Sunken Beer Garden?

December 20, 2006 at 3:15pm By: Mr. Wilson Posted in The Lincolnite Blog

Should the city allow alcohol in city parks? That’s the question the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board wants to ask the City Council next month. The Board thinks it’s high time we update our policies, a switch from less than a decade ago when the Board shot down a similar proposal.

Don’t get too bent out of shape over the proposal. The Advisory Board only wants to allow alcohol in certain places within certain parks in certain situations. Folks won’t be able to down tequila shots while twirling on the merry-go-round.

Generally speaking I think it’s a good idea. I would offer one amendment to the proposal. I think organizers of events at which there will be alcohol should be required to pay a small additional fee on top of the usual facilities rental fee. That fee would go toward paying for any additional police or maintenance/janitorial expenses required as the result of the policy. It shouldn’t be a huge fee—I don’t expect a mass outbreak of trouble—but it should be enough to act as a small insurance policy. A portion of the fee could even be refundable if there are no problems.

What do you think? Is it a good idea to allow alcohol in some parks in a few specific situations? Is my addendum a reasonable one?

Reply to this post

The Comments

Dave K December 20, 2006 at 5:28pm

As city ordinances/initiatives usually go, I expect the initial intent to get watered down as certain special feelings groups have their voices heard.  The result will be about a 10 square foot area in one park that will allow alcohol one, maybe two hours a month on days that no one will want to be at the park anyways.


But to answer your question of whether it’s a good idea to allow alcohol at city parks: yes, it is.  The idea about charging an additional fee on top of the usual one is a good idea as well.

Swid December 20, 2006 at 5:38pm

After reading the comments on that article, I’m astounded as to how many people have been brainwashed by the neo-prohibitionist crowd.

I love the comment that “alcohol was never a family value”.  I’ll be nice and not break his heart by pointing out that ale was pretty much the only beverage consumed by your typical family before the days of clean water.

foxspit December 20, 2006 at 7:21pm

I like the idea of adding the option of selling alcohol at the Pinewood Bowl.  I think this could easily be done in a way that keeps Pioneer Park a family park.

Gene December 20, 2006 at 10:06pm

If you want to rent one of the shelters you pay a small fee anyway. I don’t see why your amendment is out of line at all.

Michael December 21, 2006 at 3:21am

<hobbyhorse>
I don’t object to the idea of alcohol in the parks, per se. However, even without alchohol, folk seem to have trouble finding the trash receptacles to dispose of their drink containers. Peter Pan, Antelope, wherever—Barbara and I pick up bottles, cups, or cans within easy tossing distance of a trash can.

That makes it easy for us to clean up after, but doesn’t speak well to the ability of the average park user to bear the responsibility of alcohol consumption.
</hobbyhorse>

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

The Blogs

Syndication icon

Toolbox