"Darryl Bennett, a Northwest resident, says, `Sometimes all you can afford is one beer.'"
I honestly feel bad for folks who have less than $6 (rough price for a six pack) in their pockets. I also don't feel any obligation whatsoever to encourage them, or make it easier for them, to piss away their last dime on booze.
Anyway, the "poor but honest drinker who wants a single beer to take home" is a red herring. Let's be honest: single sales are primarily for public consumption, either by the homeless or by guys just hangin' out. It was a problem before H St started to move up-market, and it's still a problem.
Nice that you two can be so cavalier with deciding what people should and shouldn't buy. Lets hope something you like isn't one day claimed to be the cause of a problem.
The things people complain about...public urination, drunkenness, etc...guess what...those things are already illegal. How about some police to keep those things from happening?
I live in Trinidad and walk H. St every single day. I don't like the conditions any more than anyone else, but this is a bad way to go about changing behavior. How about we enforce the laws already on the books instead of creating more prohibitions? It's a slippery slope.
Tim says, "Let's hope something you like isn't one day claimed to be the cause of a problem."
Just so we understand, are you saying that single sales are merely "claimed" (wrongly) to be the cause of problems? Or do you agree that the claim is true?
A second point: if you're really so offended by the notion of government regulation of alcohol sales, there are much bigger targets than a proposed single sales ban. Are you outraged that liquor stores, bars, and taverns have to be specially licensed? That their licenses are subject to periodic review in the public interest? That their hours of operation are restricted by statute? All of these legal requirements put a much bigger crimp in the ability of Average Citizen to put his hands on a tall, frosty brew.
As for MPD, it's pretty hard to get them to respond to the quality-of-life misdemeanors you mention (let alone the ubiquitous littering). Much of the time MPD is busy dealing with more serious crime -- and even when they can respond, the offense is over & the offender has moved on.
Personally, I'd prefer not to have MPD's time taken up responding to calls about public drinking/urination. Banning single sales won't totally eliminate those problems, but I defy anybody to argue coherently that a ban won't reduce the problems significantly.
One last point: every law is arguably part of a "slippery slope." But not all slopes are equally steep or slippery. Unless you're prepared to show how a singles ban will lead us inexorably into something that's actually contrary to the interests of the community, I don't see "slippery slope" as much of an argument.
My question to Tim who lives in Trinidad and walks to H St every day; do you pick up the discarded singles you pass daily or step over them? I own a house just off H St. and quite frankly I'm tired of picking up other people's trash - most of which is beer cans, pint size liquor bottles, and fast food containers.
And one other thing to Mr. Englert. We already have enough hair establishments on H St. Please let your customers go to one of those if they need a haircut and keep the Red & Black as the great establishment it already is. Thanks. from an H St. Homeowner
I certainly agree that those who are drunk in public and publicly urinate often times became that way by drinking singles. I also know that I don't drink much, so I don't need to buy a six pack. I have, in fact, bought singles at the places that will be effected by the moratorium, taken it home to enjoy a cold beer without having 4 or 5 left in my fridge. Now when I get off the bus at 14th and H I'm going to have to walk a lot further to accomplish this goal.
Your second point. No I don't like most regulations on alcohol, but know to leave that fight alone. Hell idiots in this country one time banned all alcohol. That worked out real well.
My problem is when more laws are created because the ones currently in place aren't being enforced. I despise the idea of banning things because they cause people to do stupid things. Those stupid things are already against the law.
Television makes people stupid, ban TV. MTV exploits young girls, ban MTV. Guns kill people. Ban all guns. Trans fat kill people, ban trans fat. Cars kill people. Ban cars.
You're right, the grade and traction of slopes differ. The problem there is where you're standing when measuring each, because not everyone sees the same angles.
I live on a corner lot. My yard is constantly littered with trash. I understand litter, but I don't think we can ban the things making the litter, otherwise Iced Tea, Rap Snacks and Checkers would need to be put on ice.
ah, rap snacks and 40oz bottles...If I had a dollar for every one of those I pick up from the block in front of my house, I'd have the money to renovate.
Sorry but the argument that we're disenfranchising people by taking away their right to buy singles, get drunk, harass people trying to make a neighborhood safer and more enjoyable for others, and piss on houses, cars, other people, is ridiculous.
In a perfect world we'd donate the money saved on street cleaning and MPD responses to outreach efforts to help those guys sober up, get educated, and find something else to do all day.
Let's recall that we are not talking about banning beer sales, or making it illegal to drink beer.
We're talking about banning sales of certain package sizes for off-premises consumption -- sizes that correlate pretty strongly to a variety of social ills that go well beyond littering.
I travel a lot for work, and plenty of times one feels like doing nothing more than grabbing some Chinese takeout & a beer to take back to the hotel. But if I couldn't do that in San Francisco or Manhattan, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Here's the real question, I think: Should the rest of the local community have to put up with a lot more public drinking (and drunkenness), public urination and other petty crimes, and littering so that a relatively small number of law-abiding folks can take a solo beer home?
Actually, this gives me an idea for a middle ground. What if sales only of cold singles were banned? Tim & others could still buy a single if they don't want a full six-pack, although they'd have to plan ahead by at least a few hours.
I was swayed by the drop in calls to the police for the three blocks of the ANC in Mt Pleasant. 1500 to 650 is a pretty big drop and while we don't know for sure it was caused by the moratorium that's a good enough reason for me to support the H St ban. I'm sick of picking up beer bottles out front of my house, too. Tim--I heard on NPR today that NYC *has* banned trans fats. :-)
I had a nice long post defending my position, but there's really no point. We're starting out from completely different places. Suffice it to say that I disagree that this is a positive step.
I understand the position of those who support this. It is reasonable. It's just that I am wholly opposed to laws that try to stop other things from happening for which we already have laws. They just don't sit right with me.
Best to all of you.
Rob - I'm not a fan of that either, but that's the direction of our society. I just hope I'll still be allowed to have sex in the future (STD's, unwanted pregnancy...sex IS a problem!). :)
along tim's lines, i wonder if single servings includes mini bottles. i wouldn't mind if they banned single servings of beer, as long as there's a loop hole for me to get my fix. i'm already p.o.'d because they might legislate those over the counter medicines that folks distill to make crystal meth. sheesh! forget about the whole 'pot is illegal' thing. that's where it all went to hell.
i think that we should allow everyone to choose their poison, especially on a place like H street. these poor folks are going through some hard times with all the new stuff going on. let 'em get a fix and take their anger out on the sidewalks, on cars, in your backyard. you deserve it. you're part of their problem!
basically, i think we should remove all taxes on the sales of single beers. but only on h street. give these citizens a break! oh, and we should hire more people to pick up their litter, so that annoyed residents don't have to do that dirty job.
if only we could also bring legal gambling AND singles to h street, i think we'd have a winner.
Tim writes, "I am wholly opposed to laws that try to stop other things from happening for which we already have laws."
We all agree that there are such laws already. Can we discuss (a) whether they are working and (b) if not, why not?
I'd say that the current laws, which operate on the bad conduct after the fact, are not an adequate deterrent because the risk of enforcement is so low. And I'd attribute that underenforcement largely to a scarcity of police resources. Public drinking & related conduct is an understandably low priority, probably just above having MPD do parking enforcement (absolute bottom rung).
To solve the problem, we can (a) tax DC residents more heavily to pay for more cops, (b) have our current MPD force take open-container calls as a priority over mugging/burglary/rape/auto theft [pick one], or (c) attack the problem at the root by banning certain commercial activity strongly correlated to the problem.
Solution (a) -- higher taxes -- would be great if the taxes were paid by the stores making money selling singles. (It's like imposing taxes on manufacturers who pollute the air breathed by everyone else.) But that ain't ever gonna happen. What you'd get is either higher sin taxes on booze sales -- which once again hurts the responsible drinkers -- or higher income taxes on DC taxpayers generally.
The pragmatist in me agrees with you that c) is the best option. The idealist in me says a) is the best option given my predisposition to be against banning anything that, in and of itself, is not harming anyone or anything. And that's where we break.
Idealism doesn't keep food in my mouth, trash out of my yard or bullets out of my car (7 were placed there about 6 months ago while parked outside my house), but it's hard for me not to fight for what I believe is right, not just what will improve my life (and this would probably improve my life).
How to get a) to work? I don't know, but if we can find $611 million for a baseball stadium, we can find funding to get more beat cops.
One other thing. It's not just drunks that piss all over the place. I see plenty of random people who don't appear to be inebriated go into the alley behind my house all the time. This ban will reduce, but not eliminate this issue. The cost of this type of fix is very low, so I understand where the support comes from, I just can't lend mine.
I love baseball, but I was (and am) opposed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing professional baseball. If we really had that money to toss around -- which we don't -- then I'd start with repairing the DC public schools' infrastructure.
In any event, let me say thanks to Tim for making the counterarguments in a respectful, reasoned way. It's increasingly rare these days to find people disagreeing without being disagreeable.
i despise the term "gentrification". it's actually a normal process that has occurred since roman times.
the point is that development probably should occur as a premeditated course of action. and this includes the consituents of a given area. i doubt that folks that buy singles even vote. that's the problem.
i own a home on H. do i want this place to turn into a georgetown? NO! but, there has to be an effort made to lower all the problems that are pervasive on h street.
this is (apparently) a democracy. the folks that vote, are the ones that make the decisions. if you don't participate, you can't complain. is that a problem of education? perhaps.
perhaps it's a historical problem with inequalities, and the perception of access to 'the system'.
this works bit by bit. it's the prioritization of issues that counts here.
like china town, i think that it takes major involvement of development to spur the decriminilazation of areas like ours.
sad but true.
the stadium is already working wonder for SW.
we need to take measures that further the constructive development (read: all inclusive) of our area, whilst maintaing the character and integrity of 'the hood'.
banning single sales is not the solution. it's a step.
You're right, but you're fighting a losing battle.
Washington, DC is where personal freedom goes to die.
The singles ban is classic DC: instead of punishing unacceptable behavior, we'll pass laws restricting legal behavior in the silly hope that we can prevent criminals from being able to be bad. (blindly missing the fact that criminals ignore the law). The end result is the law abiding lose some freedom that the majority don't care enough about to defend (single sales, smoking, the 2nd Amendment, etc.), and the criminals keep on being criminals and ignoring the laws. It's the DC way!
24 comments:
Great article. I remember when places sold 'single' cigarettes from a pack.
There is absolutely no good reason for single sales on H street, or anywhere.
Dumbest quote from the article:
"Darryl Bennett, a Northwest resident, says, `Sometimes all you can afford is one beer.'"
I honestly feel bad for folks who have less than $6 (rough price for a six pack) in their pockets. I also don't feel any obligation whatsoever to encourage them, or make it easier for them, to piss away their last dime on booze.
Anyway, the "poor but honest drinker who wants a single beer to take home" is a red herring. Let's be honest: single sales are primarily for public consumption, either by the homeless or by guys just hangin' out. It was a problem before H St started to move up-market, and it's still a problem.
Nice that you two can be so cavalier with deciding what people should and shouldn't buy. Lets hope something you like isn't one day claimed to be the cause of a problem.
The things people complain about...public urination, drunkenness, etc...guess what...those things are already illegal. How about some police to keep those things from happening?
I live in Trinidad and walk H. St every single day. I don't like the conditions any more than anyone else, but this is a bad way to go about changing behavior. How about we enforce the laws already on the books instead of creating more prohibitions? It's a slippery slope.
Tim says, "Let's hope something you like isn't one day claimed to be the cause of a problem."
Just so we understand, are you saying that single sales are merely "claimed" (wrongly) to be the cause of problems? Or do you agree that the claim is true?
A second point: if you're really so offended by the notion of government regulation of alcohol sales, there are much bigger targets than a proposed single sales ban. Are you outraged that liquor stores, bars, and taverns have to be specially licensed? That their licenses are subject to periodic review in the public interest? That their hours of operation are restricted by statute? All of these legal requirements put a much bigger crimp in the ability of Average Citizen to put his hands on a tall, frosty brew.
As for MPD, it's pretty hard to get them to respond to the quality-of-life misdemeanors you mention (let alone the ubiquitous littering). Much of the time MPD is busy dealing with more serious crime -- and even when they can respond, the offense is over & the offender has moved on.
Personally, I'd prefer not to have MPD's time taken up responding to calls about public drinking/urination. Banning single sales won't totally eliminate those problems, but I defy anybody to argue coherently that a ban won't reduce the problems significantly.
One last point: every law is arguably part of a "slippery slope." But not all slopes are equally steep or slippery. Unless you're prepared to show how a singles ban will lead us inexorably into something that's actually contrary to the interests of the community, I don't see "slippery slope" as much of an argument.
My question to Tim who lives in Trinidad and walks to H St every day; do you pick up the discarded singles you pass daily or step over them? I own a house just off H St. and quite frankly I'm tired of picking up other people's trash - most of which is beer cans, pint size liquor bottles, and fast food containers.
And one other thing to Mr. Englert. We already have enough hair establishments on H St. Please let your customers go to one of those if they need a haircut and keep the Red & Black as the great establishment it already is. Thanks. from an H St. Homeowner
I certainly agree that those who are drunk in public and publicly urinate often times became that way by drinking singles. I also know that I don't drink much, so I don't need to buy a six pack. I have, in fact, bought singles at the places that will be effected by the moratorium, taken it home to enjoy a cold beer without having 4 or 5 left in my fridge. Now when I get off the bus at 14th and H I'm going to have to walk a lot further to accomplish this goal.
Your second point. No I don't like most regulations on alcohol, but know to leave that fight alone. Hell idiots in this country one time banned all alcohol. That worked out real well.
My problem is when more laws are created because the ones currently in place aren't being enforced. I despise the idea of banning things because they cause people to do stupid things. Those stupid things are already against the law.
Television makes people stupid, ban TV.
MTV exploits young girls, ban MTV.
Guns kill people. Ban all guns.
Trans fat kill people, ban trans fat.
Cars kill people. Ban cars.
You're right, the grade and traction of slopes differ. The problem there is where you're standing when measuring each, because not everyone sees the same angles.
I live on a corner lot. My yard is constantly littered with trash. I understand litter, but I don't think we can ban the things making the litter, otherwise Iced Tea, Rap Snacks and Checkers would need to be put on ice.
ah, rap snacks and 40oz bottles...If I had a dollar for every one of those I pick up from the block in front of my house, I'd have the money to renovate.
Sorry but the argument that we're disenfranchising people by taking away their right to buy singles, get drunk, harass people trying to make a neighborhood safer and more enjoyable for others, and piss on houses, cars, other people, is ridiculous.
In a perfect world we'd donate the money saved on street cleaning and MPD responses to outreach efforts to help those guys sober up, get educated, and find something else to do all day.
Let's recall that we are not talking about banning beer sales, or making it illegal to drink beer.
We're talking about banning sales of certain package sizes for off-premises consumption -- sizes that correlate pretty strongly to a variety of social ills that go well beyond littering.
I travel a lot for work, and plenty of times one feels like doing nothing more than grabbing some Chinese takeout & a beer to take back to the hotel. But if I couldn't do that in San Francisco or Manhattan, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Here's the real question, I think: Should the rest of the local community have to put up with a lot more public drinking (and drunkenness), public urination and other petty crimes, and littering so that a relatively small number of law-abiding folks can take a solo beer home?
Actually, this gives me an idea for a middle ground. What if sales only of cold singles were banned? Tim & others could still buy a single if they don't want a full six-pack, although they'd have to plan ahead by at least a few hours.
Reactions?
I was swayed by the drop in calls to the police for the three blocks of the ANC in Mt Pleasant. 1500 to 650 is a pretty big drop and while we don't know for sure it was caused by the moratorium that's a good enough reason for me to support the H St ban. I'm sick of picking up beer bottles out front of my house, too.
Tim--I heard on NPR today that NYC *has* banned trans fats. :-)
I had a nice long post defending my position, but there's really no point. We're starting out from completely different places. Suffice it to say that I disagree that this is a positive step.
I understand the position of those who support this. It is reasonable. It's just that I am wholly opposed to laws that try to stop other things from happening for which we already have laws. They just don't sit right with me.
Best to all of you.
Rob - I'm not a fan of that either, but that's the direction of our society. I just hope I'll still be allowed to have sex in the future (STD's, unwanted pregnancy...sex IS a problem!).
:)
along tim's lines, i wonder if single servings includes mini bottles. i wouldn't mind if they banned single servings of beer, as long as there's a loop hole for me to get my fix. i'm already p.o.'d because they might legislate those over the counter medicines that folks distill to make crystal meth. sheesh! forget about the whole 'pot is illegal' thing. that's where it all went to hell.
i think that we should allow everyone to choose their poison, especially on a place like H street. these poor folks are going through some hard times with all the new stuff going on. let 'em get a fix and take their anger out on the sidewalks, on cars, in your backyard. you deserve it. you're part of their problem!
basically, i think we should remove all taxes on the sales of single beers. but only on h street. give these citizens a break! oh, and we should hire more people to pick up their litter, so that annoyed residents don't have to do that dirty job.
if only we could also bring legal gambling AND singles to h street, i think we'd have a winner.
at least tim would be happy.
nice post.
Oh yeah, the 3:02 anonymous is from me. Forgot to check other.
Tim writes, "I am wholly opposed to laws that try to stop other things from happening for which we already have laws."
We all agree that there are such laws already. Can we discuss (a) whether they are working and (b) if not, why not?
I'd say that the current laws, which operate on the bad conduct after the fact, are not an adequate deterrent because the risk of enforcement is so low. And I'd attribute that underenforcement largely to a scarcity of police resources. Public drinking & related conduct is an understandably low priority, probably just above having MPD do parking enforcement (absolute bottom rung).
To solve the problem, we can (a) tax DC residents more heavily to pay for more cops, (b) have our current MPD force take open-container calls as a priority over mugging/burglary/rape/auto theft [pick one], or (c) attack the problem at the root by banning certain commercial activity strongly correlated to the problem.
Solution (a) -- higher taxes -- would be great if the taxes were paid by the stores making money selling singles. (It's like imposing taxes on manufacturers who pollute the air breathed by everyone else.) But that ain't ever gonna happen. What you'd get is either higher sin taxes on booze sales -- which once again hurts the responsible drinkers -- or higher income taxes on DC taxpayers generally.
Option (b) is lunacy.
So why isn't (c) the best social choice?
It would be very interesting to know as people post on this topic who owns their home and who rents? I own and am 100% in favor of the ban.
Obviously b) is lunacy. We agree there.
The pragmatist in me agrees with you that c) is the best option. The idealist in me says a) is the best option given my predisposition to be against banning anything that, in and of itself, is not harming anyone or anything. And that's where we break.
Idealism doesn't keep food in my mouth, trash out of my yard or bullets out of my car (7 were placed there about 6 months ago while parked outside my house), but it's hard for me not to fight for what I believe is right, not just what will improve my life (and this would probably improve my life).
How to get a) to work? I don't know, but if we can find $611 million for a baseball stadium, we can find funding to get more beat cops.
One other thing. It's not just drunks that piss all over the place. I see plenty of random people who don't appear to be inebriated go into the alley behind my house all the time. This ban will reduce, but not eliminate this issue. The cost of this type of fix is very low, so I understand where the support comes from, I just can't lend mine.
I own my home.
I love baseball, but I was (and am) opposed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing professional baseball. If we really had that money to toss around -- which we don't -- then I'd start with repairing the DC public schools' infrastructure.
In any event, let me say thanks to Tim for making the counterarguments in a respectful, reasoned way. It's increasingly rare these days to find people disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Although my first post was a bit haughty...things like this get me going...I appreciate it.
This will be the same as the smoking ban for me. I am opposed to it, but I will benefit and part of me will be happy about it.
I agree about the schools as well. Taking better care of the kids in DC is the real solution to almost all of the problems we face!
folks...
i despise the term "gentrification". it's actually a normal process that has occurred since roman times.
the point is that development probably should occur as a premeditated course of action. and this includes the consituents of a given area. i doubt that folks that buy singles even vote. that's the problem.
i own a home on H. do i want this place to turn into a georgetown? NO!
but, there has to be an effort made to lower all the problems that are pervasive on h street.
this is (apparently) a democracy. the folks that vote, are the ones that make the decisions. if you don't participate, you can't complain. is that a problem of education? perhaps.
perhaps it's a historical problem with inequalities, and the perception of access to 'the system'.
this works bit by bit. it's the prioritization of issues that counts here.
like china town, i think that it takes major involvement of development to spur the decriminilazation of areas like ours.
sad but true.
the stadium is already working wonder for SW.
we need to take measures that further the constructive development (read: all inclusive) of our area, whilst maintaing the character and integrity of 'the hood'.
banning single sales is not the solution. it's a step.
it's worked elsewhere, so why not here?
tim,
You're right, but you're fighting a losing battle.
Washington, DC is where personal freedom goes to die.
The singles ban is classic DC: instead of punishing unacceptable behavior, we'll pass laws restricting legal behavior in the silly hope that we can prevent criminals from being able to be bad. (blindly missing the fact that criminals ignore the law). The end result is the law abiding lose some freedom that the majority don't care enough about to defend (single sales, smoking, the 2nd Amendment, etc.), and the criminals keep on being criminals and ignoring the laws. It's the DC way!
step by step.
you can't fix schools when kids are being shot within three blocks of where they go to be educated.
look up this stuff in your local library. look at new york.
fixing schools doesn't work, unless you fix the environment in which folks live.
a great school in a bullet ridden environment isn't that big of an attraction.
unless you have a need to propel your endorphins while you wait for things to get better...
dc is not that divergent from other areas across the u.s.
civil rights are being eroded everywhere.
the problem is long term forecasting, vision, and prioritization.
should i stand by while you throw beercans on your lawn?
or should i just sigh and say, "hey, that's the way it goes"?
laws are made by folks, and changed by folks depending on the era in which they live.
right now, a singles ban makes sense.
no?
or should we encourage it?
“A compromise which results in a half-step toward evil is all wrong.” —Theodore Roosevelt
Post a Comment