 |
Mount Pleasant DC Forum
Discussion about the Mount Pleasant Neighborhood
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
New Neighbor
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 218
Location: Brown Street
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jack,
It's good you take your oath seriously, but I think the crux of the issue is that while you are concerned about some perhaps hypothetical and certainly not proven concern of problems being pushed to other neighborhoods, the general position I am behind is this:
I don't live there and I don't care if drunks who piss in alleys go there. There, I said it. I have kids and I don't want pissing-in-alley drunkards around. If this keeps 1 alley piss free, I'm for it. If it doesn't keep an alley piss free, that's fine too.
Do I think this will "solve" anything? No. But like said above, it's probably part of a larger network of policy decisions that are a step in the right direction.
-David |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mm
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 61
Location: Mount Pleasant & Park
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Banning single sales |
|
|
| jack wrote: |
Consider the indigent alcohol abuser -- the community problem. What does he do if he can't buy his single? No one will argue that he will stop drinking. The easiest thing for him to do is to walk to Columbia Heights and do his buying and drinking there.
[...]
As for who buys singles -- there are people who want to buy just one, for lunch, or for cooking. There are people who do not want to buy six-packs, sometimes because they have housemates who will take anything left in the common fridge. Yes, there are legitimate reasons for people wanting to buy just one, not six. Why deny them that? |
Couldn't the people who want just one beer for cooking or whatever walk over to Columbia Heights and do their buying there just as easily as the indigent alcohol abusers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
smithdo
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 199
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used to have to buy singles if I wanted to drink at all way back when. I was 20 and worked part time when I went to college part time (yes I was grandfathered in) and had usually about $20 in discretionary income per week, so a $0.99 beer and one that my roommates couldn't pilfer from a six pack was exactly what I was looking for. A novelty malt liquor like "Big Jug?" or Mint Champale? all the better. Having lived a semester on rice, beans, onions and potatoes and variations thereof really made a difference for me thinking about the hungry, or in the case we're talking about, the uncomfortably poor and sober. I won't forget where I came from and those of you who had parents or school loans or some similar situation where you never had any kind of lean years shouldn't pretend that somehow it's easy to change. I had to focus on school to graduate and couldn't go hunting for a different job for about 4 months. Don't pretend that there isn't a similar day laborer struggling through a language class.
But public drunkenness on MtP St that was a problem 15 years ago has disappeared. I don't give a rat's ass where it went, it's just not here anymore. No one asks me for change on the street, no one is drunk in the park. Sure, crazy people, some homeless some nearby residents, hassle me on the street and one did just today. and I could tell by the way she was dressed that some relative keeps her clothed, fed and housed, but just not medicated. But beyond the half dozen or so irrational people who get in my face, MtP street is really nice.
And if it's this nice because the liquor stores don't serve people who are visibly intoxicated anymore, or you can't buy a single, well then that's the price we pay for progress, because we all know progress isn't free. and freedom from harassment isn't free. Someone is going to pay and right now we're asking the liquor stores to pay for our freedoms.
And in many ways I don't want the ANC to take away my freedom from harassment.
People have the right to buy singles, and I had valid reasons for doing so, but the liquor stores in my parents' neighborhood refused to sell singles on a matter of principal. The fact that the MtP liquor stores would voluntarily want to cater to that base instinct is a blot on their souls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 3193
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Single sales |
|
|
| smithdo wrote: | | I used to have to buy singles if I wanted to drink at all way back when. I was 20 and worked part time when I went to college part time (yes I was grandfathered in) and had usually about $20 in discretionary income per week, so a $0.99 beer and one that my roommates couldn't pilfer from a six pack was exactly what I was looking for. A novelty malt liquor like "Big Jug?" or Mint Champale? all the better. Having lived a semester on rice, beans, onions and potatoes and variations thereof really made a difference for me thinking about the hungry, or in the case we're talking about, the uncomfortably poor and sober. I won't forget where I came from and those of you who had parents or school loans or some similar situation where you never had any kind of lean years shouldn't pretend that somehow it's easy to change. I had to focus on school to graduate and couldn't go hunting for a different job for about 4 months. Don't pretend that there isn't a similar day laborer struggling through a language class. |
Indeed, there are legitimate reasons for people wanting to buy "just one". When this question arose four years ago, I spent some time in a convenience store in Ward Four, just to see who bought singles. The answer: just plain folks. Not shabby street people, needing an alcohol fix. Just plain folks.
| smithdo wrote: | But public drunkenness on MtP St that was a problem 15 years ago has disappeared. I don't give a rat's ass where it went, it's just not here anymore. No one asks me for change on the street, no one is drunk in the park. Sure, crazy people, some homeless some nearby residents, hassle me on the street and one did just today. and I could tell by the way she was dressed that some relative keeps her clothed, fed and housed, but just not medicated. But beyond the half dozen or so irrational people who get in my face, MtP street is really nice.
And if it's this nice because the liquor stores don't serve people who are visibly intoxicated anymore, or you can't buy a single, well then that's the price we pay for progress, because we all know progress isn't free. and freedom from harassment isn't free. Someone is going to pay and right now we're asking the liquor stores to pay for our freedoms. |
Well, three points to consider here. First, there are other ways to deal with the street harassment problem. We've fought long and hard for foot patrol officers specifically to deal with that. It seems that cops in cars can't be bothered with such problems. But cops on foot can't easily ignore a troublesome drunk, and furthermore come to know exactly who on the street is trouble, and who is not.
Second, there's no assurance that the singles ban is responsible for the improvements on Mount Pleasant Street. Gentrification has pushed the poverty population east. (Fourteenth Street is also a heck of a lot better than it used to be, and there's no singles ban there.) McKenna's Wagon used to attract a lot of homeless people to the south end of Mount Pleasant Street. When it moved away, around 1998, the population of homeless in the area dropped sharply. This change came at just about the same time as the singles ban. For all we know, the improvements noted in the neighborhood have nothing to do with the singles ban.
Third, we on the ANC have a special responsibility, as indicated by our oath of office. We cannot support what is bad public policy for the city just because it's popular in the neighborhood.
| smithdo wrote: | | People have the right to buy singles, and I had valid reasons for doing so, but the liquor stores in my parents' neighborhood refused to sell singles on a matter of principal. The fact that the MtP liquor stores would voluntarily want to cater to that base instinct is a blot on their souls. |
I don't know that any of our liquor or convenience stores would sell singles, if allowed. When I investigated this issue four years ago, only one, as I recall, wanted to sell singles. And it wasn't a big deal for them, either.
For me, this is a matter of principle, too. I won't support a policy that appears to solve our neighborhood's problem at the expense of neighboring communities.
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zrathore
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 206
Location: Wash, DC
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: Single sales |
|
|
| jack wrote: | | We've fought long and hard for foot patrol officers specifically to deal with that. It seems that cops in cars can't be bothered with such problems. But cops on foot can't easily ignore a troublesome drunk, and furthermore come to know exactly who on the street is trouble, and who is not. |
Challenge! You have said yourself a number of times on this very forum, that you don't feel that the police should waste their time with petty crimes such as public intoxication. I recall you said that the amount of time a cop has to spend doing paper work didn't justify making the arrest. Remember our broken windows debate? You are contradicting yourself, and if I had the time, I would look it up...but I don't.
| jack wrote: | | For me, this is a matter of principle, too. I won't support a policy that appears to solve our neighborhood's problem at the expense of neighboring communities. |
Something which you have not substantiated with any data what-so-ever. You have been asked several times, but you continue to ignore. And with your regard to your observations in Ward 4...depending on where you were, it's completely different demographics.
As someone who has experience in dealing with people who suffer from addiction, one of the first steps to recovery is to remove the substance of abuse from the abuser. This ban limits easy and cheap access to alcohol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeanne
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | (Fourteenth Street is also a heck of a lot better than it used to be, and there's no singles ban there.) For me, this is a matter of principle, too. I won't support a policy that appears to solve our neighborhood's problem at the expense of neighboring communities |
.
Jack, what neighborhood is being used at our expense? If 14th Street is a lot better as you say--where is our problem going? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 3193
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: Re: Single sales |
|
|
| zrathore wrote: | | jack wrote: | | We've fought long and hard for foot patrol officers specifically to deal with that. It seems that cops in cars can't be bothered with such problems. But cops on foot can't easily ignore a troublesome drunk, and furthermore come to know exactly who on the street is trouble, and who is not. |
Challenge! You have said yourself a number of times on this very forum, that you don't feel that the police should waste their time with petty crimes such as public intoxication. I recall you said that the amount of time a cop has to spend doing paper work didn't justify making the arrest. Remember our broken windows debate? You are contradicting yourself, and if I had the time, I would look it up...but I don't. |
What I've said is that making arrests is a poor means of dealing with disorderly conduct, because it takes officers off patrol for hours to deal with the arrest. Our foot patrol officers achieve control through an authoritative presence, not by making arrests. They know the street people, the street people know them, and the result is better behavior.
As for "broken windows", that's the theory that dealing with minor offenses will reduce serious crime. That's nonsense. I argue for control of bad behavior on the street because that is a valid end in itself. People don't like being harassed on the street by drunks or toughs. Our foot patrol officers are here to deal with that, not because that will reduce burglaries or robberies, but to make our street a civil place to be.
| zrathore wrote: |
| jack wrote: | | For me, this is a matter of principle, too. I won't support a policy that appears to solve our neighborhood's problem at the expense of neighboring communities. |
Something which you have not substantiated with any data what-so-ever. You have been asked several times, but you continue to ignore. And with your regard to your observations in Ward 4...depending on where you were, it's completely different demographics. |
If banning single sales results in neighborhood improvements, it must be by either of two mechanisms. Either (1) the alcohol abusers cease their drinking and bad behavior, or (2) the alcohol abusers go somewhere else. Does anyone believe in the first proposition? If you reject the second, then you must be arguing that alcohol abusers are reformed by the single sales ban. Let's see your evidence for that.
| zrathore wrote: | | As someone who has experience in dealing with people who suffer from addiction, one of the first steps to recovery is to remove the substance of abuse from the abuser. This ban limits easy and cheap access to alcohol. |
Not if they can just hike over to Columbia Heights and get what they want.
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 3193
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: Single sales |
|
|
| Jeanne wrote: | | Quote: | | (Fourteenth Street is also a heck of a lot better than it used to be, and there's no singles ban there.) For me, this is a matter of principle, too. I won't support a policy that appears to solve our neighborhood's problem at the expense of neighboring communities |
.
Jack, what neighborhood is being used at our expense? If 14th Street is a lot better as you say--where is our problem going? |
I'd say that the small park at 14th and Girard is one possibility. The vicinity of 14th and Newton, and north to Spring Road, is another. Fourteenth Street is better, but still has its trouble spots.
That said, this may be evidence that the entire problem of indigent alcohol abusers is being pushed to our east, as Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights both go upscale. -- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeanne
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
this may be evidence? I thought the ANC voted because they HAD evidence.
What evidence does the ANC have to say it is bad public policy then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 3193
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: Single sales |
|
|
| Jeanne wrote: | this may be evidence? I thought the ANC voted because they HAD evidence.
What evidence does the ANC have to say it is bad public policy then? |
The only plausible explanation for any improvements due to a single sales ban is that the troublesome people are moved into somebody else's neighborhood. That makes the singles ban bad public policy.
If it happens that the problem has been resolved by this troublesome population having been moved by other forces, e.g., gentrification, then the singles ban is unnecessary. In that case, it's an unwarranted infringement upon those who have legitimate reasons for wanting to purchase singles. Again, bad public policy.
Does anyone seriously claim that a singles ban causes indigent alcohol abusers to reform, cease drinking, and stop their bad behavior?
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
New Neighbor
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 218
Location: Brown Street
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If it's not broke, don't fix it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zrathore
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 206
Location: Wash, DC
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Single sales |
|
|
| jack wrote: | Does anyone seriously claim that a singles ban causes indigent alcohol abusers to reform, cease drinking, and stop their bad behavior?
|
It stops people from crapping and pissing everywhere. Further, it helps us achieve YOUR desired outcome for MtP Street...a safe, inviting street where people can walk without being harassed.
My god you are pulling a page right out the George W. Bush playbook. I usually agree and support the actions you take for the community, but you are off on this one. It's ideology like this (if one policy doesn't solve EVERY SINGLE issue, than we should not pass it) that the ANC has adopted that prevents any form of government from making any progress what-so-ever. It's PAINFULLY frustrating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mrs. New Neighbor
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Single sales |
|
|
| jack wrote: | | Jeanne wrote: | this may be evidence? I thought the ANC voted because they HAD evidence.
What evidence does the ANC have to say it is bad public policy then? |
The only plausible explanation for any improvements due to a single sales ban is that the troublesome people are moved into somebody else's neighborhood. That makes the singles ban bad public policy.
If it happens that the problem has been resolved by this troublesome population having been moved by other forces, e.g., gentrification, then the singles ban is unnecessary. In that case, it's an unwarranted infringement upon those who have legitimate reasons for wanting to purchase singles. Again, bad public policy.
Does anyone seriously claim that a singles ban causes indigent alcohol abusers to reform, cease drinking, and stop their bad behavior?
-- Jack |
Ok, here's another plausible explanation: they save up their mohney and buy a 6-pack. I mean, seriously, show me an true, hard core alcoholic who gets so intoxicated that he/she is disorderly, harassing passers by, and urinating and defecating in public after having one drink. The behavior being discussed here sounds more like someone who has been sitting around drinking all day or night.
No, the publicly intoxicated, alcohol-dependent homeless person is not the problem solved by the ban. The underage drinker is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zrathore
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 206
Location: Wash, DC
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Single sales |
|
|
| Mrs. New Neighbor wrote: |
No, the publicly intoxicated, alcohol-dependent homeless person is not the problem solved by the ban. The underage drinker is. |
All the more reason for the ban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 3193
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: Re: Single sales |
|
|
| zrathore wrote: | | jack wrote: | Does anyone seriously claim that a singles ban causes indigent alcohol abusers to reform, cease drinking, and stop their bad behavior?
|
It stops people from crapping and pissing everywhere. Further, it helps us achieve YOUR desired outcome for MtP Street...a safe, inviting street where people can walk without being harassed. |
But how does it accomplish that end? Are you arguing that problem drinkers are reformed by the single sales ban? If not . . . then how, other than by displacing the problem drinkers into another neighborhood?
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
