Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you want to dig into the mindset of the residents that own beach front property all you have to do is look at the area by Reed. See how narrow the board walk is? It took the City FOREVER to get the rest of the board walk back from these squatters so the City could widen it. To them the entire area, beach included is theirs. Those are some of the same that are pushing the ban.
Regarding Reed St ....
The main reason huge crowds of college students go specifically to Reed St to drink and party as opposed to other sections of the PB beach is because of the abundance of restrooms, street parking, and restaurants at that exact location.
No other section of PB or MB offers any of these three necessities, except for the Belmont Park area in Mission Beach.
Most of the remaining areas of PB and MB beaches have very minimal street parking, and no restrooms whatsoever.
To me, I believe it is very unfair that the drinking and partying college crowd often dominates this highly desirable section of the PB beach.
Another reason they go Reed St is because it doesn't require you to climb up/down a steep cliff to access the beach, like they would have to do north of Crystal Pier.
So I believe families and quiet sunbathers want to use this same section of PB beach for the exact same reasons I mentioned above, and these families and sunbathers then have to deal with the excessive noiseand other issues created by the huge college drinking and partying crowd.
The main reason huge crowds of college students go specifically to Reed St to drink and party as opposed to other sections of the PB beach is because of the abundance of restrooms, street parking, and restaurants at that exact location.
No other section of PB or MB offers any of these three necessities, except for the Belmont Park area in Mission Beach.
Most of the remaining areas of PB and MB beaches have very minimal street parking, and no restrooms whatsoever.
To me, I believe it is very unfair that the drinking and partying college crowd often dominates this highly desirable section of the PB beach.
Another reason they go Reed St is because it doesn't require you to climb up/down a steep cliff to access the beach, like they would have to do north of Crystal Pier.
So I believe families and quiet sunbathers want to use this same section of PB beach for the exact same reasons I mentioned above, and these families and sunbathers then have to deal with the excessive noiseand other issues created by the huge college drinking and partying crowd.
At the end of Diamond St there are bathrooms, restaurants, and just as much if not more parking with all the nearby pay lots. At the end of Grand Ave there are brand new bathrooms and tons of shops and restaurants and parking. In addition to that there are several other areas that have restrooms.
The lack of public restrooms from Reed St down to Belmont Park is part of a bigger problem of San Diego being cheap and not providing the public services it should, just look at how much the Mission Beach wall is crumbling.
Also no one is "climbing" up and down cliffs when there are stairs. I've never seen anyone not use the stairs to get up or down.
Target the trouble spot, Reed St, rather than a blanket ban on all SD beaches AND parks. Why enforce a ban on areas that were never a problem? Demand Real Solutions.....
At the end of Diamond St there are bathrooms, restaurants, and just as much if not more parking with all the nearby pay lots. At the end of Grand Ave there are brand new bathrooms and tons of shops and restaurants and parking. In addition to that there are several other areas that have restrooms.
The lack of public restrooms from Reed St down to Belmont Park is part of a bigger problem of San Diego being cheap and not providing the public services it should, just look at how much the Mission Beach wall is crumbling.
Also no one is "climbing" up and down cliffs when there are stairs. I've never seen anyone not use the stairs to get up or down.
Target the trouble spot, Reed St, rather than a blanket ban on all SD beaches AND parks. Why enforce a ban on areas that were never a problem? Demand Real Solutions.....
Are you sure you live in PB?
I see surfers climbing down the cliffs with their boards almost every time I go there.
I just saw one 2 days ago.
And my point is, that the area near Reed St is UNIQUE!
It has all the things people need: Restrooms, Parking, and Restaurants.
As you go south of Pacific Beach Drive, the street parking becomes minimal, and there aren't any restrooms until Belmont Park.
So why does the college drinking/partying crowd get to DOMINATE the best area, and pack the beach by the thousands?
It is completely UNFAIR to people who simply want to relax and enjoy the beach in a quiet, peaceful way.
And no ... I don't think that the area North of Crystal Pier is an acceptable substitute. You either have to go up/down a long flight of stairs, or walk up a long very steep path to get on the beach. What if you are old, or physically challenged in some way?
Is it fair that the young, physically capable, energetic college crowd completely dominiates the Reed St. area, which doesn't require this climb?
There are often so many of these college drinking/party animals on the beach at one time that they pack the entire Reed St. area like sardines.
You know what is really funny about all of this, the only beaches I've ever been to in the whole world that do not allow alcohol are in America. In Rio, the beaches are 10x as crowded as anywhere here and there are actually vendors who serve you beer and other drinks while you're on the sand (This is the same in Eurupe, Mexico, and the Caribbean as well). The wife and I spent 5 amazing days in Rio and did not see one issue related to alcohol. There were families there, young people, old people, tourists, you name it, and not one problem. The problem in American isn't the alcohol, its the people. With the help of the police, the bad apples should be weeded out to allow for everyone else to enjoy themselves in a responsible manner.
I see surfers climbing down the cliffs with their boards almost every time I go there.
I just saw one 2 days ago.
And my point is, that the area near Reed St is UNIQUE!
It has all the things people need: Restrooms, Parking, and Restaurants.
As you go south of Pacific Beach Drive, the off-street parking becomes minimal, and there aren't any restrooms until Belmont Park.
So why does the college drinking/partying crowd get to DOMINATE the best area, and pack the beach by the thousands?
It is completely UNFAIR to people who simply want to relax and enjoy the beach in a quiet, peaceful way.
And no ... I don't think that the area North of Crystal Pier is an acceptable substitute. You either have to go up/down a long flight of stairs, or walk up a long very steep path to get on the beach. What if you are old, or physically challenged in some way?
Is it fair that the young, physically capable, energetic college crowd completely dominiates the Reed St. area, which doesn't require this climb?
There are often so many of these college drinking/party animals on the beach at one time that they pack the entire Reed St. area like sardines.
Surfers are not families with small children now are they?? I see plenty of old people and families going up and down those stairs w/o any problem. It's not a difficult climb at all.
Reed St isn't unique b/c there are other areas with those amenities as well and with a better parking situation.
So you want less crowded and rowdy beaches, which you already had North of the Pier, but are too lazy to walk down some stairs to get to it? It seems you want the beach to be entirely about what you want w/o any regard to what other people want, very hypocritical. I just don't get why people like you are unwilling to compromise and work with the opposition to find an acceptable solution for all.
I'm not arguing that Reed St was not a problem , I've always said that it was the one big trouble spot of the entire coastline. And I've never been against something be done to clean up that ONE trouble spot.
But if you can at least realize where the main problem is why not focus efforts to clean it up rather than a blanket ban on all SD beaches that were never a problem?
The main reason huge crowds of college students go specifically to Reed St to drink and party as opposed to other sections of the PB beach is because of the abundance of restrooms, street parking, and restaurants at that exact location.
No other section of PB or MB offers any of these three necessities, except for the Belmont Park area in Mission Beach.
Most of the remaining areas of PB and MB beaches have very minimal street parking, and no restrooms whatsoever.
To me, I believe it is very unfair that the drinking and partying college crowd often dominates this highly desirable section of the PB beach.
Another reason they go Reed St is because it doesn't require you to climb up/down a steep cliff to access the beach, like they would have to do north of Crystal Pier.
So I believe families and quiet sunbathers want to use this same section of PB beach for the exact same reasons I mentioned above, and these families and sunbathers then have to deal with the excessive noiseand other issues created by the huge college drinking and partying crowd.
A lot of that is due to Lahainas, the noise and crowds will still be there even with a ban. Why would anyone want to take a family to that section even with a ban? All those little shops help create the mess and once you add in the fact that the City couldn't widen that section it's still a mess right there ban or no ban. You'd still have to go early and take off early ban or not.
There is way to much wheeled traffic that channels down into an 8 foot section. I wouldn't even try to drag small kids across that stretch.
A lot of that is due to Lahainas, the noise and crowds will still be there even with a ban. Why would anyone want to take a family to that section even with a ban? All those little shops help create the mess and once you add in the fact that the City couldn't widen that section it's still a mess right there ban or no ban. You'd still have to go early and take off early ban or not.
There is way to much wheeled traffic that channels down into an 8 foot section. I wouldn't even try to drag small kids across that stretch.
I completely disagree.
Prior to this year's alcohol ban, every summer weekend there were always extremely huge crowds of college students drinking and partying on the beach in front of Reed St.
These huge crowds of thousands were wall-to-wall people, mostly standing, similar to what you might find in an extremely large, densely packed bar or frat-party.
Anyone who finished working a hard week, and then on the weekend, wanted a quiet, peaceful beach experience, and also have access to sufficient nearby parking and public restrooms, was out of luck.
The only other option was to go north of Crystal Pier, and then climb up/down a 50' flight of winding stairs, or up/down a very steep access path.
These college aged drinking/party animals basically dominated and packed the best section of the beach, every single summer weekend.
Every weekend, lots of police were always needed to monitor the beach, and occasionally break up fights and arrest people for various types of illegal behavior.
This past year, since the trial ban was put into effect, the Reed st. beach area has been significantly better. It is like night and day!
Hardly any police were needed to monitor the beach. Only a few police were needed to check if people were bringing alcohol on the beach.
Lahainas beach-front bar does not create any type of problem. That crowd just stays on the outdoor deck, and really doesn't bother anybody.
The problems with excessive noise, occasional fist fights, rowdy behavior, and public urination were all from the crowds of college-aged (and sometimes under-aged) party animals drinking on the beach.
Prior to this year's alcohol ban, every summer weekend there were always extremely huge crowds of college students drinking and partying on the beach in front of Reed St.
These huge crowds of thousands were wall-to-wall people, mostly standing, similar to what you might find in an extremely large, densely packed bar or frat-party.
Anyone who finished working a hard week, and then on the weekend, wanted a quiet, peaceful beach experience, and also have access to sufficient nearby parking and public restrooms, was out of luck.
The only other option was to go north of Crystal Pier, and then climb up/down a 50' flight of winding stairs, or up/down a very steep access path.
These college aged drinking/party animals basically dominated and packed the best section of the beach, every single summer weekend.
Every weekend, lots of police were always needed to monitor the beach, and occasionally break up fights and arrest people for various types of illegal behavior.
This past year, since the trial ban was put into effect, the Reed st. beach area has been significantly better. It is like night and day!
Hardly any police were needed to monitor the beach. Only a few police were needed to check if people were bringing alcohol on the beach.
Lahainas beach-front bar does not create any type of problem. That crowd just stays on the outdoor deck, and really doesn't bother anybody.
The problems with excessive noise, occasional fist fights, rowdy behavior, and public urination were all from the crowds of college-aged (and sometimes under-aged) party animals drinking on the beach.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. You are true in that it was like that BEFORE they banned open container on the boardwalk. Once they made everyone stay in the sand it was not.
As far as the "draw" of that area, I believe it originally started because you could hang out in front of Lahaina and hear the music they were playing. That was always the biggest reason everyone I hung out with went there by choice.
I used to be one of those parked in front of Reed on most days. When the crowds got bad we just walked a whole 100 yards over to just S of Crystal Pier. You don't have to take stairs to get to North of the pier either. It's easier walking on the sand near the water. The new toilets by the life guard station are just as accessible to people near the pier as they are to Reed. As a matter of fact we always used the one on Reed anyways, it's way closer than way up to the tower.
The problem in that area is still the fact that the City hasn't widened it and all wheeled and foot traffic merges into an 8 foot wide mess.
I still wouldn't bring my kids down to that area on a weekend afternoon as it's a mix of lost tourists and skaters going too fast.
Why the draw to that 200 yard section of beach? Is that right in front of your Condo? Everyone I hung out with rode bikes or walked over and if it was crowded we'd just move down to the Pier. It's the swim area vs surf area in front of that busy section anyways.
Last edited by 1AngryTaxPayer; 10-28-2008 at 02:35 PM..
I am not affiliated with any pro or con Prop D political organization. I am a third generation native of San Diego who grew up at the beach, as did my father and his father, where responsible adults have traditionally enjoyed having a beer or two with family and friends. I believe that Prop D is nothing short of class warfare. The wealthy beachfront property owners want to keep San Diegans who don't have the money to live at the beach off their beaches. They want to create their own Malibu with restricted beach access and privileges right here in San Diego. Don't let them get away with it. Keep Hell A and Orangutan County north of Camp Pendleton. We don't need to be like our uptight neighbors to the north. We don't want a nanny government to place more draconian restrictions on our recreational activities. Councilmen Faulconer and Peters are taking money and doing the bidding of the wealthy. They are grandstanding politicians whose primary concern is the advancement of their own petty political careers. They don't care about the rest of San Diego. They used the Labor Day "riot" of 2007 as their own Reichstag Fire, a pretext to discredit their opposition and consolidate their power. This tactic was used by the Nazis in 1934. Don't allow this to happen in 21st Century America! Vote for freedom, liberty, and the American Way. Vote NO on D on November 4.
In this post I'm gonna criticize the NO on proposition D people, including Jacob Pyle, one of its leaders from day one. For the record I'm voting NO on proposition D.
If we lose the election, and we might lose it, it will be due to two things. One of them would be the failure of Jacob Pyle to offer the public specific, detailed solutions to combatting bad, drunken behavior at the beach.
There are a few specific things that we could do at the beach, things that would appeal to the family crowd, the family crowd being Mr. and Mrs. John Doe with 3 kids in tow. Jacob Pyle and company failed to present anything concrete, anything specific to the people who are indecisive and sitting on the fence.
I'm talking about the people who don't know which way they'll vote on Proposition D until they walk into the polling booth. If you think that type of person is rare, then you're not up on human nature. Procrastination is a common human trait.
If it was any other time I would say that if Jacob Pyle is reading this he should contact me ASAP in order to find out the attractive solutions I have in mind that he could offer the public, the police, the San Diego city council, and most important of all, the local media. But it's too late now, the election is in 5 days.
If we lose, one reason will be due to the fact that the catchy slogans Pyle used, ones like, "Keep our beaches free" and the frat boy-like MySpace pages they rigged up were not enough to pacify the last second doubters who were straddling the fence on this issue. Heck, if I was on the fence on this issue, based on what I have NOT heard from Pyle and Company and what I have NOT read on their MySpace page, I wouldn't hesitate to vote YES on proposition D.
If we lose, I'd point to Jacob Pyle and say,
"It was in your hands. It was yours to win. But you blew it because you didn't offer the public a specific, strategic plan to combat bad, drunken behavior at the beach. Why didn't you? You should have. You really needed to do that in order to combat all the images and videos of the 2007 Labor Day brawl that the media continues to show on a daily basis 5 days out from election day. Images and videos that anyone can find on the Internet (there are a bunch of them on YouTube). You think I'm blowing smoke or being histrionic? Think again: just today I saw a 3 or 4 day article in the L.A. Times. The L.A. freakin' Times! The article showed a picture of the one guy in blue swim trunks who was agitating the crowd at the foot of Reed Steet on Labor Day 2007. You remember him, he had shaggy black hair, he looked like he was Brazilian, though I don't know for sure. Anway, those images and videos were great , fantastic ammuntion for the YES on D people and yet except for a couple of banal campaign slogans you thought up ("Keep our beaches free"), you did not offer the public any real solution for keeping the beach a peaceful place. As the leader of this cause, I feel that it was your duty to offer the public specific strategies that would have helped SDPD and the city council facilitate law and order at an alcohol friendly beach. Basically dude, cerebral-wise you did nothing. If your brain was located in both of your palms, figuartively speaking, you sat on your hands. Based on all this, we deserved to lose the election."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
