Do Bars & Nightclubs Pay Their Fair Share?

Wow... quite the analysis here. Glad to see the City Council is paying attention to this in the budget process that is inspiring more creative ways to squeeze out some revenue.

This has been a simmering issue for years, especially when SB residents figure out where their cops are on a Friday night. Building upon prior community discourse with reference names like "Drunk Zone", I identified this issue a few months ago with this action when I published my 10 Policies for the Change We Need:

"Evaluate how "Old Town" lower State Street may be consuming a disproportionate share of policing resources and consider fiscal compensation to mitigate those alcohol-fueled attractants."

Firstly David, congrates on not being tainted by the Dem Party machines endorsement. You should wear that as a Badge of Honor.

The best answer to this downtown party "problem" is to eliminate as many "sworn" police positions as possible @ 150K per year each. Then hire two to three times as many trained uniformed private security personnel to surveil the streets on weekends. They can affect a citizen's arrest on troublemakers and hold for the "sworn" police to take them to the pokey.

Easy peasy and may allow the Union to understand that they are not the indespensible unique supermen they always make themselves out to be. Same with the DUI check points. One cop and a couple of cheap helpers.

It's time for the Cal employees unions to find out what the auto, aviation, truckers and garment workers found out...You can be replaced by someone cheaper...

The voters sent that message loud and clear.

Oh yeah,

If the council must have some sort of ordinance that makes them look like they're earning their paychecks, they could require that all bars have video cams in plain sight so there is at least a clear record of what transpires in these dens of eniquity.

Additionally, we could allow folks to toke their medical marijuana in the bar so everyone gets to chill outfrom the violence provoking alcohol they're swilling...works good in Amsterdam!

The adulterers may not like it but who cares, I'm not married, screwing the other guy out of his right to privacy doesn't bother us right?

Really like the Santa Cruz/Ventura solution. Can it be applied County-wide? Alcohol related crime is so prevalent, but it seems that all of us who do not partake in excesses of alcohol consumption lose our police protection due to the costly actions of those who abuse alcohol. Or rather our police protection gets re-deployed from protecting us from burglaries and assaults to trolling the streets of IV and lower State for drunken passed out 18-year olds.

Better to introduce this new fee on the alcohol providers and use it to pay for as much of the alcohol related crime protection as possible, and then re-deploy other law enforcement back where we need it.

I"ve lived in the area since 1973 and while I'm not saying that Santa Barbara was perfect back then, I *can* say that the influx of drunks (even if the drunks of today are more well-heeled than those of yesteryear) these bars have brought in have not made life any better downtown. To put it more simply: What was so bad about Santa Barbara before?

I remember one night hearing a gunshot in the neighborhood where I work and it took the police 38 minutes to respond. When I confronted them on this later, a sergeant
e-mailed me back with the details of all the calls they were handling at the time I made the call and it was clear to me that they were overwhelmed at the time. Whichever side one takes on the bar issue, it is clear that there must be proportional policing capabilities put in place *before* any increases in alcohol establishments take place, and as sevendolphins points out, pull the taxes from the bars since they are creating the problem in the first place.

Of course, how nice it would be if downtown weren't flooded with drunks and cops.

Tax the bars, tax the restaurants, tax everyone, including the cops and city hall. Heavy taxes solve all problems.

Yes lets go back to in time, pre mid 1990s before this entertainment district developed. I know a lot of people will miss it but then they can start their own RAVE districts in their own hometowns of I.V. , SLO or Oxnard (if their community wants it.) Skip the idea of taxing or levying a fee to add to the city coffers. The city should just reduce bar-baby-sitting expenses. By ordinance, closing all downtown bar and nightclub businesses at 11:30 P.M. would address this particular budget disparity as well as neighboring property conflicts. Joy-kill I know, but this notion that the nightclub district should control adjacent properties, not only the hotels in the area but other businesses as well, is like stealing. And there are people who live downtown you know and they don't appreciate the nightclubs stealing their peace and property values. It's one of those win/win propositions. The RAVEs go home, the city police are relieved, a budget issue is solved and the neighbors and their guests can again enjoy the sunset and even get a good nights rest.

Rigorously enforce traffic laws on cars, bikes ($400 per ticket for running stop signs - a gold mine right here in SB), and pedestrians, exact fines from the miscreants, and raise $$millions (seriously, do the math - an officer can return his or her own cost plus 200% more in fines and we'd all be much safer on the streets). Use the money to fund the police department.

Let the people who cause the problem be the ones to clean it up. I don't care how they get the money to do this as long as it's not out of my pocket.

I want my tax dollars ensuring public safety in my part of town (Upper State) and not herding out of town drunks on Lower State.

The problem is many who cause the problem don't learn because after all, a slap on the wrist is just that: A slap on the wrist. You can have ALL the enforcement you want, but when the penalties are meager, the troublemakers get emboldened. Heavier sentences, hit the drunks where it hurts: THE WALLET! :) henry

Tangent Alert!!!!

Hank, I think you hit the nail squarely: "You can have ALL the enforcement you want, but when the penalties are meager, the troublemakers get emboldened."

Now, let's apply that thinking to Bush Co, for ordering unlawful incarceration and the promotion and execution of torture & the lawless Telecoms who broke Federal Laws by spying on Americans -- otherwise, it will continue.

It's not 'looking backward' or 'criminalizing politics' it's called enforcing the law. Anything else, and we are demonstrably NOT a Nation of Laws.

Give it a rest, Binky. Bush is gone, Obama is king, the ship of state is righting itself, and if you want to find a nation NOT of laws, look elsewhere. BTW it is not clear that Bush broke any laws, although many people think so; that is a question for constitutional lawyers, not uneducated opinion like yours and mine (unless, of course you are a constitutional lawyer - I am not). Being a nation of laws means among other things that people are not guilty just because some number of people believe that they are guilty. Or liars. Or whatever.

Not a constitutional lawyer, that's for sure.

But Jonathan Turley is: (http://jonathanturley.org/about/)

According to Turley, Esq.:

::: "...Torture is a crime under domestic and international law. Various federal laws address torture, not the least of which is the Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340.

::: "There is also the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which President Reagan signed. The Convention Against Torture expressly states that "just following orders" is no defense and "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" will be considered. This is acknowledged as a binding law, including most recently by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

::: "WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PROSECUTE INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMIT TORTURE
Finally, the United States is obligated to investigate and prosecute war crimes. Under the Convention Against Torture, we agreed to make "all acts of torture offences under [our] criminal law" and to prosecute any such cases. The failure to prosecute war crimes committed by your own government is an offense of the same order as the original war crime."

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/08/...

--

And this is why you think I should "give it a rest."

::: "The problem for the Bush administration is they perfected plausible deniability techniques. They bring out one or two people that are willing to debate on cable shows whether water-boarding is torture. And it leaves the impression that it's a close question. It's not. It's just like the domestic surveillance program that the a federal court just a week ago also said was not a close question. These are illegal acts. These are crimes. And there weren't questions before and there's not questions now as to the illegality. . . .

::: "I never thought I would say this, but I think it might, in fact, be time for the United States to be held internationally to a tribunal. I never thought, in my lifetime, that I would say that, that we have become like Serbia, where an international tribunal has to come to force us to apply the rule of law. I never imagined that a Congress, a Democratic-led Congress would refuse to take actions, even with the preeminent institution of the Red Cross saying, this is clearly torture and torture is a war crime. They are still refusing to take meaningful action.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwal...

Psssssst ...ixnay with the rosectionpay.

We still might catch OBL and we'll want to ask him some pointed questions...if you know what I mean.

Besides those uckinfay astardbays deserved every second of that orturetay...

Besides as a country with the highest per capita incarceration, we definitely deal out to much punishment to the weak and let the rich and powerful skate at every turn. That's the real tyranny of people like hank.

So say we all!

OK, Binky, my Bush-hating friend, here's a scenario for you. Your 10 year old daughter is held captive. You (or your agents) have captured one of the individuals responsible. If you torture that individual you might find out where she is and may be able to rescue her. If not, she will surely die. What do you do? Real world scenario, simple question, no bulls**t answer, please.

Wasn't this story about bars and not Bush's policies?

Yes, it was, before Molly Ivins, I mean Binky, turned it into an anti-Bush diatribe.

JohnLocke: That ain't Molly Ivans, I heard Molly Ivans died, I read it on the Internet. (And I believe everything on the Internet) How can Binky be Molly Ivans when she's dead and Binky's still posting? Two different people! You tried to pull the wool over our eyes but we were too smart for you!

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."- Molly Ivans 1944-2007

It's Ivins, not Ivans, and my comment was intended to point out that Binky and his fans post from the same off-the-charts left wing seats that Ivins sat in. And yes, she died in 2007. So we'll never again be blessed with her Molly OneNote anti-Bush diatribes. She actually ever wrote only one column; just changed the wording every now and then. I know she was a hero of the Left - couldn't get a real journalism job, had to write for Creative Writers' Syndicate, which is kinda funny 'cuz she was anything but creative.

BTW, Binky, you never answered my question to you regarding torture in another series of postings.

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. -- "Ivins"

J.L. What, are you Lost?

"Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism. Michael Zuckert has in fact argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State."

BTW...We tortured the kidnapper and he said your mother's the ring leader...What do you do?

I'm not lost; I have little to no tolerance for extremists of any color - Left, Right, Islamist, or whatever. Ivins was as extreme in her way as Limbaugh is in his; both are shining examples of the mindlessness of "sustained outrage". Liberalism as defined by Locke connotes tolerance, respect, inclusiveness, reason, maximum individual responsibility, and minimal government - few of these traits are exhibited by extremists of any kind.

I'll save my response on torture until and if Binky responds. Want me to start in on yo' mama?

BTW, sa1, the question is to you. Your daughter, you captured the kidnapper, what do YOU do? What I do in this situation is entirely a different point.

And where, oh where is Binky? Always avoids the tough questions.

Honestly JL, I'd bargin with the devil. I'd promise anything. I'd set him free if that's what it took. Once the child was safe, I'd try to capture him again. I might then torture him in the public square not for the very empty emotion of vengence, but as a lesson to all others who might think this is something they could get away with.

See, if you've been through excrutiating pain for any length of time like I have (on multiple occasions) you find the mind has an amazing ability to compartmentalize it.

Not to mention all the real experts (NOT Cheney) have said quite publicly that it doesn't work. Good enough for me.

Well now I'm completely confused. You would torture. Or you wouldn't. And the real experts say it doesn't work. What the hell are you saying?

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion. " --Ivins

I thought I was quite clear,

I wouldn't torture for info as it's probably untrustworthy
I wouldn't torture for personal vengence as that is soul corrupting
I might torture in public as a warning and deterence to particularly heinous crimes

As I grow older and wiser, the more Stoic I become...

I wasn't aware Dubya was running the bars on State Street. Amazing, from president to bar owner, who'd a thunk?! HAHAHA! :) henry

I wasn't aware Dubya was running the bars on State Street. Amazing, from president to bar owner, who'd a thunk?! HAHAHA! :) henry

Indeed he is. It's called "Bush's Brewery". It has a nice ring to it.

Got it , sa1. And Binky's still in the wind.

Regarding my mother, if she were planning to murder a kidnapped child you could do whatever you like - I disown her.

Since this thread has gone off-topic, I have the following questions:

Would one refer to a stranger as "African-American" even though that stranger could be from a country other than the United States?

Does it seem odd that at 18 years of age people can be expected to give their lives in military service yet they cannot drink because it's not good for their health?

The word in Spanish for nuclear is spelled the same as it is in English, and prounounced "noo-kle-AR". Does that mean that that people who speak English and Spanish and say "nucular" in English (G.W. Bush) invert the second and third syllables in Spanish as well?

Speaking of languages: Since Chinese is written in non-phonetic picturegraphs, is it possible to have spelling bees in China?

Why is it that Iceland has much vegatation but Greenland is more or less covered in ice?