Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
January 24, 2024
January 17, 2024
January 10, 2024
Close
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
January 24, 2024
January 17, 2024
January 10, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
January 24, 2024
January 17, 2024
January 10, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Wake Up, Speak Up
So the SDPD will enforce the alcohol ban but they won't enforce other laws already in place i.e. public drunkeness, public urination, dogs off leash, etc. at KS Park? Yes, yes, yes...I know the alcohol ban will help limit a number of incidents from occuring (at KS park) but I wanted to point out the irony. Plus...isn't the SDPD enforcing these same laws in other parts of PB...that's why they're busy right? My guess is they'll be even busier if the ban passes. Yes, I know there are much more severe crimes that they are tending to and I am willing to bet a large number of these more severe crimes include alcohol being consumed at some point. That brings me to my point, right now you have a large number of people consuming alcohol at a specific place, during a specified time in PB and the SDPD actually knows the place and time. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, right? Guess not. The park can be preserved and incidents can be reduced with more enforcement of laws already in place.— April 27, 2010 10:57 a.m.
Dorian Hargrove suffers life-changing skateboard accident
I usually pick up the Reader for light reading during lunch or breaks but when I read the first paragraph of your article I couldn't put it down. I came into work and sat at my desk this morning and read it before I did anything else. It's an amazing story and very well written. I cringe thinking about it and can't even begin to imagine what the recovery process is like. You're a strong person and your wife is even stronger. It appears that the sun is starting to rise and shine upon your life again. I hope all the best for you, your wife and family. Keep writing and take it easy.— April 22, 2010 11:26 a.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
@CuddleFish - I want to control the environment not force people out of it. BUT maybe you're right...maybe forcing people to be respectful and responsible is not possible. BUT I would rather an attempt be made instead of the classic ban, ban, ban approach. It's a great park and I would like to preserve it and keep peace within the community while still allowing alcohol. Dream on right?— April 20, 2010 4:32 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
@Grasca - FYI #224 was to you not Cuddle.— April 20, 2010 4:20 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
Thank you. That's what I am saying. Why isn't there more of a police presence? Most fines seem to start at the $250 level...that's a lot of money. PLUS the people are basically in a large confined space...how much easier does it get for them to try and keep it a controlled environment? I'll admit the logistics of maintaining a private security force plus paying for it are beyond me...at this point. BUT if the opponents of the ban really want to responsibly use the park then I think that the funds would not be a problem. Although, I'd rather see the police do the job that our taxes pay them for instead of hiring a private company...but again, I am living in a dream world. What about a $5 environmental/security fee to erect a sun-shade/tent? Fees could be collected at the park and persons would receive a placard or sign to post at their spot. This would generate income to pay for security or an increased police presence plus general maintenance. Again these are half-baked ideas but I firmly oppose the ban especially when nothing else has been attempted. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't last summer the first one with the beach booze ban in place? What did they think was going to happen? Poor planning if you ask me.— April 20, 2010 4:16 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
The simple presence of security would act as a deterent. Yes, they would have to contact SDPD but with time people will understand that KS is not an option for their kegger. Like I said...it's an idea. Not seeing too many of them here. Money you ask? Well I will quote you, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I am not worried about tickets and evidently the SDPD isn't either because if they increased their presence at KS they could pay some serious bills with the tickets they COULD write and if they did maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. Continue with the ban...I have no doubt it will pass with flying colors...with or without my involvement. Can't wait to see which park is next...welcome to the no fun zone. Again the alcohol is not the problem. It's the irresponsibility of the people consuming the alcohol. Banning alcohol at one location simply moves it to another...i.e. beach booze ban. Banning alcohol at parks and beaches does not reduce drunk driving, destruction of property, fights, loud music or any other incident cited as a reason for the ban...it moves it elsewhere and makes it someone elses problem. So if you can get people to act responsibly by having a security presence then you have a solution. You do NOT have a solution with the ban...you're simply moving the problem, not solving it.— April 20, 2010 3:10 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
Scrolling over this I don't recall seeing any proposed solutions. I have one but am not really sure how feasible it is. I recognize that there is a problem. That problem is the irresponsible people that wreak havoc at KS Park causing damage to the park, annoying local residents and increasing the need for more law enforcement. My solution: 1.) Outlaw kegs. 2.) Outlaw amplified music except in the case where a permit has been obtained for receptions, reunions, etc. 3.) And this is the big one...opponents of the ban would form an organization that is responsible for collecting donations to fund the procurement of a private security company for the weekends and holidays. The security company would be responsible for enforcing the rules of the park, would act as a deterent and would contact law enforcement before any situation could get out of control. For lack of a better name this organization would be called Citizens for the Responsible Use of Kate Sessions Park...not really catchy but it works. The organization would work with Friends of KSP, the Community Parks I committee and local law enforcement BUT ultimately the responsibility would lie with the organization to reduce the number of incidents to pre-beach booze ban numbers...and lower over time. My suggestion would be a 1 year trail period. After the trail period ends, there would be a review of the organization's progress. If the number of incidents have not been significantly reduced then we would move forward with the ban, BUT if there is a sign of true progress then I would suggest continuing with the organizations work. Is it out there? Yup. Is it expensive? Probably. Is it a flawless plan? Nope. BUT...this is an ACTUAL proposed solution to the problem where as simply banning alcohol at the park only makes it a problem elsewhere.— April 20, 2010 11:01 a.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
@CuddleFish - Maybe I shouldn't have said "difficult to navigate" and instead said difficult to find information regarding this topic and meetings pertaining to it on the Parks website. Regardless, it appears that the information is avilable if simply sought after. It also appears that there is plenty of facts and figures to support the ban. I have no doubt that arrest and incidents have gone up after party goers were forced inland from the beaches but I believe that with more enforcement that we could bring those numbers down. But, hey, maybe I am living in a dream world. Banning alcohol at KS will simply force party goers to other parks and eventually they'll all ban alcohol...but maybe that's the plan. It's too bad that some people can't be responsible and considerate and the community is forced to ban all people from enjoying a beer at the park.— April 19, 2010 4:32 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
*correction* I meant evaluation period NOT trial period— April 19, 2010 3:36 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
@Cuddle - The Parks and Rec website is difficult to navigate. I cannot find where it states the time and place for the Community Parks I meetings nor can I find any minutes from these meetings. I also found it difficult to find anything regarding this ban on the Parks and Rec website. I understand you can call and voice your opinion but I personally believe making your statement in-person has more of an impact. I agree with you regarding your statement, "Less fake outrage, more real participation in the process," and more people should take this advice. It appears that I am joining this process in the late stages but my understanding was that there was supposed to be a 1 year trial period starting in August of 2009 and that this would then again be discussed in August of 2010. That doesn't appear to be the case...— April 19, 2010 3:32 p.m.