117 replies to this topic

[mylo]

I'll ask it again...is there really a big problem this ban is actually trying to address?  If there is, I sure haven't seen it.

I think it's partially pre-empting the arrival of light rail, and the fear that Folsom will be the transient haven, especially if you can get loaded and chase kids around the parks.

I have a better idea.. make it illegal be a transient! Get a job, a place to live, or get help! Let's not bring the transient argument into this thread, but let's at least admit that they are the problem this is trying to solve, not public alcohol consumption (public intoxication is already illegal)

[john]

I've stayed mum on this as I have been talks with some of the folks on city council... to clarify a few things:

Concerts in the Park will not be affected. They already need permits to run them, this would just be part of the permit process. Individual permits for us (residents) will not be needed. That's the biggest thing I was concerned about.

The problem this is trying to address is the city's transients. Folsom may be percieved as an alcohol friendly city by transients, which is what they are trying to fix. I don't think it's a coincidence that transients tend to loiter around the mayor's place of business... I think this is what triggered this.

As far as block parties, permits will be needed. I don't know if it will cost anything. I think it would be inappropriate to charge residents fomr something that was always free before. The thing that concerns me about this is liability. With a permit, it pretty much says you are responsible for the alcohol intake at a block party. What if one of your neighbors gets drunk at the party and then gets in an accident? Next thing you know, you are part of a big lawsuit, because a paper trail leads to you. It's an unfortunate part of today's "sue happy" society.

I still don't think this is the right approach, though it is evident to me that this new law will be the up to Folsom PD to enforce. My perception is that it will likely not be enforced to residents having a block party or drinking a beer at their son's little league game... however it would be a deterrent to keep transients out of Folsom.

I think the intent is right, but I'm with some others on this board - the "shotgun" approach does more harm than good.

[CataBird]

Hhhmmm,

I think the law is an attempt to stop the young and irresponsible folks who go to the parks after dark, get drunk, and vandalize the parks and their facilities for the "fun" of it. This costs the city mega bucks just to keep the parks clean and the facilities operating properly for families and kids who use the parks for clean fun during the day.

I support his ban. I'm sure the organizers of special events in the parks will get permits, if necessary, so attendees may drink alcohol--if it is appropriate.

Personally, I feel that, if you MUST drink, you should do it at HOME, so you don't have to DRIVE drunk and threaten the safety of regular folks who drive on the same streets as you.

Plus, parks are built for family fun--ever notice the swing sets, etc.? Those are built for KIDS to enjoy. Anyone who feels they can't have good clean fun without alcohol in their system may have a problem and should seek help (look up AA in your local phone book, please).

[Orangetj]

Hhhmmm,

I think the law is an attempt to stop the young and irresponsible folks who go to the parks after dark, get drunk, and vandalize the parks and their facilities for the "fun" of it.  This costs the city mega bucks just to keep the parks clean and the facilities operating properly for families and kids who use the parks for clean fun during the day.

I'm fairly certain it's already illegal for people to vandalize the parks and facilities. Despite the illegality, this doesn't seem to have stopped what you're talking about from happening. It's funny how that works - people who want to mess things up generally don't have much regard for the law.

[mylo]

Personally, I feel that, if you MUST drink, you should do it at HOME, so you don't have to DRIVE drunk and threaten the safety of regular folks who drive on the same streets as you.

I am within walking distance of the park, I was intending to walk (or ride our bikes my wife really wants the bike with the picnic basket in the front) down there. Granted, there are some BUI laws (I know Davis is harsh on this), but I hope not to kill anyone on my walk home.

[Robert Giacometti]

The comment about "police will be discriminating as to when and how they choose to enforce this ban", is the reason why this ordinance is not good policy!

What standards are the police supposed to use for discrimination, gender? ethnicity? Sexual orientation? Religion? How about political affilation?

The way this ordinance is worded if 2 neighbors are woking together to rebuild their common fence and one offers the other a beer and walks on the side walk with a beer, they are in violation of the ordinance and are just as guilty as the "homeless" drinking in the park.

I view the permit process as a tax that allows you to drink in the park. Those that can afford the tax can have special priveleges and get themselves as intoxicated and behave the same as those who can not. So what are we accomplishing?

What happens if someone gets a permit for their party in the park, can everyone else then join in on the drinking that day or night? Will you have to list everyone who will be drinking at the event on the permit?

If drinking at "concert in the park" is allowed, does that include all the "homeless" also?

The surrounding communities may have a ban in drinking in the parks. The reality is since some are policed by the County Sheriff, who can not even find the time to respond to non injury auto accidents or home break ins, how do they find the time to patrol parks looking for people breaking the law by drinking in the parks? They don't and people are drinking in these parks including the "homeless"!

I've been to rodeos where there are drunks, swearing and causing fights. I've seen softball players get intoxicated by buying beers at the concession stands and causing problems at the park. This new ordinance won't prevent this from happening again will it?

The city council should do one of 2 things. Do nothing and direct the police to enforce current laws like disorderly conduct or being in parks after hours or ban ALL alcohol from ALL events entirely. If you truly want to address the drinking problem, just simply don't allow any, on city property anywhere!

[Terry]

The way this ordinance is worded if 2 neighbors are woking together to rebuild their common fence and one offers the other a beer and walks on the side walk with a beer, they are in violation of the ordinance and are just as guilty as the "homeless" drinking in the park. 

Not true. If they're on private property and each has the permission of the other to come onto each other's property, it's not covered by this.

[Robert Giacometti]

Terry,

If they use the city sidewalk would they not be in violation?

[tessieca]

Yep, that would be a violation; however, what are the chances that a cop will be sitting there waiting for you and your beer to take a step around that fence?

Alcohol: The cause of -- and solution to -- all of life's problems.

Tee hee hee. Always there with the Homerism's.

[jagayman]

I don't drink so this law doesn't affect me, but I think it's a bad idea.

Suppose you talk to neighbors on Friday and you decide to have a block party with your friends the following night. Will the permit office even be open on weekends? And suppose the person with the permit takes off. Does everyone have to stop drinking because the person with the permit left? After all, I doubt the permit spells out who was covered. And who's paying for the permit?

It's basically an inconvenience for 98% of the population to try to stop the 2% who don't care anyways. They're not going to stop drinking in public. And if they get caught, they can't afford the fine. Plus, the city is spending valuable resources issuing needless permits. There are already plenty of laws to make these problem percentages a non-issue. If it's a problem of catching them in the act, you're not going to get it with the new law. I mean if someone is pissing in your parking lot and drinking and you call the cops on them, all they have to do is set down their bottle before the cops pull up and claim that it isn't theirs.

Jason

[whome_209]

Not true.  If they're on private property and each has the permission of the other to come onto each other's property, it's not covered by this.

Very true from seeing it first hand. Friends live in downtown Sac and had dual bbq party with neighbors last summer. He and neighbors have 5ft fence separating homes so you have to go through sidewalk to get to other house. My sister and sister in law went to go to the other house using the sidewalk and they got stopped by SacPD because of open container. Got warned. Then 15-20 min later friends (skater/punkish types) doing same thing got ticketed. They didn't know of the first incident so kinda curious if motive was result of first warning (apparently same SPD) or because they looked a certain type.

Anyways as RG and some other posters have mentioned. What standards are the police supposed to use for discrimination? Would there be bias? This person is homeless, I'll get him/her. On the other hand, I know these people or they seem ok so I'll let them be and give a warning. Miklos and city council needs to solve some problems one at a time instead of adding more fuel to the fire.

[forumreader]

What standards are the police supposed to use for discrimination? Would there be bias? This person is homeless, I'll get him/her. On the other hand, I know these people or they seem ok so I'll let them be and give a warning.

I'm wondering why we are using the term "discrimination." Does the Folsom PD have a history of discrimination?

Might "discretion" be a better word choice? I've heard of numerous situations where the police use their own discretion. For example, some time back my neighbor was pulled over by a traffic officer just two houses away from his residence. He had a tail light out. The officer, perhaps realizing that my neighbor was almost home, simply asked him to fix the light right away. A fix-it ticket was not even written. Did the officer discriminate in favor of my neighbor because he drove a nice car and wore a tie? Or did the officer use his discretion, figuring that my neighbor would most likely fix his tail light right away?

I've heard of some kids on skateboards getting warnings from the police, instead of being fined. Perhaps the officers are using their discretion based on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that the police officers' use of discretion is either good or bad. Rather, I'm suggesting that it does exist, and might very well be applied to the enforcement of an open container ordinance.

Let's assume the police are spending more resources on attending to the homeless situation in general. Then, it might follow that there is a greater likelihood that a bum in the park with a beer will be fined before the average Joe with an open container, who sets foot on the sidewalk in front of his home.

[whome_209]

Might "discretion" be a better word choice?

I can go with that as well. As long as discretion is applied evenly to everyone and not just to a profile or type.

[bordercolliefan]

Yes, "discretion" is exactly what I meant. Thank you.

[mylo]

Unfortunately, it is a fine line between discretion and discrimination, and that can be left in the hands of one fallable human (the arresting officer).

Laws are made to be enforced, whether they are or aren't we have to assume all (convictable, we do have judges to double-check, and appeals process to double-ceheck that) cases are legit.

If we say the white middle-class homeowner should not be arrested with his beer at the ball game, who's to say the black gay guy was 'a discretionary problem'. I love Folsom PD, but these decisions should not be left in the hands of individuals. The Judge has to enforce it, albeit he can lower the fine, but he did break the law and that can't be ignored. Focus the law, so no discretion is necessary.