Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: 'No' to corner bars

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:12 p.m.

    If you outlaw alcohol, only outlaws will have alcohol.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 9:17 p.m.

    "Increasing the number of bars and the amount of drinking WILL increase the carnage. It's mathematically unavoidable." This is what you said abut the elimination of the private club. You were wrong then and wrong now.

    What quantum leap in logic are you attempting to use? Drinking will not increase but will be spread out. There will be smaller concentrations of people due to the convenience of being able to walk. Your position does not factor reality into the equation.

    Also, if it's just the "hospitality industry" that wants it, it will fail. If it's the people that want it , it will thrive. Remember that old of, for and by the people inconvenience?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    I think the person who mentioned that there is nothing to do in Salt Lake City forgot to use the sarcasm font.

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:27 a.m.

    "There is plenty to do in Salt Lake. Someone stated that there isn't a museum or anything uplifting. Really?! You must live in a hole and only attend your democrat caucus meetings."

    Liberal Ted, I believe that when they made that post they were employing the use of sarcasm.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:54 p.m.

    "We have Zoos, Parks, bike riding, mountain biking, hiking, camping, rec centers, restaurants, choir concerts, symphony, volunteering etc. But, some claim there is nothing to do except to go to a bar and drink."

    Are you kidding me? You are making the assumption that these are mutually exclusive events?

    "That's the type of person that can never be happy, and will search for happiness at the bottom of each bottle while yelling out at people of faith and blaming everyone else for their troubles."

    Yep... thats what bars are filled with.... people blaming people of faith for their troubles. I am not sure what world you live in... and I am not a religion basher nor pro drinking person in the least - but I would safely say there are more miserable people blaming others for their condition in churches then there are in bars. What I see is a bunch of people out to watch a game on TV together in a neutral location, and yes, they server alcohol there, and food too.

    You really need to step outside of your primary teacher version of the "world". The rest of the nation is not a collection of slobbering drunks.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    "...some claim there is nothing to do except to go to a bar and drink."

    I challenge you to show one time anyone has made that ridiculous statement. I am thinking that you are attributing phantom quotes to support a weak position. I suggest you reference the ninth commandment.

    There is so much hysteria used against any positive changes in alcohol policy. An honest debate would be refreshing.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 12:55 p.m.

    There is plenty to do in Salt Lake. Someone stated that there isn't a museum or anything uplifting. Really?! You must live in a hole and only attend your democrat caucus meetings.

    We have Zoos, Parks, bike riding, mountain biking, hiking, camping, rec centers, restaurants, choir concerts, symphony, volunteering etc. But, some claim there is nothing to do except to go to a bar and drink. What a sad pathetic life one would have to lead, if that's all you have going for you. That's the type of person that can never be happy, and will search for happiness at the bottom of each bottle while yelling out at people of faith and blaming everyone else for their troubles.

    Maybe if you didn't spend soo much money on alcohol, you could go and do soemthing else. Join an AA group and start working on your problem.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal, I looked back at the DesNews archives to see what you and others' said about the elimination of private clubs. You predicted every ill known to man and some humanity has never heard of. You predicted that drunk driving accidents would increase. They decreased. You stated that "alcohol will be running down the streets". 5 have n't seen that yet but am keeping up hope.

    The opinions are outcome based. They start with the thesis that alcohol is bad. Everything you guys come up with is supporting your position. They ignore everything that does not agree. This type of reasoning is intellectually dishonest.

    Most of the civilized world has corner bars. They do okay.

    Look on the bright side. It will allow people to walk instead of drive. In theory this should be a good thing...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:42 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal - really honestly I get where you are coming from. But you are grossly over simplifying the problem here. Iif the justification for taking away peoples right to choose is in the name of saving lives, then you have to look at all activities the put people in jeopardy. You can't cherry pick which ones you want to enforce and don't.

    For example, you site over 10,000 people killed by drunk drivers as justification to suspend or curtail peoples right to drink. And yet over 8,000 murders a year are committed with hand guns. Is suspending or curtailing peoples rights to own guns a next step?

    the majority of motor vehicle deaths and accidents are caused by drivers under the age of 25. Should we look at pull that right or choice away as well?

    With freedom comes risk. That is the plan. Removing choice and risk is safer, yet defeats the whole purpose of life.

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 3:44 a.m.

    Remind me how having a pub in walking distance, instead of driving distance, is going to increase drunk driving?

    This will not increase the number of bars, the state will only allow so many liquor licenses.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 6:01 p.m.

    In my opinion...blow it out your ear. Give us the freedom we supposedly espouse in this state.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 6:00 p.m.

    The battle is not about a glass of wine with dinner. Don't confuse the facts. It's about a bar serving up intoxicants in your neighborhood. This proposition will probably win and prove that the "hospitality" money talks. The blood will be on their hands, but with enough profits they can wash it off.

  • shadowchilds Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 4:20 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal ok i know your part of the non drinking religion. i get that i really do. but seriously you say they have a chance to save lives. does that mean they are also going to outlaw showering and outlaw eating. everyone once a week walks to a local government place so they can be washed and dried and then head over to the next area to get iv so they dont choke while they are eating. i know is sad. but you cant save everyone. you run the risk of being killed in the shower and choking more then a drunk driver. heck you probably drive a car. you are more likely to get killed by someone on the phone then a drunk driver. the mayor and city council are testing this idea with pubs. i will be years from now after this is done. pubs will be around and 90% of salt lake residents will still be alive and well

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 4:03 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "It is possible that those who feel a need to drown in alcohol have so messed up their lives that they fail to see any alternative?"

    Does the concept of 1-2 drink people, the "glass of wine with dinner" type not compute to some of you? Sure some people fall into the category of which you speak, but many people are responsible with drinking, know their limits, and aren't looking to get plastered.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "But it's also true that a foreseeable percentage will inevitably drink irresponsibly, and will kill or maim innocents, will place my life, your life, and that of people we love, in jeopardy."

    And yet we cut the number of hours that public transit is available in this city at night...

    "why would any actual, decent person needlessly endanger those they love?"

    Pretty sure that having a drink or two with dinner with friends, and then walking home, taking public transit, or having a designated driver isn't really any needless endangerment of those we love.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    Re: "Lets not over simplify this problem."

    That would be difficult.

    The answer IS simple -- SLC lawmakers have a chance to save lives or not.

    The "hospitality" industry is happy to pay them not to.

    Let's see what they value more -- Big Booze's money, or the lives of innocent constituents.

  • shadowchilds Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 3:54 p.m.

    ok had to create this account to reply. ok people step into the tube slip and get killed. why on earth would you let you family bathe or shower? why has salt lake city not grown. heres why. if your not LDS your an outsider. that is how people get treated in this town. i had no choice but to move here. the company i worked for relocated to here. it was either lose a job or move here. don't get me wrong i respect what LDS believe and their religious choices. but its not for me. but pretty much done with the fact that since you dont drink we shouldnt either. i am not a big drinker to begin with. but saying that if a pub opens up in my area. everyone around will be raving drunk drivers. that's the most stupidest thing i have ever heard. back to what i said earlier. outlaw bathing as it could kill you family members. stupid people will always drink and make the choice to get behind the wheel. normal people drink take a cab or have a sober friend drive. even people who are parents. aka families

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 18, 2012 2:27 p.m.

    Procuradorfiscal.... you asked "But, seriously, why would any actual, decent person needlessly endanger those they love?"

    I don't know.... ask the people who on a regular basis speed on Utah's highways. People who run red lights. People who follow too close. People who fail to yield. People who let their under age kids ride quads. People who let their kids play with loaded guns.

    Utah has a higher motor vehicle death rate than California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington State... and yet all these places have Bars. So it is not having the bars that is the issues, it is the laws governing what happens to those who drink in bars that have had too much.

    Lets not over simplify this problem. Drinking isn't the problem. It what happens to people when they do drink too much that is the question, and these states have figured out that problem better than Utah has. So in that sense, just perhaps Utah needs to fix those laws first - the price of drinking too much - before it losses more people on the streets.

    Can we agree on that?

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Sept. 18, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    You said, "That's why it's unfathomable to me that any thinking, feeling human being would offer up their innocent loved ones on the altar of drinking convenience."

    Using the same argument, the speed limit on freeways could be lowered to 45 mph, and governors could be required on all automobiles to ensure the speed limit wasn't broken. While it's true that most people who drive faster than 45 do so responsibly, a significant percentage do in fact drive irresponsibly, and they do in fact kill and maim innocents, and do in fact place my life, your life, and that of people we love, in jeopardy.

    Given your values, I'm sure you are against laws that permit people to drive faster than 45 mph, but can you at least *fathom* why some people think that risking the lives of yourself, your family, and your lived ones is a risk worth taking for the convenience of getting to work 5 minutes earlier every day?

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "But it's also true that a foreseeable percentage will inevitably drink irresponsibly, and will kill or maim innocent"
    Couldn't you make the same argument about guns? A percentage will be used irresponsibly and someone will end up hurt or killed? Yet listening to your politics i'm guessing your a major second amendment enthusiast......

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    "True. But it's also true that a foreseeable percentage will inevitably drink irresponsibly, and will kill or maim innocents, will place my life, your life, and that of people we love, in jeopardy. Increasing the number of bars and the amount of drinking WILL increase the carnage. It's mathematically unavoidable."

    So do you feel the same way about guns? You think government should regulate them in the same way that you are advocating government regulate what a person puts into their body?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 18, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    @Proc. Increasing the number of bars and the amount of drinking WILL increase the carnage. It's mathematically unavoidable. It's also mathematically unavoidable that if you drive enough you will be killed in a car accident..so why would I allow my loved ones to drive?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 18, 2012 11:35 a.m.

    Religion has destroyed more lives than alcohol or bars.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal:
    [But, seriously, why would any actual, decent person needlessly endanger those they love?]

    Your question is based on conjecture and no one needs to take it seriously.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    Re: "Most people who do religion do so irresponsibly too"

    Yeah, heh, heh. That's almost Bill Maher funny.

    But, seriously, why would any actual, decent person needlessly endanger those they love?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    @Proc;

    Most people who do religion do so irresponsibly too, yet there is a church on nearly every corner.

    I'm not the least bit surprised that DN takes the position they have.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    Re: ". . . most people who drink, do so very responsibly."

    True. But it's also true that a foreseeable percentage will inevitably drink irresponsibly, and will kill or maim innocents, will place my life, your life, and that of people we love, in jeopardy.

    Increasing the number of bars and the amount of drinking WILL increase the carnage. It's mathematically unavoidable.

    That's why it's unfathomable to me that any thinking, feeling human being would offer up their innocent loved ones on the altar of drinking convenience.

    I know what the "hospitality" industry's reasons are -- bumping up the $393 billion in blood money they already irresponsibly suck from the economy -- but why would an actual, decent person needlessly endanger those they love?

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Sept. 18, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    I live in Overland Park, Kansas. It's a growing, affluent, practically crime-free city that consistently ranks in Money magazine's top-10 best cities to live in. There are three neighborhood sports bars less than a 10-minute walk from my house. The primary reasons people go there is to socialize with their neighbors and co-workers, watch the local sports teams, have some fun food, and drink a beer. I've met some of my neighbors there, and many of them have become good friends. It's a much nicer, more social, and more community-oriented scene than that of Cheers.

    In the five years I've never even heard a rumor—much less witnessed-- violence or crime associated with the Overland Park sports-bar scene.

    I had to laugh at this line from the article: "it runs counter to the city's reputation as the center of a state where prudent controls over the distribution of alcohol have led to low rates of abuse." Is the suggestion that Utah liquor laws keeps the non-Mormons from wanting to live there, so that's why there is little abuse?

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    One thing to also consider is that bars closer to a home means less chance that someone who has had to much will be driving home.

    Neighborhood bars work everywhere in the world. They are a staple in Europe. Everyone, drinkers and non-drinkers goes to the local pub to socialize and eat. Many of the neighborhood bars have some of the best food. This is due to them wanting to attract more customers.

    These neighborhood bars won't expand the use of alcohol and they won't increase crime. They may lower the DUI rate and may also increase neighborhood socialization.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 18, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    "It is possible that those who feel a need to drown in alcohol have so messed up their lives that they fail to see any alternative?"

    And hence, the disconnect.

    If only every person that drank alcohol was a wife beating, unemployed drunk. How easy it would be to condemn them.

    Yes, there are plenty of problems caused by alcohol. But, unbeknownst to the average Utahn, (read LDS), most people who drink, do so very responsibly. In fact, that group makes up the vast majority.

    So, while you feel sorry for those who drink and want to paint them as addicts, sitting alone in a dark bar, unable to break the bonds of alcohol, you miss the true picture.

    As BlueDevil points out, they can be quite the fun place, even sober.

    FYI, most who drink are responsible, productive, caring people with good jobs and good families.

    Certainly not the picture that you want painted, but true nonetheless.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 18, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    The Pacific Institute quoted is "dedicated" to finding personal and social problems with alcohol. Wow..gee..they say it's bad..what a shock. All great cities have public/neighborhood gathering places. Parks, open spaces, neighborhood restrauants and bars. Great cities are communitys of shared experiences and contray to Mr. Richards strange obsession with extremeism people who go to neighborhood bars don't go to "drown" themselves in alcohol. They go to have a beer with friends and connect face to face..talk..remember that lost art. They go to watch a sports game with other fans, and yes have a drink that tastes like something other than sugar and carbonated water.

    Also Mr. Richards, just because I sit for an hour and have a beer with friends on Friday night it doesn't mean that I don't get up on Sat. morning and go for a hike in the mountains, or take the grandkis on Sat. afternoon to the Natural History Museum. Your either or world is sheer fantasy.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 18, 2012 7:35 a.m.

    In a city so devoid of anything to do, going to a corner bar to drink alcohol is the only alternative. There's nothing to do in Salt Lake and nothing to see. There are no historic places to visit. There is nothing uplifting, so the only thing to do is to go to a corner bar and drink. There are no free Quoir concerts, no "Temple Square" to visit, nothing uplifting, so the only thing to do is to go to a corner bar and drink. There are no museums to visit, no parks, nothing of significance, so the only thing to do is to go to a corner bar and drink.

    The politicians have already spent too much time in a "corner bar" and too little time living in a unique city, a city that offers what no other city on earth offers - peace, tranquillity, inspiration, and hope for those who walk, ponder and pray.

    It is possible that those who feel a need to drown in alcohol have so messed up their lives that they fail to see any alternative? If they would walk, ponder and pray, they wouldn't need alcohol.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 18, 2012 6:09 a.m.

    The stagnant growth comes from zoning density and city planning policies. Salt Lake is bound geographically by mountains and other towns... it can't sprawl its way to growth like so many other Utah cities have.

    Now living in the "world" as most Utahans view us who live among the gentiles, it has become clear that neighborhood bars -namely "sports " bars - are hardly the dens of iniquity being played out here. Yes, bars in poor neighborhoods seem to have more crime, but the same sort of establishments in the "Leave It to Beaver" neighborhoods have no such problems.

    I don't drink. Don't pretend to. But one of our favorite places to go watch football on Saturday afternoons and evenings is Carolina Ale House... a local sports bar near our home. The cliental are normal looking people you would see walking down your street - if people took walks anymore. Some drink while there, many don't. I'll have my Mountain Dews and "bar" food while watching games with family and friends.

    Its about choice. My boys have learned they can be in the world, but not be tempted. Restricting choice doesn't make anyone stronger - just more dependent.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 18, 2012 5:14 a.m.

    Re: "Allowing neighborhood bars is not the way to attract more families to move to Salt Lake City."

    In fact, it's the best way to convert Salt Lake City into a grittier, dirtier, seamier Ogden or South Salt Lake.

    It's a calculated ploy to force families out, not attract them in.

    And, its effect on the alcohol-related driving carnage perpetrated against unsuspecting innocents is entirely predictable -- it'll increase.

    But the "hospitality" industry will have its way, regardless of the cost -- at least with this current crop of pandering politicians.