This Week in the Mercury

The (Un)Happy Hooker

Theater

The (Un)Happy Hooker

Red Light Winter: A Prostitute Is Rarely the Solution to Your Problems


Not in My Parking Lot

News

Not in My Parking Lot

Car Camping Plan Upsets Neighbors



Thursday, September 16, 2010

Booze Ban Rules OK'd: Next stop, OLCC!

Posted by Denis C. Theriault on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Screen_shot_2010-09-16_at_12.26.06_AM.png
Commissioner Amanda Fritz's proposal to ban sales of the hooch most preferred by street drinkers—a bid to create a state-controlled "alcohol impact area" in downtown and parts of the Pearl and Northwest—won unanimous approval last night at a packed city council meeting where grocers, drinkers, lobbyists, and residents all came to speak their minds.

Under the city's proposal, all malted beverages with more than 5.75 percent alcohol would be forbidden in the special zone. All containers larger than 12 ounces—no one saw the light and gave a dispensation for 16-ounce tallboys of regular beer—also would be a no-no. Same with boxed wines, most fortified wines and the shitty wine that comes in those round, fat jugs.

Microbrews, as defined by federal guidelines, would not be included. And, thanks to persistent questioning on the dais from Randy Leonard and Nick Fish (helped by testimony from wine lobbyists and mid-meeting hallway huddles with grocery lobbyist Jim Gilliam), neither will gourmet wines that pack a lot of punch.

The city's petition for the zone heads next to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Liquor commissioners, if they agree to look at the petition, will conduct their own research and may draft their own rules. A final decision on a ban, a first for Oregon, is perhaps a year away.

Initially, Fritz's plan—put together by the capable Theresa Marchetti of the Office of Neighborhood Involvement—broadly banned all wines with more than 14 percent alcohol. Instead, commissioners homed in on wines like Mad Dog, which have spirits added to them, with exemptions for fancy fortified stuff like vermouth, marsala, madeira , sherry and port. Parsing the stats used to draw up the proposal, Fish noted high-end wine only accounted for a fraction of overall drinking problems downtown.

"If that language was in there, we would support it," said Gilliam, who wound up being the last person to address the council. Two of his clients, Safeway and Fred Meyer, have stores in the proposed area, and each stock literally scores of wine offerings that otherwise would have been affected.

But why wasn't there any love for cold, frosty tallboys? Find out after the jump.

Oddly, though, no one pounded home the same argument about tallboys of PBR or Budweiser, which similarly account for a far smaller percentage of problems than tallboys of beer stronger than 5.75 percent alcohol, like Milwaukee's Best Ice. Retailers made the point in stakeholder meetings, and almost everyone I've talked to about the proposal—including faithful Mercury commenters—also expressed shock and dismay that tallboys were included. Only Doug Peterson, who owns three markets in the zone, raised the issue at all last night.

After the meeting, I asked Leonard why he didn't step up in similar fashion for beer. "I didn't hear anyone clearly articulate that," he told me. "I needed someone to say, 'Here's where you got this wrong.'"

He almost has a point. Further giving the appearance, at least to some, that this proposal is as class-based as it is health-based, the testimony last night really was wine, wine, wine all the time. Joe Sixpacks didn't show up to talk. Hoity-toity beer drinkers can still get their boutique bottles. And while the wine industry sent a lobbyist all the way from California, no one came to speak for the big breweries.

One group in particular seemed ecstatic about the outcome, besides staffers working for Fritz: Old ladies. More than a dozen of the 50-plus people who filled the chambers were high-pants-wearing condo dwellers who repeated more hyperbole about the ills of their new downtown neighborhood.

Otherwise, even with the exemption carved out and the vote unanimous, there were plenty of complaints.

Merchants like Chris Girard, CEO of Plaid Pantry, repeated his suggestion that the borders be expanded to take in more markets—a complaint echoed by others who said the proposal would just spread the problem to other neighborhoods and send drunks out of the reach of detox workers mostly concentrated downtown.

Many also suggested the ban focus on particular brands, copying the formula used by alcohol bans in Washington state—bans whose success Portland officials have cited.

City officials and police had an easy response to both concerns. Because markets outside downtown aren't packed in shoulder to shoulder, it would be easier to use current city rules to bust whichever problem stores arise, they said. They also said a ban built on alcohol content and container sizes prevents manufacturers from repackaging forbidden brands under new names, and it keeps officials from having to continually watch for new products.

Then there's the bigger picture: Lifting people from the mire of addiction, and the social problems that go hand in hand with it.

"Street drinkers usually suffer from two things: a physical addiction to alcohol, and homelessness," said Rob Wheaton of Oregon AFSCME, speaking on behalf of the Hooper Detox Center. "A meaningful solution is going to require some commitment to treatment and care."

Fritz repeated a familiar line that this was just a "piece of the puzzle." I believe she means that. And maybe it will help. But it's also not enough.

And as much as I wish folks had stepped forward in defense of tallboys, it seems a few more folks should have showed up to pound home this issue, too.

 

Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
They should call the law "PBR" (Pretentious Bullshit Rules). I lived downtown for years and saw just as many assholes drunk off martinis from Saucebox as 40oz. from Plaid Pantry. But the hobos don't call the cops on the yuppies (being that hobos generally don't have phones). And there's where your crime statistics come from.

Also, surely drunk driving causes more pain, suffering, and bottom-dollar cost to our society than "public drunkenness". Wouldn't it make more sense to ban alcohol at restaurants? If the hobos are drinking outside the store, they ain't driving anywhere fucked up, right Fritz?

Posted by Night Moves on September 16, 2010 at 8:56 AM · Report
2
Definitely some good points Night Moves. I don't really care about bans on these types of liquor... but that is just because I am completely unaffected by them. It will be interesting to see what happens now with this ban in place. Speaking of drunk driving, wouldn't it be neat if every time you had to start your car, you had to give it a breathalyzer test? Anyways, unrelated...
Posted by BruceWang on September 16, 2010 at 9:03 AM · Report
3
" Speaking of drunk driving, wouldn't it be neat if every time you had to start your car, you had to give it a breathalyzer test?"

Eh, people would just have a friend blow into it for them. I'd rather such much, MUCH stiffer penalties for first-time drunk driving, not to mention repeat DUI offenders. We should impound cars, not suspend licenses. If a person is going to get busted for DUI 10 times, what makes us think they'll care about driving on a suspended license?
Posted by Dave J. on September 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM · Report
4
Trying to remove the "source" of the problem without drasticly increasing the amount of money spent on reducing homelessness and treatment programs is just fucking retarded. We saw how well this worked out last time the old ninnies tried taking our precious precious booze away from us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_i…
Posted by Graham on September 16, 2010 at 9:38 AM · Report
5
In some Scandinavian countries, there is a mandatory spell in jail for first time DUI. That would help stop people doing it.

Well, that and things like actually having buses that can get you home at that time of night...
Posted by Stu on September 16, 2010 at 10:34 AM · Report
6
The American way is to not build public transportation infrastructure, build everything around the car and far apart, market alcohol everywhere, then pass draconian alcohol laws that disproportionally target the poor.
Posted by Suburban Porn King on September 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM · Report
7
^ You forgot to add that said draconian alcohol law can be circumvented by driving somewhere else.
Posted by The Immortal Goon on September 16, 2010 at 12:27 PM · Report
8
We need to treat causes, not symptoms.

Ugh.

Also, I enjoy an occasional Old English forty.
Posted by cat & beard on September 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM · Report
9
Nice to see I'm going to deal with even more drunk, angry hobos in my neighborhood now that we're juuuust outside the border of the so-called "impact area," with two markets right by that are unaffected by the ban. It's going to be hell out here.
Posted by el cubano on September 16, 2010 at 3:02 PM · Report
10
Yeah, this will surely take care of the problem.

We all know that only homeless people are alcoholics. We all know that prohibition solves addiction (hence the overwhelming success of the drug war.) Obviously those with addictions to alcohol who spend their time in this area will just give up on drinking because it won't be as easy as walking over a few blocks to buy these demon drinks that are the bane of society.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's only make it possible for rich people with vehicles to get hammered and drive home.

Why don't we just put up an electric fence around China town and throw cases of cheap beer at the homeless while hordes of self-righteous city officials laugh merrily and consume cocktails from their sidewalk seats at high end bars?

This is ridiculous. Get a clue, Portland.
Posted by annoyedwithignorance on September 16, 2010 at 4:08 PM · Report

Add a comment

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use