Both the Gazette and Press-Citizen covered the 21-only referendum forum, but it sounds like there is nothing really new to report and this is a shame.
The 21-only referendum promises to be divisive to our community, in part because it pits two community values against the other. Being a community of liberal values where personal choice is paramount v. doing what is best for the greater good.
Regardless of how voters' choice between now and November 6th at 8 pm about the 21-only referendum, alcohol consumption and abuse is a problem in Iowa.
The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates there are 11 million underage drinkers in the United States. Nearly 7.2 million are considered binge drinkers. Iowans as a whole are #4 in the US in binge drinking with 18.9% of adults having five or more drinks on one occasion.
Johnson County residents and guests drank approximately 2.8 gallons per person in 2006--#4 highest county consumption in Iowa.
Iowa is #15 in the US at 5.5% of the population drinking at harmful levels.
Some things to consider:
If, as some believe, the drinking shifts from out of bars into neighborhoods, does the consumption go down or does accounting for consumption become more difficult to calculate--as the statistics for consumption are calculated based on alcohol sales at bars and bottles sold via the state alcohol board--what about "imported" alcohol from out of state ?
If, as some believe, drinking already occurs outside of bars, and the issue is one of increased abuse and spreading thin of public safety resources, how will these issues be addressed?
If, as some believe, decreased alcohol revenue and therefore tax monies will come from the 21-ordinance passing, how will the city afford to step up public safety measures?
Some other things to consider:
Alcohol abuse is expensive to society in terms of public safety, personal safety, work/social productivity (e.g., extra time in college to complete degrees, lost time at the workplace). What are the costs of doing nothing to Iowa Citians?
Should public dollars go toward fixing a social/cultural phenomenon that not everyone agrees is a problem?
Are the ill-effects to public safety in terms of assaults, rapes, vandalism, public indecency more important than the right of the people to make personal choices?
Ultimately most people are going to make decisions not based on what is best for the many, but what is best for them:
- Many students will vote against it because they feel like it denies them choice.
- Many business people will vote against it because it would directly affect their bottom-line.
- Many outlying neighborhoods with small student populations will vote against it because it isn't a problem where they live.
- Many health professionals both mental and physical will vote for it because of the social costs of doing nothing.
- Many public safety officers and E.M.Ts will vote for it because they have to pick up the pieces and enforce the laws and this may make their jobs easier.
- Many clergy will vote for it because, like health professionals, they get to see the aftermath of what happens to indivisduals and families when alcoholism occurs.
- Many people won't vote at all, the options are too gray to make a clear decision or it simply doesn't matter one way or another.
The 21 referendum is one of those very difficult propositions that come to a head because without a forced choice, nothing is done (and depending on the vote, nothing may still be the preferred choice). So what would happen if the 21 referendum passed? This is the great unknown.
Possibilities?
- The city council would negotiate a period of time to enact the ordinance to give bar owners the opportunity to update their business plans or to close shop.
- The ordinance would be enacted immediately and only the more successful bars would stay in business.
- House parties would increase, but so would police crackdowns on them.
- Liquor store sales would increase, while bar sales would decline meaning a zero sum gain to the tax base.
- Iowa City would hire additional police officers and, perhaps, other city services would be affected.
- Non-alcohol entertainment venues would slowly gain acceptance if the business plan was geared to the market
- Friday night outdoor concerts would have a longer season.
- Students would fan out into Coralville or North Liberty if the cities there do not enacted a similar ordinance and OWI and other offenses would increase.
- Downtown businesses would have an upturn because families would be more likely to shop downtown if they felt it were a family-friendly place.
- Downtown businesses would have a downturn because some students and their families would take their business elsewhere.
- Downtown landlords would adjust their marketing plans to encourage more central district residential living to increase the built in market for goods/services and so that real estate values would not fall.
The bottom-line: from a community perspective, the status quo is predictable, a change to the status quo is usually not. Typically, if there is a strong case for change and a great likelihood of the benefits outweighing the unknown (e.g., school funding, libraries, 1st Avenue extension) voters in Iowa City will vote for it. If the unknowns are unlikely to produce a predictable positive result (e.g., public power, new jails), residents traditionally have voted it down.
The argument for the 21-only referendum centers around public safety/health concerns, the counter-argument has centered around the uncertainty of change. Prediction: Status Quo wins.
The unfortunate thing is that either way the referendum goes, the root problem will not be addressed: Iowa, like many other places, has a culture that does not think it has a drinking problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment