Vote on alcohol in city parks is worth the wait
I write today in response to the Gazette Editorial Board’s views in the Jan. 30 paper. The Gazette called the Janesville City Council’s actions on delaying drinking in select park pavilions by two weeks to consider background checks “baffling” and “silly.” I can assure you, according to state statistics, there is nothing silly about our state’s drinking problem.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Wisconsin ranks extremely high in alcoholic binge drinking compared to every other state, regardless of race, sex or age. We are also the highest in the nation for drinking by our high school students. This can be seen almost every other day in The Gazette’s Public Records section. It almost seems commonplace now to read about someone’s sixth, seventh or even eighth OWI.
At the Jan. 28 meeting, Shelley Slapak, the city recreation director, came forward with a proposal to allow the consumption of beer and wine in certain pavilions within our parks system. I believe her presentation, research and background of the issue were all very thought out, and I agree that it could be a good idea. Other cities, such as Madison, allow drinking in their parks. In Janesville, for $50 more, the city could grant citizens permits to allow the consumption of alcohol at pavilions they rent for family gatherings and parties in the summer.
On the surface, I have no issue with this. I know that the city cannot, nor should it attempt to, protect everyone from all potential problems. People must take responsibility for their actions, and we should trust in the majority of people to do so. I simply brought up the question of simple, limited background checks on the people applying for these permits.
When the city gives a liquor license/permit to a bartender or business, the police department conducts a background check. I wasn’t suggesting that we go the same distance or as in-depth for these permits, but a simple check—perhaps using CCAP (Wisconsin Courts System Circuit Court Access) and checking for any “red flags, for example several OWIs, drug charges or problems with public intoxication in their recent past.
I can’t speak for the other council members, but I do believe that when the city council reconvenes Monday, Feb. 11, that this ordinance will pass. Shelley Slapak and Police Chief David Moore will come back with their recommendations, and then we will vote.
The way I see it, we haven’t allowed drinking in the parks since 1967, and I think we can wait two more weeks to drink in our parks and take a serious look at the feasibility of limited background checks.
Sam Liebert is a Janesville City Council member; email LiebertS@ci.janesville.wi.us; phone 608-718-4541.
Feb 11, 2013 at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is the same kind of thinking that permeates the gun control issue. Tens of millions of Americans own firearms of some sort. Every time there is a gun tragedy, someone says we need to add more restrictive gun laws to the thousands of laws already on the books. Further restricting the law abiders does more harm than it does good, since it adversely affects the vast majority. The law breakers (by definition) are perfectly willing to ignore the new restrictions, just like they always have and always will.
Feb 9, 2013 at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Too many people can't see the forest for the trees on this issue because they've been immersed in this "forest" for their whole lives. Look for the big picture of why Wisconsin is the drunkest state in the nation.
Feb 9, 2013 at 7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is the CULTURE of drinking that creates the problem for this state. Every time we add alcohol to a park/ball field/sporting venue, we add to the culture of drinking. Each venue, in and of itself, might not cause one problem, but by making alcohol available everywhere, we are making it seem like a necessity for people to have a good time. That is what needs to change, the culture in Wisconsin that tells people that drinking is necessary for an event to be fun. Why did you start drinking and why do you drink now?
Feb 9, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
imbkay13@10:29 am: The inability to differentiate between social drinking and problem drinking is the root of this kind of thinking.
So the 'problem drinkers' are going to pay an extra $50.00 to drink in the park?
Feb 9, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
My wife lived in different countries in Europe in the past and she told me they had wine in the parks with no problems, drinking allowed in many European countries. Americans don't have enough self discipline to be allowed to drink in parks.
Feb 9, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
This will only add to the problem. To the families of someone who was killed by a drunk driver the person who caused it taking "personal responsibility" doesn't mean a whole lot....
Feb 9, 2013 at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
So not allowing alcohol in Janesville's parks will help cure Wisconsin's drinking issue? Just how does that work?
.
In previous posts on other articles regarding this issue the concensus seems to be that the background checks were useless because any group that rents a pavillion will have at least one person with a 'clean' record to apply for the permit.
Feb 9, 2013 at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wisconsin has a huge "drinking problem". It's not to impressive when Milwaukee is rated the #1 drunkest city in the United States.
1, Milwaukee, WI
Average drinks, per person, per month : 12.76
Percent of adults who are heavy drinkers : 7.1
Percent of adults who are binge drinkers : 21.8
Deaths per 100,000 residents from alcoholic liver disease : 3.9
In 2008 there were 40,549 DUI arrests in Wisconsin, 6th highest out of all the states. Per capita, we rank #1. Those are just the people who were caught. How many people do you know with a DUI?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-...
34% of all traffic deaths in Wisconsin in 2011 were related to drunk driving(we made the top 10).
http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/2...
Background checks should be mandatory.
Feb 9, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why does one need alcohol to have a good time ?
Feb 9, 2013 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
what's wrong with knowing to whom you're giving an alcohol permit? background checks are a good idea for most any permit, IMO...
Feb 9, 2013 at 8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Enjoying an adult beverage is not the same as public intoxication, which will still be illegal if this passes. I don't see a problem with the proposal. As far as background checks, that seems to me a little silly. That is not the same as saying "our state’s drinking problem" is silly. I don't know how you equate the two!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.