Installment Two: It Works Elsewhere

This is the second of three installments of my moderating the VoiceofSanDiego.org Cafe San Diego
Installment One – Installment Two – Installment Three

Our Police Chief Lansdowne has stated something to the effect of wanting to keep drinking on the beach so the police can keep a better handle on the crowd. He said that removing alcohol from the beach would drive all the problems inland so he would rather keep drinking on the beach.

Can you tell me one other city either locally, i.e. the alcohol-free beaches of Oceanside, Del Mar on the 4th of July, La Jolla Shores, Coronado and Imperial Beach, as well as from beaches all over the country, where crime went up in the inland community once alcohol was removed from the beach?

My belief is that Chief Lansdowne said this at a public forum in Pacific Beach this Spring by thinking out loud but, was quoted so heavily by the media that he is sticking by this theory.

My thought is that when people congregate they can cause problems. When you take away the area to congregate the problems evaporate. When La Jolla took alcohol off their beaches at the Shores, crime dropped 80 percent and arrests by 40 percent. I haven’t heard of any crime waves moving inland in La Jolla, have you?

Reader Comments

Always in SD wrote on September 7, 2007 7:05 AM:
“Before this goes too far, please cite us to some credible information that supports your statement that crime dropped by 80% when alcohol was banned from La Jolla Shores. Perhaps you could re-phrase for us? Are you suggesting that crime will drop 80% if San Diego bans alcohol from its beaches?”

Billy Bob Henry wrote on September 7, 2007 7:11 AM:
“Goody two shoes here just does not seem to get it, the PUBLC has a RIGHT to use a LEGAL substance at the beach, and YOU cannot take away the rights of the public. It is that simple. I could counter your idiotic rant by saying have you seen any car accidents in places where you cannot drive a car???? Does not make a lot of sense, just like your rant does not make a lot of sense. I said before and I will say it again, you don’t like the beach MOVE.”

Freedom for All wrote on September 7, 2007 7:13 AM:
“Jerry said: My thought is that when people congregate they can cause problems. When you take away the area to congregate the problems evaporate. The First Amendment to the US Constitution says, in part: Congress shall make no law…abridging…th right of the people peaceably to assemble… Forgetting about alcohol and beaches, statements like those made by Jerry are downright frightening.”

KirkH wrote on September 7, 2007 7:14 AM:
“I hate to rain on your parade but I found this in some weird old document called the constitution. “Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” People that bought housing in PB want it to become the next La Jolla. Understandable. But using the law to take away the rights of others to boost your retirement nest egg strikes me as wrong. If we required all drivers to wear helmets 100,000+ lives would have been saved since 2000 in America. Does your argument that the ends always justify the means also apply when it applies to your choice of activities?”

Jerry Hall wrote on September 7, 2007 7:49 AM:
“Let me clarify. I too hold and defend the constitution sacred. My point was that: When people congregate [and drink alcohol un-supervised and without personal responsibility] they cause problems. Please don’t put words in my mouth – I’m certain most of you are intelligent beings and understand what I meant – if not just ask. Let’s deal with the issue guys. No BBH I will not move as you suggest. I call that running from a problem. Perhaps that characteristic is in your gene pool – it’s not in mine. AlwaysinSD I’ll get the data for you. I just recently heard this in by I believe a city employee.”

Jim wrote on September 7, 2007 7:59 AM:
“BBH, you stated, “The PUBLC has a RIGHT to use a LEGAL substance at the beach, and YOU cannot take away the rights of the public.” So please explain how every other beach community in California has managed to successfully implement alcohol free beaches? How is that La Jolla Shores Beach is alcohol free? How is it that your hero Aguirre is proposing an alcohol ban at the beach? Once again, you speak from the wrong end of your anatomy.”

Jerry Hall wrote on September 7, 2007 8:01 AM:
“Let me clarify. I too hold and defend the constitution sacred. My point was that: When people congregate [and drink alcohol un-supervised and without personal responsibility] they cause problems. Please don’t put words in my mouth – I’m certain most of you are intelligent beings and understand what I meant – if not just ask. Let’s deal with the issue guys. No BBH I will not move as you suggest. I call that running from a problem. Perhaps that characteristic is in your gene pool – it’s not in mine. AlwaysinSD I’ll get the data for you. I just recently heard this in by I believe a city employee.”

KirkH wrote on September 7, 2007 8:10 AM:
“Thanks for the clarification Jerry. Some of us support increased police presence when large crowds gather and the prosecution of those who break the law. You prefer sweeping bans that affect all citizens. If you’re a believer in the constitution why is your first instinct to restrict rights instead of increasing enforcement?”

Jim Z wrote on September 7, 2007 9:16 AM:
“The facts are that MB-PB have become known as an “authorized drunk zone”. Excessive DUIs, Drunk in Public, fist fights, homeless drunks, foul language, litter, policing expense, peeing in public, arguments, “tipsy” silliness, binge drinking and loud obnoxius behavior occur at the beach EVERY weekend of the year and those offenses are caused by excessive drinking. Underage drinking is common. Most of the problems occur after most visitors have gone home and dont see the effects of a full day of excessive drinking. Its time that San Diego join the ranks of nearly every other city in the state, perhaps the country, in banning drinking on the beach. The reasons for the ban are clear. Its time for the Council & Mayor to show some leadership and pass a ban. There is no “right” to drink on any beach.”

D wrote on September 7, 2007 12:09 PM:
“Jerry, did half of your blog get deleted by Vlad or something? Because reading the maniacal responses from SillyBob, Freedom, and kirk made me do a double take and wonder if I read the same thing they read. Drinking on the beach, much like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it and you lose it. But anyway, Lansdowne`s comment was and is asinine. To put it plainly, its stupid, and the concept is ludicrous. If there is no drunk mob, you wont get a drunken mob riot. simple as that. And as I said before, I root for a holiday ban ONLY.”

Steve wrote on September 7, 2007 3:11 PM:
“Billy Bob is most certainly no attorney. People would still be allowed to congregate, just not while drinking. There are booze bans all over the country and right here in our own city already. Downtown for example has been a restricted area for 30 years. There is NO constitutional right to consume alcohol in public.”

Billy! Bob!! Henry!!! wrote on September 7, 2007 5:58 PM:
“Jim with more of his bogus statements, but I expect that from gov workfare employees who will claim the sky is falling to get more money out of taxpayers. The beahc is for evryone, and not just for those that live by it.”

Howiek wrote on September 7, 2007 11:15 PM:
“Well I don’t frequent this beeches mentioned or any other beech anymore—why? I saw the potential for extreme violence on three different occasions and decided the beech was not where I was going to go with my family. Booze in these cases would only have been an accelerant—in two of the incidents I spotted a weapon. The problem at the beaches is not just booze. However having said that, why not install high-resolution cameras? A lot more of the beach can be observed by using cameras than cops patrolling on bikes or ATVs. If you are not doing anything wrong you shouldn’t care if you show up on film or not, but the PD could be alerted to problems much faster. And it’s not an infringement of anyone’s rights either. And if what Jim Z says is true (I have reason to doubt him) then increased PD patrols are warranted—providing there are enough PD to do that.”

Ron Weiss wrote on September 8, 2007 11:33 AM:
“Thanks Howiek for your response. I almost agree except for one thing. Banning Alcohol is the least expensive thing to do if you compare it to more patrol and/or cameras. the camera thing would never fly with all the liberal organizations afraid that their privacy would be compromised. Sanders and Lansdowne like our 1.4 or less cops per thousand and the public so it seems do not want to pay for the extra protection either (TOT Tax was a good example). Until people start to get really injured or killed, San Diego including the council, Mayor and Chief will remain asleep at the wheel. Your included in this group as well BBH.”

Jonathan West wrote on September 9, 2007 12:24 PM:
“There is a back story to that riot in Pacific Beach that tells of the leadership that made it all possible. See the web pages and the Message Board on link to get the whole story, as it really happened and a lot more. It’s a very surprising and very bad situation. See it for yourself. See what’s really going on and get mad as hell just like the rest of us who try to live and work around here in peace and with a reasonable amount of security. See what they’ve done to us. See how it really happened.”

Ron Weiss wrote on September 10, 2007 8:32 AM:
“Jonathan, Very Sad but true. It is all a money issue and how they can hide the truth from the public at large. As a police officer I have seen what happens at PB. I have been a Patrol Officer at Western Division since 1997. Because of the diversity of this City, and big money coming from big business, they are the priority not the residents. The Citizens as a whole do not realise the true ramifications of the lack of police personnel. Why? because this City so far has been lucky for the most part. When cops start getting killed (and most likely it is going to have to be more than one) maybe then our council members will wake up, wake up the mayor and Chief of Police and things will change.”

Billy Bob Henry wrote on September 11, 2007 6:34 AM:
“Really Wrong with mnore of his SKY IS FALLING claim by the chicken little man himself…and all we need to fix the problems are more taxes…and better pay for out HS graduate cops…and allow the HS educated cops to retire 60% sooner than everyone else in America…the pie in the sky claims wont work, but RW will be singing that tune like an old broken down record player……”

Ron Weiss wrote on September 11, 2007 8:37 AM:
“Hey BBH, First let me explain I do not fall in the category YOU claim aall cops and firefighters fall into and retire by age 50. First that is patently false and you know that and are continuing to spread lies. Second I am 53 years old and would work until age 65 if possible, as many other cops do if they are physically able. 3. I do not believe we need higher taxes paid by the citizens, there are other means (TOT for example. If council, Mayor would quit squandering the revenue, there would be plenty to go around. you are the broken record BBH. there is absolutely no substance to your arguement comparing our issues and revenue to other cities in CA.”