Several years ago I ran for the city council in Iowa City. At the time I did not support invoking a 21-only ordinance for being in a bar after ten at night. Though I was absolutely sure that bars were making a killing selling to underage customers, I worried what would happen if these same kids ended up at house parties (because I had heard some awful reports). And, at that time, there were a number of other measures I felt could be undertaken that might have made things better and served to curb binge drinking.
One of those initiatives happened. There is now a keg registration, so that there accountability if someone should hold a house party and underage drinkers are there, the responsible party is the person who registered the keg. I'm not saying it has stopped house parties, but it is a deterrent. I also supported raising the age of alcohol servers and restricting the use of alcohol at community events, neither of which has happened.
However since that time, a few things have swayed my thinking on this topic. First, and foremost, I now work at The University of Iowa and have had a better look at the problems that underage drinking can cause. Secondly, the bar owners had not done a whole lot but give lip service to curbing their enthusiasm for selling to minors, as the police statistics prior to the enactment of the current ordinance showed. Finally, and most damning, the number of people who are underage and come from other communities continued to climb. Call it civic pride, but I don't want somebody's child being harmed in my city or on the way home to their own.
Also with the recent decision to let establishments make "split venues" and students still able to go to places that make 50% or more revenue from food after 10 pm, I don't feel that folks will have to roam the streets for entertainment. And nor will entertainers. Plus, the incremental evidence since June shows that the ordinance is doing what you'd hope a law would do, it's reducing underage alcohol offenses.
I believe that the culture of alcohol goes beyond people under 21, and from a perspective of fairness, I wish that the legal age of drinking would go up to 25. Why 25? Because, statistically, that is when alcohol related offenses generally begin to decline. However, a couple of extra years of maturation may do two things, turn the tide for a group of people who desperately need their wits about them so that they can get through college and two, help change the culture of drinking, even if it is ever so slightly.
Realistically do I think that people will circumvent the law? Of course, but a lot of young people are not looking to get into trouble. Some need a compelling reason to stay out of it. Morality cannot be legislated, but laws can help some people to do the right thing by themselves.
As far as what will or won't become of downtown Iowa City's economic heartbeat, time will tell. I do believe that nature abhors a vacuum and with the number of built-in customers in and around it, things will likely be fine. At the worst case, perhaps the rents and real estate values will come down and more people who'd like to live and work downtown could. That's one unintended consequence with which I could live.
Showing posts with label 21 Referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 21 Referendum. Show all posts
Thursday, October 21
Tuesday, October 23
FAIR to Endorse Candiates and Issues
(October 23rd)
Tonight at 7 pm, Johnson County progressive group FAIR! will endorse candidates for Iowa City Council and will discuss endorsing the two referendum items regarding 21-only bar entrance and beefing up of the Police Citizens Review Board.
The meeting is in Meeting Room A of the public library from 7 to 9 pm. Interested persons are welcome to attend. Candidates will be on hand to speak to the group. Members will vote on endorsing candidates and issues.
More information can be found on FAIR's website.
Tonight at 7 pm, Johnson County progressive group FAIR! will endorse candidates for Iowa City Council and will discuss endorsing the two referendum items regarding 21-only bar entrance and beefing up of the Police Citizens Review Board.
The meeting is in Meeting Room A of the public library from 7 to 9 pm. Interested persons are welcome to attend. Candidates will be on hand to speak to the group. Members will vote on endorsing candidates and issues.
More information can be found on FAIR's website.
Friday, October 19
21-Only or Bust?
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.
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.
Friday, October 12
All Politics are Local
A lot of people want to know more about the local election and where to get more information about the candidates and their positions. Professor David Redlawsk, all around good guy and former FAIR! leader, has a nice link to all things Iowa City election-oriented. Go here.
As it stands, there are 4 candidates for 2 at-large seats on the council, current mayor Ross Wilburn (from District A) and mayor pro tem Regenia Bailey (from District C) are running unopposed.
Of course, you always have the option to write-in a candidate if you prefer.
The two referendum items to be voted on are:
Public Measure C (Bar admission age)
Whereas, it is in the public interest to provide, unless otherwise exempted by law or ordinance, that a person shall have attained legal age (currently 21 years of age or more) to lawfully be on the premises between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to closing of any Iowa City establishment holding a liquor control license, a wine or beer permit, that authorizes on premises consumption.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that Article 4, Chapter 5, Section 8 of the City Code of Iowa City – entitled Persons Under 19 Years of Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments – shall be modified to replace “nineteen (19) years of age” wherever and however it appears within such Section 8 with “the legal age”.
More information:
http://www.bloc21.com/
http://www.voteyes21.org/
Public Measure D (Police Citizen Review Board)
That Article V (Boards, Commissions and Committees), Subsection 5.01 (Establishment) of the Home Rule Charter of Iowa City, Iowa be amended by adding the following underlined words:
With the exception of the Police Citizens Review Board, the Council may establish Boards in addition to those required by State law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council may reduce or increase a Board’s duties, transfer duties from one Board to another or dissolve any Board, except as otherwise provided by State law or this Charter.
A. There shall be a permanent Police Citizens Review Board, which shall have vested in it the following minimum powers:
1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens’ views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the City Council.
2. To investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to issue independent reports of its findings to the City Council; and
3. The authority to subpoena witnesses.
More information:
http://www.betterpcrb.com/
Early voting for the November 6th election is already underway at the Johnson County Admin Building and satelite locations schedule is here.
REMEMBER, same day voter registration does not happen until 1/2008. The last day to register to vote for this election is October 26th at 5 pm.
I will be adding my thoughts on the local election and referendum ballot items in the next couple of weeks.
As it stands, there are 4 candidates for 2 at-large seats on the council, current mayor Ross Wilburn (from District A) and mayor pro tem Regenia Bailey (from District C) are running unopposed.
Of course, you always have the option to write-in a candidate if you prefer.
The two referendum items to be voted on are:
Public Measure C (Bar admission age)
Whereas, it is in the public interest to provide, unless otherwise exempted by law or ordinance, that a person shall have attained legal age (currently 21 years of age or more) to lawfully be on the premises between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to closing of any Iowa City establishment holding a liquor control license, a wine or beer permit, that authorizes on premises consumption.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that Article 4, Chapter 5, Section 8 of the City Code of Iowa City – entitled Persons Under 19 Years of Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments – shall be modified to replace “nineteen (19) years of age” wherever and however it appears within such Section 8 with “the legal age”.
More information:
http://www.bloc21.com/
http://www.voteyes21.org/
Public Measure D (Police Citizen Review Board)
That Article V (Boards, Commissions and Committees), Subsection 5.01 (Establishment) of the Home Rule Charter of Iowa City, Iowa be amended by adding the following underlined words:
With the exception of the Police Citizens Review Board, the Council may establish Boards in addition to those required by State law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The Council may reduce or increase a Board’s duties, transfer duties from one Board to another or dissolve any Board, except as otherwise provided by State law or this Charter.
A. There shall be a permanent Police Citizens Review Board, which shall have vested in it the following minimum powers:
1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens’ views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the City Council.
2. To investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to issue independent reports of its findings to the City Council; and
3. The authority to subpoena witnesses.
More information:
http://www.betterpcrb.com/
Early voting for the November 6th election is already underway at the Johnson County Admin Building and satelite locations schedule is here.
REMEMBER, same day voter registration does not happen until 1/2008. The last day to register to vote for this election is October 26th at 5 pm.
I will be adding my thoughts on the local election and referendum ballot items in the next couple of weeks.
Friday, September 14
21 Ordinance Dance Off
From the Daily Iowan
Thursday night's forum about the controversial 21-ordinance was as polarized as ever, with both camps firmly sticking to their positions and agreeing on very little.
The forum, which took place at the IMU, was hosted by the Roosevelt Institution, a national nonprofit student-run organization.
In favor of 21-only: UI senior Phonsavanh Lovan and UI clinical Professor of family medicine Rick Dobyns argued the ordinance is for the greater good, citing the high rate of local binge drinking.
Against: UI junior Atul Nakhasi and Bo-James owner Leah Cohen said the ban would just push the problem elsewhere, specifically to harder-to-patrol house parties.
"Parents do not know what goes on at these house parties," Cohen said, adding that ultimately, we are "throwing these kids to the wolves."
Nakhasi used Iowa City police understaffing as an argument against the ban.
"If we can't take care of the sexual assaults on campus, how are we going to take care of the students going into residential, less-supervised areas," he asked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dobyns argued for more nonalcoholic venues. He pointed out the 46-0 ratio between bars who serve alcohol and those who do not.
Dobyns said West Lafayette, Ind., the home of Purdue University, and Madison, Wis., the site of the University of Wisconsin, among others, have 21-ordinances, and they saw a decrease in binge drinking among students.
"The community needs to take the initiative to change the image and atmosphere of being a party school," Lovan said. "What's going to push [the UI] to have these nonalcoholic venues? We're going to keep waiting and waiting."
On Nov. 6, Iowa City voters will decide whether to allow people under 21 in the bars.
Both sides agreed that eliminating 18- and 19-year-olds from the bars could potentially create more danger for students venturing into the house-party world.
But each side had a different spin.
"Do I give my patients medicine that can produce negative effects? Yes," Dobyns said. "But they take the medicine for the longer and greater good."
Cohen took the opposite approach, saying the 21-ordinance would result in the "destruction of neighborhoods as well as more drug activity and assaults."
Thursday night's forum about the controversial 21-ordinance was as polarized as ever, with both camps firmly sticking to their positions and agreeing on very little.
The forum, which took place at the IMU, was hosted by the Roosevelt Institution, a national nonprofit student-run organization.
In favor of 21-only: UI senior Phonsavanh Lovan and UI clinical Professor of family medicine Rick Dobyns argued the ordinance is for the greater good, citing the high rate of local binge drinking.
Against: UI junior Atul Nakhasi and Bo-James owner Leah Cohen said the ban would just push the problem elsewhere, specifically to harder-to-patrol house parties.
"Parents do not know what goes on at these house parties," Cohen said, adding that ultimately, we are "throwing these kids to the wolves."
Nakhasi used Iowa City police understaffing as an argument against the ban.
"If we can't take care of the sexual assaults on campus, how are we going to take care of the students going into residential, less-supervised areas," he asked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dobyns argued for more nonalcoholic venues. He pointed out the 46-0 ratio between bars who serve alcohol and those who do not.
Dobyns said West Lafayette, Ind., the home of Purdue University, and Madison, Wis., the site of the University of Wisconsin, among others, have 21-ordinances, and they saw a decrease in binge drinking among students.
"The community needs to take the initiative to change the image and atmosphere of being a party school," Lovan said. "What's going to push [the UI] to have these nonalcoholic venues? We're going to keep waiting and waiting."
On Nov. 6, Iowa City voters will decide whether to allow people under 21 in the bars.
Both sides agreed that eliminating 18- and 19-year-olds from the bars could potentially create more danger for students venturing into the house-party world.
But each side had a different spin.
"Do I give my patients medicine that can produce negative effects? Yes," Dobyns said. "But they take the medicine for the longer and greater good."
Cohen took the opposite approach, saying the 21-ordinance would result in the "destruction of neighborhoods as well as more drug activity and assaults."
Tuesday, September 4
Coming Soon: "21 Only" Fever
Up until now, I have tried to keep my "street cred" on the down low in blogging as Gark. But, many readers know that I am Garry Klein and I ran (unsuccessfully) for City Council in Iowa City in 2005. So the following can be taken in the spirit it is offered.
When I ran for city council, the "21 Ordinance" was looming large on the horizon. At that time, I thought that passing an ordinance from the council would have significant consequences (mostly negative because there was no discussion of what other tools were needed, past the ordinance, to make it workable). Certainly alcohol abuse is a significant issue in our community--the results of binge drinking in terms of risk to self (and others--DUI, rape, assaults, etc.) can't be ignored.
In this go round because it is a referendum item, the council candidates are quietly betting on or against it passing and publicly discussing what will be needed if it does. For instance, with a designated "redlight district," you can mass police patrols to enforce law, but what happens when you spread underage drinking out into the neighborhoods? It means you will need more public safety officers. Certainly the police chief is pushing that point with a request for 40 additional officers.
The Catch 22 is that bars equal tax base and Iowa City government doesn't want to detract from its tax base. I'm sure if bowling alleys did as well as bars, downtown would be covered in bowling alleys.
This kind of conflict of values is not new, but the balance between the welfare of the public's health and the welfare of the city's tax base is the dance that voters will participate in and ultimately decide on.
There is a lot of information available, both from the "for 21" side and the "no to 21" sides, but what is true will be harder to decipher. If you want to start educating yourself, here are two places to begin:
http://www.voteyesforthelegalage.org/
http://www.bloc21.com/
The nature of referendums is that they are better for yes or no questions. The 21 referendum will simply answer the question "should people under the age of 21 be allowed in bars after 10 pm?" It will not deal with the problem of underage or binge drinking (at any age).
This is a larger issue. In a culture that embraces alcohol as socially okay, unless we are willing to devise a community strategy with a lot more tools than kicking people under 21 to the curb at 10:00 pm and a keg registration law, we may have the experience that Ames had with VIESHA, UNI had in the past (and they actually had and repealed the 21 there), or East Lansing did a year or so ago.
To all the candidates that have entered the fray, it is my sincere hope that you have thought carefully about what your solutions to this issue are and can articulate them well. It is further my hope that you listen to both sides of this issue very carefully. This is a wedge issue for this campaign and it may be all anyone will want to know about you.
I believe, and voiced this in 2005, we need a community solution for a community problem. City Council would better be used to form a community task group to look into a holistic solution to alcohol abuse than to create a piecemeal approach via referendum.
However, because City Council has vacated its responsibility to do this up to now, if the referendum passes, a standing commission should be formed to deal with the consequences, both intended and unintended.
When I ran for city council, the "21 Ordinance" was looming large on the horizon. At that time, I thought that passing an ordinance from the council would have significant consequences (mostly negative because there was no discussion of what other tools were needed, past the ordinance, to make it workable). Certainly alcohol abuse is a significant issue in our community--the results of binge drinking in terms of risk to self (and others--DUI, rape, assaults, etc.) can't be ignored.
In this go round because it is a referendum item, the council candidates are quietly betting on or against it passing and publicly discussing what will be needed if it does. For instance, with a designated "redlight district," you can mass police patrols to enforce law, but what happens when you spread underage drinking out into the neighborhoods? It means you will need more public safety officers. Certainly the police chief is pushing that point with a request for 40 additional officers.
The Catch 22 is that bars equal tax base and Iowa City government doesn't want to detract from its tax base. I'm sure if bowling alleys did as well as bars, downtown would be covered in bowling alleys.
This kind of conflict of values is not new, but the balance between the welfare of the public's health and the welfare of the city's tax base is the dance that voters will participate in and ultimately decide on.
There is a lot of information available, both from the "for 21" side and the "no to 21" sides, but what is true will be harder to decipher. If you want to start educating yourself, here are two places to begin:
http://www.voteyesforthelegalage.org/
http://www.bloc21.com/
The nature of referendums is that they are better for yes or no questions. The 21 referendum will simply answer the question "should people under the age of 21 be allowed in bars after 10 pm?" It will not deal with the problem of underage or binge drinking (at any age).
This is a larger issue. In a culture that embraces alcohol as socially okay, unless we are willing to devise a community strategy with a lot more tools than kicking people under 21 to the curb at 10:00 pm and a keg registration law, we may have the experience that Ames had with VIESHA, UNI had in the past (and they actually had and repealed the 21 there), or East Lansing did a year or so ago.
To all the candidates that have entered the fray, it is my sincere hope that you have thought carefully about what your solutions to this issue are and can articulate them well. It is further my hope that you listen to both sides of this issue very carefully. This is a wedge issue for this campaign and it may be all anyone will want to know about you.
I believe, and voiced this in 2005, we need a community solution for a community problem. City Council would better be used to form a community task group to look into a holistic solution to alcohol abuse than to create a piecemeal approach via referendum.
However, because City Council has vacated its responsibility to do this up to now, if the referendum passes, a standing commission should be formed to deal with the consequences, both intended and unintended.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)