Wiggle-you would lose. Your rant on wishing death upon my family demonstrates why reason and not emotion is needed when crafting legislation or determining what is just punishment for a crime.

If you lose loved ones like I have to a drunk driver who gets off with a plea bargained ticket, then I'd bet everything I own that you would change your views about having alcohol at every family event, a bar on every corner, and the basically nonexistent punishment WI has for those who break the law.
I do not want ANYONE to feel the pain of loosing a loved one, but if you had, you would change your views in a nano second I guarantee!

Wiggle,

Wishing bodily harm upon my children? Wow-tolernace. Well done. Is this how you treat everyone? If you disagree you hope they die?

'when the current system seems to discourage the behavior sufficiently?'
Really? A $250 traffic ticket is "sufficient"? Driving drunk is against the law, so is murder. Do they write a $250 ticket if you get busted for crack? or rob a bank? NO all are against the law so why is driving drunk so easy to get away with?
As for " constitutional presumption of innocence." pretty much goes out the window without a jury trial if your blood alcohol is above the limit set by law makers.
If the courts are so burdened why not let petty theft criminals walk with a ticket, why not let drug dealers off with a ticket, why not let those who commit assault off with a ticket? A law is a law is a law. If you drive drunk you break the law, if you rob a bank you break the law, if you beat someone you break the law. Why is being a violent hazard behind the wheel acceptable when someone who uses a gun to kill not? Be it a car, a gun, a knife, a fist whatever to assault an innocent person is breaking the law, yet you boozers think it's acceptable to break the law and not have any repercussions for your actions because the courts are backed up? Your ignorant mentality is the reason so many people are killed by drunk drivers. I can only hope the next victim of drunk driving is your child, then lets have this discussion again when the drunk gets a ticket while you bury your child.

Wiggle,

It looks like you would presume everyone guilty-rather than the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Is it really good to tie up the court system trying 1st offense DUI cases to 12 person juries? Is that a good use of our resources when the current system seems to discourage the behavior sufficiently? If you dont like the laws-you can always run for public office on toughening the existing laws-you will receive a lot of PAC money from groups like MADD and others that lobby legislators to create tougher laws-evidently you dont like the constitutional right to lobby - unless it for a cause you personally believe in.

Again, I don't have any problem with drinking in the park, while playing golf, while going out to dinner, while watching a sporting event-what I disagree with is the govt nannyism where "if it can save 1 life is it worth it" as the mantra for legislation.

Tonight, while drinking my Pappy Van Winkle-I will raise my glass to your suggestions and to the "pansy law makers who right our laws."

TCB I suggest actually making drunk driving a crime! That would be a nice start. A traffic ticket does NOTHING to stop them as the paper reports drunks on arrest number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. How about 1st time oops here's a 5,000.00 fine and no driving for a year, #2 well now you go to jail for 8 months no plea bargains and a 7,000 dollar fine, 3rd time well now you see a 10,000 fine and no driving for 5 years AFTER you do 3 years in jail, no plea bargains.
Here's the kicker - if you injure someone 5 years in jail, if you kill someone 20 years in jail and NEVER drive again.
Your pansy lawmakers get way to many kick backs from alcohol CEOs! The laws you say are in place don't work do they? If they did you wouldn't see someone getting DUI #15 at 2 am and DUI #16 at 4 pm. This state is a joke!

wiggle,

What is your solution? Prohibition? Ban driving? reduce speed limits to 5 miles per hour?

Everything you mention is a consequence of a free society.

Just don't walk and drive-you are much more likely to be killed walking while drunk than driving drunk.

". My hope is that no one kills anyone due to drinking or driving drunk-but we ALREADY have EXISTING laws prohibiting the driving under influence of alcohol-and some people simply make poor choices. But they are a choice-if you make a poor choice that costs you your life or someone else's life-there are existing laws that are punitive."
A $250-1,000 ticket for the 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, times you get busted for drunk driving is such a deterrent! The 4 years in jail for killing an innocent sober victim really stops all the drunks from driving! Yeah the existing laws take care of the constant string of drunk drivers don't they?! Twenty-four drunk drivers caught since Jan. 1st in Janesville ALONE, how many didn't get caught? Yeah the law really works in the drunk driving capital of the U.S.A.!

Nose4it,

Frankly, I think the permit fee is too low. Make it $100-if you truly have a compelling desire to drink in a park or at a game-$100 is not a lot of money. Drunk and disorderly, resisting arrest, DUIs, th epublic humilation etc cost a lot more.

This is a Sin tax-no doubt about it. APHAVICTOR has a few nice suggestions-if additional police force is needed - or things get out of hand and the police are required to step in or disband the party-the person holding the permit should be held liable and be subject to a stiff penalty. Drinking int he park is a privilege-and a permit does not give you the right to act like a donkey.

Nose4it,

No. I am not calling for a completely lawless society. But I am against govt nannyism. A couple dozen adults drinking a few beers at a local softball game-really does not rise to the level where city council or state legislators should propose legislation "protecting" the public. (news flash-beers were consumed before, during, and after games prior). Also, beers in the park? Not a big deal to me either. (another news flash-alcoholic beverages were consumed at parks before this permit law as well).

It is a fair question to ask is it right or wrong. I really dont care. My hope is that no one kills anyone due to drinking or driving drunk-but we ALREADY have EXISTING laws prohibiting the driving under influence of alcohol-and some people simply make poor choices. But they are a choice-if you make a poor choice that costs you your life or someone else's life-there are existing laws that are punitive.

So again, beer at a park-or at a softball game-fine with me. In my opinion- this is small potatoes- not a big deal.

Maine2010 just be glad they arent taxing whatever it is you are smoking.

some of you people are unbelievable. I mean seriously? You'd think the sky was falling

li713, anyone who reads a headline and doesn't get the whole story before performing an action is an idiot. The city council OK'd drinking beer in parks, with the appropriate permit. That's what happened. I would assume that's why they chose this headline. It's to the point. Duh.

Just a thought, but maybe we can impose stiffer penalties to those who do decide to drink in public parks but fail to act responsibly. If a JPD officer is called to a party and finds a reasonable public nuisance, That person(and maybe the person who holds the permit) gets a ticket with a large fine on it. Maybe $250 per offense. This would allow people the option, but also the understanding that the are responsible for their behavior. The $250 ticket would be a deterrent and a way to pay for any additional police expenses for responding to such calls.

This is just an idea. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcome.

Yes that is the park where lacrosse is played

I not so against the alcohol in parks as I am the $50 permit fee. Why $50.00? Why not $5.00 or $10.00? Because “city staff” recommended it. But then of course our city staff thinks that grant money is “FREE MONEY”, and we should take it and spend it before somebody else does, whether we need it or not. Let’s go buy new equipment for the golf course whether it’s needed or not just because “staff recommended it”. May it’s time the council took the staff to task on their recommendations. So far, Matt Kealy is the only council member that has the guts to do that.

TCB, I agree that "personal responsibility is not a function of legislation via city council or anyone else". But public safety is. Should we abolish all laws and trust that people will act responsibly (i.e., not speed, not drive intoxicated, not pass a stopped school bus), etc?

mayhem,

What you bring up is a consequence of a free society. Whether beer is allowed in a park-or whether someone chooses to drink to excess. I am not concerned about the total number of accidents either. Personal responsibility is not a function of legislation via city council or anyone else.

wtp....is that the park on the corner where they play soccer also? I am split on this decision by the way. I myself can drink responsibly but how many people are going to sit there and get totally hammered and drive home or drive like a total ass leaving the park? How many accidents do you think there will be in riverside park now?? And as for excessive police pensions.....police pensions are paid by the state not the city...just saying

Li713,

Great Comments and agree with you. In this community often any change-irrespective of how small-(like this) is blown out of proportion.

The total overreaction to this never ceases to amaze me. They are allowing beer in specific pavilions at Riverside and Palmer (not near the pool or playground), and at the warming house at Traxler with the purchase of an additional permit with a pavilion rental. They have not opened the gates to uncontrolled mass participation in drinking at every park in the city anytime someone feels like it. This only applies to the people that are going to bother to go through the process of renting a pavilion and paying the costs. I don't think those are going to be the people causing problems because if you're going to go to all the trouble of going down to leisure services, filling out the paperwork, paying the fees, you're probably the kind of person that tends to follow the rules and laws. The ordinance change doesn't cover anyone else.

That being said, I think the Gazette made a HUGE error with the headline of this story. Anyone that doesn't read it, or just walks by a newspaper and sees it might think they can now drink in the parks any time, anywhere. That is the fault of the Gazette, not the city.

I would just like to point out, once again, that Chuck E Cheese was issued a liquor license by the city and serves beer. So can someone please tell me where all the outrage and concern for the children and the destruction of our society was then that decision was made? Why aren't you people out screaming and picketing in in front of Chuck E Cheese if you're so concerned about the supposed unavoidable impact on our children of seeing alcohol consumed?

And finally, all of these claims about the disturbance and destruction allowing beer in the parks causes have proven to be totally unfounded. A committee studied that issue for the city before the decision was made, and what they found out is that none of the communities around here that allow alcohol have those problems. Not the county, not Milton, not even Beloit. It's time for everyone to just calm down about this. Worst case scenario, it somehow becomes a mass problem that's going to lead to the end of the world, then the council can just change the ordinance back.

For families who wish to have a family reunion beer free, come and reserve Optimist park. A shelter with electric will be in place by summer fun. This a 40 acre park with trails 6 acre play field and a creek with water running through the park. There is also a bridge over the creek to use both sides of the park. many sport teams use the park for their games such as lacrosse. Looking for free entertainment come to their games or practice every day. This year again the park will hold movies in the park for everyone. A classic and animated movies will be shown the 4th friday of the month. Movies start at dusk. Train rides take place 1 1/2 hrs before the movies for young kids. one night will be old movies from the past like spanky and our gang plus a couple of others. movies will be shown June, July & august.This is all free to everone put on by leisure service and Optimist club of Janesville. Location is 1 block north of sports complex or boys baseball.

It works for the county, I don't see why it won't work for the city.

(This comment was too sad and removed by the site staff)

Sorry to say,but 18 year old girls could probably drink you under the table!
And i thought this whole thing was approved because they believe these people,when they say they will be drinking responsibly??
The old adage comes to mind,why can't people have a good time without drinking,Wisconsin is such a drunk state,all states around us know this,so much denial that drinking & drunks are part of our culture,like welfare,until we force the changes,no changes will ever change..

I believe 2 beers an hour means you are legally drunk,as a citizen i would like to have the cops at every exit that allows this drinking,then we can have more money in fines,can you just imagine how many of these people are going to be legally drunk with our children in these parks??
Every time this council does something like this,it is all about the money,but are they willing to take responsibility when the first person/child gets hit or killed by one of these drunks,i bet not,stupid just a stupid decision they made P.O.
How stupid of a comment,drinking will bring more people to the parks and ball field,for one second,think about it,maybe just the apposite,maybe more people will "NOT" go to these places now because of the drinking,and safety for themselves & there children,no body wants to be around drinking and drunks,atleast me anyway!!

Or you could just move your car when you know the plow is coming, follow the rules, and not pay anything..... On subject, it's sad that alcohol is such a seemingly important part of leisure activities, but oh well....

They're charging $50 to drink beer in a park. That goes well with the $50 snow fee they charge each time it snows in Janesville! Yes, if your car is on a street when it snows, and they have to plow around your car, it will cost you $50. But the city's Snow Emergency flier states $20! This is about raising revenue for those excessive police pensions. Best to move to a location that does not charge a snow tax before Janesville raises the fee to $120 OR they charge us a tax for the air we breathe.

Sad day for Janesville.