Mount Pleasant DC Forum

RckCrk · Joined: 06 Apr 2007 Posts: 55

Jack -- Could you tell us how you see the role of an ANC member in terms of representing the will of constituents vs. representing what you believe is good public policy? What if the two positions differ?

jack · Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 3193 Location: 19th & Lamont

smithdo · Joined: 27 Oct 2004 Posts: 199

RckCrk · Joined: 06 Apr 2007 Posts: 55

New Neighbor · Joined: 25 Mar 2004 Posts: 218 Location: Brown Street

Jack,

I think you are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I certainly don't need to be reminded of basic civics, but there is no reason to change a policy that seems to have coincided with a positive effect.

Your position seems contrary to the will of the residents (as expressed here) and is based on some nebulous "good of the city" concept that can't be proved or disproved.

I would hope that absent evidence of an effect on the city as a whole you would want to do what the citizens of the neighborhood wants. And if you want to do something contrary to what the residents want on the basis of some nebulous concept of "affecting other neighborhoods" I would hope you would place the burden on yourself to demonstrate the existence of that effect.

But you are free to do whatever you want, that's the beauty of a representative democracy. But this one isn't worth your time and energy. Solve our parking problems instead.

jack · Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 3193 Location: 19th & Lamont

jack · Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 3193 Location: 19th & Lamont

Laurie · Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 739

I am absolutely engaged in this discussion. And I'm still waiting for Jack to provide evidence on where our single sales ban displaced the problem population into somebody else's neighborhood.

--LC

zrathore · Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Posts: 206 Location: Wash, DC

Eugene · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject:

I am part of the problem population that must purchase my singles in other neighborhoods because of the current single sales ban. Like many others in Mount Pleasant, I enjoy drinking Trappist beers and German specialty beers like Rauchbier, which are sold in the U.S. in large bottles and are currently prohibited from being purchased in Mount Pleasant under the existing ban. I frequent Cleveland Park Liquors and Rodman’s to buy these beers because of the ban in my neighborhood. The irony is that many of the individuals who support extending the single sales ban instead of letting it expire are also people, like myself, who wish to see Mount Pleasant businesses expand their higher-end product and service offerings.

Instead of us simply assuming that, without a single sales ban, Mount Pleasant will become a haven for the city’s drunks, why not conduct a short term experiment? Let’s allow the single sales ban to expire, observe what happens for six months, and if public drunkenness begins to increase, then let’s put the ban back on the books. If public drunkenness stays the same or continues to decline, then we have done a good deed by removing an unnecessary regulation from our local businesses. In turn, our liquor stores might respond as they have to my request for better whisky’s like Highland Park 18 (thanks, Irving Street Liquors) by expanding their high-end beer offering.

Granted, this approach could damage the entertainment value of this forum by causing a precipitous drop in the types of bitter exchanges and data-less assertions that characterized so much of the live music debate, but that seems a small price to pay for discovering what would really happen in Mount Pleasant today without the single sales ban.

leef · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 16 Location: 17th Street

Wow, Eugene. I think that was way too sensible for this forum.

MTPresident · Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 44

Everybody is assuming that improvements in our neighborhood are a result of the singles ban, and that allowing it to expire will necessarily result in increased public drunkenness, urination, etc. and yet nobody seems to see any need to support those assumptions and assertions. meanwhile they seem to expect Jack to somehow prove that allowing the singles ban to expire will not result in an increase in these things. assertions and assumptions flying right and left but it seems that the burden of proof has been turned on its head here. QUESTION: when was this singles ban put into place and how has the neighborhood changed then, in demographics, in businesses, etc.???

ClancyMac · Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 189

While I too think that Eugene's proposed experiment is imminently reasonable in a perfect world, I think the problem with it would be this:

Assume there is a six month lifting of the ban. Assume there is an increase in public drunkenness.

Jack and the rest of the ANC would fight even more vehemently against restoration of the ban--citing the previous six months as evidence that the ban results in pushing issues of public drunkenness onto other neighborhoods.

josh · Joined: 20 Oct 2004 Posts: 35

So if Jack's argument is that the ban on single sales has pushed the problem to other neighborhoods (which no one can offer proof of) isn't that in fact an argument for a city-wide ban?

All I know is that since the passage of the singles ban, I'm walking through fewer puddles of urine than I used to, and things smell a whole lot better.