February 22, 2007
Saving the Single Beer
Last week the City Paper reported on moves to ban the sale of single beers along the up-and-coming H Street stretch in Northeast, part of an attempt to reduce the quality of life crimes, like public urination or disorderly conduct, that seemingly go hand-in-hand with 24-ounce cans of Bud Ice and 40-ounce bottles of Old English Malt Liquor. Of course, the proposal is nothing new -- Mt. Pleasant adopted a similar ban in 2001, and in 2005 then-Ward 4 Councilmember Adrian Fenty saw fit to extend the ban to the whole city until a court shot it down for not having been subjected to necessary public scrutiny.
And just like most debates in the District, this one has been tinged by the dirty word of the decade -- gentrification. One side argues that this is simply about getting rid of the single beer cans and bottles that invariably end up on sidewalks, in alleys and in front of aspiring businesses. The other side claims that the only thing the pro-ban crowd wants to get rid of are the type of people that usually buy single beers -- poor, black and less than likely to shop at those aspiring businesses. But the race and class lines have crossed this time, and even Erik Wemple, a self-identified yuppie and Editor-in-Chief of the City Paper, has found himself defending the single beer:
Well, I’m gainfully employed, and I love the single beer. I must confess that years ago, I didn’t see the point. If I bought beer, it was either in a six-pack, case, or keg. That’s because I was generally consuming it with friends or at a party. I agreed with the activists that the single was for folks who’d most likely down their beer out on the street. Now, though, I am married, and a big can of Corona or Heineken has become a perfect dinner libation for the Mr. and Mrs.Joe Englert, bar owner-extraordinaire, H Street restaurateur and victim of the single beer, differs, writing in response to Wemple:
I find it more than a little amusing that someone who buys their singles in Dupont Circle and Logan Circle has the nerve to write off those of us who live on H Street and support a singles ban as NIMBYs. This proposal is a response to an easily documented situation - you need only walk through the alleys on either side of H Street to see the accumulated empties from those whose thirst simply couldn’t wait (and the accumulation that comes from their bladders being unable to wait afterwards).Most people we've asked (in a completely unscientific poll) are opposed to such a ban, at least a citywide version, usually because they see no need, no point, or simply refuse to buy Sparks in any quantity exceeding the single can. But we can also see each neighborhood choosing their own adventure -- after all, an ANC commissioner on H Street might see a need for a ban while their counterpart in Cleveland Park won't.For some odd reason, these empties tend to be overwhelmingly singles. Either the folks who buy the six packs and the full-size spirits are more conscientious about where they throw their empties, or -- just maybe -- the availability of singles along H Street is contributing directly to the litter and the public drinking.
Where do you stand?
|
I hate the idea of a ban. I always love enjoying a Sparks Plus (or 2) on my walk to whatever venue I am going to, usually bought at the store on 13th & T NW.
If getting rid of litter is *really* the goal, and not just a pretext, a deposit on cans and bottles is the more obvious, direct and effective route to achieving that goal.
It'd also have the nice extra benefit of boosting recycling rates.
I hate the idea of a ban. I always love enjoying a Sparks Plus (or 2) on my walk to whatever venue I am going to, usually bought at the store on 13th & T NW.
Single beers should be banned, as should crackheads.
i'm in favor of the ban and enforcing quality of life laws
(new h street resident here)
I don't live on H street, but I do live near Georgia Ave/Petworth Metro.....and I would love to see a ban on single beers. Although, I'm not sure that would really have much effect on the amount of trash strewn all over the place on my commute (down Princeton Street to right on Georgia to the metro)....
I really think this is an engrained part of DC ignorant native culture. Even if there is a trash can RIGHT there, DC natives prefer to throw any and all trash right on the ground, even if it is in front of their own house. Gentrication train can't come soon enough....
Why not just cap the prices of singles at $5. A $6 Ommegang I am sure brings in a diffrent crowd then the $3 Colt.
I don't live on H street, but I do live near Georgia Ave/Petworth Metro.....and I would love to see a ban on single beers. Although, I'm not sure that would really have much effect on the amount of trash strewn all over the place on my commute (down Princeton Street to right on Georgia to the metro)....
I really think this is an ingrained part of DC ignorant native culture. Even if there is a trash can RIGHT there, DC natives prefer to throw any and all trash right on the ground, even if it is in front of their own house. Gentrification train can't come soon enough....
It seems that a singles ban gets attention because its a more easily politically enacted and enforced fix than the following:
- enforcing laws against public drinking
- enforcing laws against public urination
- enacting a bottle/can deposit/return law
If litter is the problem, then put a hefty deposit on bottles and cans, and figure out a refund process. The streets would clean up fairly quick.
Ditto. The Pilsner Urquell bomber bottle is proof positive that god approves of drinking in movie theatres.
I am not in favor of the ban. In the last week, on separate occasions I bought single cans of sparks and 40 oz of thirst quenching OE.
Question: I kind of get the idea behind no single cans, but is there any other way to buy/sell 40s? Who wants a whole case? One (or two) at a party is fun, but who wants a fridge full?
It seems that a singles ban gets attention because its a more easily politically enacted and enforced fix than the following:
- enforcing laws against public drinking
- enforcing laws against public urination
- enacting a bottle/can deposit/return law
If litter is the problem, then put a hefty deposit on bottles and cans, and figure out a refund process. The streets would clean up fairly quick.
I am not in favor of the ban. In the last week, on separate occasions I bought single cans of sparks and 40 oz of thirst quenching OE.
Question: I kind of get the idea behind no single cans, but is there any other way to buy/sell 40s? Who wants a whole case? One (or two) at a party is fun, but who wants a fridge full?
It's a wonderful idea people. I wish we could get something like this for GA around Petworth!
I'm in favor of sparks and crackheads.
Getting rid of litter is not the goal. This is just the latest lifestyle law being proposed by elitists who look down upon anyone whose way of life offends their bourgeois values.
It's a wonderful idea people. I wish we could get something like this for GA around Petworth!
Why stop at single beers?
While we're banning single things, why not take this golden opportunity to get rid of some other troublesome singles? A few modest suggestions:
1. Single lottery tickets
2. Pennies
3. Single mothers
I would be opposed to a single can ban. I often buy one or two cans of beer for the night since my roommate is an alcoholic and I don't want to temp him. Why not enforce the laws we have?
What is next a ban on all wine under $10?
What about on GA Ave too?!
Ban the singles!
I'm surprised that no one has yet commented on the superficiality of this proposal. Sure, a ban on singles would make it a bit harder for folks on the street to get cheap, fast liquor, but it fails to address some of the root problems behind public drinking.
According to a local ANC commissioner I spoke with recently, public urination and litter are just symbols of a much deeper problem in DC's neighborhoods. After all, what do people do when they can't get singles at a store? They pool in for a six pack with friends, or they buy bootleg singles sold out the back of a car, or they go to another neighborhood where they can get singles.
With all due respect to Joe E., this sounds like a completely surface-level "solution" that indeed verges on NIMBYism.
Single mothers have a lot of love to give.
I'm opposed to the ban, but I think DCist Martin raises a good point regarding the ANC. Isn't this the exact reason we elect an ANC? Those commissioners were elected by the citizens of the neighborhood for the exact purpose of doing what's best for the area.
Therefore, unless you live there, you really shouldn't have a say, and if you do live there and disagree with the ANC, let them know and vote for the other guy next time.
Sure, a ban on singles would make it a bit harder for folks on the street to get cheap, fast liquor, but it fails to address some of the root problems behind public drinking.
Baby steps, buddy. Baby steps.
With all due respect to Joe E., this sounds like a completely surface-level "solution" that indeed verges on NIMBYism.
These charges of NIMBYism are laughable. The whole concept of NIMBYism is that there are certain things we all agree are *good* things, but that no one wants to have them in their neighborhood.
What do you call it when frat boys, and Dupont Circle dwellers really, really want to make sure the alcoholics and assorted jackasses can get their drink on, piss in my flowers, shit their pants, and pass out on the street.
If you can't wait to get home or go to a bar to have a drink, or have no room to store more than one beer, you need to get your f-ing life together. No beer for you. And my neighborhood ain't no anti-Disneyland where yuppies from Reston get to come in and gush over how "real" things are being "kept."
And, yeah, banning lottery tickets would be a good thing, too.
If singles are banned, what's to stop an enterprising liquor store owner from taping two 40's together and selling them buy one, get one free?
I'm an H. St. resident and I am completely opposed to the ban. There are already laws in place for everything people are complaining about. Proponents will often say this is a minor inconvenience for a very small minority that results in dramatic quality of life improvements, but to them I say move somewhere else if you don't like it. Just because you don't like what some do with their singles doesn't give you the right to take them away from everyone.
Anyone with a dog want to ban chicken wings?
Wemple also is against a ban against throwing dog poop at your neighbors, so it's no surprise he's against a ban that would help make certain parts of the city smell less urine-y.
I'd be fine with keeping singles... on the condition that the MPD supply the man-power and effort to enforce the open container law as vigorously throughout the city as it does in Georgetown.
Or, we should just open up drinkin' to every corner. Yippee!! Afterall, if "Stinky McGee" can swill his Old English at the P n' 7th St. bus stop, why can't I enjoy a fine micro-brew on the sidewalk in front of Third Edition?
If we could I'd throw my trash into a trashcan - promise! (and so does Stinky)
Steve, buddy, you're full of crap. If us actual Hill residents are getting tired of drunk losers standing on the corner drinking single 40 ouncers all day, then robbing us at night, pissing in our yards, breaking into our cars, etc., how exactly is that wrong?
I'm sick to death of people saying there is a 'right' to drink on the streetcorner. There isn't. It's not exactly a benign 'lifestyle choice', as you seem to think.
It's the access to cheap, easy liquor on the streetcorner that feeds this idiotic street culture that you see festering around so many 'corner stores' in DC.
If you like it so much, Steve, how about you come stand on pretty much any corner on H Street and watch what happens over a 24 hour period? And you can clean up the mess - you can pay for the damage these losers do on a daily basis.
Hillman: Huh? I was making fun of Wemple, who is a poop-throwing jackass. I'm in favor of the ban against singles.
40oz. bottles of malt liquor don't throw empties on the sidewalk and piss on your daisies.
People do.
Steve:
Sorry. I took your post literally. I apologize. Sadly, I've heard exactly that sort of argument from others, so I assumed this was another example of that. Again, my apologies.
Yes, there are laws against the very things that singles help foster - the crime, the pissing in my yard, etc.
But if anyone thinks MPD is actually going to enforce these laws, you're living in a fantasy world.
It takes literally hours to process the paperwork for an arrest in DC. As much as I hate to say it, it's not efficient use of MPDs time to spend five hours arresting the loser on the corner pissing in someones yard.
Yes, there are laws. But without enforcement they are useless. Actually, less than useless.
I live in Mt. P, and worked very hard for the renewal of the singles ban when it came up last year. Incidentally, so did most of the business that sell beer in Mt. P. But I certianly think this is an issue that is perfectly suited to ANC action. Most of the stores in Mt. P don't want to sell singles, but if one of them starts, then they all feel the pressure to. This gives them an out, and the data seems to support the inference that it's helped with "quality of life crimes". Which, the last time I checked, are still crimes.
people should be free to sell beer in whatever quantity they see fit. and people should be able to buy beer in whatever quantity they see fit. freedom people. if i want to buy one beer, then who are you to tell me how many i can buy. its my life. mind your own business.
BAN!!!!!! I'm getting tired of filling my recycle bin with other peoples 40oz bottles.
Joe:
A strict libertarian argument doesn't really work here. You are assuming that the choice of how alcohol is sold has no effect on other people. It does. Selling a never ending stream of single containers of booze in low income urban neighborhoods creates very real social and crime problems.
The first rule of libertarianism is, to paraphrase, "First, do no harm".
The sale of singles in DC, especially given the fact that the DC MPD is missing in action, clearly fails that test.
So, by definition it is my business. When these folks are breaking into my car and urinating in my yard, I consider that my business.
If the war on drugs has taught me anything, it's that curbing supply does not equate to eradicating demand.
Drunks will still get drunk, with or without singles, and they'll still piss in our yard and throw on our sidewalks their three 12 oz bottles/cans instead of one 40.
I'd be curious to see what data you are referring to, BrodyV. Given that virtually all of the things referenced here as being problems caused by singles are not the type reported (urination, littering...not broken windows...I prefer to think that's the calling card of a crackhead), so I'd be skeptical of saying it was a result of the ban.
I think it's sad that we've resorted to banning packaging...
Tim: I've lived in DC for over 10 years. I've seen probably thousands of incidents of people drinking 40 ouncers on the corner.
I have NEVER seen a DC cop actually ticket for this.
Come to think of it, I've NEVER seen a DC cop ticket for pissing in people's front yards either.
Ah, joe! Welcome to society.
I tend to agree with the anti-ban "enforce the law" folks around here. I think littering should be punishable by an immediate five-minute beating with bamboo sticks. People who have no respect for the commons deserve no less.
Wait--how do you know that the commenter there was Joe Englert? He signed in as "joe hstreet," and his e-mail address (not shown, but I moderate the comments, so I can see it) indicates this guy isn't named Joe at all, let alone that he is the H Street impresario. I think he was just saying he's a "regular Joe"...
And I'm pretty sure Joe Englert wouldn't have written the comments you attribute to him.
Of course a strict libertarian argument works here. No libertarian would ever consider it the fault of the bottle that some drunken jackass pissed in your yard. The libertarian would demand to know why they shouldn't be allowed to drink a bottle of ale provided he didn't piss in your yard.
The issue here, as you pointed out, is enforcement of the ACTUAL crime. Certainly MPD won't enforce as the force stands right now. That's exactly where all of these efforts should be focused. Demand more police. Creating a second layer of laws to compensate for the ineffective first layer is not even close to a good solution, IMO.
Steve: I wouldn't knock Wemple for not taking kindly to an illegal (and badly operated) kennel opening next door. The guys who took over the space had to rip out the entire floor because of the stench and rot from all the piss. I sincerely doubt many people would tolerate living within earshot or down-wind of that place- especially knowing it opened and operated illegally.
There are 2 Steves in this thread. I wrote the original post to which Hillman responded.
The problem here is that already existing laws are not being enforced. Banning 40s isn't going to make one ounce of difference (no pun intended). An alcoholic will just buy a 6 pack or a bottle of whiskey instead.
It is readily apparent to me that the real reason people see banning singles as a valid alternative is because the people who drink them are primarily black. If these were white teens no one would be suggesting a ban, they'd be demanding the police enforce the current law. Why isn't anyone proposing this in Georgetown or Dupont Circle or Foggy Bottom? I see frat boys doing some pretty unsavory things on weekends, including peeing on lawns in Georgetown. Why not ban kegs on all the college campuses in the city to prevent them from throwing keggers? Why the double standard?
and i wasn't making any libertarian argument. i was simply asking who in tarnation to you think you are to tell me how to buy my beer? you think you're smarter and have a better way of drinking beer. i like singles. and i don't litter. so leave me alone. i don't bother you. so don't bother me. go volunteer somewhere instead of complaining about something as useless as single beers. they are far from the root of the problem.
Steve:
The racial element you raise is pure BS. I don't care if these folks are black, white, purple, burnt sienna, whatever. If they're doing this crap in my neighborhood I want it stopped.
Not that it matters, but the frat boy behavior you see in Georgetown has very little to do with the sale of singles to go. Those boys are drunks coming out of bars. Banning singles to go would have very little impact on their drunken antics.
If you are so dense that you can't see that sales of singles contributes mightily to crime and hell in transitional neighborhoods, then , yes, I am smarter than you.
And I'm happy that you don't litter or piss in my yard or break into my house.
But a whole lot of other people do those things.
And the easy sale of single containers of beer to go helps facilitate it.
So your behavior in this instance is pretty much irrelevant.
What's actually more stunning is that you refuse to be inconvenienced even a TINY bit so that your neighbors can be safer and have to live with a lot less daily hell.
So in that respect I'm not only smarter than you, I'm a nicer person than you. And certainly a much better neighbor.
No, not really. A real libertarian is also keenly aware of the social contract theory. Decades of losers on the corners in DC have proven that selling singles to go on every corner has a major negative impact on society at large. It's not a theoretical argument. It's an activity that has direct negative impacts on innocent people.
If there were no negative impact, then, yes, a libertarian viewpoint would support an unlimited right to drink anything you want, anywhere you want. But that's clearly not the case here.
Steve:
You are overlooking the obvious logistics here.
Have you ever seen someone sitting on a DC streetcorner with an entire six pack? I've been here 10 years, and I've never seen that.
It's far harder to conceal a six pack, the six pack costs a lot more, and you run at least some slight risk of having DC cops at least confiscate your six pack, which is a much bigger loss.
A bottle of liquor - that's not likely either. First, liquor bottles are again typically larger and harder to hide, usually more expensive, and are far less readily available. For instance, most crappy corner stores have only a beer license, not a liquor license.
As the person who posted the comment that you have chosen to attribute to Joe Englert, I wanted to make sure the author of this post and everyone who reads it knows that I am not, in fact, Joe Englert, nor do I have any relationship with him or his H Street enterprises other than occasionally spending money there.
Mike DeBonis has already said this, of course, but I wanted to confirm what he said. I am not Joe Englert, my first name is not Joe, and I chose the name for its average-guy connotations.
But now that the conversation has been transplanted to DCist, I'd like to reiterate the comments I made in my second post, responding to the decision of some to focus on the "litter" aspect of my post. I'm reprinting this from the City Paper post:
"I don’t think anyone (myself included) believes that banning the sale of singles will eliminate all litter - or even just the litter that comes from people who can’t be bothered to throw their singles in the numerous trashcans nearby.
What we (I?) do believe, however, is that singles ARE definitely part of the litter problem…and part of the public intoxication problem…and part of the public urination problem…and part of the loitering problem. And if those singles can’t be bought on H Street, then all of these problems that they contribute to are likely to be reduced.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying “I don’t care if you drink, just do it somewhere else.” That’s the NIMBY attitude that the author accuses us (me) of, but it’s not why I support the ban. I support it because I believe it will have a demonstrable impact on litter, drunkenness, loitering and public urination - all of which are problems currently facing my neighborhood.
I don’t consider any of these things to be a result of people being poor, which seems to be the implication of the previous poster. I consider them to be a result of a lack of pride and ownership in the neighborhood from the people who do them - many of whom don’t live in the neighborhood and couldn’t care less what it looks like because they’re just hanging out and then moving on. I believe a lack of available singles will give less of a reason to hang out and will allow for more of the ‘pride of place’ to show through."
To sum up - this is not about race, this is not about income, this is not about gentrification. It is about a proactive approach toward behavior that results in litter, public drinking and urination against the sides of our homes.
Tim:
Banning singles is not making a second set of laws. It's a matter of logistics. You are removing the problem, which is super cheap easily transported and easily hidden booze. Enforcement of singles ban will require very little if any MPD action. At most, it would require an occasional call to the appropriate city inspector, since it'd be a violation that the store owner would be guilty of, and would most likely not involve MPD.
The same laws are still out there, unenforced.
And, frankly, we've been trying to get MPD to actually be proactive for decades now. It's a losing battle. So we've got to make common sense choices that require no MPD interaction.
If you can't sell the single, then no MPD interaction is required, as the single then doesn't really exist.
Hillman: I assume you agree that to receive the benefit you seek the ban on singles must also include a ban on small bottles of hard liquor, yes?
What I mean to ask by the above question is: Your goal is to make it very difficult for, essentially, bums to conceal liquor in public, by making said liquor purchase either very bulky or (secondarily) very expensive, right?
I ask because I think that's a truly tricky task. It's one I agree with, but I lean more toward the deposit and enforcement solution. The singles-sales ban has, I think, too much externality-baggage to be palatable.
ever heard of a flask Hillman? I'm glad that you've lived in DC for 10 years but I've lived my entire life in either Philadelphia or DC. I've seen people drinking on street corners out of everything and anything. Again, banning the sale of singles won't accomplish squat.
Also, I wasn't talking about people in bars on M St. I was referring to frat houses further up in Georgetown. Keggers are regularly going on there and the partygoers are regularly causing a disturbance. So let me ask my question again, why is no one proposing a ban on kegs to prevent this?
Mark: Actually that very question has come up in previous discussions about singles bans. And I'm not sure I have a ready answer for that.
Theoretically if small containers of inexpensive hard liquor were a problem, then I'd support that ban too.
But not that many street thugs drink hard liquor straight.
And, again, corner stores don't sell hard liquor. And so much of the problems come from these corner stores. For every one liquor store there's, what, half a dozen or more corner stores? So even a ban that somehow didn't include hard liquor would be extremely useful.
Steve - Though it wouldn't address issues of loitering or public urination, drinking from a flask would definitely create less litter than drinking from singles. And if you can't buy the singles or the smaller bottles of hard liquor to fill the flask, it would require the person drinking to take the time to fill the flask at home and then consciously come back to H Street to drink it...an unlikely scenario at best.
As for Georgetown...I'm going to guess you don't live there, either. Georgetown doesn't have a Greek system, and they certainly don't have "frat houses further up in Georgetown." The only fraternity with a house in the Georgetown area is Delta Phi Epsilon, a professional foreign service fraternity. And they have been prohibited from holding more than one party a year since the mid-1980s.
Hillman - I'm not sure how close you live to H Street, but I can assure you that there are plenty of flask-sized bottles of hard liquor (up to and including something called "Egg Nog") in the alley between 7th and 8th Streets. A singles ban that included hard alcohol containers below a certain size would DEFINITELY be a help in this area.
As for corner stores...this particular ban wouldn't do much to affect them, unless they're located on H Street itself. Everyone is railing against this ban without realizing just how narrow an area it actually impacts.
I'm not proposing a ban on private parties in Georgetown because I don't live in Georgetown and I don't feel I'm qualified to pass judgment on behavior I haven't witnessed.
I support your goal, Hillman, but I know too many poor grandmothers who buy and drink one beer at a time from those corner stores. They don't cause any problems, and I don't want to cause them any. Please consider expecting more from MPD. It's a harder path, politically, but I think it's the more honorable path.
Best,
Mark
I'll second Joe's comments about a flask and how improbable that scenario is.
I live close enough to H to walk there, and I'm up on H itself at least several times a week.
I'd actually support a ban on singles for all of Capitol Hill. It's a neighborhood-wide problem. It's especially bad on H, but it's a problem everywhere. Some merchants are conscientious and try to control the problem, but many are not.
I'll agree with Joe's and Hillman's comments, so long as they both acknowledge that the "singles ban" also includes a ban on smaller than say, pint, bottles of liquor. So, to be clear, only liters or above of Maker's Mark etc are up for sale.
Mark:
I just don't buy the 'poor grandmothers' argument. Those 'poor grandmothers' can just as easily buy their beer in six packs like everyone else.
Demanding MPD enforcement may be honorable, but it's unrealistic.
"Those 'poor grandmothers' can just as easily buy their beer in six packs like everyone else."
I guess they could. And you think they should do this because scofflaw antisocial drunks who piss in your yard make life so difficult for you that the best solution is to restrict everyone? Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Really, I am.
I'm also sorry to hear you cutting MPD (and the DA, I understand it's not simple) so much slack.
Hey, but you could still pick up the green vote if you advocated for tying this broadly-restrictive action to a deposit/return bill. Oh, wait, that's right. That would require an action of the city council, and not just a simple ABC Board ruling. Never mind. I guess we'll just cut the council some slack, too. It's business as usual, elections not withstanding, eh?
As someonw who has lived in Mount Pleasant since 1998 (before the ban on single sales), let me just say the ban has done wonders for the look (and smell) of the neighborhood. There is noticably less trash in the form of bottles and cans, and less public urination.
Why anyone wouldn't want less of both is beyond me.
Hillman,
You have to understand that Mark, living as he does a short few blocks off of Reston Town Center, isn't actually impacted by these issues. But he feels it's critical that he work to defend social policies that will never impact him personally. Just so, you know, things are "kept real."
The idea of "grandmothers not able to buy their single 40 of OE" just tears him up inside.
Hillman,
You have to understand that Mark, living as he does a short few blocks off of Reston Town Center, isn't actually impacted by these issues. But he feels it's critical that he work to defend social policies that will never impact him personally. Just so, you know, things are "kept real."
The idea of "grandmothers not able to buy their single 40 of OE" just tears him up inside.
And remember, when in doubt, when it comes to DC, the MPD is always, always the problem. Talk about an easy job!
Restriction? Please. It's more like an insignicant inconvenience.
Poor grandmothers should put up with the TINY inconvenience because it's in their best interest and in the best interest of the entire neighborhood.
Will a singles ban revolutionize DC and end street crime and quality of life issues? No. But it's a very simple step that can be taken and we'd see immediate results.
Frankly, anyone that is so self-absorbed that they won't put up with even this TINY inconvenience doesn't deserve to live in the city. Living in close quarters entails a certain amount of compromise.
Sales of singles is a public safety issue.
If it's really more important to you to be able to buy a single container of beer instead of facing the horror of having to buy a six pack then frankly you are a crappy neighbor.
And I never advocated cutting MPD slack. I've been quite critical of DC MPD, on this issue and others.
And, again, it's not just minor quality of life issues like pissing in yards. Enabling people to live a life literally drunk all day on the street leads to sexual assaults, theft from autos, breakins of homes, etc.
But, the ability to buy a single container of beer to go instead of buying a six pack is significantly more important to some than the actual safety of their neighbors.
When you live in a city you make certain sacrifices for the general good of your city and your neighbors.
I hardly think having to buy your beer by the six pack is a life-altering hardship. If it is, then you folks need some real hardship in your life so you'll have something to make comparisons to.
Mark sez:
And you think they should do this because scofflaw antisocial drunks who piss in your yard make life so difficult for you that the best solution is to restrict everyone? Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Really, I am.
Well, sorry or no, the ban is going to happen. So why don't you sit down and enjoy your nice hot cup of Representative Democracy. Would you like any Sweet 'n' Low with that?
Hillman,
lack of a Greek system might mean there are no "frat houses" in the official sense but that doesn't mean there aren't group homes filled with drinking and partying college students.
You still haven't answered my question though. If you lived in an area that had a large student population and they engaged in rowdy behavior do to frat parties involving kegs, would you support a ban on kegs?
You might consider these to be "minor inconveniences" but your list of these just gets longer and longer. It seems to me that you simply support a platform of prohibition designed to model the city to your tastes and that you use the "general good" as an excuse to do so. The only good you care about is your own.
Steve says "the only good you care about is your own".
I'll add that to your calling me a racist to give you two points so far in useless rhetoric.
Keg parties - very few of the frat boys at keg parties are living on the street engaging in crime, day after day, year after year, ruining their lives and ruining the neighborhood. Yes, I'm sure some do urinate in people's yards on the way home. And that sucks.
There's a huge legal difference between regulating the sale of singles obviously meant for consumption on the street and banning alcohol consumption in the home.
Kegs are clearly meant for home or private use. Singles are clearly marketed for consumption on the street and in public spaces.
Simply put, you can't legally ban alcohol consumption in the home.
And there is no practical reason to ban kegs. Anyone hosting a keg party in a private residence would simply purchase alcohol in sufficient quantities in other forms. Why? Because it's in a private residence and the issues of cheapness and portability don't come into play.
As for my 'list' of things, please cite me a few examples. By definition a list has to be more than one thing. So far we've discussed a singles ban. That's one thing.
If preventing an obvious source of crime and mayhem in my neighborhood is "modelling the city to my tastes", then I'm guilty as charged.
You really want to ban vagrancy and the kind of civic insensitivity that leads to that kind of littering and urination ( no matter what the ethnicity of the 'poipetrata') but that's too complicated.
Mark: Do you really live in Reston? You know, Reston with the nearly nonexistent street crime and laughably bare thug culture?
I know anyone can comment on these boards, but it's not a wild stretch to say those of us that actually live near H Street may know the problem a bit more than those that live in Reston, and we may have a bit more at stake than you do.
At the risk of being snarky, this is a theoretical debate for you. Which is fine.
But it's a very real thing for us, and it impacts us every day.
So if you'd like a little taste, how about we export a few of these losers to hang out in front of your Reston home, pissing in your yard (actually, my favorite is pissing on cars.... I've seen that repeatedly on H Street), breaking into your car, harassing your girlfried, etc.
Plus, let's take some of your Reston taxes to pay for the social costs. Our enabling of this street culture ends up in a lot more police and ambulance costs, plus the inevitable hospitalization and medical costs.
City Paper ran a stunning article on this very issue a few years back. The focussed on ambulance and police calls for dealing with the street thugs and various addicts living on the street on H Street. Some of these folks cost DC taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a year in treatment and manpower costs. Plus, let's not forget that they are slowly ruining their own lives.
But of course that's far less important than your ability to waltz into any corner store and purchase alcohol in any form. Heck, why not advocate for beer sold in soda bottles so it's even easier to drink on the street? After all, I'm sure there's someone out there that thinks it's their right to such things, and that a restriction on it would be a stunning violation of their basic rights.
So you'd be fine with us assessing you, say, $1000 a year in taxes to help with the cost? Since you are advocating us DC residents have to continue to put up with these staggering costs, year after year.
Because, as we know, the absolute lack of even tiny inconvenience is the ultimate goal here. Not public safety or basic quality of life.
IBC: Actually I have a lot of respect for some of the MPD officers I have. The problem is the inherent suckiness of the department overall. I can understand why they don't arrest the guy urinating on my car when they know it'll take four hours to process the paperwork, and that the guy won't actually get any real punishment.
This is why a lot of DC cops quit and join federal police forces, or move to a suburban force.
But there are also DC cops that really need to be fired. They have no desire to actually police neighborhoods. They are only drawing a paycheck.
Steve:
One more item on banning of kegs. There are, what, a couple of places that actually sell beer in kegs in DC? And Georgetown is of course right across the river from Virginia. If DC were to ban kegs then frat boys would simply cross the river and buy them in Virginia, where they are probably cheaper anyway. Buying a keg is something you do in advance of a major party and hopping the bridge to VA would be just part of party planning.
However, people are not going to leave the H Street area to buy their singles, then return to H Street to drink them.
That would be yet another logistical difference.
So now that we've put the keg ban red herring to bed, can you tell me why you think banning singles is such a horrible and unfair thing?
And it'd be nice if you didn't call us racists this time around.
I'm in favor of cutting down on litter and public urination, but I don't know that a ban on singles is going to do it. I worked in a liquor store in college. It wasn't in a city, but there are alcoholics everywhere. We had a regular customer who came in nearly half a dozen times a day and bought a little bottle of rum. I forget the size, but it's one size up from the airplane bottles.
On one occasion while I was in the store, someone asked him why he didn't just buy a bigger bottle. It would be cheaper, after all. His reply was that he was going to drink whatever he bought in more or less the same amount of time, so buying small bottles kept him from drinking as much.
Anyway, my point is that we need to be careful that this ban doesn't lead to bigger problems.
Fenty did not seek to extend a ban to the whole city, but only to certain parts of Ward 4.
Your fact checking is very, very sloppy.
Nota bene: many people consider accuracy in choosing their news sources, whether on the web or otherwise.
Isn't the 'singles ban' just for buying single beers out of formerly 6 packs?
I've only seen this in cities(I've also seen people buying single cigarettes)
Steve and Hillman,
In reference to post #76, not that it matters much, but I've lived in VA (Arlington & Alexandria) for 13 years now. Since the topic has been raised, I don't even know where you can buy a keg on the VA within "bridge hopping" distance of Georgetown. It's not like Rosslyn is full of liquor stores.
If I recall, the Dixie Liquors store (which recently closed) right at the DC side of Key Bridge owed its early business to VA residents coming to DC to buy kegs, back in the day when there was inconsistency in the legal age laws.
On the other side of the bridge, we have the idiotic state-run liquor stores, and most people buy beer and wine in supermarkets, very few of which bother with kegs. I don't know where to buy a keg on the VA side of the historical boundaries of the district, but many places immediately come to mind on the DC side.
see www dot thehoya com/news/012307/news1 dot cfm
Spookiness: You may be correct. If so, it's a safe bet that if DC banned keg sales then VA or MD would quickly step up to fill that void.
Hillman,
you have to be kidding me. You're famous for supporting a ban on just about anything you don't like. This is readily apparent in your spamming of every message board from the Post to the City Paper to DCist. You've never seen a ban you didn't like.
If you dont live on H street mind your own business and shut the hell up!
Frat houses in Georgetown? Guess the Jesuits changed their minds about banning Greeks and didn't bother to advertise it to the students or anyone else.
A ban on MD 20/20 and Boone's Hill Farm is the next logical step if you ban single beer.
Hillman,
you have to be kidding me. You're famous for supporting a ban on just about anything you don't like.
Indeed. Hillman's lunatic rants about people "smoking on him" were instant classics.
Deposit on cans and bottles instead!
Hillman,
you have to be kidding me. You're famous for supporting a ban on just about anything you don't like.
Indeed. Hillman's lunatic rants about people "smoking on him" were instant classics.
DC's streets would be rid of empty bottles and cans within 24-hours if they'd ever pass a bottle bill. But they never will, because every candidate for council is in favor of it but when it comes up for vote, it's ALWAYS shot down. US PIRG, Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, all the usual suspects lobby the council and the beverage lobby rides in and spreads its cash and the bill dies a merciful death. Deposits and returns ain't going to happen in DC.
And if you think this ban on singles is going to accomplish anything, I've got seven words for you:
three liter jug of Carlo Rossi Paisano
Imagine how much urine one of those generates. And in the interest of science, I will be conducting an informal experiment this evening.
Oh, Steve and Lurker, the smoking issue is totally unrelated to the issue at hand. You implied the singles ban was some horrible slippery slope toward banning other alcohols. I simply asked you to support that argument.
And I stand by the smoking ban rants (which I'll gladly admit were quite the rants..... I don't know about 'classics', but they will stand the test of time).
People that think it's ok to smoke on others are self-centered pricks, and people that refuse to accept the tiny inconvenience of a singles ban are self-centered pricks.
So, yes, I do support bans on behavior that is stunningly destructive to those around you. It's part of living in close proximity with others and not being a selfish ass.
Incidentally, this is yet another red herring argument. The topic is singles ban on H Street. Do you have any arguments that are actually on topic? I would seriously like to hear them. If there's merit to them, more power to you.
H Street can do it what it wants, but if I have to go to VA to buy beer to play Edward 40-hands...
Monkey: Your three liter plans sound disturbingly enticing to me...
But the logistics argument holds for the three liter. It's a lot harder to cart around and hide a three liter under your shirt or whatnot when the occasional cop or do-gooder comes along. And you can still get a single for a lot less than your three liter.
Your point about a bottle bill is valid. I'm not sure why we don't have one.
Unless, of course, the inconvenience and me-first me-only lobby is at it again. Having to pay a deposit is an inconvenience, and we apparently now live in a world where we can insist we personally aren't inconvenienced in even the slightest way.
Hear that? It's the H Street forty crowd moving from malt liquor to Thunderbird. All together now:
"What's the word? / Thunderbird / How's it sold? / Good and cold / What's the jive? / Bird's alive / What's the price? / Thirty twice."
Or around $4 last I checked. There's a lot to be said about white port cut with lime juice, most of it slurred. And while I am a recent Paisano convert (I've had worse reds at three times the price. At least the stuff doesn't taste like a tanned leather belt.) I highly recommend the Carlo Rossi Blush. Excellent straight up, with club soda as a spitzer, or in a punchbowl with fresh fruit and Fresca as a light sangria. Makes that Ecco Domani stuff taste like a well-worn pair of ass chaps that have been around the DC Eagle one time too many.
And if you think this ban on singles is going to accomplish anything, I've got seven words for you:
three liter jug of Carlo Rossi Paisano
Imagine how much urine one of those generates.
My best guess is somewhere in the vicinity of three liters.
And that's not including the vomit.
I don't drink a lick, and I'm sick of people (yes, mostly poor black guys) dropping beer bottles all around my house and in my garden. But it seems like a little too much micro-management to have a ban on single beers. I see it as a civil rights issue--we should preserve as many of them as we can. Of course, there should be a few exceptions for the common good... but does this deserve to be one of those few?
And that's not including the vomit.
But of course. Like Hillman, I'm both intrigued and repulsed by the thought of a three liter jug of Carlo Rossi on a Friday night. How do you drink that; in a pint glass or do you just drop in a two foot long crazy straw and suck like a $2 hooker during Fleet week?
My guess is that they'll do like those who dwell beneath the bridges and tunnels downtown do: swipe a discarded Starbucks or McDonalds cup and pass around their three-liter blanket-in-a-bottle.
If they cant get a single, they'll save up for a six or a cheap bottle of plonk. Or they'll head over to The Pug for $2 Schafers. Given that choice, I'll go back to pouring Sterno through a piece of stale bread. Not much bouquet and you'll probably go blind, but at least you don't have to look at women in buisness suits and fliplops anymore.
My objection's not about "keeping it real", or whatever. My objections are about 1) The prescription not fitting the disease, 2) The prescription having other, unacknowledged or tritely-dismissed, consequences, and 3) The prescription representing a missed opportunity for something that would be broadly-beneficial.
As I've already written, I think supporters are selling themselves (and their neighbors) too cheaply and, in doing so, letting our elected officials off the hook too easily. My opinion is that a deposit/return bill, combined with more police enforcement of public nuisance crimes, is the big-picture way to solve these issues, which are common accross many parts of the city.
ibc and Hillamn: I grew up in this area, and I have been a DC resident (of various nice and not-so-nice neighborhoods) for the past 15 or so years. ibc- the guy who was involved in the robbery/chase/running gun battle/frying pan incident/standoff/grandmother-mediated-surrender a few weeks back near your (and Hillman's) neighborhood, was a resident of my neighborhood. And that aint Reston Towne Center.
Is it just me, or has reading Hillman's rants over the past couple of months filled anyone else with a strong desire to smoke in his face and piss on his lawn?
Or the other way around.
Mark:
On one thing we do agree. City officials and MPD are not doing their jobs on these issues. But that, frankly, is a fix that will take years. A singles ban can happen much quicker.
A singles ban isn't a panacea. It's just one tool in the toolbelt. But it's a useful one that has virtually no downside and has a whole lot of upside. And it's easy and quick.
Self-Centered:
While that's amarginally cute post (albeit not really original), it's not really conducive to the exchange of ideas, is it?
If you don't care for my posts, nobody is forcing you to read them. I'll be the first to admit I can be pretty forceful, but I don't really see a reason to apologize for that. I make an effort to be polite and civil, at least at first.
Most of my postings have to do with how we treat each other in an urban environment. And I'm not afraid to call people on selfish and arrogant behavior.
I think one thing DC has had for too long is a timid population that allows self-centered pricks to take advantage of everyone else around them.
That's why we get crappy service in restaurants, why we get substandard service in nearly every industry, why we get losers that won't walk or stand aside on Metro escalators when asked, why we get suburbanites that have no problem taking all available residential spaces in our neighborhoods, why we think we have some God-given right to not be inconvenienced in any way by our neighbors, and why we end up thinking it's normal for people to piss on our cars and in our yards.
I for one am a bit tired of that.
Hence, I rant.
At least it makes me feel better. And I have to note that whilst I do come off as strident, I can say that very rarely does the opposing side actually make any sort of a coherent argument, aside from calling me names or introducing red herring arguments. And when they do, I'm man enough to admit it and concede their point. After all, isn't that what forums are for?
Hillman: We actually agree on at least two things, and probably on far more. I'll agree with you that the single sales ban is one of many tools, and that our government could do better.
I really want a deposit/return law. Sure, it's harder and slower to get. But a deposit/return law would also have a far greater impact on such major DC-wide environmental issues as litter and recycling. It would dovetail very nicely with the recent action on the anti-littering front.
I hate this rear-guard NIMBY stuff- chiseling away at the margins of everyone's options, just to take up a bit of MPD's slack. It depresses me- it seems to never end.
"That's why we get crappy service in restaurants, why we get substandard service in nearly every industry, why we get losers that won't walk or stand aside on Metro escalators when asked, why we get suburbanites that have no problem taking all available residential spaces in our neighborhoods, why we think we have some God-given right to not be inconvenienced in any way by our neighbors, and why we end up thinking it's normal for people to piss on our cars and in our yards."
...and you're calling us the self centered pricks? Grandma needs to lighten up a bit.
Steve: Are you ever going to post an actual substantive post in support of your position, or is calling us racist and elitist all you've got?
BAN ALL VULGARITY!!! MANDATORY MASS READINGS OF "MISS MANNERS". FORCE HOMELESS PEOPLE TO READ THACKERY AND WATCH MERCHANT IVORY FILMS. IT'S THE ONLY WAY. IT'S THE ONLY WAAAAAY.
I love all the people who post on here saying they are against the ban. I doubt any of you live near the mess. I live on 3rd and H, 2 houses down from a store that sell' singles. My front yard is used as a urinal and a garbage can. For those of you who do not want to ban the sale of singles, why don;t you get togethere every sunday and pick up along H Street. If I saw you all do that, then I would consider opposing the ban.
Justin: Sorry to say it, man, but the singles ban currently under consideration isn't going to do anything to help your lawn. If anything, it will make it worse.
The ban that is being considered only deals with the part of H Street that is represented by ANC-6A. Anything west of 7th Street falls under ANC-6C's jurisdiction and is not subject to the ban. ANC-6C has indicated its support of the 6A's efforts, but they don't have any current plans (that I'm aware of) to pass one of their own.
***At this point, this post contains more factually accurate reporting than the one that started this thread. And it's amusing to see that they have yet to correct their original post to stop attributing my words to Joe E.
Your truly, Not Joe Englert
Maybe if we had public restrooms like the rest of the free developed world, this issue would be non-existant.
Bans are bullshyt. If it is legal to own, it is legal to be sold. Don't get me started on the smoking ban either. *smh And you call yourselves Americans?