Quantcast

Comments about ‘Alcohol ordinance vote tonight but party already planned’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . important step in Salt Lake City's neighborhood business development."

Yeah? Important? To whom?

The alcohol-related carnage will increase, and innocent people will die because of this cynical concession to the rapacious "hospitality" industry. It's entirely foreseeable. It's inevitable.

Looks like pandering lawmakers and grasping, greedy poison purveyors may have succeeded in their plan to make the city more gritty, more brutish, and more dangerous.

Quite a legacy.

jttheawesome
Scranton, PA

Although I'm not a member of the LDS Church, I appreciate their stance on alchohol. I have personally chosen to abstain for my own reasons, although I am not against moderate alchohol consumption, within reason. I cannot help thinking, however, that behind this move to loosen existing restrictions on alchohol in SLC lies a "Let's stick it to the LDS Church" mindset. Establishing bars near areas that obviously are heavily Mormon neighborhoods is disrespectful, and eventually will place lives at risk. Most places whose primary business is serving alchohol will end up sending out impaired drivers on those neighborhood streets, not to mention creating violence in more homes. I'm not too worried about more bars drawing Mormons into violating their own Word of Wisdom, but I do fear that this act of lowering restrictions on alcohol will ulimately do more hamr than good.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Carnage in the streets? No. Give us some credit.

mcdugall
Layton, UT

This is the government removing themselves from regulating business, this is what every Republican in this state dreams of, what is the big deal?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

The whole point is being able to walk to a neighborhood pub instead of drive untold miles to hidden buildings in restricted zones to hide your sins in dark alleys.

procuradorfiscal said: "Looks like pandering lawmakers and grasping, greedy poison purveyors may have succeeded in their plan to make the city more gritty, more brutish, and more dangerous.
Quite a legacy."

Say the person who defends rio tinto, magna corp or energy solutions "right" to pump their toxic waste into the air, ground or water, moronic morality at it's best I'd say.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Carnage in the streets? No. Give us some credit."

You want credit? You got it -- please take credit for 16,885 [2005 figures -- last figures I had when I updated my slides in 2008] alcohol-related traffic deaths, 254,000 injuries, 1,000,000+ arrests, and countless marriages, homes, children, friendships and relationships.

I'd say it's proper to call that "carnage."

And all of them sacrificed on the altar of your "freedom" to buy and consume poison from some really evil, really rich people.

But, don't worry. You have an ally. The "hospitality" industry is also pushing for your "freedom," as well. Pushing hard. $393 billion a year hard.

That appears to be plenty enough to buy up a platoon of the best Utah politicians money can buy.

Think all this may be part and parcel of the "consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days?"

Yeah -- I think so too.

Noodlekaboodle
Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal
So I just did some research(google is awesome!) According to the NHTSA website 10,228 people died in alchol related crashes in 2010. A 4.9% decrease from the prior year. While still a lot of deaths, it's 6000 less than what you claimed. Also, a neighborhood bar doesn't make me drive home drunk. I either take a cab or walk, so would I go more to a bar if it's in my neighborhood, ya absolutely. But I wouldn't be hurting you in the slightest. Unless you have a problem with people walking down the street.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

@procuradorfiscal: Obesity currently results in an estimated 400,000 deaths a year in the United States and costs the national economy nearly $122.9 billion annually. Not to mention the countless marriages, homes, children, friendships and relationships it costs. Now, while I will agree, for the most part, that being obese will not necessarily kill innocent people, for you to sit up there on your high horse and demand that alcohol be regulated while not calling for the regulation of food and government intervention to regulate those who overeat is disingenuous. If you are really concerned about the people it affects, I would think you would be much more concerned with the 400,000 deaths from obesity than the 16,000 deaths from alcohol. But I have a feeling it's not about the deaths and more about the alcohol.

cachedout
Centerville, UT

@procuradorfiscal How many of those 16,885 alcohol-related traffic deaths were caused by people walking home from the bar?

Oh, right. Zero.

I always get a big laugh out of people who quote statistics that actually contradict their position. Nicely done.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "But I wouldn't be hurting you in the slightest."

So, if I die in an accident caused by you or someone else who gets drunk at one of the bars you insist should be built and opened in your neighborhood, you're not hurting me in the slightest, huh?

Therein lies the problem. It's always someone else's fault. Though it's easily and entirely predictable that your insistence on more bars will result in more deaths, more injuries, more broken homes, lives, marriages, and children -- it's not your fault.

The "hospitality" industry and desperate drinkers would have us believe it's nobody's fault. But the death toll rolls on and on and on . . . .

In a way, you're right -- if the law changes tonight, it IS the fault of venal politicians bought out by the "hospitality" industry. We can, and should lay the blame for the inevitable increase in carnage at their door.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

When you are in the pocket of the liquor lobby, things go your way. More alcohol sales, more intoxicated people, more money for bar owners and alcohol distributors.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Mayor Ross Rocky Anderson ended the city's support of the DARE program years ago and it is now paying off. The City is pushing for neighborhoods to have bars so the kids that would have been taught the abuse of drugs but weren't will have the City Council vote on this subject.

Sugar House is a great area that has survived over the years. It will be a prime market area for family activities, such as North Beach is in San Francisco.

Our historic values will be like the DARE program in Salt Lake City. I guess the City Council want to be like our neighbors in other states and countries. That will improve our children's chances of being better people and socialize at bars, instead of with friends and neighbors who choose not to drink.

Bars have alcohol and cigarettes, both potentially habit forming and even addictive. Some of us have family members that have suffered with parents and siblings that have gone that path.

I know people can get access to those items now at various places but this will just put a friendly image in neighborhoods at what expense? Is the City Council oblivious?

Noodlekaboodle
Salt Lake City, UT

So what sort of accident am I causing walking 4 or 5 blocks back to my house after a couple drinks at a bar? Oh wait, there isn't much I can do just walking down the street. I also disagree with the assertion that bars create a problem drinkers. Clearly you don't drink or you would know that very few heavy drinkers are getting drunk at the bar. Do you know how much it would cost to get the equivalent of a $9 bottle of booze at the bar? Let's do the math. A drink contains 1-1.5oz of booze. So let's say 1.5oz for this example. A fifth of booze is around 26oz. Which means you have approximately 17 drinks in a bottle of booze. A cheap drink is $5, so 17*5=$85. Is the hardcore drunk, who needs a bottle of booze a day paying $85 at the bar or $9 at the liquor store? Hardcore drunks rarely can afford the bar, simple as that.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

You would think becker would be more interested in having neighborhood fruit/vegetable stands to get more healthy foods out to the masses. Instead his focus is on getting alcohol to the masses to develop their social life at 1 a.m.. Really?!

The city needs to restrict renters from voting on the future of the city and allow actual homeowners the ability to decide what is going to happen. Renters have zero vested interest in the neighborhoods. I can almost guarantee that these council members and becker won't have a pub right next to their home that they get to enjoy and deal with people talking, dumping garbage, urinating and lighting up their cigs and dumping those in their lawns.

Keep businesses in the business district. Leave neighborhoods for people to actually enjoy.

Republicantthinkstraigh
Anywhere but, Utah, Utah

I'm still waiting for the public service announcement: Hundreds of people killed everyday in accidents due to sober drivers. Sober driving just say no.

I mean seriously more people are killed by sober, sleepy, bad drivers. I assume most people walk or take a cab to the local tavern or if they go across town they have a DD. Most drinkers I know, myself included, are very responsible. There are no doubt a few bad apples but that is with everything isn't it? There are responsible gun owners but there are also deranged killers that use guns.

We have the right to go to a pub and have a nice cold brew with a meal. I don't think there are going to be clubs going up in the middle of residential neighborhood. Good job SLC, I wish Utah county would do the same but that is a pipe dream. SLC, the only sain place in Utah.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

We loved Germany when we lived there on the economy while in the military. However, they are known for the great beers and wine, especially, this time of year with BeerFests and WineFests. However, their neighborhood bars, really restaurants with great food, were everywhere in the neighborhoods.

When they go to the restaurant, it is not like here, where the restaurant has a line of people waiting to get in and eat and then leave. Germany, as many other European countries have a tradition and spend a lot of time in the "restaurant" enjoying their food and drink. The food is eaten but they are still there.

Europeans came to our country and some of them came because of their convictions and beliefs. They not necessarily enjoyed the traditons of their parents. In Utah, people came also, due to their beliefs and have a pretty good society and due to agency.

The city of Salt Lake City, Utah, is a large community and people came to Utah for other things than drinking and associating in a bar as you can do that in many other communities in the United States. People elected City Council members and can vote them out.

Noodlekaboodle
Salt Lake City, UT

@Liberal Ted
I can't disagree with you more. Many renters are responsible, and as a renter I do believe I deserve a right to vote. Occasionally I won't vote for a ballot initiative if it won't effect me in the long run. For instance I live in Millcreek and won't cast a vote to decide if the city should/shouldn't incorporate, because I won't have to deal with the consequences of that vote. But because I don't own a house I shouldn't be able to vote for a Senator, Congressman or President? That is absurd, I have just as much of a right as you do to vote in those elections.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . morality at it's best I'd say."

Thanks!

But seriously -- no one honestly believes that more alcohol outlets in more neighborhoods will have any effect other than increasing drinking. As drinking increases, no one honestly believes there won't be an accompanying increase in drinking's harmful effects.

It simply defies logic.

The people moving politicians' mouths on this issue are the insanely greedy, unbelievably wealthy, incredibly insensate people of the "hospitality" industry -- people who intend to steal your money, induce you, your kids, and your grandkids to buy ever more of their poison, knowing, to a mathematical certainty, that sooner or later, you, or someone like you will act badly under its influence. Then, when they've sucked away all your resources, they'll abandon your victims to grinding poverty and you to jail and dishonor, while they trot off, untouched, with your wherewithal.

Don't you mind being played for a chump?

Jeromeo
Salt Lake City, UT

Most State Liquor Stores are adjacent to neighborhoods. The State of Utah is the sole distributor of liquor and would be on the receiving end of increased sales. When it comes to irresponsible drinking and antisocial behavior, I am confident that you will find a much larger percentage in establishments relegated to commercial zones catering to throngs of strangers as opposed to a nearby establishment where you can socialize with friends and neighbors while having a few drinks. One thing about Utah: there is never a lack of people trying to tell other people how to live their lives. It's ironic that some of the best bars in the city are local hangs that were "grandfathered in" before zoning restrictions were incorrectly believed to be a viably form of CONTROL. Scare tactics aside, it will not be necessary to hide the women and children from establishments catering to your friends and neighbors.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Would it kill anyone to have to walk a few more blocks to the business district to get a drink? Why not set up fruit and vegetable stands in the neighborhoods rather than bars? You can socialize, buy healthy products, bring healthy food and encourage walking and sustainable living. Not sure how pubs/bars/clubs is promoting a healthier lifestyle....

Just saying, they should start practicing what they preach. The fact of the matter is, having vegetable/fruit stands wouldn't pull in the tax revenue that alcohol can.

Just be honest council members.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments