117 replies to this topic

[titusan]

I've been reading this forum for a long time, and this topic finally got me worked up enough to register and post a comment.

I was wondering the same thing as Orange...is this really a problem? I'm a nondrinker, so I don't really have a personal interest in this, but it's just another example of the nanny state run amok. I can't stand it. No smoking OUTSIDE on public beaches, no drinking in public parks, paid for by taxpayer dollars, you have to use your headlights if you are using your windshield wipers, mandatory seatbelts, mandatory helmets, proposed mandatory health care. What's next? Aren't there other things the city council should be concerning itself with?

[forumreader]

Maybe I'm missing it, but is there really a significant problem with this in the first place?  I regularly go to the "picnic in the park" in the summertime, I go to the park with my family on a regular basis, etc., and I've never noticed any problem with drunk people.  Maybe I'm oblivious, but I just haven't seen it.

Very good point, Orangetj. While I am in favor of the new ordinance, I must say that I'm surprised that our city officials have identified a problem with public drunkeness. Maybe I'm oblivious too!

[benning]

Isn't it already illegal to be drunk in public? This seems to potentially hurt way more people than it helps.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Typical knee-jerk conservatives...oh wait, what?

Put your beer in a cup folks, this'll be just like college!

[old soldier]

Well here is a situation for the old city council to demonstrate some common sense.

Seems to me if you are having a party at home and making too much noise and the police come it you quiet down its ok but if you have an attitude you are going to get arrested.

It would seem to be the same if you were having a picnic in the park and making noise. the police come and if there is an attitude a person could get arrested for being drunk in public.

I's like to see if the old laws we have now can't work without the need for a ban the booze law that would make it hard to have a picnic without spending a week to get a permit.

anybody who has to get a liquer licence for an event knows how darn hard it is to run around and get approvals.

its sad cause part of the charm of old Folsom is its colorful past. Hey isn't the city trying so sell the old (censored) house. It would be fun to go back to the old days where once and awhile you could walk down sutter street with a beer in your hand.. with all the new police, and they are fine young men and women they probably don't have a sense of history about what makes Folsom fun.

this here new law might just be too powerful for the problem at hand.

[ducky]

Isn't it already illegal to be drunk in public?  This seems to potentially hurt way more people than it helps.

I agree. Even though I understand the reasoning behind the new ordinance, I don't think it will have the effect they are hoping for. As much as I don't like a drunken transient sitting down next to my kid on the swingset at the park (actually happened), I don't like being corraled in by a superfluous ordinance. I just wonder if an outside group has put pressure on the council.

In the meantime will I be in trouble for sipping a glass of Merlot on my front porch bench if I don't have a permit? Maybe I'll have to dig back in the kitchen cupboard and find those old Barney sipper cups.

[whome_209]

What happens during concerts/picnic at the park or other events. Now city pretty much forces people to put jack in coke, vodka in water bottles, rum and pineapple in drinking cups. Basically ordinance is going to force people do "sneak" it in.

City needs to deal with the transient problem first then deal with the issue. The way I see it city is trying to fix a problem by creating another problem.

[tessieca]

They hold the Renaissance Faire in the park. No alcohol at that?

What about the rodeo and other activities at Rodeo Park?

What about Folsom's annual Taste of Folsom that revolves around eating and drinking?

Does anyone know?

[tessieca]

Never mind. It looks like all they have to do is issue themselves a permit. Maybe they think it will protect city profits by only allowing drinking at city events.

[nhardy]

They hold the Renaissance Faire in the park. 

I never understood that gig. Those people are looney as it is. To add alcohol???

Kinda like re-enacting the civil war on mushrooms.

[ngilbert]

I never understood that gig.  Those people are looney as it is. To add alcohol??? 

Kinda like re-enacting the civil war on mushrooms.

swords plus summer heat plus alcohol.... what could possibly go wrong?

I've taken the kids to "Ye Olde Bad Fake Accent Faire" a couple of times, just to see the knights jousting in the rodeo grounds (kinda neat). Every time I go I just see people sitting in their tents drinking and eating turkey legs, and everyone not drinking has a big ol' pewter mug hanging from their belts. There's some serious drunkenness there. It's only a matter of time before someone gets maced (and I don't mean the kind that comes in spray cans).

[Young Curmudgeon]

If this is really about transiency and the homeless, they should do what they did in the 17th century: banishment. Now days I think it's just honestly called "making them someone else's problem."

This ordinance is not even a 'growing metropolis' solution. A big city wouldn't tinker around with open container laws. They would make it illegal to sell alcohol at an unreasonably early hour save for a block or two they would deem the "red light district." Then they would crank up the sales tax in this special sin district and experience a nice revenue windfall. Can anyone see the historic district return to its steamy roots? Maybe a few MORE bars and a couple bordellos might keep the transient population centrally located. It would make it easier to corral the homeless and escort them to Rancho Cordova or Orangevale, and they could make a few bucks in the process. They could identify any new homeless at the nearby train depot by putting up a Mad Dog vending machine.

I swear, am I the only one with a real vision for this city?

[bordercolliefan]

According to Mayor Miklos, word that Folsom is "alcohol friendly" has spread among the transient population, and many of them are coming to Folsom to drink in our parks. --I don't know if this is true or not; I'm just reporting what I read in the newspaper.

I thought the ban would only apply to city parks. I could live with this, because how often does one go to a park to drink anyway?

However, I am dismayed to find out this ban applies to block parties, too. Our court has a grand tradition of holding "court parties" several times a year. No one gets drunk, but everyone has a neighborly drink or two.

I can only hope that, as with so many laws, the police will be discriminating as to when and how they choose to enforce this ban.

[rlveloria]

However, I am dismayed to find out this ban applies to block parties, too.  Our court has a grand tradition of holding "court parties" several times a year.  No one gets drunk, but everyone has a neighborly drink or two. 

I think this is where the "or something" comes in. Just wondering if a permit is issued does the requestor need to be insured or is it an open permit to drink no insurance attached, (which is why events seem not affected) I guess we just need to have a wait and see attitude.

[old soldier]

I kinda wonder how our sly mayor found out from the homeless folks that Folsom was an alcohol friendly town. could be another trick, but at least they are not voting yet to make Folsom a dry city.

seems like I heard that the homless folk were tinkling in the mayors business parking lot. if he makes them real mad (as us if we can't have block parties) god knows what will start to happen.