproportionately affected. It’s a safe assumption that students drink more often than other adults. However, I don’t know it’s safe to assume they prefer to drink more at neighborhood parks than do other adults. The example of the impromptu barbeque could apply to anyone, family, or group of people.

  23. brian in davis

    Finally,

    Again, I don’t know that students are disproportionately affected. It’s a safe assumption that students drink more often than other adults. However, I don’t know it’s safe to assume they prefer to drink more at neighborhood parks than do other adults. The example of the impromptu barbeque could apply to anyone, family, or group of people.

  24. brian in davis

    Finally,

    Again, I don’t know that students are disproportionately affected. It’s a safe assumption that students drink more often than other adults. However, I don’t know it’s safe to assume they prefer to drink more at neighborhood parks than do other adults. The example of the impromptu barbeque could apply to anyone, family, or group of people.

  25. Anonymous

    This is an issue at the K street minipark as well. I have been there with children when there were people passed out in the park, or who were sitting on a bench drinking.

    Chestnut isn’t as much of an issue because it is so big and the picnic benches aren’t that near the playground, but at K street it’s pretty small.

  26. Anonymous

    This is an issue at the K street minipark as well. I have been there with children when there were people passed out in the park, or who were sitting on a bench drinking.

    Chestnut isn’t as much of an issue because it is so big and the picnic benches aren’t that near the playground, but at K street it’s pretty small.

  27. Anonymous

    This is an issue at the K street minipark as well. I have been there with children when there were people passed out in the park, or who were sitting on a bench drinking.

    Chestnut isn’t as much of an issue because it is so big and the picnic benches aren’t that near the playground, but at K street it’s pretty small.

  28. Anonymous

    This is an issue at the K street minipark as well. I have been there with children when there were people passed out in the park, or who were sitting on a bench drinking.

    Chestnut isn’t as much of an issue because it is so big and the picnic benches aren’t that near the playground, but at K street it’s pretty small.

  29. Anonymous

    The real problems are our attitudes towards alcohol and our refusal to deal with the problem of homelessness.

    It seems most peoples’ complaints are that drunken homeless people will cause problems. What if they just drink elsewhere and come back to the park? Do we arrest homeless people for homelessness next, like in LA?

    It starts with a park ban and soon it’s a public places ban then things get crazy from there. Don’t think it can? In my home town of Huntington Beach, down behind the Orange Curtain, homeowners have been arrested for drinking a beer while standing in the front doorway, sitting on their front lawn or porch, or even while waxing their car in their garage while the door is open. All those places have been deemed “public places”. Judges have recently ruled that the same theory applies to gated communities and apartment compexes. Since city governments generate income through arrests, the police are only too happy to comply.

    You can read for yourself about some of the fascist shenanigans here:
    http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/the-
    beer-that-made-tustin-infamous/27113/

  30. Anonymous

    The real problems are our attitudes towards alcohol and our refusal to deal with the problem of homelessness.

    It seems most peoples’ complaints are that drunken homeless people will cause problems. What if they just drink elsewhere and come back to the park? Do we arrest homeless people for homelessness next, like in LA?

    It starts with a park ban and soon it’s a public places ban then things get crazy from there. Don’t think it can? In my home town of Huntington Beach, down behind the Orange Curtain, homeowners have been arrested for drinking a beer while standing in the front doorway, sitting on their front lawn or porch, or even while waxing their car in their garage while the door is open. All those places have been deemed “public places”. Judges have recently ruled that the same theory applies to gated communities and apartment compexes. Since city governments generate income through arrests, the police are only too happy to comply.

    You can read for yourself about some of the fascist shenanigans here:
    http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/the-
    beer-that-made-tustin-infamous/27113/

  31. Anonymous

    The real problems are our attitudes towards alcohol and our refusal to deal with the problem of homelessness.

    It seems most peoples’ complaints are that drunken homeless people will cause problems. What if they just drink elsewhere and come back to the park? Do we arrest homeless people for homelessness next, like in LA?

    It starts with a park ban and soon it’s a public places ban then things get crazy from there. Don’t think it can? In my home town of Huntington Beach, down behind the Orange Curtain, homeowners have been arrested for drinking a beer while standing in the front doorway, sitting on their front lawn or porch, or even while waxing their car in their garage while the door is open. All those places have been deemed “public places”. Judges have recently ruled that the same theory applies to gated communities and apartment compexes. Since city governments generate income through arrests, the police are only too happy to comply.

    You can read for yourself about some of the fascist shenanigans here:
    http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/the-
    beer-that-made-tustin-infamous/27113/

  32. Anonymous

    The real problems are our attitudes towards alcohol and our refusal to deal with the problem of homelessness.

    It seems most peoples’ complaints are that drunken homeless people will cause problems. What if they just drink elsewhere and come back to the park? Do we arrest homeless people for homelessness next, like in LA?

    It starts with a park ban and soon it’s a public places ban then things get crazy from there. Don’t think it can? In my home town of Huntington Beach, down behind the Orange Curtain, homeowners have been arrested for drinking a beer while standing in the front doorway, sitting on their front lawn or porch, or even while waxing their car in their garage while the door is open. All those places have been deemed “public places”. Judges have recently ruled that the same theory applies to gated communities and apartment compexes. Since city governments generate income through arrests, the police are only too happy to comply.

    You can read for yourself about some of the fascist shenanigans here:
    http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/the-
    beer-that-made-tustin-infamous/27113/

  33. 無名 - wu ming

    don’t we already have laws against antisocial behavior? it seems to me that if you’re minding your own business and aren’t bothering anybody, that you ought to be able to drink in peace, in parks or other public spaces. anyone being disorderly or a danger to those around them can already be dealt with just fine under current laws.

    i suspect that what the council – and most folks in davis, honestly – really wanted to pass was a selective regulation that allowed affluent middle aged people to drink their wine in the park while making it illegal for the homeless and students to drink. but they haven’t found a legal way to do that yet, so we get blanket bans and selective enforcement.

  34. 無名 - wu ming

    don’t we already have laws against antisocial behavior? it seems to me that if you’re minding your own business and aren’t bothering anybody, that you ought to be able to drink in peace, in parks or other public spaces. anyone being disorderly or a danger to those around them can already be dealt with just fine under current laws.

    i suspect that what the council – and most folks in davis, honestly – really wanted to pass was a selective regulation that allowed affluent middle aged people to drink their wine in the park while making it illegal for the homeless and students to drink. but they haven’t found a legal way to do that yet, so we get blanket bans and selective enforcement.

  35. 無名 - wu ming

    don’t we already have laws against antisocial behavior? it seems to me that if you’re minding your own business and aren’t bothering anybody, that you ought to be able to drink in peace, in parks or other public spaces. anyone being disorderly or a danger to those around them can already be dealt with just fine under current laws.

    i suspect that what the council – and most folks in davis, honestly – really wanted to pass was a selective regulation that allowed affluent middle aged people to drink their wine in the park while making it illegal for the homeless and students to drink. but they haven’t found a legal way to do that yet, so we get blanket bans and selective enforcement.

  36. 無名 - wu ming

    don’t we already have laws against antisocial behavior? it seems to me that if you’re minding your own business and aren’t bothering anybody, that you ought to be able to drink in peace, in parks or other public spaces. anyone being disorderly or a danger to those around them can already be dealt with just fine under current laws.

    i suspect that what the council – and most folks in davis, honestly – really wanted to pass was a selective regulation that allowed affluent middle aged people to drink their wine in the park while making it illegal for the homeless and students to drink. but they haven’t found a legal way to do that yet, so we get blanket bans and selective enforcement.

  37. Karl

    As I have made the point before, I’m concerned by people conflating “students” with “adults who don’t (yet) have families, who may rent, and who live in Davis”. These are different groups, whose interests coincide at times and differ at others. To the point at hand, however:

    Drinking, in moderation, has a long tradition as a social activity. Some people of course chose to abstain, at times or altogether. Objections to the way some people chose to drink should not impair others ability to do so, in public and in moderation, if they chose. We need to find away, such as through the briefly mentioned anti-social behavior laws, to differentiate types of activity. Not being a lawyer or a policy make, I leave that line for others to draw.

  38. Karl

    As I have made the point before, I’m concerned by people conflating “students” with “adults who don’t (yet) have families, who may rent, and who live in Davis”. These are different groups, whose interests coincide at times and differ at others. To the point at hand, however:

    Drinking, in moderation, has a long tradition as a social activity. Some people of course chose to abstain, at times or altogether. Objections to the way some people chose to drink should not impair others ability to do so, in public and in moderation, if they chose. We need to find away, such as through the briefly mentioned anti-social behavior laws, to differentiate types of activity. Not being a lawyer or a policy make, I leave that line for others to draw.

  39. Karl

    As I have made the point before, I’m concerned by people conflating “students” with “adults who don’t (yet) have families, who may rent, and who live in Davis”. These are different groups, whose interests coincide at times and differ at others. To the point at hand, however:

    Drinking, in moderation, has a long tradition as a social activity. Some people of course chose to abstain, at times or altogether. Objections to the way some people chose to drink should not impair others ability to do so, in public and in moderation, if they chose. We need to find away, such as through the briefly mentioned anti-social behavior laws, to differentiate types of activity. Not being a lawyer or a policy make, I leave that line for others to draw.

  40. Karl

    As I have made the point before, I’m concerned by people conflating “students” with “adults who don’t (yet) have families, who may rent, and who live in Davis”. These are different groups, whose interests coincide at times and differ at others. To the point at hand, however:

    Drinking, in moderation, has a long tradition as a social activity. Some people of course chose to abstain, at times or altogether. Objections to the way some people chose to drink should not impair others ability to do so, in public and in moderation, if they chose. We need to find away, such as through the briefly mentioned anti-social behavior laws, to differentiate types of activity. Not being a lawyer or a policy make, I leave that line for others to draw.

  41. Anonymous

    Who redefined the public to include only children and “families”, aka people with children? A public park is for the public, that is, all of the people. People with children can keep their children in their backyards if they want to prevent them from viewing the consumption of alcohol. It’s wrong to discuss this issue only in the context of homelessness and students. Many normal adults with homes enjoy picnicking or socializing with wine and beer. Why should we be excluded from using the park or, God forbid, required to buy a permit so the government can identify those who enjoy alcohol and disseminate that private information? What’s wrong with people these days? Don’t they want to be free people any more?

  42. Anonymous

    Who redefined the public to include only children and “families”, aka people with children? A public park is for the public, that is, all of the people. People with children can keep their children in their backyards if they want to prevent them from viewing the consumption of alcohol. It’s wrong to discuss this issue only in the context of homelessness and students. Many normal adults with homes enjoy picnicking or socializing with wine and beer. Why should we be excluded from using the park or, God forbid, required to buy a permit so the government can identify those who enjoy alcohol and disseminate that private information? What’s wrong with people these days? Don’t they want to be free people any more?

  43. Anonymous

    Who redefined the public to include only children and “families”, aka people with children? A public park is for the public, that is, all of the people. People with children can keep their children in their backyards if they want to prevent them from viewing the consumption of alcohol. It’s wrong to discuss this issue only in the context of homelessness and students. Many normal adults with homes enjoy picnicking or socializing with wine and beer. Why should we be excluded from using the park or, God forbid, required to buy a permit so the government can identify those who enjoy alcohol and disseminate that private information? What’s wrong with people these days? Don’t they want to be free people any more?

  44. Anonymous

    Who redefined the public to include only children and “families”, aka people with children? A public park is for the public, that is, all of the people. People with children can keep their children in their backyards if they want to prevent them from viewing the consumption of alcohol. It’s wrong to discuss this issue only in the context of homelessness and students. Many normal adults with homes enjoy picnicking or socializing with wine and beer. Why should we be excluded from using the park or, God forbid, required to buy a permit so the government can identify those who enjoy alcohol and disseminate that private information? What’s wrong with people these days? Don’t they want to be free people any more?

  45. Anonymous

    The homeless who drink to excess,(most of them), not only urinate,defecate and trash places up, they are also obnoxious foul mouthed PIGS. What people don’t realize is that most of them are ex-cons and are on parole or probation. They are a part of the habitual criminal element. Get them out of here.

  46. Anonymous

    The homeless who drink to excess,(most of them), not only urinate,defecate and trash places up, they are also obnoxious foul mouthed PIGS. What people don’t realize is that most of them are ex-cons and are on parole or probation. They are a part of the habitual criminal element. Get them out of here.

  47. Anonymous

    The homeless who drink to excess,(most of them), not only urinate,defecate and trash places up, they are also obnoxious foul mouthed PIGS. What people don’t realize is that most of them are ex-cons and are on parole or probation. They are a part of the habitual criminal element. Get them out of here.

  48. Anonymous

    The homeless who drink to excess,(most of them), not only urinate,defecate and trash places up, they are also obnoxious foul mouthed PIGS. What people don’t realize is that most of them are ex-cons and are on parole or probation. They are a part of the habitual criminal element. Get them out of here.

  49. Anonymous

    The majority of the homeless in Davis are either on parole or probation for crimes committed. Those crimes have a big range. They are comprised of the following; Chronic alcohol or drug use,drug sales,(to our kids),assault,assault with a deadly weapon,attempted murder, burglary,grand theft,forgery,armed robbery and sexual crimes. The majority have had more than one chance to improve themselves but they prefer what they are doing.
    The majority are nothing but scumbags and do not deserve any further allowance to abuse the taxpayer and/or their facilities. Screw the homeless.

  50. Anonymous

    The majority of the homeless in Davis are either on parole or probation for crimes committed. Those crimes have a big range. They are comprised of the following; Chronic alcohol or drug use,drug sales,(to our kids),assault,assault with a deadly weapon,attempted murder, burglary,grand theft,forgery,armed robbery and sexual crimes. The majority have had more than one chance to improve themselves but they prefer what they are doing.
    The majority are nothing but scumbags and do not deserve any further allowance to abuse the taxpayer and/or their facilities. Screw the homeless.

  51. Anonymous

    The majority of the homeless in Davis are either on parole or probation for crimes committed. Those crimes have a big range. They are comprised of the following; Chronic alcohol or drug use,drug sales,(to our kids),assault,assault with a deadly weapon,attempted murder, burglary,grand theft,forgery,armed robbery and sexual crimes. The majority have had more than one chance to improve themselves but they prefer what they are doing.
    The majority are nothing but scumbags and do not deserve any further allowance to abuse the taxpayer and/or their facilities. Screw the homeless.

  52. Anonymous

    The majority of the homeless in Davis are either on parole or probation for crimes committed. Those crimes have a big range. They are comprised of the following; Chronic alcohol or drug use,drug sales,(to our kids),assault,assault with a deadly weapon,attempted murder, burglary,grand theft,forgery,armed robbery and sexual crimes. The majority have had more than one chance to improve themselves but they prefer what they are doing.
    The majority are nothing but scumbags and do not deserve any further allowance to abuse the taxpayer and/or their facilities. Screw the homeless.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for