Campustown is without a doubt the economic hub of the community. According to the 2007 University District Existing Conditions Report (part of the Campustown Action Plan), 19.72% of the sales tax generated in the City of Champaign came from the University District (Campustown). In addition, the report states that 8.87% of the total property tax generated by the City of Champaign was derived from the University District. (Hat Tip: Bulldog)
Recently the University District Advisory Board was disbanded after many meetings were cancelled.
After speaking with multiple council members, bar owners, and a few students, I grew very disturbed. There is an obvious disconnect between the Mayor and the bar owners. The Liquor Advisory Commission is not working. The University District Advisory Board clearly was not working. The Mayor is making claims that he has made things clear and some bars are arguing otherwise. After listening to multiple sides of the situation, there is (at the very least) a communication problem. These types of problems are solvable.
Yet you have THE economic epicenter of the community arguably on the brink of a huge political and economic shift that is certain to bring significant change. A change that impacts some serious stakeholders and could possibly undermine the very goals that the city and mayor are working towards. A change that possibly brings serious short-term challenges on many levels.
I think it would be in everyone's best interests if key stakeholders had a special summit or one-time special committee formed to focus on campustown safety. This summit, study session, special one time committee, whatever, could be designed to plan in advance of Unofficial, while improving communication among the key stakeholders of that district, and looking the top 1-2 safety concerns outside of Unofficial.
It is not reasonable to expect that any one group should shoulder all the blame or responsibility. This is a great opportunity to bring people together and work for a cause everyone agrees with. What are the major challenges? What can a group do to make the situation better? Where does a group need help? What can one group to do to help the other group? ALL the groups should be engaged.
1) The Mayor and Council
2) City Staff
3) Police Department
4) The Bar Owners
5) The University
6) Property Owners
7) The Retail Business Group
8) Student Senate
9) Irish Illini
(Did I get them all?)
The agenda could be two-fold preparing proactively for Unofficial and also working together to get everyone in campustown on the same page. This is obviously a great opportunity to do great things with something like this.
I don't know why these commissions are not meeting and don't want to suggest another commission or committee that is not effective. Hopefully, everyone can keep it simple and constructive. People don't need extensive documents. No master plans. As little finger pointing as possible. Keep it short-term and specific so it doesn't turn into another bland committee. It doesn't have to include economic development. It doesn't have to focus on economic concerns, even though it's obvious we need to keep things in balance. We can keep it somewhat simple and be very direct, yet respectful about everyone's concerns.
Saftey. It's a good thing.
Communication. It's a good thing.
And PS - if this type of summit is even possible, let's try to set it up so the crazies don't come in and talk about how they send their kids away so they can insulate them from the horrors of this community. : ) Instead, let's ensure the key players are working together to make the key economic hub of our community safer and more attractive.
This post by B is for Business, a conservative, suggests a solution to a non-existent problem--something that B is for Business would typically attribute to "lefties."
Public safety and crowd control during the 2009 "Unofficial" was handled quite effectively by the city and police. A reference for this is the Tuesday, March 10, 2009 NG article by Steve Bauer Campustown business owners didn't notice any major problems
The meetings noted in B's above post were canceled because they were unneeded.
The only "problem" with the 2009 Unofficial was that the crowds were too small for the bar owners, which B is for Business, with every thread he starts, seems more like a representative or member of.
As a student, I find it curious that there's a long list of interest groups here, but the only one that really approaches being just ordinary consumers gets crossed off. The fact that it --
Irish Illini-- was says more about the limited thinking going on here about what students want and need than it does about what they might really perfer. Sure the barwoners are already representing the misnamed drunks. I'm not so sure how representative the Student Senate is.I realize that it's become a pretty high cost retail area. That may help many of the named interest groups. The reality is that many of us simply can't afford to spend much, if any, of our limited funds in such establishments. I think the high-end market can take care of itself.
Frankly, it would be good if some thought and effort be put into encouraging development of the sort of essential good sand services that can serve the broader population of students that reflects the actual demographic mix of the campus population. But you won't know that unless you make the effort to invite a contituency that seems left out of your proposal - a representative cross-section of students.
What are the safety issues that you see impacting Campustown?
How do you propose addressing the issues you identify?
How would your proposed Campus Safety Summit go about addressing them?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
After speaking with multiple council members, bar owners, and a few students, I grew very disturbed.
Not knowing who you are, we do not know if indeed you really spoke with anyone, or if your speaking with them is at all signficant
B is for Business trying to flatter someone: Yet you have THE economic epicenter of the community arguably on the brink of a huge political and economic shift that is certain to bring significant change.
Hey B4B: I have read your rambling post twice, and still cannot discern who is the "you" in all this. Please tell us
if the economics of campus town are based on giving people the opportunity to break the law by underage drinking, then that's an economic direction we might as well do without. Forcing Unofficial off the streets and into apartments is the best way to kill it.
Forcing Unofficial off the streets and into apartments is the best way to kill it.
You cannot force Unofficial off the streets as it will surely close more bars, the largest sector of the epicenter of the community.
"Frankly, it would be good if some thought and effort be put into encouraging development of the sort of essential good sand services that can serve the broader population of students that reflects the actual demographic mix of the campus population. But you won't know that unless you make the effort to invite a contituency that seems left out of your proposal - a representative cross-section of students."
For the sake of making progress, I figured the focus should be on safety. If we start talking about development, I don't see things getting anywhere. The University Advisory Board that is no longer put together a Campustown Action Plan that I believe covered a lot of those things. More importantly, I'm curious about what you think would be a good representation of the students to talk about Unofficial/safety. If the student government isn't a good representation of the student body, who else should be encouraged to come? Obviously the students are huge players in the community. While not very many of them seem to make it the voter booth, I certainly hope they bring voice that is representative of the awesome benefit they bring to this community.
"The only "problem" with the 2009 Unofficial was that the crowds were too small for the bar owners, which B is for Business, with every thread he starts, seems more like a representative or member of."
I wasn't too happy to hear about the guy falling from a balcony trying to play spiderman. The mess was pretty amazing. The destruction in the apartments from photos I saw in the media was insane. There are plenty of problems that take place during unofficial. I'm sure the police can share some additional concerns.
"How do you propose addressing the issues you identify?"
I ask instead to the Mayor and the Police Department what can the stakeholder groups do to help them? The bars are already over 21 that night, so if there is nothing more the bars can possibly do, or the retail community, or the university, then maybe there is no need. Were businesses and campus bars included in any planning in the past for unofficial? If the conversation could be civil, I'd certainly entertain the idea of having reps from Irish Illini there to encourage them to promote a message of safety and respect. I'm afraid the Mayor would chew their ass, but everyone needs to work with each other and not against each other.
"How would your proposed Campus Safety Summit go about addressing them?"
Empower all the stakeholders with knowledge and build goodwill amongst all of them. Considering the bar owners basically don't talk unless they are upset with the Mayor, this is a great opportunity to hopefully bring some new ideas to the table to make the event more managable. Judging from what I witnessed last year, I would expect there is a lot of opportunity for good ideas.
You cannot force Unofficial off the streets as it will surely close more bars, the largest sector of the epicenter of the community.
We are puzzled. How will forcing a once a year event, with which we existed quite well without for many years, force bars to close ?
I have read this thread several times and still cannot find any issues B is for Business wishes addressed. B's December 17th, 2009 at 03:03 PM, post talks about some meeting you want, but the agenda for this meeting remains his personal secret.
The destruction in the apartments from photos I saw in the media was insane.
B for B: You are creating fiction again. An earlier poster documented her/his claim to the contrary
The destruction in the apartments from photos I saw in the media was insane.
B for B: You are creating fiction again.
Could have been taken anytime. Also not related to campustown discussion of this thread. We are still awaiting the issues you want to discuss in your proposed meeting
"We are still awaiting the issues you want to discuss in your proposed meeting"
I think everyone would have their own set of observations/issues they bring to the table.
Right off the top of my head:
1) Drinking and driving
2) Riding on the back of motorcycles when you've been drinking
3) Assault and Battery
4) Projectiles from balconies
5) Balcony climbing
6) Not observing traffic signals when crossing the street
7) Alcohol poisoning
8) Sexual predators
Right off the top of my head:
No need for participation by campus bar owners who have a vested interest in selling a product which leads to many instances of the problems you mention.
What new bight ideas do you have abot these problems which no one else has bewen able to definitively solve?
I think we should require all bar owner to wear Chief Illiniwek costumes at all times.
Except for #s 1, 4, 8, I think this is Darwinism at its finest. Rid the gene pool of mucho stupidity. I was one of the few when I was @ U of I in late 80s that looked upon the student clmbing down the balcony ladder headfirst as a positive.
I think if Hash Wednesday was substituted for Unofficial, you wouldn't have a tenth of the mess.
But somehow the law won't allow for that, preferring to pander to the illusion that alcohol is "safe" because it's legal for those of age. Anyone who has made their own personal comparison between the two will tell you that cannabis actually leaves its users typically acting in far more responsible fashion. Kids will never suffer from a lethal dose of reefer, a problem that is far too common when mixiing college students and alcohol.
Of course, don't expect Mayor Jerry, bar owners, and beer distributors to arrive at and lobby the Legislature for a more sensible solution, only one that continues to be profitable for their respective constituencies.
"I think if Hash Wednesday was substituted for Unofficial, you wouldn't have a tenth of the mess."
Well, food sales would increase signficantly. : )
The Safety Summit is a win-win if people show up. Cosidering the attention on this issue, I think they would. Therefore, this is a unique opportunity to bring people together. If people aren't willing to reach out, and people aren't willing to respond to those who reach out, then we will be forced to accept the status quo. Of course, it goes both ways. There has to be buy-in for this to work.
For all the radicals who assume this is some grand scheme to make the bars more money, let's assume that NOTHING changes when it comes to planned operating hours and bar entry age. Let's deal with the reality of the situation as it currently exists today.
Allow each group to discuss their number 1 priority/concern and go around the room. If there is time, go around again. If there is time, go around again. I'm betting that that this Summit will end up being much more about how the stakeholders can help each other out, with most of the stakeholders listening vs. talking to the city, police, and university wondering how they can help. This summit can minimize the Us vs. Them mentality.
It's a great opportunity for everyone to try and put themselves in sombody else's shoes and respect the challenges and set realistic expectations.
Two giant steps in the right direction is better than none. While there are going to be some differences of opinion, there is certainly going to be things that everyone can agree on and work together on.
Most everyone will agree the status quo is not attractive. That is something to build on.
Maybe some will think I'm smoking hash if I think this could work, but isn't it worth a try considering how much of a nuisance Unofficial has become?
B: People will come only if they see a problem (the bar owners do not), or if some useful suggestions on the agenda. You''ve been spinning your (and our) wheels on this. What suggestions do you have? Having boasted on this thread that you have spoken with "with multiple council members, bar owners, and a few students" what suggestions came up in your alleged discussions? With exactly whom have you spoken? And if none came up or if you neglected to discuss, there is nothing to discuss at the meeting. And if by some miracle you actually have accumulated suggestions, have you discussed specific proposals with those you allegedly have spoken to?
For as much folly as being hurdled toward B for Business, there is reason to pay attention to what is happening along Green Street, aka campustown, in light of the action taken by the Champaign City Council Tuesday evening. There is more developed planned that will continue to change the texture of this area. If people are really concerned on whatever level--bars, students walking in the streets, urban design, traffic, bicycle pathways, available infrastructures, etc.--then paying attention and being involved might have very positive end results.
Pattsi Petrie
Concerning B is for Business.
If he thinks his idea for a meeting with all the "players" is so great, why is he pontificating on a local political blog, rather than talking to those he claims are "players" ??
Seems he should rename himself B is for Balloon Full of Hot Air
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
First, I want to thank B is for Business for what looks to me like a massive amount of effort basically on the behalf of the bar owners who are afraid to speak for themselves and who no one else seems to care much for. Whether or not you agree with his opinions or conclusions, he has presented a broad array of facts for analysis by people who cannot get those facts anywhere else, certainly not in the local traditional media.
I understand why people may be upset with the idea of Barscramble. While we were careful not to do anything illegal, it was not our finest hour. Not for the City, not for the students that participated, not for the bars. For the part that we played in it, I apologize. I will donate the proceeds of the event to the Don Moyer Boys and Girls Club. I call on the City to donate the drinking ticket revenue they collected to that or a similar charity.
This all could have been avoided with a little communication between the bars and the City which is clearly within both side’s capabilities. It is in no one’s interest to see the relations degrade as far as they have. If the proposed Campustown Safety Summit can improve safety and communication, then I am all for it. If someone could convince me that campus safety would be improved by going to a 21 year old entry then I would actively advocate for it to the City Council. A few bars would go out of business (maybe even mine, it’s impossible to predict), but the City Council cannot worry about that. What’s right isn’t always what’s profitable. I would be willing to discuss this at a summit or with any City official– nothing is off the table as far as I’m concerned.
It is reasonable to disagree on whether the bars should allow 19 or 21 year old entry. All else equal, the bars are clearly safer. However, this is a country of laws and with the campus bars, some laws are broken repeatedly at the same locations. This has to be frustrating to police and City officials. What to do? Decrease safety while reestablishing the supremacy of the Law? Ignore the inconvenient laws in the sole interest of Safety? Neither seems that attractive. We know the 21 law isn’t changing. All the arguing comes down to this basic conflict: Safety vs. Rule of Law.
Why are the bars safer?
The bars are safer for several reasons:
1) Responsible consumption is slow and limited. The alcohol at a private party is usually unattended and not consistently poured. Many people, especially students, drink for the effect alone, not the taste. So they fill up a cup with 10 ounces of booze, an ounce of soda, and a little ice. This often has no direct cost to them. By contrast, a rum and diet at Joe’s is a) ice three-fourths of the way to the top, b) 1 oz rum and c) the rest soda. That costs $2. If you want a double, $4. You also may have had to work your way through the crowd, wait in line, have someone check if you are 21, pay, get your change back, etc. before you can actually drink your drink. If you are 19 (I know, by definition irresponsible), you have to find someone that is willing to do that for you before you can drink. Do you really want to chug that drink and do all that over again right away? You’re really just trying to hang out with friends and meet people. Plus, you’re poor and out of money. I’m not trying to say that people don’t get drunk at the bars. They do. I’m just comparing the situation to a private party
2) We have security personnel. These people are trained and sober. If a fight breaks out, it is over in about 5 seconds. Both sides get kicked out (not at the same time). We also have people going around looking for overly intoxicated patrons, cleaning up messes, and a variety of other things (you name it). There aren’t a whole lot of rules at a college apartment party, and no one is sober enough to enforce them anyway.
3) We are not afraid to call the police or an ambulance if something gets out of hand. A few examples of this: A guy is drunk and belligerent but won’t leave. At an underage party you’re not going to call the police because that is the end of the party and everyone is getting tickets. We just call the police and that is the end of that. We go don’t go around and find enough guys that are big enough to take them out in a fight. Remember, at a party or a bar, often the more people the better. So often, not everyone knows everyone else. These things happen. Another example: A girl comes in to the bar and appears completely sober but has just chugged basically a whole bottle of whiskey about 5 minutes before. About 10 minutes after arrival, (it can take a while for alcohol to absorb) she is passed out in the bathroom. She is 19. 10 minutes later, she is in the hospital getting treatment and is now fine. I know this because her friends told us what happened and had thankfully not drunk so much. We didn’t waste time worrying about whether this was going to get us in trouble or not. We just got her to the hospital. This is not necessarily a unique situation. One more example: One time there two guys actually DEALING drugs at the bar. A bouncer told me what was going on and we called the police. They told us NOT to kick them out, but rather wait until they got there and they would handle it. When the police arrived, they found these guys with thousands of dollars worth of drugs and paraphernalia. Even if this was unwanted behavior at a house party, I think a 19 year old would think twice before calling the police. In reality, the police would be so happy they probably wouldn’t mess with the kid. Still, I doubt the situation would play out the same way; the kid might also be scared of retribution.
4) Everything is on video at the bar. I can’t tell you how many crimes we’ve solved because we have good video and we record an image of everyone’s ID as they come in. This ranges from stolen cameras and purses to assaults and several attempted rapes. I’ve stayed up until 7 in the morning (believe me, not my normal schedule) reviewing video with police and making copies for them. It actually feels pretty awesome to be able to do that when it works. Again by contrast, lots of times things go missing when you host a house party. There is no way to catch someone after the fact and the police can’t do much with a description from a drunk guy about someone that no one knows.
5) The Police and Fire department don’t need a warrant or probable cause to enter the bar. They have the right by statute. They don’t even need a reason. Police can’t just go in to someone’s house without a reason. Nor should they be able to. There are nuisance party ordinances already on the books, so under certain circumstances the police have a right to enter. The problem is that the location of the party always changes. So do the hosts of the parties. Police know where to patrol on any given night when everyone is at the bars.
6) When you buy a drink at a bar, all of the costs of providing you that drink are included in the price. That’s why drinks don’t cost $.25 at a bar. You’re paying for staff, cleaning supplies, rent, insurance, licensing fees, etc. You’re not pushing off the costs on somebody else (i.e. the City. Or more accurately, the taxpayers). The principal thing is that bars have to have insurance. Insurance companies have requirements that reduce risk and therefore their exposure. If someone is injured and the bar is at fault, insurance should pay. There is no insurance at a house party.
7) Bars are required to cut patrons off if they are intoxicated. There are a variety of other rules to prevent too much consumption in too little time. These rules do not exist at house parties.
I can’t really think of an advantage that a house party would have from a safety perspective. Obviously, four people drinking heavily at home isn’t as risky as 500 people drinking heavily at a bar but that’s not really a fair comparison. 500 people at a bar is safer than 200 people in a four bedroom house. Parties aren’t really a big deal in Champaign, especially after the bar closing time moved from 1 to 2am. However, they would come back if 19 and 20 year olds can‘t get in to bars.
Rule of Law
Clearly, the Rule of Law this is one of the things that makes this country great. It is unfortunate that a conflict exists in this town with Campustown safety. Usually the two things align. It is also unfortunate that each year, a new class of students breaks the same rules as the previous class did. With regard to alcohol, they do it at pretty much the same places. I can completely understand why this infuriates people. I don’t like it myself. I’m sure the other campus bar owners dislike it as well. However, it is naïve to think that if the bars go 21, then all underage drinking will stop. It will just stop at the bars and move to private parties. The actual amount of alcohol consumed may increase. So when people say, “It’s time to get serious about underage drinking and make the entry age 21” it says to me they don’t know what they are talking about. If they say, “I know it will happen at house parties but we can’t allow it to happen at the same places over and over and not do anything about it.” I would say you have come down on the side of the Rule of Law and I can‘t really argue with you. It is simply a value judgment.
The only thing I can say is that the drinking age law will be violated in this and every college town, practically every night. Until we either change the laws or change the culture, that’s just the way it’s going to be. So it comes back to that old mantra of the 19 year old entry crowd: would you rather have them drinking in bars or at apartments? Said differently, if you know there is a hornet in the room, would you rather be able to see the hornet or not see it?
What to do?
So should we just look the other way and not do anything about it? No one is proposing that. There are lots of things we can do to with a little cooperation that allows Campustown to thrive and the students to be safe and slow the rate of consumption. The campus bars have gotten dramatically safer in recent years. This is not a happy accident. It has taken a lot of work by the City, the Police, the Fire Department and the Bars. There are a lot of additional rules to follow and most of them are good. Concurrently, the number and size of house parties has gone down. So the bars can follow additional rules and still survive and not have people get sick of all the rules. However, there is a breaking point with the rules. It’s completely possible to create so many rules that it is impossible to operate. It is also possible to create such large penalties for relatively minor infractions that it becomes impossible to sustain a business. That is where the communication and cooperation would help. The whole point is to reduce the negative consequences of consumption both of-age and underage students.
The City Council appears to be on the side of 19 year old entry age. The Mayor and Staff appear to disagree. The bar owners have their own views (and I can't speak for the rest of them). I think everyone can agree that we all individually want what is best for this town and the University. To that end, we could and should work together and not against each other. I don’t need to sit through another useless meeting where nothing gets done and there is just a bunch of posturing. However, If we can be proactive in solving problems, then I am all for it. Something has got to change. Maybe a Campustown Safety Summit is a way to start.
Doug Larson
The picture posted at 4:37 p.m. is from 106 E. Daniel, Champaign. The courtyard of that building did indeed look like that on Unofficial 2009.
On December 17th, 2009 at 03:03 PM, B is for Business said:
Were businesses and campus bars included in any planning in the past for unofficial?
Well, B, that depends on what you mean by "involved". Unofficial was an event dreamed up by Scott Cochrane about 12 years ago. Mr. Cochrane noticed that St Patrick's Day usually fell in the week the U of I was gone for Spring Break, and he felt he was losing "his share" of revenue from this. Mr. Cochrane now piously and ingenuously protests that he is not promoting Unofficial and that this event has spun out of his control. I personally think the licenses for all the bars he owns in C-U (at one point, I believe he had 9) should be pulled for his hand in this horror.
But I'm not the liquor commissioner.
"The picture posted at 4:37 p.m. is from 106 E. Daniel, Champaign. The courtyard of that building did indeed look like that on Unofficial 2009."
The picture was from Unofficial 2009 and linked from the Daily Illini.
This picture was also from Unofficial 2009 and linked from the Daily Illini. It is a picture of 805 South Fourth where the kid feel from the balcony.
"I personally think the licenses for all the bars he owns in C-U (at one point, I believe he had 9) should be pulled for his hand in this horror."
We have to be careful. All bars have promotions. Almost all of the bar promotions revolve around drinking alcohol (their product). Their promotions are designed to attract people to their bar and purchase their product. If you want to pull licenses because of a personal opinion vs. rules and guidelines, that is a dangerous precedent that can be used by anyone with a personal opinion. If we're going to be thinking like that, some could argue that the university should expel anyone who was involved in any group that is promoting unofficial. Maybe we should close the grocery stores who are selling ping pong balls and decorating their stores and promoting unofficial. Maybe we should close the beer distributors who are complicit in this marketing and offering green beer to bars. Some may have this attitude, but it is not constructive.
This is an emotional topic. If we can appreciate that this is an emotional/challenging issue and try to put that emotion aside, hopefully everyone can start talking and working together. Hopefully the sides that are used to doing the talking will consider listening as well.
I have to hand it to Mr. Larson. He could have done what everyone else has done in the past -- he could have dug in and been stubborn. He is taking a risk because the status quo could certainly be a better profit scenario that what develops out of a Campustown Safety Summit. He is an experienced owner/operator who sees what is going on and is willing to step up. Hopefully he is involved in identifying problems and developing solutions.
Good leaders bring people together. This is a great opportunity to bring people together.
The picture posted at 4:37 p.m. is from 106 E. Daniel, Champaign. The courtyard of that building did indeed look like that on Unofficial 2009.
If so, then the problem is preventing the Unofficial for occurring, rather than anything that happens or does not happen in bars.
Michael Fuerst
Turns out "This American Life" this week is a show about the party culture (and drinking) in State College, PA, voted the #1 party school in the US. So far, an interesting show (that show generally has interesting segments). It's on now, it'll repeat again at 6 PM tomorrow (on WILL-AM).
Usually the show is available for later streaming from the "This American Life" site, people might find it interesting.
I appreciate the post from Doug Larson 4:47 also, again though it makes me think (in agreement) that it'd be nice if people from 18+ could drink openly whether out OR at home, I do think it'd avoid a lot of the problems (pounding, etc) that come with the sense of scarcity, and kinda makes me wonder if there's any moves in that direction anywhere in the US.
Though, knowing the US's rather... odd relation with the demon rum, I kinda suspect not.
Mr. Larson's post is conciliatory and provides some insight, BUT suffers from CYA and lacks substance. My reaction is in a
Doug Larson, CYA, and Campus Alcohol Consumption
"I appreciate the post from Doug Larson 4:47 also, again though it makes me think (in agreement) that it'd be nice if people from 18+ could drink openly whether out OR at home, I do think it'd avoid a lot of the problems (pounding, etc) that come with the sense of scarcity, and kinda makes me wonder if there's any moves in that direction anywhere in the US."
You make a good point about scarcity. I thought of that when Mr. Larson was discussing the girl who decided to chug a bottle of hard alcohol before entering the bar where she would be able to get drinks.
The incident Larson cites might be an anecdote for keeping the current Champaign bar entry age at 19. It is irrelevant to any of the following
a) "Unofficial" or
b) the blatant violation of drinking age, and the tacit encouragement of drinking events at campus bars
c) the need and agenda for any meeting between bar owners and the city
Hat Tip: Pattsi
http://www.bloc21.com/
http://www.bloc21.com/facts.htm
Hello B is for Business:
You are deviating off-topic. The links you provided concerning bar entry age are only peripherally related to the the issue of a Safety Summit, with which you started the thread. The "arguments" presented in the second link supporting a 19 year old bar entry age are mostly speculation. A full discussion of those weak arguments is best begun in another thread at IP
Champaign law currently allows 19 year olds into bars. The immediate concern is how public safety can be improved and excessive drinking in the campus area can be controlled in the current environment. Mr Larson's post is documentation and an admission that bar owners don't care as long they are not being sued.
Pattsi's links discuss teen drunk driving, riots, and binge drinking. Plus it relates to these safety issues/concerns on another Big
Tencampus. Very nice contribution, Pattsi."I appreciate the post from Doug Larson 4:47 also, again though it makes me think (in agreement) that it'd be nice if people from 18+ could drink openly whether out OR at home, I do think it'd avoid a lot of the problems (pounding, etc) that come with the sense of scarcity, and kinda makes me wonder if there's any moves in that direction anywhere in the US."
I thought about the scarcity point you made when Mr. Larson discussed the girl chugging a bottle of hard alcohol before entering the bar. This is interesting.
Mr Larson wrote: This all could have been avoided with a little communication between the bars and the City which is clearly within both side’s capabilities.
Mr. Larson:
What should the bars have told the city? What should the city have told the bars ?
Pattsi's links discuss teen drunk driving, riots, and binge drinking.
Only in the context of supporting a 19 year old bar entry age. Hence it is of limited value in this discussion, for a community where the bar entry age is already 19.
I'm very interested that there was a big summit in Springfield discussing college drinking that happened in late September. We had law enforcement from our area giving presentations. Has the city/police department or city shared any of this information with the local campus bars? Were they even invited? Were there any summaries or helpful information that was communicated to the bar owners? Are there meeting notes from those meeting that were shared with the bar owners? Was this ever discussed at a LAC meeting? If so, and the bars can't access meeting minutes from the LAC meetings, how do they keep up on important news and accouncements?
Maybe Mr. Larson can help us with some of those questions.
"I appreciate the post from Doug Larson 4:47 also, again though it makes me think (in agreement) that it'd be nice if people from 18+ could drink openly whether out OR at home, I do think it'd avoid a lot of the problems (pounding, etc) that come with the sense of scarcity, and kinda makes me wonder if there's any moves in that direction anywhere in the US."
Akibare - here is a link that shows people are thinking like you. More than 100 college presidents signed the petition to start discussing the idea. President White didn't think that was sensible. I noticed that the OSU President thought it was a good idea to bring in many groups when discussing these issues.
President E. Gordon Gee of Ohio State University supports "an open discussion and debate on alcohol-related issues on and off campus," according to a statement from Jim Lynch, his director of media relations. President Gee also said in the statement that students, parents, counselors, public officials and members of many other groups should be a part of this open discussion.
"They are exhibiting a lack of common sense," said University President B. Joseph White in reference to the other university presidents attempting to lower the drinking age.
Here are some other links:
http://www.dailyillini.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/2009/10/08/drinking-age-does-not-work
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2008-08-19/news/0808190014_1_lowering-the-drinking-drinking-age-national-minimum-drinking
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/
Akibare, I appreciate your comments and hope you find these links interesting.
With every post he makes, B is for Business is looking more like a stooge for local bar owners. He started the thread as a call for a meeting about public safety in the campus area. It has now evolved so that B is advocating a lower drinking age. The problems that bar owners violate laws and encourage excessive alcohol consumption, no matter what the drinking or bar entry age, has been pushed from the discussion.
That some university presidents desire public discussion of a lowered drinking age does not mean that a lowered drinking age is a good idea.
The medical community often decides that a certain treatment or diagnostic test, although in use or many years, is not as effective as previously thought.
Universtiy presidents know much less about alcohol use than the medical community knows about medical care.
I am not advocating a lower drinking age, but am certainly am interested in discussing all points of view.
I think that Akibare's suggestion is very interesting that scarcity can be a motivator to binge drink. When a girl chugs a bottle of hard acohol before entering a bar, as in Mr. Larson's real life example, I supect her inabilty to score booze and get drunk in the bar had a lot to do with it. Thankfully the bar called the ambulance and the girl is fine.
A secondary benefit of a Campustown Safety Summit would be to improve communication among the key stakeholders of the district and build better, more constructive relationships. As is stands right now, there is no debate, very little (if any) cummunication, just creative law enforcement. At the big summit that recently took place in Springfield, the list of panelists did not include any bar owners. It included plenty of cops and even included folks from the department of revenue, but not any local business owners. Considering the anti-business culture in the state of illinois, it does not suprise me that the folks from Springfield would not have thought to include the local business perspective. At the Campustown Safety Summit, all the key stakeholders would be involved...if they showed up. The folks from Springfield, especially the folks from the Department of Revenue, could stay in springfield and continue to do a great job for us.
Speaking of communication and constructive debate:
The Amethyst Initiative supports informed and unimpeded debate on the 21 year-old drinking age. Amethyst Initiative presidents and chancellors call upon elected officials to weigh all the consequences of current alcohol policies and to invite new ideas on how best to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol use.
Lowering the drinking age, even if was accepted as a good idea, would not come fast and easy. Instead, maybe people would agree that scarcity is a problem that promotes alcohol abuse and we can collectively come up with creative ideas to address that component.
I am not advocating a lower drinking age, but am certainly am interested in discussing all points of view.
You may not be advocating a lower drinking age but you seem to be arguing for an enforcement free zone surrounding the campus bars in Champaign - a bubble of immunity - on the theory that it is safer to break the law in public and its not MY fault that they break the law after I sell them the booze. The same argument might be made for the suspension of enforcement against purveyors of pot or dealers in cocaine. The motivation is the same for all of the dealers in controlled substances, whether licensed or not - an abiding love for the ring of the cash register!
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
If the legal drinking age were lowered to let's say 18, wouldn't we just be moving the problem lower with respect to age? Wouldn't there be pressure to allow 16 year olds to enter bars with their older friends?
To everyone in this thread and thanks to B for Business for referencing what I posted in another thread. Here is the posting--
Read how things played out in Ames, IA two years ago when the issue of a 21 year old bar entry age was on a November ballot. This might interest IP readers.
The first web site contains much of what has been stated in these two threads along with more detailed reactions and arguments. The purpose for posting the web site was to see if some of the arguments/statements might morph to concrete arguments and maybe even solutions. The second web site shows that there was a ligquor summit held by our governor in Sept 2009. It is interesting to note who were the speakers. I find no further information containing the content of the presentations, though.
Pattsi Petrie
"You may not be advocating a lower drinking age but you seem to be arguing for an enforcement free zone surrounding the campus bars in Champaign - a bubble of immunity - on the theory that it is safer to break the law in public and its not MY fault that they break the law after I sell them the booze."
If a bar is "negligent" when when a single illegal person is caught in a bar in possession of a beer, we can't have a reasonable discussion about the law.
If policies and prevention techniques are not in alignment with community safety, then we are all negligent for not trying to improve the situation.
If enforcement policies are implemented without input from the community, and the community becomes less safe, then those who are making our community less safe are negligent and should be accountable.
If we're going to blame the bars for underage drinking on campus and focus all our energy blaming them, then I don't see the problem ever improving.
B's last post is incendiary, rather than helpful, especially his multiple use of the word “negligent."
Although many campus communities have been dealing with alcohol issues for decades, definitive solutions remain evasive. For a discussion of this read http://bobthompson.org/alcohol.htm (Note that the use of UI at this site refers to Iowa)
If a bar is "negligent" when when a single illegal person is caught in a bar in possession of a beer, we can't have a reasonable discussion about the law. Not having represented himself as a bar owner, and B should not be representing himself (via the use of “we”) as a participant. B needs to tell us what he means by “negligent.” If the bar owners are unhappy with some ordinance, they can state their case to council members, the mayor, or on this forum.
If enforcement policies are implemented without input from the community, and the community becomes less safe, then those who are making our community less safe are negligent and should be accountable. If the enforcement policies make the community less safe, whether or not implemented with community input, those responsible are accountable. But since there is no convincing research concerning the best actions, then “negligent” is inapplicable
Here is the section of the City of Champaign Municipal Code dealing with the sale of alcohol to minors. It seems to be straight forward and without any vague or ambiguous provisions.
The Illinois Liquor Control Commission has a program to provide training to managers and servers called BASSET. Municipalities may require managers and servers to complete BASSET training before they go to work in a licensed establishment. The commission has drafted and published model ordinances which a municipality may adopt. Adopting and enforcing such an ordinance might well be a starting point toward an enlightened approach to the problem that B posits.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
There is no state law that says a bar is breaking the law when a 21 year old patron hands a beer to a 19 year old. When the bar received a citation when 19 year old are in possession, they are not cited for breaking any state law. They are cited for City Ordinance 5-44 Section (b): No agent of the licensee shall knowingly, recklessly or negligently allow any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years to remain on the licensee's service premises while in the possession of or consuming alcoholic liquor in violation of this chapter. They can't prove that the bar knowingly allows someone to be in possession, so it has be "negligence" that they are referring to.
As "we" discuss these issues in my blog post about issues in "our" community, I again want to thank everyone for their contributions to the discussions. There have been more than 200 posts in multiple related threads, including responses from players directly involved.
They can't prove that the bar knowingly allows someone to be in possession, so it has be "negligence" that they are referring to.
They can't always prove that they didn't either. While underaged, I was served by many bartenders at many different establishments.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
They can't prove that the bar knowingly allows someone to be in possession, so it has be "negligence" that they are referring to.
B: Since you are neither a licensed attorney with some expertise in this area, nor a bar owner, any statement from you concerning (a) municaipal and state laws relating to the serving of alcohol, or (b) what can or cannot be established to the satisfaction of a court, remain somewhere between fiction and speculation
I again want to thank everyone for their contributions to the discussions.
B: You're welcome for giving us the opportunity to prevent your hopefully well-intended, but hoplessly misguided views on this issue from polluting local public policy
"They can't always prove that they didn't either."
Guilty until proven innocent.
A licensed and practicing attorney with expertise in this area provided a comprehensive analysis of the local liquor ordinace and has provided suggested changes to city code. I have reviewed this analysis and it will be in the hands of all city council members in the coming weeks. The suggestions are very specific and could be implemented quickly by the City Council if they agree that bars should operate under clear guidelines and should not be criminalized for the actions of their customers.
One of the great things about this discussion, is that it pointed out the city is not even enforcing state law when they are writing citations to bars for underage possession. They are enforcing vague LOCAL ordinances citing negligence.
The one great thing about local ordinance vs. state ordinace is that we have greater power to make improvements to our local laws.
God Bless America.
A licensed and practicing attorney with expertise in this area provided a comprehensive analysis of the local liquor ordinace and has provided suggested changes to city code. I have reviewed this analysis and it will be in the hands of all city council members in the coming weeks.
Like most of your statements, this will remain speculation until either made available for public view here or via other public media. There is no reason not make this analysis publicly available.
If indeed an attorney has prepared an analysis of suggested changes to relavent ordinances, which you have already reveiwed, then your moniker should most likely be "B is for Bar Owner"
God Bless America.
Many other nations are in more desperate need of a deity's blessing than the United States
I didn't pay for the licensed and practicing attorney to provide that analysis and proposed revision. If I did, I'd share it. Otherwise, it's not my call to share it on this blog. It doesn't matter, a whole lot more would have to happen for anything material to develop. The bars don't really even talk. While I find this topic interesting, I don't have much confidence in their abilty to get things accomplished in terms of political action. Any efforts being applied will need to be part of a larger organized effort.
The students, on the other hand, could turn campustown upside down with a facebook page almost overnight if they were pissed and felt victimized. As I've said before, I hope the city and police department know what they are doing. This becomes a whole other safety concern if campustown's version of the Green Party decides to react to non-constructive behavior with non-constructive behavior.
Hopefully, all the time and energy that is being spent working against each other will start being invested in working together. If this is a matter of community safety, then let's start making it about saftey and not about pointing fingers at the most convenient scapegoat.
Hopefully, all the time and energy that is being spent working against each other will start being invested in working together. If this is a matter of community safety, then let's start making it about saftey and not about pointing fingers at the most convenient scapegoat.
OK, lets us work together to provide that all retail liquor sales establishment be staffed by well trained employees educated in the nuances of the laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. Will you support the enactment of the model BASSET ordinance proposed by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission by the Champaign City Council?
The model ordinance is as follows:
(a) For licenses on or after (A date 90 days after passage of Ordinance) and all original or renewal
applications for a class (Chosen by the LLA) liquor licenses shall be accompanied with proof of
completion of a State certified Beverage Alcohol Sellers and Servers Education and Training
(BASSET) program for all persons who sell or serve alcoholic beverages, all management personnel
working on premises, and anyone whose job description entails the checking of identification for the
purchases of alcoholic beverages, pursuant to that license.
(b) A state certified BASSET training program shall be defined as a BASSET program licensed by the
State of Illinois Liquor Control Commission (ILCC) as required by 235 ILCS 5/3-12 (11.1) and 6-27
and Title 77 of Illinois Administrative Code, Chapter XVI, Section 3500. All licensed BASSET
providers shall be required to have on file all licenses and certificates to prove current qualifications and
provide a certificate of course completion and a card (a picture type ID is optional), to participants as
proof of completion.
(c) After ( 90 days after passage of Ordinance), any new owner, manager, employee, or agent requiring
BASSET training, shall within ninety(90) days from the beginning of their employment with that licensee,
complete an ILCC BASSET approved seller/server training
program and shall until completion of the BASSET program work under the supervision of a person
who has completed BASSET training.
(d) A photo copy of certificate of completion for all owners, managers, employees, or agents required
by this ordinance to have BASSET training shall be maintained, by the establishment, in manner that will
allow inspection, upon demand, by any designee of both the state or local liquor control authorities.
(e) Municipalities and establishments must honor all State of Illinois Liquor Control Commission
(ILCC) BASSET approved programs.
For the text of the ILCC recommended ordinances with explanations of the provisions click here
For a list of available BASSET training providers in Central Illinois click here
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
I didn't pay for the licensed and practicing attorney to provide that analysis and proposed revision. If I did, I'd share it. Otherwise, it's not my call to share it on this blog.
We will believe it when we see it. (What Keith just posted does not seem to be what B might be referring to)
The students, on the other hand, could turn campustown upside down with a facebook page almost overnight if they were pissed and felt victimized. As I've said before, I hope the city and police department know what they are doing. This becomes a whole other safety concern if campustown's version of the Green Party decides to react to non-constructive behavior with non-constructive behavior.
Paranoia has been added to B's speculation
Hopefully, all the time and energy that is being spent working against each other will start being invested in working together. If this is a matter of community safety, then let's start making it about saftey and not about pointing fingers at the most convenient scapegoat.
B seems to be the only one who believes that time has been spent working against each other.
Pssst. I have a secret. Don't tell anybody, ok?
The students don't care what you do. To them, you just are a minor annoyance. They'll drink if they want to and there is nothing you can do about it no matter how much handwringing you may do. Always have, always will.
The students don't care what you do. To them, you just are a minor annoyance. They'll drink if they want to and there is nothing you can do about it no matter how much handwringing you may do. Always have, always will.
And they will always buy, sell, share, and smoke pot! Should we not make Campus Town safer by not enforcing those prohibitions against the dealers in that substance?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
The UofI situation is delicate. Is it likely we're going to turn into Southern Illinois, well I hope not. Is it likely we're going to turn into Kent State 2009 after their block party got out of control? I sure as hell hope not. Am I concerned that we might? Hell yes.
Why would you want to risk stirring the pot?
Everyone needs to be working together and not working against each other.
The UofI situation is delicate. No one else shares this view
Why would you want to risk stirring the pot? There is notihing in the pot to stir
(e) Municipalities and establishments must honor all State of Illinois Liquor Control Commission
(ILCC) BASSET approved programs.
Nothing vague about this.
B, will you or will you not support requiring BASSET training for employees of licensees?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"B, will you or will you not support requiring BASSET training for employees of licensees?"
No. Put the basic safety training online, keep it simple and straightforward, and require that all employees complete the training before they start working instead giving them 90 days as BASSET proposes. Dump all the stupid adminstrative BS from the idea. 90 days, seriously? We have local TIPS and BEST training and do not need BASSET. Seriously, the Melenium was like ten years ago. Put it online and provide access to safety training instead of controlling access to safety training. Silly bureaucrats.
I highly doubt the City of Champaign would allow Springfield bureaucrats to operate any program they desire without approval of local policy makers. I think the City Council would appreciate approving what mandates they decide to impose on local businesses. Section (e) is simply nuts:
(e) Municipalities and establishments must honor all State of Illinois Liquor Control Commission
(ILCC) BASSET approved programs.
Put the basic safety training online, keep it simple and straightforward,
What format and pedagogical style would you suggest ?
Dump all the stupid adminstrative BS from the idea.
Please explain to us what you consider "stupid administrative BS."
Seriously, the Melenium was like ten years ago.'
Your train of thought has beocme obtuse. Please clarify and explain to us what "the Melemnium" is
Thank You.
Here is the ILCC explanation of paragraph(e):
Paragraph (e):
Every BASSET or any type of seller/server training programs must be approved by the ILCC and
comply with the standardized curriculum. If all communities subscribe to the state applied curriculum,
uniform and consistent training will produce more consistent results.
While not deathless prose paragraph (e) is scarcely "nuts"
We have established that B is not for requiring standardized training for managers, servers, and bouncers employed by campus bars.
Let us see if we can discover what B is for.
B, do you support raising the entry age to 21?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"We have established that B is not for requiring standardized training for managers, servers, and bouncers employed by campus bars."
Standardized training that employees don't have to take for 90 days? Standardized curriculums where we don't even know what's in the curriculum? No, I don't support that at all. The state of illinois should be looking to us for guidance, not the other way around.
"B, do you support raising the entry age to 21?"
If you could convince me it was safer, I would be all for it. Until then, no.
B made a typically cryptic statement: Seriously, the Melenium was like ten years ago.
Melenium sounds like an escapee from the Periodic Table
We have established that B is against:
(1)Requiring standardized training for managers, servers, and bouncers employed by campus bars.
(2) Raising the entry age to 21.
B, do you support enforcement of the Illinois Happy Hour law prohibiting a license holder from serving 2 or more drinks to any one patron at any one time?
Read the Illinois Happy Hour Law here.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Standardized training that employees don't have to take for 90 days? Standardized curriculums where we don't even know what's in the curriculum? No, I don't support that at all. The state of illinois should be looking to us for guidance, not the other way around.
Who is "us" ?
So what kind of guidance would you offer concerning this training ?
A previous poster also asked you "What format and pedagogical style would you suggest ? "
Keith, do you even know what's in the training?
What is the purpose of the training, other than "standardizing" content? What is the end goal?
Is our situation (as in "our" community) unique on campus and is behavior at campus bars standard at campus vs. non-campus bars?
Does anyone honestly think the alcohol-related problems on campus are a result of undertrained servers?
Would anything improve if there was a new BASSET program added on top of the current TIPS and BEST training currently provided the CPD?
Is the BASSET program truly about education or is it about fees and job security? If it were about education, why wouldn't they put it online, make it free, and promote it to more people than just bar employees?
What would be the amount of fees the state charges for this training that is certain to involve repetitive and consistent (standardized) content, yet they can't figure out they can use a video recorder and put it online?
What would be the additional administrative burden of the City of Champaign, not to mention the bars, in collecting and organizing all the paperwork necessary for license renewal? Again, does this do anything to make our community safer? Is this going to be looked at as a revenue opportunity for the city, or are they truly concerned about campustown safety? Are we adding additional burden to the city staff to administer this process with little no benefit to the community?
"We" don't need to outsource "our" community challenges to Springfield bureaucrats when they provide little to no value.
Keep in mind, these are the same people (ILCC) who thought a bar was negligent when 1 single person was in the bar in possession.
I have a much better idea: let's get the local stakeholders in the community to discuss the best way to address campustown safety concerns and not outsource it to somebody from outside our community who judges progress based on the number of citations.
"We" don't need to outsource "our" community challenges to Springfield bureaucrats when they provide little to no value.
BASSETT training is not provided by the ILCC. It is provided by businesses and institutions licensed as Bassett providers. Licensees pay a license fee of $250.00 per year.
The ILCC regulations covering the BASSETT program are here
Let us look at the local institutions and businesses currently licensed by the ILCC to provide Bassett training:
C-U Public Health District
Colonial Pantry
U of I Department of Food Services
Drury Inn
Eric Meyer - Illinois Licensed Beverage Association
Orange and Blue Distributors
Obviously these entities are not "Springfield Bureaucrats". They are entities and in one case an individual who are licensed to provide BASSETT training.
Fees for the training, if any, are those charged by the BASSETT providers, not the ILCC. Contact the local providers to determine what fees they charge.
What is included in the BASSETT approve curricula? For a easily understood answer to that question
visit the ILCC website here.
BASSETT Training and Certification is available on - line at a cost of $24.00. Just Click Here
Now, to the question at hand. B do you or do you not support enforcement of the Illinois Happy Hour Law?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
If a good training program is accessible online and can be accessed for less than $10 per employee (it currently is), and only takes a few hours, then I think the online training is a great idea and should be encouraged to be taken before an employee starts work (not 90 days). If certification is administered locally, and the local policy makers want it, then I certainly would not oppose it if they keep it simple and affordable.
Under no circumstances should a vague ordinance like this be allowed to pass:
(e) Municipalities and establishments must honor all State of Illinois Liquor Control Commission
(ILCC) BASSET approved programs.
Yes, I am certainly in favor of consistent enforcement of laws. I don't think we should be shutting down businesses because a customer sneaks in a ping pong ball. I don't think we should be shutting down businesses because some group publishes your bar as the hub for a bar scramble. I don't think a bar should be shut down if someone is playing trivia in your bar. I don't think we should be shutting down a bar because they follow all the laws and a 21 year old provides beer illegally to a minor. I don't think a bar should be called negligent because a 21 year old provides beer illegally to a minor.
The puntitive actions of the mayor are excessive, in some cases inventive, and do nothing to improve safety on campus.
Keith, do you even know what's in the training? Yes he does
What is the purpose of the training, other than "standardizing" content? To ensure compliance with state law
Is our situation (as in "our" community) unique on campus and is behavior at campus bars standard at campus vs. non-campus bars? What is your opinion on this
Does anyone honestly think the alcohol-related problems on campus are a result of undertrained servers? Yes
Would anything improve if there was a new BASSET program added on top of the current TIPS and BEST training currently provided the CPD? After you have reviewed all thses programs, please tell us your opinion
Is the BASSET program truly about education or is it about fees and job security? If it were about education, why wouldn't they put it online, make it free, and promote it to more people than just bar employees? Keith has addresed this
What would be the amount of fees the state charges for this training that is certain to involve repetitive and consistent (standardized) content, yet they can't figure out they can use a video recorder and put it online? Minimal
What would be the additional administrative burden of the City of Champaign, not to mention the bars, in collecting and organizing all the paperwork necessary for license renewal? None by the city, very, very minimal for the bars
Again, does this do anything to make our community safer? Yes
Is this going to be looked at as a revenue opportunity for the city, or are they truly concerned about campustown safety? No
Are we adding additional burden to the city staff to administer this process with little no benefit to the community? No
Confirmed again: the B (in the otherwise nameless B) is for Bozo
The puntitive actions of the mayor are excessive, in some cases inventive, and do nothing to improve safety on campus.
Please describe the mayor's actions you consider excessive, and why you consider them so.
If the the mayor's actions are inventive, the mayor should be praised. Maybe, contrary to B's earilier complaint, the mayor gained insight with the passing of "the Melenium"
If you have followed the safety concerns within campus town in recent times you know they resulted from students being killed by MTD buses not the continuing saga of excessive alcohol consumption topics pushed by the author of this post..
BASSET is a set of standards which courses need to fulfill in order to be BASSET approved/certified. It is not a course in and of itself. TIPS training is a BASSET approved course.
BASSET is a set of standards which courses need to fulfill in order to be BASSET approved/certified. It is not a course in and of itself. TIPS training is a BASSET approved course.
Something B should have researched before posting much of what he has posted in this thread
Michael Fuerst
All this talk about BASSET and the bars aren't even opposed to it. In fact, you have a local campustown bar owner who is certified BASSET trainer. At the end of the day, the server is going to serve a beer to someone unless they are obviously drunk and it is going to have no affect on individual behavior. At the end of the day, a whole lot of time and energy to accomplish little (if anything). It looks good though, it really does. If it's affordable, only takes a few hours, and can be accessed online, why would someone suggest that a new employee has 90 days? That's just silly.
The city of champaign is moving to shut down businesses for a ping pong ball and now because of facebook pages that are managed by a third party. The city of champaign is moving to shut down a business because partrons were playing trivia in a bar. The city of champaign is moving to shut down bars arguing that a bar is negligent because someone underage is in possession of alcohol at a bar where the bar entry age is 19 years old.
The city of champaign has moved to impose unreasonable penalties on a bar for the actions of people inside their bar breaking the law. This whole enforcement iniative speaks nothing to individual accountability.
It's silly that the bars don't work together and aren't forming PACs and recruiting/supporting candidates. Instead, they don't even talk to each other. In a lot of ways, they deserve to get bullied for being so disorganized. That can all change quickly, but I don't think it will. It's been fun blogging about this situation, but they are easy prey and will continue to get bullied as long as they allow it to continue.
While blogging is fun and entertaining, ideally people in our community would be involved in identifying and solving problems and not just reading about the Mayor/CPDs unilateral approach.
I'm sure we'll revisit this topic as Unofficial approaches. I hope if you're reading this, you will take a trip to campustown this spring and walk thought the bars during the day and look at the balconies. I think you'll agree pretty quickly that the bars are not the problem and that undertrained servers are not the problem. If you do make the trip, be careful to avoid projectiles from apartment balconies.
The city of champaign is moving to shut down businesses for a ping pong ball and now because of facebook pages that are managed by a third party. The city of champaign is moving to shut down a business because partrons were playing trivia in a bar.
Please provide details about the specific cases.
The city of champaign is moving to shut down bars arguing that a bar is negligent because someone underage is in possession of alcohol at a bar where the bar entry age is 19 years old.
Please reference the city's complaint that uses the word negligent
The city of champaign has moved to impose unreasonable penalties on a bar for the actions of people inside their bar breaking the law.
You and other bar owners are the only ones who feel this way.
illinipunditposter
"You and other bar owners are the only ones who feel this way."
The word "draconian" was not introduced by me or the bar owners in the previous/recent threads discussing this subject.
Even the Mayor used the term "severe" when referring to his penalties.
As you have revised your remarks to indicate that you have not opposed BASSETT TRAINING you may wish to revisit you comments with respect to happy hour practices in light of the Illinois Happy Hour Law which follows:
(235 ILCS 5/6‑28) (from Ch. 43, par. 144d)
Sec. 6‑28. Happy hours prohibited.
(a) All retail licensees shall maintain a schedule of the prices charged for all drinks of alcoholic liquor to be served and consumed on the licensed premises or in any room or part thereof. Whenever a hotel or multi‑use establishment which holds a valid retailer's license operates on its premises more than one establishment at which drinks of alcoholic liquor are sold at retail, the hotel or multi‑use establishment shall maintain at each such establishment a separate schedule of the prices charged for such drinks at that establishment.
(b) No retail licensee or employee or agent of such licensee shall:
(1) serve 2 or more drinks of alcoholic liquor at
one time to one person for consumption by that one person, except conducting product sampling pursuant to Section 6‑31 or selling or delivering wine by the bottle or carafe;
(2) sell, offer to sell or serve to any person an
unlimited number of drinks of alcoholic liquor during any set period of time for a fixed price, except at private functions not open to the general public;
(3) sell, offer to sell or serve any drink of
alcoholic liquor to any person on any one date at a reduced price other than that charged other purchasers of drinks on that day where such reduced price is a promotion to encourage consumption of alcoholic liquor, except as authorized in paragraph (7) of subsection (c);
(4) increase the volume of alcoholic liquor
contained in a drink, or the size of a drink of alcoholic liquor, without increasing proportionately the price regularly charged for the drink on that day;
(5) encourage or permit, on the licensed premises,
any game or contest which involves drinking alcoholic liquor or the awarding of drinks of alcoholic liquor as prizes for such game or contest on the licensed premises; or
(6) advertise or promote in any way, whether on or
off the licensed premises, any of the practices prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (5).
(c) Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to prohibit a licensee from:
(1) offering free food or entertainment at any time;
(2) including drinks of alcoholic liquor as part of
a meal package;
(3) including drinks of alcoholic liquor as part of
a hotel package;
(4) negotiating drinks of alcoholic liquor as part
of a contract between a hotel or multi‑use establishment and another group for the holding of any function, meeting, convention or trade show;
(5) providing room service to persons renting rooms
at a hotel;
(6) selling pitchers (or the equivalent, including
but not limited to buckets), carafes, or bottles of alcoholic liquor which are customarily sold in such manner, or selling bottles of spirits, and delivered to 2 or more persons at one time; or
(7) increasing prices of drinks of alcoholic liquor
in lieu of, in whole or in part, a cover charge to offset the cost of special entertainment not regularly scheduled.
(d) A violation of this Act shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the retailer's license as provided by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 94‑1112, eff. 2‑27‑07.)
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Even the Mayor used the term "severe" when referring to his penalties.
Yawn !! The mayor issued "severe" penalties because the violations were severe
"As you have revised your remarks to indicate that you have not opposed BASSETT TRAINING"
I have not revised my position on the BASSET ordinance. I am opposed to the BASSET ordinance. I could not support a candidate who supported the ordinance. I am for simple, affordable, and easily-accessible common sense alcohol safety training and my feelings on this have been consistent.
Common sense alcohol and drug training should not just be limited to bar servers to be taken within 90 day of employment. I would encourage it for:
The information a bartender learns in TIPS training is not going to change anything. If someone asks for a drink, they are going to get a drink unless they are obviously drunk. The information in TIPS would best benefit the individuals who are drinking and we should be looking at creative ways to empower indivuals with this information as early as possible.
Bartender training is not going to make your 17 year old daughter any safer when her and her friends decide to sneak over to campus and try some of Sigma Nu's famous Jungle Juice. How is she supposed to know that Jungle Juice has about 15-20% alcohol and that drinking 3 12oz cups is about the same as drinking 12-15 Miller Lites. She only had three and couldn't even taste the alcohol. It's not much better when she turns 18 and hits the apartment parties on campus as a student.
At TIPS training, you learn great information that everyone should know. Stuff like this. Rather than shutting business down and suggesting laws that don't improve safety, maybe we should be thinking of ways to actually make our community safer.
Rather than shutting business down and suggesting laws that don't improve safety, maybe we should be thinking of ways to actually make our community safer.
B: You are addressing an issue (alcohol) which the world has been dealing with for thousands of years. In all your posts, you have offered no expertise, and no new ideas.
"In all your posts, you have offered no expertise, and no new ideas."
I'm glad you brought this up. I believe a solution exists by borrowing some ideas from Choose Responsibility that combines education, certification, and provisional licensing for 18-20 year olds to gain entry to the bars. I think we could make a positive difference without any law changes or additional regulation. If people think educating servers is such a great idea, how about educating individuals and promoting individual responsibility?
Choose Responsibility supports a series of changes to treat 18, 19, and 20 year-olds as the young adults the law otherwise says they are. Current drinking laws infantilize young adults. We should not be surprised, then, by infantile behavior from otherwise responsible adults.
We support a series of changes that will allow 18-20 year-old adults to purchase, possess and consume alcoholic beverages.
We propose a multi-faceted approach that combines education, certification, and provisional licensing for 18-20 year-old high school graduates who choose to consume alcohol.
We envision an overarching program that combines appropriate incentive and reward for responsible, lawful behavior by adolescents, and punitive measures for illegal, irresponsible behavior.
Keith,
How do you feel about encouraging individuals < 21 years of age to receive common sense alcohol and drug training, similar in many ways to what bar servers learn in TIPS training?
Hey B: Stop throwing the Bull. Several days ago your wouldn't tell us when asked by two different persons what should be in training. Now you (a) find this training from an organization probably furtively founded by a bunch of bar owners, and (b) pompously claim that their training is "similar in many ways to what bar servers lean in TIPS training"
What is in TIPS training that is similar to this ?
B is for Business continues to spew inconsistent nonsense. His 26December 4:42pm post mocked TIPS training:
Then less than two hours later in his 6:19pm post he "finds" new training and today (Dec 27), concerning his new discovery, asks us
He does not know whether he is coming or going.
illinipunditposter
"Choose Responsibility": total astroturf from the alcohol industry. With B is for Beer Belch playing along. "Oh, look at this site I just happened to happen across."
Since the very beginning I've felt we should be addressing individual behavior and personal responsibility. Notice the quote used in an attempt to discredit me states exactly what I mean: At TIPS training, you learn great information that EVERYONE should know. My feelings on this have been consistent since I've started blogging this subject more than two weeks ago.
I guess we can't discuss ideas that don't bash businesses. Choose Responsibility must be a good idea if people are attacking the motive and not debating the idea. Let's see if the conversation starts to focus on me or the issues/ideas.
Since the very beginning I've felt we should be addressing individual behavior and personal responsibility.
You need to review your own posts to confirm the inaccuracy of this assertion
At TIPS training, you learn great information that EVERYONE should know.
Hmmmm..... Come on !! You are full ot it. Give some examples of information at TIPS training that Keith or illinipunditposter, OilMan or PropertRights miosth want to know
Notice the quote used in an attempt to discredit me states exactly what I mean: At TIPS training, you learn great information that EVERYONE should know.
We are not Bozos. As noted by a recent post, you have already panned TIPS training more than once
I guess we can't discuss ideas that don't bash businesses.
A very false assertion
Let's see if the conversation starts to focus on me or the issues/ideas.
Discussions here will focus on sound arguments from persons without an obvious hidden agenda.
Individual accountabilty and personal responsibility. An obvious
hiddenagenda.Any discussion about individual accountability and personal responsibility must be derailed with personal attacks, name calling, and accusations of evil agendas. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Why would anyone be opposed to encouraging common sense alcohol and drug training to individuals < 21 years of age?
Any discussion about individual accountability and personal responsibility must be derailed with personal attacks, name calling, and accusations of evil agendas. I wouldn't expect anything less.
How can an attack be personal when you are for all practical purposes anonymous, and seem to take pride in you anonymity? Hidden agendas, although typically promoting self-interest, are not inherently "evil."
Why would anyone be opposed to encouraging common sense alcohol and drug training to individuals < 21 years of age?
Hey B: You are the only one who suggested anyone opposes this. But you just huffing and puffing, and can't be very serious if you are using this forum as you your platform.
I like the tee shirt. I think every 20 year old US soldier and Marine who has 2 years of service and has combat training should walk together into a campustown bar and order a drink. If they aren't served they should demonstrate to the servers, owners, police who show up, and the rest of you nannys why the 21 year old age is a joke by promptly taking sufficient control as they have been trained to do, even if there is widespread collateral damage. Then they should blow up the bars and go have a drink in a state that has some common sense.
Or raise the enlistment age to a minimum 21 if 18, 19, and 20 year olds don't have enough sense to know what they are doing.
Keith,
How do you feel about encouraging individuals < 21 years of age to receive common sense alcohol and drug training, similar in many ways to what bar servers learn in TIPS training?
I think that it is a FINE idea. We need to make it part of the public school curriculum commencing in middle school. We could furnish vouchers so that parochial and private school students could attend. Of course then we would have to provide parents with a sincere religious objection to the use of alcohol in any form to hold their children out just as we do when parents have a sincere religious aversion to sex.
Classes could be taught in the school cafeteria integrated into the student lunch program. We could start with 3.2 Beer in the 7th grade then gradually increase the potency of the beverage until the students reached Everclear at the end of their senior year. A unit on how to drive drunk could be integrated into existing Driver's Education programs so that successful student could be issued a license to drink endorsement on their newly minted Driver's License. Spring Proms could then be followed by Senior Pub Crawls.
Think of the opportunities for IHSA. Interscholastic competition in Beer Pong with conference champions advancing to the Sweet Sixteen State Beer Pong Championships held each March on Green Street during Spring Break.
Now that is RESPONSIBLITY with a Capitol R - or is it a Capital $?.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Here is an interesting piece on 60 minutes. Clearly, Choose Responsibility is "total astroturf for the alcohol industry". : )
Boulder Police Chief: "These are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give them a ticket for having a beer in their hand."
"Classes could be taught in the school cafeteria integrated into the student lunch program. We could start with 3.2 Beer in the 7th grade then gradually increase the potency of the beverage until the students reached Everclear at the end of their senior year."
While Keith's thoughtful and rational contribution is interesting, check out the Gordy Foundation. (No relation to IP)
Programs
The Gordie Foundation offers several Programs that can be used independently or in conjunction with initiatives already in place on campuses or within a community. The Foundation staff can help advise what Program might work best for your event or campaign. Our Program packages are great tools for community leaders, administrators, educators and students alike.
If you have an hour and half, you can watch the movie HAZE for free. http://www.snagfilms.com/films/watch/haze/
There you go again B trying to change the subject when you have nothing useful to say. Fraternity hazing (an incident of which caused the creation of the GORDIE Foundation) involving alcohol is very periperal to the the alleged motivation of the this thread "Campustown Safety Summit"
- A kid chugs hard alcohol
- He is completely incapacitated
- His friends, who can see Gordie was completely incapacitated with his eyes rolling back in his head, did not call for help.
- He was clearly in trouble
- The President of the fraternity asked brothers to check his pulse.
- Still nobody calls for help, probably because they are worried they are going to get in trouble.
Preventable. Plenty of lessons to be learned. Drinking way too much alcohol too quickly is a common safety concern on a campus. Educating individuals on the dangers of excessive alcohol, how to spot someone who is in trouble, and calling for help is common sense safety knowledge every adult should know. Mr. Larson provided an example where his trained staff immediately called for help when they identified someone who chugged a large quantity of hard alcohol. This type of reaction is less likely in an underground environment. At the very least, we can encourage individuals to understand common sense alcohol and drug dangers.
The big government types who hate profit can only blame businesses for the actions of individuals. The solution can only be more regulation and administration. The solution can only involve harassing businesses. If you suggest alternatives that focus on individual accountability and personal responsibility, even if your training/education concepts are more aggressive than what they prescribe, they cannot contribute to the conversation unless it conforms to their anti-business agenda.
You try to have reasonable discussions about the law, but the fringe left will argue that a bar is negligent when a single person is found illegally possessing alcohol and will then can only copy/paste the actual laws that do not support any of their arguments and where nobody is contesting the law. When you ask them for their opinion on an idea that doesn't include copy/pasting laws, that actually makes more agressive arguments for training/education, then all you can get is a sarcastic response because the proposed idea is not limited to blaming business.
We have a
conservativeRepublican mayor and a conservative city council in Champaign. It does not suprise me at all that the fringe left is so agressively against the idea of personal responsibility and individual accountability. It does not suprise me at all the fringe left is so supportive of the Champaign Mayor. It does not suprise me at all those who hate profit and cannot stand the idea of promoting personal responsibility can only attempt to derail the discussion with name calling and analyzing the "hidden" intent of those who think individual accountabilty and personal responsibility are good things.The best was the piggy-back post (15 posts) where the poster suggested that Joes Brewery should have been more conservative than the law and voluntarily shut down the bar scramble even though the city of champaign knew about the event and decided not to, where Mr. Larson was accused of "dilly-dallying" and "posturing".
The best part about the idea of Safety Summit is that we can keep the crazies out the room. We will not have to listen to the silly attempts to derail constructive conservation with name calling and accusations of hidden agendas.
To the reasonable people who are reading this blog: I hope we can work together to make our community safer and better educate the thousands of young adults in our community on the dangers of drugs and alcohol. I hope that businesses would support the idea of raising awareness and support the any incentive program associated with the initiative. I hope that individuals will make good decisions when someone's safety is compromised.
There you go again B trying to change the subject when you have nothing useful to say.
Whether the subject is responsibility for the illegal sale of alcohol; the predatory lending practices that fueled the bubble and bust in the home building and finance industries, or B's hypothetical 17 year old daughter's participation in a fraternity's orgy fueled by Sigma Nu Jungle Juice, he is quite consistent in seeking to shift responsibility and consequences away from the fat cats.
Witness his response to the hypothetical situation I posed where the bartender delivers a pitcher of beer and four glasses to the 21 year old sitting with three other but underaged patrons. To B the bartender is not responsible when the 21 year old shared the pitcher with his minor friends. Never mind that the bartender violated Illinois Statute and the local ordinance when he did so. To B only the underaged drinkers and their 21 year old companion are responsible.
Witness the repeated references to the "smuggled ping pong ball". Never mind that Illinois Statute and the local ordinance forbid a licensee from permitting, let alone promoting, the playing of drinking games; never mind that a server, bartender, or manager would have to be deaf and blind to miss a group setting up a table to play Beer Pong; B would permit the campus bar operator to avoid responsibility for his illegal act.
You may recall Sgt. Shultz, the camp guard in Hogan's Heroes whose mantra "I know Nuffink! Nuffink!" was his defense to not having seen anything that the prisoners were up to. B would have us institutionalize the Sgt. Shultz defense for local bar owners.
My daughters grew up in Champaign when the drinking age was 18. They and their high school friends were admitted to and served alcohol in campus bars at 14, 15, and 16 on a regular basis. Then, as now, the campus bar owners were bleating that it is not their fault; that they were not responsible when 15 year olds got drunk and worse in their establishments. The only thing that has changed is the calendar. No matter what the drinking age may be so long as there is money to be made by serving underage minors the only responsibility that campus bar owners will recognize is to their bank accounts.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"To B the bartender is not responsible when the 21 year old shared the pitcher with his minor friends. Never mind that the bartender violated Illinois Statute and the local ordinance when he did so. To B only the underaged drinkers and their 21 year old companion are responsible."
Bars are not serving minors. Every once in while, you will hear about a bar failing a check, but they generally pass these inspections. The bars are not accused of violating that statute. You are creatively accusing them of a law they are not violating or accused of violating. Go ahead, just for old times sake, copy and paste a law that nobody is accussed of violating and nobody is contesting.
Must. Blame. Profit. Makers.
Keith, I noticed you supplemented your post from the 27th (On December 28th, 2009 at 02:51 AM, Keith_Hays said:) after the fact. I find it creative and entertaining and wanted to point it out to everyone because it is legitimately funny and I didn't want anyone to miss it. I proposed similar education/training for individuals to what you are proposing for servers (that they already take). My idea essentially takes your idea and would DRAMATICALLY INCREASE the number of people receiving this type of training...the same training you think all servers should take within 90 days of the start of their employment. I essentially take your idea and suggest the servers should be trained before they start serving alcohol.
If safety was your concern, I figured you'd welcome this idea with open arms. I was even suprised by your mocking of the idea that we should educate MORE people on the dangers of alcohol, even more so than what you prescribed. I guess I should not have been suprised. Rather than appreciating the benefits of common sense alcohol training, Keith must mock the idea because it does not support the anti-capitalist doctrine.
What I propose is borrowing some ideas from Choose Responsibility and as I've said all along, that no laws change, and create a system designed within our current set of laws that provides an incentive for young adults to benefit from common sense drug and alcohol training.
Classes could be taught in the school cafeteria integrated into the student lunch program. We could start with 3.2 Beer in the 7th grade then gradually increase the potency of the beverage until the students reached Everclear at the end of their senior year. A unit on how to drive drunk could be integrated into existing Driver's Education programs so that successful student could be issued a license to drink endorsement on their newly minted Driver's License. Spring Proms could then be followed by Senior Pub Crawls.
Think of the opportunities for IHSA. Interscholastic competition in Beer Pong with conference champions advancing to the Sweet Sixteen State Beer Pong Championships held each March on Green Street during Spring Break.
Now that is RESPONSIBLITY with a Capitol R - or is it a Capital $?.
Bars are not serving minors.
Oh, brother.
Someday I think you're going to write about a subject you actually know something about. But that day is not today.
Common sense education as to the effects of drugs and alcohol is already part of the health curricula and especially included in driver's education classes in most public schools. While I made my argument against your proposal to train teenagers in how to drink alcohol in a satiric mode, the proposals advanced by Choose Responsibility amount to just such a program, especially when coupled with their advocacy of a reduced drinking age. I mock the idea because it is already being done and, so long as purveyors of the substance are willing to violate the law or to permit others to violate the law in pursuit of profit, will be totally ineffective in addressing minors' consumption of alcohol.
You accuse me of supporting "the anti-capitalist doctrine". Is it anti-capitalist to insist that capitalists licensed by the State to deal in alcoholic beverages comply strictly with State and local law? Is it anti-capitalist to prohibit the use, possession, manufacture, and sale of cannabis, cocaine, and narcotics? There is little moral or legal difference between your campus bar owners and the street dealer in crack. Both rely on their parasitic exploitation of their customers - its just that the crack dealers practice a purer form of capitalism.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"Someday I think you're going to write about a subject you actually know something about."
Actually, I have a ton of experience with this subject (actually, too much experience) and have even been through TIPS training.
"While I made my argument against your proposal to train teenagers in how to drink alcohol"
Ahhhhhhhh, I see. We can't educate those under 21 about drugs and alcohol because we're "training" them how to drink. Maybe if we don't talk about it and write bars tickets when a minor is in possession of alcohol, maybe the problem will go away. Or better yet, since it is already provided in most public schools (I remember no such training), we don't need to discuss ways to improve the situation and better educate invidivuals...except when it is bar servers who are already provided this training.
Ahhhhhhhh, I see. We can't educate those under 21 about drugs and alcohol because we're "training" them how to drink. Maybe if we don't talk about it and write bars tickets when a minor is in possession of alcohol, maybe the problem will go away.
Isn't this the same approach conseratives take to sex education? Shouldn't educating on the proper use of alcohol be the responsibility of their parents just like you want with sex education?
Actually, I have a ton of experience with this subject (actually, too much experience).
I think multiple posters here have shown otherwise.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
"There is little moral or legal difference between your campus bar owners and the street dealer in crack."
It is illegal for a street dealer to deal crack. It is legal for a bar to sell alcohol to a 21 year old. It is legal for a 19 year old to enter a bar on campus.
Actually, I have a ton of experience with this subject (actually, too much experience) and have even been through TIPS training.
Careful, B. You are blowing your cover!
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
It is illegal for a bar owner to serve alcohol to a minor or to permit a minor to consume alcohol on the licensed premises.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"Isn't this the same approach conseratives take to sex education? Shouldn't educating on the proper use of alcohol be the responsibility of their parents just like you want with sex education?"
I received highly detailed sex
trainingeducation in my health class. I received no such training about drugs and alcohol. Then again, maybe Keith has a point about educating promoting behavior. I remember that the sex education class was really grody to the max. Then I quickly became intrigued....Preventable. Plenty of lessons to be learned.
Thie primary problem here was fraternity hazing. The U of I seems to have areasonable handle on fraternity hazing.
The big government types who hate profit can only blame businesses for the actions of individuals. .... [and rest of paragraph]
Very misguided and inaccurate generalizations (as is typical of B) which cannot be substantiated.
It does not surprise me at all that the fringe left is so aggressively against the idea of personal responsibility and individual accountability.
B, who is essentially anonymous, is having a conversion with Keith Hays and several other anonymous posters. Keith is admittedly somewhat left of center, but the other posters have given no such indications. Your references to the fringe left is, like much of what you say, incorrect..
The best part about the idea of Safety Summit is that we can keep the crazies out the room.
How would "crazies" be designated? B would not be able to attend.
The best was the piggy-back post (15 posts) where the poster suggested that Joe's Brewery should have been more conservative than the law and voluntarily shut down the bar scramble even though the city of Champaign knew about the event and decided not to, where Mr. Larson was accused of "dilly-dallying" and "posturing".
Keith addressed this above. If Mr Larson was concerned about encouraging personal responsibility and apublic safety, he would not have allowed the bar scramble to pass through Joe's.
To the reasonable people who are reading this blog: I hope we can work together to make our community safer.....
If you were interested in making the community safer you should be talking to the mayor, council members, bar owner, student groups and others with similar ideas to yours--rather than waste time blabbering with Mr Hays and other anonymous persons on a thread no one else is reading
Classes could be taught in the school cafeteria integrated into the student lunch program.
Add local and state education officials to those you should be talking with.
Actually, I have a ton of experience with this subject (actually, too much experience) and have even been through TIPS training.
This is more baloney fform B. If he actually have more experience on this subject and TIPS training, he would have told us and documented this at the beginning of the thread, instead of complaining about questions about your experience and expertise.
"It is illegal for a bar owner to serve alcohol to a minor or to permit a minor to consume alcohol on the licensed premises."
It is illegal for a bar owner to serve alcohol to a minor. It is only illegal for the bar to permit a minor to consume alcohol on the licensed premises if they are reckless or negligent. Since you are the type to assume guilt before any facts are presented and will liken a bar owner to a crack dealer, we'll just assume they are automatically negligent if a single minor is found in possession at a bar. That is why the term "reckless" and "negligent" needs to be removed from local ordinance 5-44 and replaced with clear guidelines for bar owners to apply consistently and objectively.
Correction to last part of my previous post, December 28th, 2009 at 09:49 AM, Anonymous
Actually, I have a ton of experience with this subject (actually, too much experience) and have even been through TIPS training.
This is more baloney from B. If he actually have more experience on this subject and TIPS training, he would have told us and documented this at the beginning of the thread, instead of complaining about questions about his bias, experience and expertise.
This is really something else. I'm not even sure that I disagree with B on this issue, but he makes this grand tour of every argumentive fallacy in the course of a few posts. At the same time as taking time out to worship at his altar of business and hatred for the phantom left. Does anyone else see it as ironic that in an era will individeiuals have next to zero rights and corporations have unprecedented rights, that b is on this crudade to protect business rights and calls it "individual rights"? B is not a conservative. he is and will always be a corporate shill.
"Bars are not serving minors. "
Translation: "I don't know how those eighteen and a half minutes of the White House tapes got erased."
"If you were interested in making the community safer you should be talking to the mayor, council members, bar owner, student groups and others with similar ideas to yours--rather than waste time blabbering with Mr Hays and other anonymous persons on a thread no one else is reading"
I'm glad you brought this up. Since this summer, a few businesses have been meeting informally to discuss the idea of an incentive program to raise awareness on the dangers of drugs and alcohol in advance of Unofficial 2010. The idea has been developed enough where I think it should be seriously considered. It's really going to upset the fringe left who will hate the idea of anyone capitalizing on anything...
In fact, I think it's a such great idea that the City of Champaign, University of Illinios, Parkland, EDC, Chamber of Commerce, Champaign Dowtown Association, Campustown Business Group, and Urbana Business Association, and Parents could all appreciate and possibly support.
- No controversial changes to city ordinances
- Individuals are offered incentives by local businesses to take an online training course. Individuals get hundreds of dollars in coupons and get a ID card that can be leveraged for additional promotions and incentives on top of the coupons they initially receive.
- Nothing required from the Champaign City Council, but promoting it would be nice. Plus people might actually point to us as an example instead of us looking elsewhere for best practices.
- Nothing required from CPD, but helping with the training conent would be nice.
- Nothing required from groups like the Chamber, but they did an incredible job with Shop Now, Spend Now, Buy Local Campaign. Maybe they'll want to consider working together on a safety related cause that spurs economic activity.
- Businesses benefit from the thousands of new customers rotating through our community every four years and the ability to directly target them as potential customers.
- The content delivery mechanism has already been researched.
- Initial feedback from business has been overwhelmingly positive.
- Parents might appreciate being able to leverage this online training content and certification tool and create their own incentives.
- Student groups might appreciate being to leverage this online training content and certification tool and encourage their members to participate.
- High school students could piggy-back and could also participate in the program and access huge savings at local area retailers.
I think you're correct. Maybe now is the time to start talking to people about safety and doing somethign about it. : )
Since this summer, a few businesses have been meeting informally to discuss the idea of an incentive program to raise awareness on the dangers of drugs and alcohol in advance of Unofficial 2010.
Assuming your stories read like a soap opera, we always need to wait for the next installment--which of course destroys what limited credibility you have left. First an attorney has prepared a review of Champaign laws (December 21st, 2009 at 08:45 PM). Then suddenly you claim experience in alcohol local alcohol problems (December 28th, 2009 at 09:08 AM). Now busineses have been meeting secretly--after you have said several times that bar owners do not communicate with each other--although Mr. Larsen (if indeed it was Mr. Larsen) was "concerned" enough to make a post here.
If any businesses were holding meetings about Unofficial 2010, they would be happy to make such publicly known, rather than have this leaked by an anonymous poster B on an inconsequential blog. At the moment these meetings appear to be another perpetration of your imagination.
Verdict: B is for Bull
- The content delivery mechanism has already been researched.
- Initial feedback from business has been overwhelmingly positive.
Without details and references, this is more of B's fiction.
Also, what kind of incentives are suggested in these programs (if such programs have actually been proposed) ?
In fact, I think it's a such great idea ...
B's presenting a "great idea" in a squawk forum like this is more reason to be skeptical.
Heh. Do you think an idea like that is invented out of thin air? Business were not meeting "secretely". You make it sound like there is some underground effort going on. It's an idea. That's all. But a damn good idea.
"First an attorney has prepared a review of Champaign laws." A few council member have already received this information this past summer/fall and it will be in all their hands in the coming weeks.
"Then suddenly you claim experience in alcohol local alcohol problems." I have a lot of experience on the subject of underage drinking. I was very good at it, too.
"If any businesses were holding meetings about Unofficial 2010, they would be happy to make such publicly known, rather than have this leaked by an anonymous." I'd bet you're right, but it's just an idea that has been discussed in informal meetings. From what I gathered, the only real concern was addressing the safety and nuisance concerns with Unofficial and then this idea developed from those conversations.
This thread started with a call to have a Campustown Safety Summit. I think there are many good ideas that can be introduced and developed in such a meeting.
"Without details and references, this is more of B's fiction."
Go out and ask a retailer if they would support a community wide initiative to promote safety and to raise awareness about the dangers of drinking and driving and binge drinking, that requires nothing more from them other than to provide a coupon that will drive more customers into their store.
Rather than discuss the idea, the fringe left seems to be hell bent on trying to discredit me. If it makes them feel any better, they can just assume that it wasn't my idea.
"Corporate Shill"
"B is for Bull"
More great contributions to the discussion from the fringe left. All they can do is blame the profit makers for all their problems.
Rather than discuss the idea, the fringe left seems to be hell bent on trying to discredit me.
When one's opponent in a debate is drawing a careful bead on his own big toe, it is prudent not to disturb his aim.
Fire away, B.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Do you think an idea like that is invented out of thin air?
Coming from you, yes.
I think there are many good ideas that can be introduced and developed in such a meeting.
If B was serious and his ideas had merit, he would not waste time and energy discussing them here
Rather than discuss the idea, the fringe left seems to be hell bent on trying to discredit me.
B is anonymous. There is nothing to discredit.
More great contributions to the discussion from the fringe left. All they can do is blame the profit makers for all their problems.
Those who discredit B are actually in the center and right who consider his unsubstantiated claims unhelpful and counterproductive. Every time B cries "fringe left" readers of this blog think of him as a bigger bozo.
Unsurprisingly, none of the known right of center posters here have enthusiastically or even lukewarmly supported B's nonsense and fiction in this thread
"If you were serious and your ideas had merit, you would not waste time and energy discussing them here"
If I weren't serious and my ideas didn't have merit, why would they scroll through 120+ posts and waste time and energy responding on a blog that has thousands of readers?
The idea must be good. They can't even criticize the idea and must keep the focus on me and suggest this idea is somehow make believe. They certainly don't seem to have any ideas of their own.
People must really, really hate personal responsibility and individual accountability.
Ideas like the one I shared are nothing new and are actually quite straightforward. I received an email from someone who referred me to Pink Perks from the Mills Breast Institute. Local businesses providing an incentive for women to receive an annual mammogram. What a great idea! I bet it started as an idea and then turned into something very cool with more than 24 pink perk business partners throughout the community.
People must really, really hate personal responsibility and individual accountability.
What a curious Orwellian twist. People who advocate strict compliance with the statutes and ordinances governing the possession, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages are said to "hate personal responsibility and individual accountability". As far as I can tell by the writings posted on this thread the only person arguing against holding anyone personally responsible and accountable is B.
Let me be clear about it. I advocate that the authorities hold patrons, servers, bartenders, managers, and owners personally responsible and accountable for their violations under the law. I advocate that instead of issuing tickets under local ordinances that offenders be placed under arrest for their violations of State statute, delivered to the County Jail and held to bond. I advocate that violation of the Illinois Liquor Laws should result in the prompt suspension or revocation of the local and state licenses of the violator.
Minors found in possession of or consuming alcoholic beverages should be as vigorously prosecuted as the persons or entities who sold, delivered, or gave the same to them.
How does that make me a person who hates personal responsibility and individual accountability?
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
On December 28th, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Do you think an idea like that is invented out of thin air?
Coming from you, yes.
I'm actually very flattered by this. To think that I could come up with an idea like that all by myself on-the-fly while blogging is giving me way too much credit.
The idea of businesses meeting to informally discuss community issues is certainly not wrong and should not be charecterized as "secretive" or wrong in any way. I've been involved in countless informal discussions about community issues with all types. Too many of them are bitch sessions, but many ideas are constructive. One idea (the idea I shared) I thought was very good and worthy of further discussion and consideration.
Positive and costructive ideas that would bring people together to address a serious community safety concern. And still people must mock the notion because it is not bashing business.
If I weren't serious and my ideas didn't have merit, why would they scroll through 120+ posts and waste time and energy responding on a blog that has thousands of readers?
For the same reason everyone slows down to look at a car accident. Reading through your inconsistencies is like coming across a 5-car pileup on the Tri-State, and every time you slightly divert the subject or claim the left is out to get you, it's like another car being added to the mix.
Also, "thousands" might be a bit much.
The idea must be good. They can't even criticize the idea and must keep the focus on me and suggest this idea is somehow make believe. They certainly don't seem to have any ideas of their own.
The focus has been on how your idea is a failure and it has been roundly criticized. I'm sorry you're unwilling to see that and assume that everything is about you personally. Also, if the idea was any good, why aren't we seeing any support from anyone else for it? Anonymous above noted:
Unsurprisingly, none of the known right of center posters here have enthusiastically or even lukewarmly supported B's nonsense and fiction in this thread
That should tell you just how good this idea of yours is. But go ahead and blame the liberals for your inability to make a coherent argument.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
If I weren't serious and my ideas didn't have merit, why would they scroll through 120+ posts and waste time and energy responding on a blog that has thousands of readers?
B is involved in a name calling contest with Keith and an one or more anonymous posters. Almost all readers of this forum have given up on this thread 70 posts ago.
The idea must be good.
Which idea is B referring to ?
I received an email from someone who referred ....
Another misuse by B of anecdote.
Local businesses providing an incentive for women to receive an annual mammogram.
B is not keeping up. Recent studies cast doubt on how often mammograms shoud be used. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html
"Also, if the idea was any good, why aren't we seeing any support from anyone else for it?"
So you don't think the idea is any good? Is it the idea of providing training and education to inviduals? Do you not think it's feasible to implement? Do you not think businesses would support such an idea?
"Also, "thousands" might be a bit much." Daily readership of 2000-5000 (according to an old advertising info link) plus information posted on here sometimes gets picked up by and referenced by the news.
"I advocate that instead of issuing tickets under local ordinances that offenders be placed under arrest for their violations of State statute, delivered to the County Jail and held to bond. I advocate that violation of the Illinois Liquor Laws should result in the prompt suspension or revocation of the local and state licenses of the violator."
Drink a beer, go to jail. Very reasonable. I'm not suprised you mock the idea of providing better safety education to individuals.
So you don't think the idea is any good? Which idea does B believe believe was declared not any good?
Is it the idea of providing training and education to individuals? So far B is the only one to have complained about training
Do you not think it's feasible to implement? Training is already required of those serving alcohol
Do you not think businesses would support such an idea? If business supported whatever idea B is refering to, it would have been already implemented
Daily readership of 2000-5000 (according to an old advertising info link) plus information posted on here sometimes gets picked up by and referenced by the news. Even if this is unique individuals, rather than hits on the site, this thread has deteriorated such that majority of readers readers of this thread are you, Keith, and a very small number of anonymous posters
Drink a beer, go to jail. Very reasonable. I'm not surprised you mock the idea of providing better safety education to individuals.
It seems B finally made a worthy point. (Praise the Diety !!) Keith's suggestion seems a bit unreasonable.
"Even if this is unique individuals, rather than hits on the site, this thread has deteriorated such that majority of readers readers of this thread are you, Keith, and a very small number of anonymous posters"
There have been three blog threads related to campustown/drinking/bars with 314 total posts. If this thread has deteriorated so much and so few people are reading, then what are you still doing here and why bother to post? How would you know how many people are reading this thread?
"If business supported whatever idea B is refering to, it would have been already implemented"
Can't discuss the idea...and by this back assward logic, all ideas that have not been implemented by now are not viable. Kieth wants to send people to jail for having a beer and this poster claims that all good ideas have already been implemented. That is a world I do not want to live in.
Silly liberals, you make it so easy for B to refute your arguments. Try as you may to hijack the thread with inane commentary and not so original insults directed at his moniker, you just can't win. Here's an idea: interpret the facts into a logical opinion and share it with us. Or you can just keep on saying B is wrong until he proves he's right with a link to a verifiable fact.
Bill
PS. B is for Beer Belch is actually pretty funny
If this thread has deteriorated so much and so few people are reading, then what are you still doing here and why bother to post?
Probably for the same reason B continues to post to this now worthless thread. To which anonymous poster is pseudonymed B directing this question to?
Kieth wants to send people to jail for having a beer and this poster claims that all good ideas have already been implemented.
The only person who has less ability to really affect the the issues of this thread than Keith and "this poster" is B
That is a world I do not want to live in.
IP is certainly a strange world (at least this thread). If B does not want to live here, he can leave whenever he wants.
How would you know how many people are reading this thread?
Probably the same way B thinks anyone of substance is reading this thread.
You ask a liberal simple and straightforward questions about the incentive idea shared at 10:19 and they cannot contribute unless they are providing a creative dig about car pile ups and inconsistencies they can't cite. When you ask them a simple question that is actually related to the topic (and not analysis of the commentary), they cannot contibute. All you are left with is the same anon posters who have been trying to derail the discussion for two weeks. They tried starting their own thread, but of course, they're back here because this is where the action is.
This thread has deteriorated because after 300+ posts discussing this general topic over two weeks, a conservative is actually discussing an idea that might raise awareness on a major safety issue in our community and the liberals have nothing to counter except for creative digs targeted at my moniker. The suggestion I shared doesn't involve new taxes. It doesn't involve changes to any laws. It doesn't involve more taxpayer funded paper pushing. It doesn't promote that people go to jail (best idea ever) for having a beer.
So we'll try this again. Here's the jist:
- No controversial changes to city ordinances
- Individuals are offered incentives by local businesses to take an online training course. Individuals get hundreds of dollars in coupons and get a ID card that can be leveraged for additional promotions and incentives on top of the coupons they initially receive.
- Within that online training, a positive messages about our community would be incorporated promoting respect for the community
- Nothing required from the Champaign City Council, but promoting it would be nice. Other cities might actually point to us as an example instead of us looking to them for best practices.
- Nothing required from CPD, but helping with the training conent would be nice.
- Nothing required from groups like the Chamber, but they did an incredible job with Shop Now, Spend Now, Buy Local Campaign. Maybe they'll want to consider working together on a safety related cause that spurs economic activity.
- Businesses benefit from the thousands of new customers rotating through our community every four years and the ability to directly target them as potential customers.
- The content delivery mechanism has already been researched. Training can easily be delivered using www.digitalchalk.com once the media content and certification have been created.
- Initial feedback from business has been overwhelmingly positive.
- Parents might appreciate being able to leverage this online training content and certification tool and create their own incentives.
- Student groups might appreciate being to leverage this online training content and certification tool and encourage their members to participate.
- High school students could piggy-back and could also participate in the program and access huge savings at local area retailers.
So let us see. Will the counter argument be a non-argument not related to alcohol safety/issues? Will they point out what they like or don't like about the idea I just shared? Will they (heaven forbid) contribute any ideas of their own that don't send everyone to jail? Are they interested at all in raising awareness and dicussing a very serious issue in our local community or will they continue to marginalize the idea with well thought out logic: "If business supported whatever idea B is refering to, it would have been already implemented". Are they going to discuss the topic or are they going to provide commentary and my commentary? Can they actually make a contribution without referring to B? Wouldn't it be nice if our college town took a proactive approach to the problem by creatively trying to get out in front of the problem? Wouldn't it be nice if our community was looked at as one that came together and was recognized as model program for other college communities throughout the country?
Kids are drinking. Why wouldn't we want to raise awareness and make it a priority?
As they grow older, the chance that young people will use alcohol grows. Approximately 10 percent of 12 year olds say they have used alcohol at least once. By age 13 that number doubles. And by age 15, approximately 50 percent have had at least one drink.
Teens drink less often than adults. But when teens do drink, they drink more than adults. On average, young people have about five drinks on a single occasion. This behavior is called binge drinking. It is a very dangerous way of drinking that can lead to serious problems and even death.
B is for Bozo, an alleged conservative, is "suggesting" that businesses give a way hundreds of dollars in coupons. To accommodate teenagers as they grow up, this scheme must be permanent. Thus it is essentially a permanent, voluntary tax on business. Maybe Bozo B can tell us if the business owners he claimed have been secretly meeting have been considering such a permanent tax . Even loopy liberals know this won't fly
B fictionalizes: "Initial feedback from business has been overwhelmingly positive." No evidence of this in the local press or in announcements from businesses--only from B in this embarrassment of thread
If on-line alcohol training was considered effective, then the UI and local high schools would have implemented such years ago.
B is for Bozo started this thread complaining about the mayor's enforcement of liquor related laws. B has claimed to have read a review and proposed rewrite of alcohol laws written by a local attorney. Now B suggests: "No controversial changes to city ordinances"
Since B suggests no involvement from the city is needed, and B "is for Business" then B should be able to organize businesses to do this, rather than post this on a dead thread
B is releasing more hot air that an active volcano
"Thus it is essentially a permanent, voluntary tax on business."
Marketing your business is permanent, voluntary tax? Interesting way to look at it. I think businesses would like the idea of efficiently marketing their services to thousands (maybe 10s of thousands) of 16-
2225 year old who are developing their buying habits. The "permanent" nature is the beauty of the idea. It is not a one-time effort that comes and goes. Each year, thousands of new freshmen come to our community, and that doesn't even factor in the high school students in the area. Thousands of brand new potential customers that a business can market to for the printing cost of coupons year after year after year."No evidence of this in the local press or in announcements from businesses"
It's an idea you are hearing about for the first time on Illini Pundit. It's an idea, that's all. The fact that you are reading about this idea proves that the idea actually exists. That's all it is, an idea.
Speaking of businesses that impose a voluntary tax in themselves:
Off the top of my head, I've seen creative fundraisers and incentive programs that help out causes like the United Way, Park District, Make-A-Wish, preventative mammogram screening, Coaches vs. Cancer, etc. Considering that we are a college campus where issues with alcohol are prevalent, maybe we should all consider raising awareness about the dangers associated with alcohol and drug use.
In the 10:25 post I am referenced 11 times, and the idea is dicredited because there has not been a press release and no businesses are supporting it. Jeesh.
Business have been known to support great local and natational causes. Maybe, just maybe, promoting drug and alcohol awareness will be considered along with cancer awareness and the many other great causes that business voluntarily impose a tax on themselves to suppport. :)
Marketing your business is permanent, voluntary tax? Interesting way to look at it.
It's correct way to look at it. It's a permanent burden on business, and it will not fly. You are as conservative as George W Bush's budget record breaking budget deficits. You are an insult to conservatives
In your last post you lied that " Initial feedback from business has been overwhelmingly positive." Now its only an idea, apparently yours. Until the local press or businesses announce some participation in this dubious scheme, you remain B is for Baloney
The rest of your post are more unworkable pontifications which you are using to cover up your lies and speculations and are not even worthy of further deprecation.
In another thread, Keith Hays noted: In his new incarnation as Andy Martin CU's own Anthony R. Martin-Trigona is at it again. The Sun-Times reports that he is running attack ads in the Chicago Media citing two conservative Republicans as claiming the Representative Mark Kirk is gay! Here is the Sun-Times article. Martin-Trigona is on the Republican Primary ballot seeking his party's nomination to the US Senate.
B's posts on this thread make Andy Martin seem like a brilliant statesman
I was one of the business owners who was involved in discussing the incentive program mentioned in this blog. I have two young daughters and appreciate the safety concerns referenced in this discussion. I am not interested in the political discussions, but I do believe the proposed incentive program is a great way to raise drug and alcohol awareness. Kleenrite would be willing to support this type of effort if our services would be a good fit. Have a great day! Damon from Kleenrite
It's a permanent burden on business, and it will not fly.
The incentive program appears to be a practical and voluntary marketing program for local businesses hoping to target young adult customers. My feeling is that we need more thinking out of the box, but within the confines of reality. I would like to see something like this in our town. It is refreshing to hear people talk about personal responsibility.
PS - Sending everyone to jail for having a beer in their hand in a college town would be a stupid waste of taxpayer resources. "B is for Business" is certainly a professional stirrer of the pot, but the opposition must have someone who can counter him without the idiotic insults and inane commentary. I'll admit, it is somewhat entertaining to watch "B is for Business" piss off the liberals. I hope they stick around and keep at it because I'm enjoying this thread very much.
Kleenrite.net noted: I was one of the business owners who WAS involved in discussing the incentive program mentioned in this blog. Sounds like an idea that very appropriately did not get anywhere. Which other businesses participated in this alleged discussion? Why are they so secretive? One would thnk that businesses associated with such a discussion would like the publicity form having participated. Could they not want to be associated with a scheme that has surface popular appeal, but which is plain too costly in practice ? Kleenrite would be willing to support this type of effort if our services would be a good fit. Kleenrite.net's services, being most useful for students after they have made a mess of their apartments after partying and drinking the night before, would thus not be a good fit. Anonymous Conservative squawked: The incentive program appears to be a practical and voluntary marketing program for local businesses hoping to target young adult customers. As long as Anonymous Conservative is not funding it. It is refreshing to hear people talk about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility on the part of bar owners should include not encouraging excessive alcohol consumption. Were any bar owners involved in the discussions? Did the other supposed participants reach out to bar and liquor store owners?
Training? Seriously? Is this similar to those "driver's training" courses that you can attend to get a ticket off your record? Do you honestly think some kid is going to go to drinking training and suddenly decide to wait until 21 to drink? Sure they will, and I got a bridge over the boneyard to sell you.
How about we hand out coupons for bar food at Murphy's to 16 year olds from Central? Let's get those kids in the bars early and often!
You want an alternative idea? Start enforcing the law. If a bar serves an underage drinker the owner should be fined $5000 along with a $500 ticket for the drinker. If it happens twice, make it a $10,000 fine. Three times? $15,000 fine. And so on.
Of course that would actually solve the problem of underage drinking in the bars and I think we all know that nobody is actually interested in solving that problem. After all, do you think the suburban kids are all coming to U of I for the History 171 lectures in Foellinger with 499 of their closest friends? I doubt it.
There hasn't been better advertising for the U of I since Unofficial went to chaos. Even the scandals over the summer will fail to dissuage eager partiers from Rolling Meadows as long as the bar entry age is 19 and there are monthly bar crawls, Unofficial, and free and easy booze.
Training. Man, now I've heard it all.
Is this similar to those "driver's training" courses that you can attend to get a ticket off your record?
No
If a bar serves an underage drinker the owner should be fined $5000 along with a $500 ticket for the drinker. If it happens twice, make it a $10,000 fine. Three times? $15,000 fine.
The bar fines would work at 20-40% of your suggestion. The underage dirnker's fine seems like an adequate incentive.
"Could they not want to be associated with a scheme that has surface popular appeal, but which is plain too costly in practice?"
A marketing program where the business does not have to pay an advertising fee and is not even asked to donate a percentage of sales. Businesses will often pay thousands of dollars to advertise their promotions through conventional media.
"Do you honestly think some kid is going to go to drinking training and suddenly decide to wait until 21 to drink?"
Nobody is even remotely suggesting that they would wait until they are 21 to drink. How do you pull that from an idea to raise awareness on the dangers of excessive drinking? Statistics show kids are going to drink early and excessively. Let's respect that and empower them with safety education rather than pretend that are going to "wait until they are 21 drink".
"If a bar serves an underage drinker the owner should be fined $5000 along with a $500 ticket for the drinker. If it happens twice, make it a $10,000 fine. Three times? $15,000 fine. And so on. Of course that would actually solve the problem of underage drinking in the bars and I think we all know that nobody is actually interested in solving that problem."
Bars are not serving underage drinkers. If you think you can solve the problem of underage drinker with stricter prohibition, take the time to watch the 60 minutes episode and listen to the Boulder Police Chief had to say on the subject.
A marketing program where the business does not have to pay an advertising fee and is not even asked to donate a percentage of sales. Businesses will often pay thousands of dollars to advertise their promotions through conventional media.
The newest Bozo unfunded mandate from B. A free marketing program for businesses.
Bars are not serving underage drinkers.
Again, I ask: have you ever been in a campus bar? You keep repeating this, but you and I and everyone else here all know from either personal or second-hand experience that this isn't true.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
Bars are not serving underage drinkers.
One of B is Bull's mantras.
Bars are not serving underage drinkers.
If that's true, I'm starting a class-action lawsuit. I, and thousands of others, paid lots of money for alcohol at campus bars before turning 21 - and apparently they served me some other intoxicating substance over those years.
Besides suing for all sorts of false representation issues, I'm sure there are also a host of health issues I could sue for - I have no idea how dangerous this not-alcohol-but-still-intoxicating beverage is to my body.
"A free marketing program for businesses."
That's exactly right. The more businesses the greater the incentive for the individual.
"Again, I ask: have you ever been in a campus bar? You keep repeating this, but you and I and everyone else here all know from either personal or second-hand experience that this isn't true."
Bars pass their inspections where the police try to catch a bar serving to a minor, with few exceptions. They card individuals. They only provide drinks to those with bracelets/stamps. It was that way when I went to college. It is that way now. The bars are not serving minors. They are not being ticketed for serving minors. They are not being closed for serving minors. They even have fancy machines that prove that they are carding people and they record the id when they enter the bar. This is just another attempt to distract people from the issues with fabrications. If you want proof, go down to a campustown bar on a Friday night later this January when it's busy and try to catch them serving to someone without a stamp or bracelet. Good luck.
If you entered a bar with a fake ID, then don't tell Keith. He might send you to prison for 30 years.
I want to thank Mr. Hackleman from Kleenrite for reading this blog and commenting. He runs an impressive operation and is recognized at least one circle as a marketing guru. If you are a customer of his, you might appreciate his newsletters that he sends out that offer family-oriented content. The only thing more impressive than his marketing genius is the culture of excellence he delivers everyday to his customers. It's just too bad we can't get him interested in politics. : )
I must ask again, how can someone read through 347 posts across four threads and come to this conclusion:
"Training? Seriously? Is this similar to those "driver's training" courses that you can attend to get a ticket off your record? Do you honestly think some kid is going to go to drinking training and suddenly decide to wait until 21 to drink? Sure they will, and I got a bridge over the boneyard to sell you"
Are you kidding me? How can anyone read anything that I've written and even remotely assume that I think educating young adults on the dangers of binge drinking will have them "suddenly decide to wait until 21 to drink?" This is what you have to counter the idea with?
It's just too bad we can't get him interested in politics.
It's too bad we can't get B to be interested in running a business.
Bars pass their inspections where the police try to catch a bar serving to a minor, with few exceptions.
Another case of B is for Bozo disregarding the relevant. Accounts in the local newspaper regularly report age-related violations in bars whose tend to be college age.
That's exactly right. The more businesses the greater the incentive for the individual.
As much of B's comments, the last sentence makes no sense
I want to thank Mr. Hackleman from Kleenrite for reading this blog and commenting. He runs an impressive operation....
And we wish him continued success in his area of expertise. His business is irrelevant to the discussions in this thread.
I must ask again, how can someone read through 347 posts across four threads and come to this conclusion:
B is the only one who has counted and has made it through the 347 posts across four threads
I want to thank Mr. Hackleman from Kleenrite for reading this blog and commenting. He runs an impressive operation....
And we wish him continued success in his area of expertise. His business is irrelevant to the discussions in this thread.
According to its website Kleenrite's business is selling equipment and supplies to retail car wash businesses. It is not likely to attract 16-22 year old customers with any promotion.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"Accounts in the local newspaper regularly report age-related violations in bars whose tend to be college age."
Age-related violations is not the same as a bar serving alcohol to someone under 21 years of age.
"According to its website Kleenrite's business is selling equipment and supplies to retail car wash businesses. It is not likely to attract 16-22 year old customers with any promotion."
Kleenrite provides carpet cleaning services. For those businesses whose products or services would not be an incentive for 16-22 year olds, I'm sure there could be corporate sponsorship opportunities for those who still want to be involved. That is, if they want to impose a voluntary tax burden on themselves. : )
As much of B's comments, the last sentence makes no sense
The more businesses that offer incentives, the more likely the chance that individuals would participate in the program. With many promotions, customers respond to an offer because they receive some benefit. In some cases, customers will will respond to a promotion and patronize a business and pay retail knowing that they are supporting a worthwhile cause. With this incentive idea, individuals would receive a benefit and those promoting the program would be supporting a good cause. I understand if this complicated to some.
I must ask again, how can someone read through 347 posts across four threads and come to this conclusion
Well, it is sometimes a little difficult to decipher exactly what you are saying. So let me see if I have this right. You want training against excessive drinking, but not against illegal drinking. Ok. Do you think most of the binge drinking that goes on in campustown is from the over-21 crowd or the 16-20 crowd? If you want to get rid of excessive drinking, you might want to start by getting rid of illegal drinking.
Is that a clear enough criticism of your proposal, or are you going to call me a far left nutjob now?
This is what you have to counter the idea with?
No, as I mentioned above my "counter" to your idea is to enforce the law and increase the penalties for offenders, especially the business owners who willingly provide alcohol for underage drinkers in their establishments on a routine basis. You can channel Bill Clinton to your heart's content by splicing the meaning of "serve alcohol," but the fact remains that tens of thousands of students flock to U of I every year to partake in underage drinking at the local bars. Your little training program with coupons for free burritos is unlikely to have much of an impact beyond increased advertising for the businesses who are eager to attact 18 year olds to their sticky floors.
But you know that, because the not-so-well-kept secret here is that the underage drinking is a huge pull for students and it helps the university and the local community. The only reason people aren't increasing fines for bars that serve minors is because there is a lot of money to be made. Apparently morals, ethics, and respect for the law are only important when they don't affect the businessman's pocketbook.
Same as it ever was.
Statistics show kids are going to drink early and excessively. Let's respect that and empower them with safety education rather than pretend that are going to "wait until they are 21 drink".
Yes, I agree. Let's respect people who knowingly choose to break the law by giving them coupons for free Illini keychains. And while we're at it, let's respect all of the people who are going to smoke pot early and excessively by legalizing marijuana and asking the local dealers to hand out coupons for free blunts if all the smokers will take a "stoner safety" course. Or better yet, let's respect the fact that people are always going to speed and just stop enforcing the speed limit on interstate highways. Maybe Tatman's Collision Repair could hand out coupons to the 16 year olds when we encourage them to only drive 95 on the highway instead of 110.
Brilliant!
Bars pass their inspections where the police try to catch a bar serving to a minor, with few exceptions.
Bars fail occasionally, but that is still greater than zero. How frequent are said inspections? During Unofficial, six bars were caught actively serving to underage patrons. If that is what happens on days that that they *know* they are going to be hit with a random check, what do you think happens on days that they're not expecting random checks.
They card individuals. They only provide drinks to those with bracelets/stamps. It was that way when I went to college. It is that way now.
Right. They only do that. Except the times that they look the other way. Back when I was a student, I had a friend who played for the women's basketball team get into a campus bar with a 5'2" white girl's ID. She was 5'11" and black. She got the bracelet and was permitted to drink. That bar failed to practice due diligence, and is 100% liable for her being able to be served. I hope you're not a campus bar owner, because you have little to no understanding of what actually happens in campus bars. Either you are making a willful disconnect from reality, or your staff is lying to you and you are not verifiying what they say as truth. Either way, that makes you negligent. Ignorance is not an excuse.
The bars are not serving minors. They are not being ticketed for serving minors. They are not being closed for serving minors.
Didn't The Office in Urbana get slapped with a 30-day closure for getting caught serving minors on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS during Unofficial? This means they were ticketed once, then the police came back and they were caught still doing it.
They even have fancy machines that prove that they are carding people and they record the id when they enter the bar. This is just another attempt to distract people from the issues with fabrications. If you want proof, go down to a campustown bar on a Friday night later this January when it's busy and try to catch them serving to someone without a stamp or bracelet.
I patronize campus bars quite a bit. I've personally seen those not old enough to be there get through the door. I've personally witnessed those without bracelets be served at the bar. I did both of these things myself when I was a student, and for all of the cameras and security measures put into place, the weakest link has not been changed: the human element.
If anybody is creating fabricatons in this thread, it is you by continuing to insist that the only ones being served in campus bars are those who are old enough to drink. It does not mesh with reality. Perhaps you should join in the Barscramble this coming semester and see what really goes on yourself. Heck, I'm willing to organize a Team IlliniPundit for you, me and two other contributors to be named later. We'll get matching shirts with Gordy's face on it, and show these kids a thing or two.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
The nature of a blog makes it difficult to follow the logic in the postings, especially one with a lot of such. So I am asking Keith Hays for a reminder of what I think I remember from reading the Champaign ordinance he posted. What I remember is that a bar is responsible for under age drinking whether the bar actually served the under age individual or a legal purchaser of alcohol gave the alcohol to the under age drinker. Is this an accurate reiteration of a section of the ordinance?
Pattsi Petrie
Personally, I say we just add beer and Chu-hai vending machines on every corner and go from there...
On December 30th, 2009 at 09:59 AM, pattsi said:
The nature of a blog makes it difficult to follow the logic in the postings, especially one with a lot of such. So I am asking Keith Hays for a reminder of what I think I remember from reading the Champaign ordinance he posted. What I remember is that a bar is responsible for under age drinking whether the bar actually served the under age individual or a legal purchaser of alcohol gave the alcohol to the under age drinker. Is this an accurate reiteration of a section of the ordinance?
Pattsi:
Your memory and understanding are correct.
Champaign Municipal Code Chapter 5 Section 5-44(b) provides:
No agent of the licensee shall knowingly, recklessly or negligently allow any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years to remain on the licensee's service premises while in the possession of or consuming alcoholic liquor in violation of this chapter.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
I'm sure there could be corporate sponsorship opportunities for those who still want to be involved.
If B is sure, all the more reason to doubt
With many promotions, customers respond to an offer because they receive some benefit.
Come on B! Customers, especially post teenagers, only respond if they receive some benefit
In some cases, customers will will respond to a promotion and patronize a business and pay retail knowing that they are supporting a worthwhile cause.
Please explain the worthy cause are the intended customers of this hypothetical promotion supporting.
To Keith Hays @ 11:05 A--thank you for the confirmation. This ought to moot most of the posting throughout this blog. On the other side of this conversation, the present ordinance certainly causes cognitive dissonance and an environment that makes constant checking as to who is or is not drinking throughout an entire evening somewhat probable. The barn door needs to be closed one way or another. :-)
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi,
You may find the ILCC Don't Be Sorry program of online information about underage drinking interesting:
Don't Be Sorry Program
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Here is the proof that Campus Bars Don't Serve Minors ;)
Champaign, March 7-8 – During this year’s Unofficial St. Pat’s celebration, ILCC agents, Illinois State Police, Champaign County Sheriff’s Office, Champaign Police Department, Urbana Police Department and University of Illinois Police agents checked 171 locations and cited 33 licensees for 48 counts of sales to minors:
• Jimmy D’s Pizza, 114 E. Congress, Rantoul
• Bud’s Bar, 122 N. Kentucky, Rantoul
• Rantoul Food Mart, 515 S. Maplewood, Rantoul
• Rantoul Skyline Bar, 424 S. Century Blvd, Rantoul
• Jack’s Tavern, 106 E. Main, Tolono
• Denny’s Tavern, 105 N. Long, Tolono
• Central Tavern, 403 Main, Thomasboro
• Colonial Pantry # 7, Il RT # 49 and I 74, Ogden
• Buffalo Wild Wings, 1335 Savoy Plaza, Savoy
• Village Pub, 106 W. Main, Royal
• Mid Am Market Citgo, 1005 Purnell, Mahomet
• St. Joe Liquor & Wine, 208 N. Main, St. Joseph
• Longview Tavern, 206 Logan, Longview
• Geo’s, 604 Cunningham, Urbana
• El Toro, 1104 Cunningham, Urbana
• Hickory River, 1706 N. Cunningham, Urbana
• Eastland Suites, 1907 N. Cunningham, Urbana
• The Courier Café, 111 N. Race, Urbana
• The Rose Bowl Tavern, 106 N. Race, Urbana
• Super Pantry # 6, 2002 N. Lincoln, Urbana
• Schnucks Urbana, 200 N. Vine, Urbana
• Schnucks Express, 306 N. Vine, Urbana
• Home Run Food Mart, 1509 W. Washington, Urbana
• Aldi # 91, 3102 E. University, Urbana
• CVS Pharmacy # 8667, 1818 S. Philo Rd., Urbana
• County Market # 468, 220 N. Broadway, Urbana
• Circle K # 1301, 2011 N. Lincoln, Urbana
• Circle K # 1234, 1501 N. Lincoln, Urbana
• Circle K # 94, 1821 S. Philo Rd., Urbana
• Meijer Store # 247, 2500 Philo Rd., Urbana
• Joe’s Brewery, 706 S. 5th, Champaign
• Freedom Oil, 1406 N. Prospect, Champaign
• Noodles & Company, 528 E. Green, Champaign
ILCC Press Release March 31, 2009
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
This conversation is very interesting. "B is for Business" has been advocating for clear guidelines and consistent enforcement of those guidelines. The ILCC program that Keith references are the same people who say that a bar with a single patron found in possession is negligent. We've circled all the way back around to the same basic argument.
What determines whether a bar is "reckless" or "negligent"? Finding a few people under 21 with drinks does not demonstrate a culture of reckless or negligent behavior by the bar.
"Arvid" points out some exceptions to counter the argument where "B is for Business" admitted there are exceptions. That does not support any reckless or negligent behavior by the bars. I opened the link provided by "Arvid" and after reading it thoroughly, it lists a lot of establishments that aren't campustown bars and those violations at the campustown bars could very well be Happy Hour Violations and not serving minors. Reading through the list provided by Keith, I see a long list of establishments that aren't campustown bars, except for one.
As a former bar employee on campus, I know people who have been fired for serving to a minor. When this happened, they were promptly fired. In many cases it was a ditsy bartender who was not paying close enough attention. Also, some employees were definately breaking some rules while trying not to get caught by the bar manager. It was not uncommon for a fraternity guy working the door to sneak in a few of his buddies. One thing is for sure, the bar did not encourage that behavior and definately tried to prevent it.
Judging from the list Keith provided at the 2009 Unofficial, it appears all the campus bars passed covert inspections except for Joe's Brewery. How ironic. Overall, it seems the bars on campus were doing a much better job than the rest of the community bars while Unofficial was in full swing on campus. Just an observation.
The bottom line is a underage person is going to find a way to drink on campus. When I attended the UofI, we even knew how to sneak people in the back door of a bar and outsmart the staff. Now that I'm more mature, I like B's suggestion that we do a better job of working together. At the same time, I do think we probably need to tighten the screws on underage drinking in public places.
It seems completely unreasonable to set the expectation that a bar is reckless when a minor is in possession of alchohol at a bar where the entry age is 19. Realistic and clear expectations should be established. A zero tolerance mentality and suggesting that everyone should go to jail is not going to be effective.
If the barn door is going to be closed as Pattsi suggested, there are plenty of other doors that are open to underage drinkers where it is much easier to access alcohol. We need to respect that.
Keith noted an approximate 20% failre rate (33 our of 171) failure during random checks. The actual number that violated some law related to alcohol during unofficial weekend is certainly higher.
It seems there are 17 establishments in Urbana that received citations and only 3 in Champaign in the 2009 bar sweeps. Of the 33 establishments that received citations, only 2 of them were in campustown. By this report, couldn't one argue that campustown licensees are the most responsible?
By this report, couldn't one argue that campustown licensees are the most responsible?
No, Urbana does not fool around about penalties and is much more vigilent. As noted by several others in various IP threads, Urbana suspended for 30 days the liquor license of The Office, owned by Scott Cochrane. So then he closed The Office because he could not get away with the same stuff in Urbana that he could in Champaign
So the problem is Champaign's relative lack of enforcement of exisitng law, compared to Urbana.
Ah, a question posted on the academic urban planning listserv prompted this idea. :-) Maybe using Herbert Simon's decision making approach termed, satisficing, will create just the right climate for the proposed meeting of bar owners and city decision makers. The word satisfice (a portmanteau of satisfy and suffice) was coined by Herbert Simon, a professor at Carnegie Mellon U. He pointed out that human beings lack the cognitive resources to maximize; we usually do not know the relevant probabilities of outcomes, we can rarely evaluate all outcomes with sufficient precision, and our memories are weak and unreliable. A more realistic approach to rationality takes into account these limitations: This is called bounded rationality. Quoting David Wiles, "Notice how well, satisficing and factoring in making rational decisions fit with assumptions of incremental muddling and evolving maturity as descriptions of complex bureaucracy. Of course, the contributions of all lead to assumptions that bureaucratic decisions tend to promote the status quo of precedent and "red tape," the inertia of "getting by," and the instrumental rationality of "dealmaking and logrolling" choices." This struck me as a good description of the process to solve underage drinking or maybe what is happening with health care. :-)
Pattsi Petrie
To Keith Hays @ 12:51 P--thank you for the web site reference. The following does cause me to pause and wonder:
"Allowing underage drinking to occur in private residence
PENALTIES: A parent/legal guardian who knowingly allows persons under the age of 21 to consume alcohol at a private residence is subject to a maximum $2,500 fine and up to one year in jail. If serious injury or death occurs, parent/legal guardian is subject to a Class 4 felony (up to three years in prison and fines up to $25,000)."
As this is written if I, acting as a parent educating my child about alcohol, drinking, wines, etc., served a child under 21 years any form of alcohol within the four walls of my home, I would be fined. Even if the purpose was to create an understanding of responsible drinking. A very old argument, used since I was in college in the early 1900's :-) , is that one of the biggest mistakes in the USA is making drinking this "big deal," rather than using the more European approach of introducing wine, though watered down, as part of life.
As this is written if I, acting as a parent educating my child about alcohol, drinking, wines, etc., served a child under 21 years any form of alcohol within the four walls of my home, I would be fined. Even if the purpose was to create an understanding of responsible drinking.
The statutory scheme of regulation exempts parent serving an alcoholic beverage to his or her own child under the parent's direct supervision in the child's home. The statute the website summarizes prohibits a person from permitting consumption of alcohol by unrelated children under the age of 21. That is you can't knowingly let your child's friends drink in your home.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
I'm not sure how Urbana establishments got introduced to a discussion about campus bars, but I'm not suprised that in 2009 only two campus establishment were cited for serving minors at the height of Unofficial. It seems there is a much bigger concern in Urbana (with 17 citations) with underage drinking than in campustown. This year during Unofficial, for purposes of reasearch, I decided to tour the campus bars and talk to bar employees and monitor the situation. I was carded at every establishment. My bracelet was checked. I noticed a strict enforcement of that policy on all patrons at all the bars I visited. At Legends, their General Manager was checking IDs at the door. One poster suggested that we create an IlliniPundit barscramble team. Since Unofficial is the next big event, I want to reiterate my suggestion that you take the afternoon off and enjoy a few beverages in campustown and get a firsthand view of the action this spring. While you're touring the bars, look at the balconies to get a true appreciation of the big picture. If you feel the urge to make green Tshirts with pictures of Gordy, more power to you. Also while you're there, try and find an instance where a bar is serving to a minor. Good luck.
Bars failing an inspection on campus is rare, but as I've stated before in this thread, there are a few exceptions. You will not have any challenge finding a bar that failed an inspection at one point, but they pass the inspections on campus. Currently, they are in trouble for violating happy hour rules and not serving minors. Judging from the information Keith shared, you will have much less of a challenge finding an Urbana establishment, even during Unofficial when everyone knew the police would be checking. Except for rare dumb mistakes by employees that drive their managers crazy, you can easily confirm for yourself that bars are not serving underage patrons. I encourage you to visit a campus bar on a busy Friday night this spring and see for yourself. Good luck.
On December 30th, 2009 at 09:44 AM, A is for Anonymous said:
If you want to get rid of excessive drinking, you might want to start by getting rid of illegal drinking.
Is that a clear enough criticism of your proposal, or are you going to call me a far left nutjob now?
Reasonable people understand that you are not going to get rid of illegal drinking on campus. We can try and send everyone to jail and drive the drinking further underground, but that is not practical, does not make the situation any better, and probably makes the situation worse. If you don't think common sense alcohol and drug education is logical, then you will appreciate that it would be a voluntary program to raise awareness and you wouldn't have to support it if you didn't want to.
Do not press play if you offened by the f-word. If we're going to send everyone jail and magically solve illegal underage drinking, maybe we should ban "training" movies about underage drinking while we're at it. One of my all-time favorites:
Reasonable people understand that you are not going to get rid of illegal drinking on campus.
Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is the illegal drinking in bars. Your proposal is to (surprise!) shift the responsibility further in the direction of the students and further away from the business owners by setting up a training program with coupons for free Chief socks from Folletts. Other have argued that trainings are not particularly effective and increasing the penalties for the bar owners is probably the best way to solve the problem.
I mean, come on. I think we all know that the little training program isn't going to make much of a difference. But smacking the crap out of any bar owner who dares allow an 18 year old to sip a beer in his bar will solve the problem of underage drinking in the bars almost overnight.
Of course the bar owners will also lose tons of business if that were to happen, and I think we all know that is not acceptable to you or the owners. Thus, as usual, it all comes down to making money
We can try and send everyone to jail and drive the drinking further underground, but that is not practical, does not make the situation any better, and probably makes the situation worse.
Maybe, but that is a problem with the law, not the enforcement of the law. I don't know why I have to explain this to a leader of the local Republican party, but we don't get to choose which laws we want to enforce and which we want to ignore. It isn't wise for our political leaders to go around making excuses for people who flagrantly break the law and thumb their noses at the local polical force. Again - are we going to apply this logic to other areas where less money is being funnelled into the pockets of businessowners? Pot dealing? Spousal abuse? Murder? After all, we know that these things are going to happen. Why bother trying to stop them? Where, exactly, is this line between which laws you think are "practical" to enforce and which are not?
If you don't think common sense alcohol and drug education is logical, then you will appreciate that it would be a voluntary program to raise awareness and you wouldn't have to support it if you didn't want to.
It might be logical (and a lot of this is already taking place in high schools across the country), but it is hardly a solution for illegal drinking in the bars on campus. Since you refuse to even acknowledge that underagers are drinking in the bars I don't see any sort of solution coming from this discussion.
As usual your ideas are all based around support businessowners over the working people. Give 'em some coupons and keep the emphasis off the people who are getting rich from the debauchery.
B is for Bozo is lying again: Bars failing an inspection on campus is rare, but as I've stated before in this thread, there are a few exceptions.
The 16 December News-Gazette story confirmed otherwise
I'm not sure how Urbana establishments got introduced to a discussion about campus bars, but I'm not suprised that in 2009 only two campus establishment were cited for serving minors at the height of Unofficial.
B is for Baloney again. Without knowing how many checks were performed and when, no conclusion is possible. If all bars were checked once or twice during the weekend, then as a group they performed poorly.
It's been made pretty clear how the bars operate in the preceding posts. Still we have people posting stuff like this:
"B is for Bozo is lying again: Bars failing an inspection on campus is rare, but as I've stated before in this thread, there are a few exceptions.
The 16 December News-Gazette story confirmed otherwise"
Maybe this person doesn't feel like actually reading the preceding arguments or just reads the ones he/she agrees with. Still, if I'm a bar owner, I have to be thinking that I need to communicate what actually happens better to the public. This also goes for the News Gazette, which is a joke of a paper when it comes to analyzing this issue.
It looks like this thread started out as an appeal for more communication and morphed into an argument about whether or not to do one particular type of communication or not. Still after 180+ posts, there are people that still just don't get the basic facts. As was originally pointed out, that is a disconnect that is on the bar owners to correct.
A for Anonymous only gets it about halfway:
"Reasonable people understand that you are not going to get rid of illegal drinking on campus.
Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is the illegal drinking in bars."
The other half is: "How do we keep college kids from hurting themselves?"
B for Business doesn't seem to completely get it either:
"On December 27th, 2009 at 02:46 PM, B is for Business said:
Individual accountabilty and personal responsibility. An obvious
hiddenagenda.Any discussion about individual accountability and personal responsibility must be derailed with personal attacks, name calling, and accusations of evil agendas. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Why would anyone be opposed to encouraging common sense alcohol and drug training to individuals < 21 years of age?"
Personal Responsibility is an admirable goal, but irrelevant because underage college kids drinking at home are being at least as irresponsible as those drinking at bars. It would be great if we could expect them to behave like 71 year old men (debatable), but they won't. Spending a bunch of time advocating for it is a waste of time.
"Still, if I'm a bar owner, I have to be thinking that I need to communicate what actually happens better to the public. This also goes for the News Gazette, which is a joke of a paper when it comes to analyzing this issue."
The N-G is publishing the one sided facts that the CPD feeds the paper. They don't tell you how many people they reject on daily basis. How many IDs they confiscate. Etc. As I've said before, the bars should be working together and should operate their own PAC and get more organized so they aren't so easy to bully. It's their own fault for not having a PR component, but that can change. It's their own fault if they allow it to happen.
"Personal Responsibility is an admirable goal, but irrelevant because underage college kids drinking at home are being at least as irresponsible as those drinking at bars. It would be great if we could expect them to behave like 71 year old men (debatable), but they won't. Spending a bunch of time advocating for it is a waste of time."
Actually, I'm advocating simple and realistic assumptions. I'm not proposing the "Just Say No" waste of time. I want young adults to understand how to calculate a BAC. I want a young adult to understand and be able to identify the warning signs when someone is in trouble. The other day when it was snowing I heard countless warnings on the radio from officials enouraging everyone to use common sense when driving in dangerous conditions. Yet when it comes to alcohol and drugs, we do very little (if anything) promote common sense when young adults get a drivers license and go off to college.
The N-G is publishing the one sided facts that the CPD feeds the paper.
Since loberals and conservatives both complain about the News-Gazette, it myust be doing a balanced job
As I've said before, the bars should be working together and should operate their own PAC
if this were true, the bars would have done this a long time ago.
Actually, I'm advocating simple and realistic assumptions.
You neglected to state any assumptions
Pooie to you B! I can advocate better than you on an impotent thread. I am advocating the end of war. I am advocating the end of poverty. I am advocating the end of the need for divorce.
They don't tell you how many people they reject on daily basis. How many IDs they confiscate.
Neither do the bar owners tell us. If this were relevant to any public discussion, bar owners would make this known. In fact if a substantial number of IDs are being confiscated, a polce officer could be randomlyposted in bars on a rotating basis, awaiting to ticket patrons with false IDs. An office in Joe's could be scurry over to Murphy's when a false ID is found ther. The fines would certainly pay for the cost of the officer