Want the news summarized?
Subscribe to The Morning Report.
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008 | There are a lot of us who don’t like Proposition D because it’s poorly crafted. The trial ban was cobbled together in a hurry by City Attorney Mike Aguirre by editing and adding on terminology to an existing ordinance. Proposition D, which could have been crafted to be more precise, merely offered the trial ban wording as the new proposal.
The so-called ‘Beach Booze Ban’ affects all of Council District 2, including the fishing pier on Shelter Island and Crystal Pier in Pacific Beach, and all of Mission Bay Park.
Yes, there definitely has been a reduction of unpleasantness on the beach, in large part due to the diligent enforcement efforts by the San Diego Police Department and the lifeguards, especially on holidays and weekends. However, it’s worthy of note that before the trial ban, the city had 12 laws that addressed the issues the ban was to correct. But those laws were enforced only sporadically. They were confusing, and there wasn’t enough manpower to enforce them all.
If Proposition D goes into effect, do you think that the major enforcement effort we’ve seen this year will continue from now on? When the political focus shifts to some other issue concerning the safety and well-being of the community at large? There are only so many cops to go around. How many times will all the city beach cleanup crews and equipment be at work before dawn after a holiday when it’s no longer politically necessary to make the beach tidy immediately and the budget is tight? How many times will police substations be set up along the beach, fully manned for an entire holiday weekend?
This full-court press by the city to validate the trial ban and its stepchild, Proposition D, is blatantly obvious in its effort to influence the outcome of the vote, for the political benefit of one or two councilpersons.
Correct, well-crafted legislation would focus on the beach proper, not all of Mission Bay Park and other recreational areas. That’s why I’m voting No on Prop. D. It’s sloppy legislation. And two years from now it will be just another ordinance on the books, like the ones we have already.