Beach Crime Declined Significantly in Summer 2008

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by sav858

You seem to believe that the beach in PB exists just for families. Same difference there pal. You talk about how the beach is for everyone but apparently you have a different definition of "everyone". Meaning it's for everyone means it's also for people like me and not just people like you. But people like you want to enforce what they think should be like on everyone else. Can you seriously not see how hypocritical that is?

I do feel the beach is for everyone. But the big difference with college kids who drink, is when they are in large numbers, they almost always create a situation which becomes annoying and uncomfortable for the rest of the people on the beach. It's like being in a restaurant where someone decides to smoke, and then everyone else nearby has to deal with inhaling the smelly and unhealthy second-hand smoke instead of being able to enjoy the pleasant smell of their food.

Originally Posted by sav858

Families are NOT the only people that visit SD or visit the beaches. San Diego recently got #1 Spring Break in Travel and Leisure Magazine, do you honestly think most of those who come here from Spring Break are families?

So how does San Diego being a #1 Spring Break destination make it NOT a highly popular vacation destination for families as well? Does Spring Break last all year long? Are families visiting San Diego and Spring Breakers mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by sav858

The vast majority of households in San Diego DO NOThave children in the households. Only about 1/3 of all households in the city of San Diego actually have children in them. And only 11% of households in the 92109 zip code have children. So why the hell do you keep using the same old tired "its for the children and families" argument when the vast majority of people here are not families??

That's because there are lots of college kids living here, and every single college kid living alone in an apartment represents a "household" for government statistical purposes. It does not mean that there aren't thousands and thousands of children living here as well.

Originally Posted by sav858

You may think alcohol is a problem all over PB and MB but the truth of the matter is that it was only a problem in one spot primarily. You've even admitted before that it was that one spot at Reed St. So why do we need a ban on all of PB, MB, and every single park in San Diego b/c of one spot? One spot is the main culprit yet this ban extends well beyond just the beaches too.

I agree that Reed St. is the worst area. Next comes the area in front of Belmont Park. However, I ride my bike the full length of PB south to the jetty several times a week, and I've noticed a significant calmness this year that wasn't present before the ban. Everywhere along the entire boardwalk and on the beach has become signficantly more calm and peaceful this year. The noise levels are down everywhere, and people are much better behaved and more orderly.

Originally Posted by sav858

Take that up with the No on Prop D site. But here is another quote from Captain Zimmerman that you posted "..she could not say with total certainty whether the beach alcohol ban was responsible for the dramatic difference."

I purposely left that quote in to show I am presenting the full story, and not just cherry-picking it to support my personal stance on the ban.

Originally Posted by sav858

So now you are going to start assuming what was going on in this crowd

No, I am just saying that we can't just assume that nothing else was happening on the beach (fights, etc) based solely on what this one particular person captured on own video.

Originally Posted by sav858

More people get arrested at each and every Chargers game, does that make it a riot? Should we ban alcohol at Qualcomm? Just curious on your thoughts on that.

If drinking at Qualcomm creates a bad enough situation that it constantly bothers the rest of the fans, then yes I would ban alcohol at Qualcomm.

Originally Posted by sav858

It was pretty simple and logical that if you wanted to avoid drunk people in PB just stay away from Reed St. But apparently that is too much for some of you. You need every single inch of sand to conform to what YOU think it should be like.

No, I revert to my original statement that beaches are PUBLIC places, and therefore should be acceptable to everyone. Not just college kids. Not just families. Everyone! Reed St is a public place. I should not have to avoid it because a bunch of college kids want to use it as a place to get drunk, and then become loud and disorderly. They can do that in a bar, which is made for drinking. Not on a public beach.

Originally Posted by sav858

I seriously cannot stand how hypocritical and dumb people here are sometimes.

Please avoid the name-calling. It is what caused the other thread to be closed.

Originally Posted by sav858

This reminds me of these parents recently who are trying to ban smoking at the Del Mar racetrack b/c people were smoking weed at a Reggae concert. Common sense should tell a parent if they don't want their kids around people smoking then maybe they shouldn't take them to a Reggae concert at a horse racetrack where there is gambling going on. Now we have your kind trying to turn a GAMBLING venue to be more family friendly. The lack of common sense of some people here amazes me sometimes. Families don't take their kids to the French Quarter during Mardi Gras just as families shouldn't be taking their kids to Reed St during holidays or to a Reggae concert at a racetrack. But common sense it something a fair amount of people here lack.

"Common Sense" is a relative term. However you seem to use it when you believe it supports your point of view. I could just as easily say that it makes "common sense" to ban smoking at the racetrack so non-smokers who want to bet on races don't have to subject themselves to the air pollution created by smokers.

Originally Posted by sav858

Also we've voted on this before and it lost so this ban should be illegal anyways.

The main difference is this year is people have had an entire summer to see how much better the beaches are with no alcohol. So the vote may not go your way this time!

[sav858]

Originally Posted by RD5050

I do feel the beach is for everyone. But the big difference with college kids who drink, is when they are in large numbers, they almost always create a situation which becomes annoying and uncomfortable for the rest of the people on the beach. It's like being in a restaurant where someone decides to smoke, and then everyone else nearby has to deal with inhaling the smelly and unhealthy second-hand smoke instead of being able to enjoy the pleasant smell of their food.

If you feel the beach is for everyone then why do keep on insisting that every single inch must be made to accommodate families? There were plenty of families going to the beach before the ban and it's not like these families have been avoiding the beach in SD forever then all of a suddenly decide to go to the beach here for the first time b/c alcohol is banned. And you think a bunch of little screaming kids running around, kicking up sand in your face is somehow more acceptable? Kids can be just as annoying as drunks.

So how does San Diego being a #1 Spring Break destination make it NOT a highly popular vacation destination for families as well? Does Spring Break last all year long? Are families visiting San Diego and Spring Breakers mutually exclusive?

My point was that a lot more than just families come to visit San Diego. You keep using this "it's for the families/kids" BS argument. Quit acting like they are the only ones who live in San Diego and visit San Diego. I'd be willing to bet the majority of people who visit SD are not families with children just as the vast majority that live here do not have children.

That's because there are lots of college kids living here, and every single college kid living alone in an apartment represents a "household" for government statistical purposes. It does not mean that there aren't thousands and thousands of children living here as well.

EXACTLY!! There are a lot of college kids living there! Duh!! So why are you and others trying to turn PB into some family oriented suburb if you can recognize that fact? Plus PB is a lot more than just "college kids", but of course I don't expect anyone who doesn't live there to realize that. PB has a lot of young professionals and college graduates as well but to some PB is nothing but a bunch of kids in college, which is not true at all. Also people with roommates, which is the living situation for many in PB, are counted as households, so what is your point exactly?? But what it does mean is that 89% of the households in PB do not have children, just as 66% of households in SD don't. Don't you think there is a reason they wanted to close Crown Point Elementary school?? not enough kids.

I agree that Reed St. is the worst area. Next comes the area in front of Belmont Park. However, I ride my bike the full length of PB south to the jetty several times a week, and I've noticed a significant calmness this year that wasn't present before the ban. Everywhere along the entire boardwalk and on the beach has become signficantly more calm and peaceful this year. The noise levels are down everywhere, and people are much better behaved and more orderly.

Then deal with the worst areas instead of some BS blanket ban everywhere. Why ruin it for a lot of people just b/c of a few trouble spots? If you want calm and peace then don't come to PB or MB. It's an URBAN BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD. What urban areas are calm and peaceful?? If you want calm and peaceful would you stay in the middle of South Beach or Waikiki?? This is a big part of the problem I have, is that people like you want to turn every inch of beach into boring, quiet La Jolla/North County. Why can't those of us that want to live somewhere actually vibrant and full of life have that? To some of us the beach has become very dead and lifeless. That may appeal to you but there are already places like that in the county, so go there. Why can't we actually have some diversity among the different types of neighborhoods?

No, I am just saying that we can't just assume that nothing else was happening on the beach (fights, etc) based solely on what this one particular person captured on own video.

Or you can just not assume anything....

If drinking at Qualcomm are creates a bad enough situation that it constantly bothers the rest of the fans, then yes I would ban alcohol at Qualcomm.

The thing is that it is a small minority in PB that this was a problem for. Most people in PB enjoyed the atmosphere and took the bad with the good. But then people who don't even live in the community, like yourself, came in and changed that. Just b/c it bothers you doesn't mean it bothers everyone else. Maybe you should try looking at it from someone else's perspective besides your own.

No, I revert to my original statement that beaches are PUBLIC places, and therefore should be acceptable to everyone. Not just college kids. Not just families. Everyone! Reed St is a public place. I should not have to avoid it because a bunch of college kids want to use it as a place to get drunk, and then become loud and disorderly. They can do that in a bar, which is made for drinking. Not on a public beach.

And I revert to my original assertion that you have a different definition of "everyone". Everyone to you is everyone that goes along with you and others think they should be. The beaches before the ban were for everyone as well and everyone could easily find an area they were comfortable with and enjoyed. It's selfish to insist that you must be able to enjoy Reed St when you could have just walked a few hundred feet in either direction to get what you wanted. Or just had driven to another beach. Everything you keep pushing is "for families and children" yet you try to claim you are doing this for "everyone", what a joke...

Please avoid the name-calling. It is what caused the other thread to be closed.

It wasn't directed at you personally at all and was a general statement about some people in San Diego. And I'm not going to stop using the word "hypocritical" b/c there is a bunch of hypocrisy with this issue.

"Common Sense" is a relative term. However you seem to use it when you believe it supports your point of view. I could just as easily say that it makes "common sense" to ban smoking at the racetrack so non-smokers who want to bet on races don't have to subject themselves to the air pollution created by smokers.

Common sense should tell someone who is bothered by smoke not to go to a gambling establishment. If you already know what the deal is then you use common sense to asses the situation on whether or not to frequent somewhere, such as a reggae concert at a gambling venue or Reed St.

The main difference is this year is people have had an entire summer to see how much better the beaches are with no alcohol. So the vote may not go your way this time!

I guess if you don't like the results of a previous vote just use a BS loophole to enact an illegal ban, right? The end justifies the means I guess..

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by sav858

If you feel the beach is for everyone then why do keep on insisting that every single inch must be made to accommodate families? There were plenty of families going to the beach before the ban and it's not like these families have been avoiding the beach in SD forever then all of a suddenly decide to go to the beach here for the first time b/c alcohol is banned. And you think a bunch of little screaming kids running around, kicking up sand in your face is somehow more acceptable? Kids can be just as annoying as drunks.

First, when I say "everyone", I mean "everyone". This means that acceptable and safe conditions must be available to every single person that goes on the beach. It doesn't mean that certain parts of the beach should be allowed for the drunk and rowdy college crowds, and other parts for quiet families and quiet sunbathers, and other parts for families with noisy kids, etc. The entire beach is a PUBLIC place, and therefore whatever rules are put in place for that entire beach must apply for everyone. The reason smoking has been banned in most public places is for exactly the same reason. Smoking creates an unacceptable condition that affects a lot of surrounding people. Drunk and rowdy college students also creates an unacceptable condition on a public beach.

Originally Posted by sav858

My point was that a lot more than just families come to visit San Diego. You keep using this "it's for the families/kids" BS argument. Quit acting like they are the only ones who live in San Diego and visit San Diego. I'd be willing to bet the majority of people who visit SD are not families with children just as the vast majority that live here do not have children.
EXACTLY!! There are a lot of college kids living there! Duh!! So why are you and others trying to turn PB into some family oriented suburb if you can recognize that fact? Plus PB is a lot more than just "college kids", but of course I don't expect anyone who doesn't live there to realize that. PB has a lot of young professionals and college graduates as well but to some PB is nothing but a bunch of kids in college, which is not true at all. Also people with roommates, which is the living situation for many in PB, are counted as households, so what is your point exactly?? But what it does mean is that 89% of the households in PB do not have children, just as 66% of households in SD don't. Don't you think there is a reason they wanted to close Crown Point Elementary school?? not enough kids.

I wont deny the fact that a lot of college students go to PB. But so do families, unmarried professionals, and lots of other people who do not wish to lay on a beach next to the world's largest "frat party".

You continue to bring up the fact I don't live in PB. I live just 3 miles east of PB, and I spend a great deal of my free time in PB, MB, and Mission Bay. The fact that you have a home in the PB zip code doesn't make the PB beach any more yours than it is mine. The beach is a PUBLIC place ... it is not owned or maintained by the residents of PB. My San Diego property taxes pay for the lifeguards, police, maintenance crews, and everyone else that makes the PB beach available to the general PUBLIC. So that beach belongs to me JUST AS MUCH as it belongs to you.

And once again, regarding "households" ... when you have a lot of single college kids living alone in apartments, that entirely skews the "household" count to look like there are way more "households" without kids as with those with kids. If you have 1000 college kids living alone along with 1000 households with families, that shouldn't mean that 50% of San Diegian households don't have children, but unfortunately, that is how it works out. So stop using these irrelevant household numbers as if they actually mean anything. There are LOTS of families living in San Diego. But like you say, since you live in the heart of PB, so you don't see them.
Where I live, there are thousands of families everywhere! Where you live is more like living in a college dorm or frat house ... and of course you won't find children there.

Originally Posted by sav858

Common sense should tell someone who is bothered by smoke not to go to a gambling establishment. If you already know what the deal is then you use common sense to asses the situation on whether or not to frequent somewhere, such as a reggae concert at a gambling venue or Reed St.

Once again ... you are using YOUR interpretation of "common sense". The one which supports YOUR viewpoint. My version of "common sense" would be to ban smoking at the racetrack. That way "everyone" could go there and "no one" would be subjected to hazardous and smelly second-hand smoke.

Originally Posted by sav858

I guess if you don't like the results of a previous vote just use a BS loophole to enact an illegal ban, right? The end justifies the means I guess..

Intelligent people know that it is wise to change rules when new conditions demand it. The 2007 PB riot was just enough to show how dangerous the beach can become when alcohol is allowed. When college students started throwing rocks at the police, and others started yelling "let's riot" ... then it is TIME TO CHANGE THE RULES!

Now that a full year has passed since the ban was implemented, San Diegans have been able to see for themselves how much safer, cleaner, calmer, and quieter the beach is when no alcohol is present.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by RD5050

First, when I say "everyone", I mean "everyone". This means that acceptable and safe conditions must be available to every single person that goes on the beach. It doesn't mean that certain parts of the beach should be allowed for the drunk and rowdy college crowds, and other parts for quiet families and quiet sunbathers, and other parts for families with noisy kids, etc. The entire beach is a PUBLIC place, and therefore whatever rules are put in place for that entire beach must apply for everyone. The reason smoking has been banned in most public places is for exactly the same reason. Smoking creates an unacceptable condition that affects a lot of surrounding people. Drunk and rowdy college students also creates an unacceptable condition on a public beach.

There were plenty of people that beaches were safe and acceptable before this ban. Actually there were MORE PEOPLE at the beaches before this ban. More people found the beaches safe and acceptable before the ban, not after. So if you think that the beaches are better for "everyone" now then explain why "everyone" wasn't there this summer? Why was beach attendance down? You're argument might actually have some weight if beach attendance was up for the summer rather than down, or at least the same. But it was not, less people went to the beach this year so it looks like not "everyone" was there.

And you say that the beach shouldn't have parts just for certain parts for certain types of people yet you keep advocating making the entire beach for certain types of people, families and quiet sunbathers. You expect others to conform to what families and quiet sunbathers want and just expect them to accept that atmosphere b/c it's what YOU want; again very HYPOCRITICAL and a DOUBLE STANDARD!

I wont deny the fact that a lot of college students go to PB. But so do families, unmarried professionals, and lots of other people who do not wish to lay on a beach next to the world's largest "frat party".

Great, then stop trying to downplay the actual situation, which is the fact that PB is mostly 20-30 year olds. Yes some families, professionals to come to PB but they are not the majority. And a lot of people do not wish to lay on the beach with a bunch of old, conservative families and their screaming children; SAME DIFFERENCE!! You keep looking at things from just YOUR POINT OF VIEW. Did you ever stop to maybe think about other people's POV for once?? I understand where you are coming from and but there are already beaches, both in PB/MB and outside of it, that can accommodate what you're looking for. Not the case with me though.

You continue to bring up the fact I don't live in PB. I live just 3 miles east of PB, and I spend a great deal of my free time in PB, MB, and Mission Bay. The fact that you have a home in the PB zip code doesn't make the PB beach any more yours than it is mine. The beach is a PUBLIC place ... it is not owned or maintained by the residents of PB. My San Diego property taxes pay for the lifeguards, police, maintenance crews, and everyone else that makes the PB beach available to the general PUBLIC. So that beach belongs to me JUST AS MUCH as it belongs to you.

That's b/c I put up with all the crap that involves living in PB, you do not. And that is why I can't stand those that don't live in the community coming in here trying to change things just so you can have a more pleasant experience when you decide to come down for your little hill. We like it the way it is, if you don't then too bad, you don't live here so it doesn't matter. How would you feel if we came into your neighborhood and opened a bunch of bars and clubs on your commercial strip and tried to turn it into PB? Would you want that? And my property taxes pay for the same damn thing as yours does but that doesn't give your opinion more weight than mine.

And once again, regarding "households" ... when you have a lot of single college kids living alone in apartments, that entirely skews the "household" count to look like there are way more "households" without kids as with those with kids. If you have 1000 college kids living alone along with 1000 households with families, that shouldn't mean that 50% of San Diegian households don't have children, but unfortunately, that is how it works out. So stop using these irrelevant household numbers as if they actually mean anything. There are LOTS of families living in San Diego. But like you say, since you live in the heart of PB, so you don't see them.
Where I live, there are thousands of families everywhere! Where you live is more like living in a college dorm or frat house ... and of course you won't find children there.

Once again you are trying to skew statistics in your favor. NOT all single people live alone in PB!! Almost everyone person I know has at least 1 roommate, including myself. And there are houses where you have 4-8 roommates sometimes. You don't even have clue how many people live alone and how many live with roommates yet you assume you do. These numbers are NOT irrelevant at all and are VERY RELEVANT! You just don't like them b/c it clearly shows what PB is and you don't like what PB is. Get over it! Household numbers are used for so many different statistical analysis I can't believe you would even try to claim they are irrelevant. Household #'s are probably one of the most used forms of statistical measurement such as in household income. You even admit yourself what the majority of the population is in PB but then try to dismiss statistics that back it up!?!

89% of households in PB and MB DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN.
66% of households in all of San Diego DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN

And I've said before I don't live in the "heart of PB", I live in the border of NORTH PB, where many families reside. Blocks of single family homes are right next to me. I am a block away from a middle school and next to a park with a playground. So don't tell me I don't see families. How the hell would you even know that??

YEs where you live is mostly families and where I live is mostly younger singles, what is your point??

Once again ... you are using YOUR interpretation of "common sense". The one which supports YOUR viewpoint. My version of "common sense" would be to ban smoking at the racetrack. That way "everyone" could go there and "no one" would be subjected to hazardous and smelly second-hand smoke.

You seem to want to ban a lot of things you don't like, newsflash: the world does not revolve around you! And once again, not everyone would go there b/c a lot of people like smoking at a GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT. Once again, only looking at things for your POV.

Intelligent people know that it is wise to change rules when new conditions demand it. The 2007 PB riot was just enough to show how dangerous the beach can become when alcohol is allowed. When college students started throwing rocks at the police, and others started yelling "let's riot" ... then it is TIME TO CHANGE THE RULES!

Now that a full year has passed since the ban was implemented, San Diegans have been able to see for themselves how much safer, cleaner, calmer, and quieter the beach is when no alcohol is present.

Intelligent people would also know the difference between a riot and a large brawl. Give me a break with that assertion though, REASONABLE and LOGICAL people who have REAL intelligence now how to compromise to accommodate diverse groups of people rather than imposing a blanket ban supported by a specific group.