Re: ". . . important step in Salt Lake City's neighborhood business
development."Yeah? Important? To whom?The
alcohol-related carnage will increase, and innocent people will die because of
this cynical concession to the rapacious "hospitality" industry.
It's entirely foreseeable. It's inevitable.Looks like
pandering lawmakers and grasping, greedy poison purveyors may have succeeded in
their plan to make the city more gritty, more brutish, and more dangerous.Quite a legacy.
Although I'm not a member of the LDS Church, I appreciate their stance on
alchohol. I have personally chosen to abstain for my own reasons, although I am
not against moderate alchohol consumption, within reason. I cannot help
thinking, however, that behind this move to loosen existing restrictions on
alchohol in SLC lies a "Let's stick it to the LDS Church" mindset.
Establishing bars near areas that obviously are heavily Mormon neighborhoods is
disrespectful, and eventually will place lives at risk. Most places whose
primary business is serving alchohol will end up sending out impaired drivers on
those neighborhood streets, not to mention creating violence in more homes.
I'm not too worried about more bars drawing Mormons into violating their
own Word of Wisdom, but I do fear that this act of lowering restrictions on
alcohol will ulimately do more hamr than good.
Carnage in the streets? No. Give us some credit.
This is the government removing themselves from regulating business, this is
what every Republican in this state dreams of, what is the big deal?
The whole point is being able to walk to a neighborhood pub instead of drive
untold miles to hidden buildings in restricted zones to hide your sins in dark
alleys.procuradorfiscal said: "Looks like pandering lawmakers
and grasping, greedy poison purveyors may have succeeded in their plan to make
the city more gritty, more brutish, and more dangerous.Quite a
legacy."Say the person who defends rio tinto, magna corp or
energy solutions "right" to pump their toxic waste into the air, ground
or water, moronic morality at it's best I'd say.
Re: "Carnage in the streets? No. Give us some credit."You
want credit? You got it -- please take credit for 16,885 [2005 figures -- last
figures I had when I updated my slides in 2008] alcohol-related traffic deaths,
254,000 injuries, 1,000,000+ arrests, and countless marriages, homes, children,
friendships and relationships.I'd say it's proper to call
that "carnage."And all of them sacrificed on the altar of
your "freedom" to buy and consume poison from some really evil, really
rich people.But, don't worry. You have an ally. The
"hospitality" industry is also pushing for your "freedom," as
well. Pushing hard. $393 billion a year hard.That appears to be
plenty enough to buy up a platoon of the best Utah politicians money can buy.Think all this may be part and parcel of the "consequence of evils
and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last
days?"Yeah -- I think so too.
@procuradorfiscalSo I just did some research(google is awesome!) According
to the NHTSA website 10,228 people died in alchol related crashes in 2010. A
4.9% decrease from the prior year. While still a lot of deaths, it's 6000
less than what you claimed. Also, a neighborhood bar doesn't make me drive
home drunk. I either take a cab or walk, so would I go more to a bar if
it's in my neighborhood, ya absolutely. But I wouldn't be hurting you
in the slightest. Unless you have a problem with people walking down the street.
@procuradorfiscal: Obesity currently results in an estimated 400,000 deaths a
year in the United States and costs the national economy nearly $122.9 billion
annually. Not to mention the countless marriages, homes, children, friendships
and relationships it costs. Now, while I will agree, for the most part, that
being obese will not necessarily kill innocent people, for you to sit up there
on your high horse and demand that alcohol be regulated while not calling for
the regulation of food and government intervention to regulate those who overeat
is disingenuous. If you are really concerned about the people it affects, I
would think you would be much more concerned with the 400,000 deaths from
obesity than the 16,000 deaths from alcohol. But I have a feeling it's not
about the deaths and more about the alcohol.
@procuradorfiscal How many of those 16,885 alcohol-related traffic deaths were
caused by people walking home from the bar? Oh, right. Zero.I always get a big laugh out of people who quote statistics that
actually contradict their position. Nicely done.
Re: "But I wouldn't be hurting you in the slightest."So, if I die in an accident caused by you or someone else who gets drunk at
one of the bars you insist should be built and opened in your neighborhood,
you're not hurting me in the slightest, huh?Therein lies the
problem. It's always someone else's fault. Though it's easily and
entirely predictable that your insistence on more bars will result in more
deaths, more injuries, more broken homes, lives, marriages, and children --
it's not your fault.The "hospitality" industry and
desperate drinkers would have us believe it's nobody's fault. But the
death toll rolls on and on and on . . . .In a way, you're right
-- if the law changes tonight, it IS the fault of venal politicians bought out
by the "hospitality" industry. We can, and should lay the blame for the
inevitable increase in carnage at their door.
When you are in the pocket of the liquor lobby, things go your way. More alcohol
sales, more intoxicated people, more money for bar owners and alcohol
Mayor Ross Rocky Anderson ended the city's support of the DARE program
years ago and it is now paying off. The City is pushing for neighborhoods to
have bars so the kids that would have been taught the abuse of drugs but
weren't will have the City Council vote on this subject.Sugar
House is a great area that has survived over the years. It will be a prime
market area for family activities, such as North Beach is in San Francisco. Our historic values will be like the DARE program in Salt Lake City. I
guess the City Council want to be like our neighbors in other states and
countries. That will improve our children's chances of being better people
and socialize at bars, instead of with friends and neighbors who choose not to
drink. Bars have alcohol and cigarettes, both potentially habit
forming and even addictive. Some of us have family members that have suffered
with parents and siblings that have gone that path. I know people
can get access to those items now at various places but this will just put a
friendly image in neighborhoods at what expense? Is the City Council oblivious?
So what sort of accident am I causing walking 4 or 5 blocks back to my house
after a couple drinks at a bar? Oh wait, there isn't much I can do just
walking down the street. I also disagree with the assertion that bars create a
problem drinkers. Clearly you don't drink or you would know that very few
heavy drinkers are getting drunk at the bar. Do you know how much it would cost
to get the equivalent of a $9 bottle of booze at the bar? Let's do the
math. A drink contains 1-1.5oz of booze. So let's say 1.5oz for this
example. A fifth of booze is around 26oz. Which means you have approximately 17
drinks in a bottle of booze. A cheap drink is $5, so 17*5=$85. Is the hardcore
drunk, who needs a bottle of booze a day paying $85 at the bar or $9 at the
liquor store? Hardcore drunks rarely can afford the bar, simple as that.
You would think becker would be more interested in having neighborhood
fruit/vegetable stands to get more healthy foods out to the masses. Instead his
focus is on getting alcohol to the masses to develop their social life at 1
a.m.. Really?!The city needs to restrict renters from voting on the
future of the city and allow actual homeowners the ability to decide what is
going to happen. Renters have zero vested interest in the neighborhoods. I can
almost guarantee that these council members and becker won't have a pub
right next to their home that they get to enjoy and deal with people talking,
dumping garbage, urinating and lighting up their cigs and dumping those in their
lawns.Keep businesses in the business district. Leave neighborhoods
for people to actually enjoy.
I'm still waiting for the public service announcement: Hundreds of people
killed everyday in accidents due to sober drivers. Sober driving just say
no.I mean seriously more people are killed by sober, sleepy, bad
drivers. I assume most people walk or take a cab to the local tavern or if they
go across town they have a DD. Most drinkers I know, myself included, are very
responsible. There are no doubt a few bad apples but that is with everything
isn't it? There are responsible gun owners but there are also deranged
killers that use guns.We have the right to go to a pub and have a
nice cold brew with a meal. I don't think there are going to be clubs
going up in the middle of residential neighborhood. Good job SLC, I wish Utah
county would do the same but that is a pipe dream. SLC, the only sain place in
We loved Germany when we lived there on the economy while in the military.
However, they are known for the great beers and wine, especially, this time of
year with BeerFests and WineFests. However, their neighborhood bars, really
restaurants with great food, were everywhere in the neighborhoods. When they go to the restaurant, it is not like here, where the restaurant has
a line of people waiting to get in and eat and then leave. Germany, as many
other European countries have a tradition and spend a lot of time in the
"restaurant" enjoying their food and drink. The food is eaten but they
are still there. Europeans came to our country and some of them
came because of their convictions and beliefs. They not necessarily enjoyed the
traditons of their parents. In Utah, people came also, due to their beliefs and
have a pretty good society and due to agency. The city of Salt Lake
City, Utah, is a large community and people came to Utah for other things than
drinking and associating in a bar as you can do that in many other communities
in the United States. People elected City Council members and can vote them
@Liberal TedI can't disagree with you more. Many renters are
responsible, and as a renter I do believe I deserve a right to vote.
Occasionally I won't vote for a ballot initiative if it won't effect
me in the long run. For instance I live in Millcreek and won't cast a vote
to decide if the city should/shouldn't incorporate, because I won't
have to deal with the consequences of that vote. But because I don't own a
house I shouldn't be able to vote for a Senator, Congressman or President?
That is absurd, I have just as much of a right as you do to vote in those
Re: ". . . morality at it's best I'd say."Thanks!But seriously -- no one honestly believes that more alcohol
outlets in more neighborhoods will have any effect other than increasing
drinking. As drinking increases, no one honestly believes there won't be an
accompanying increase in drinking's harmful effects.It simply
defies logic.The people moving politicians' mouths on this
issue are the insanely greedy, unbelievably wealthy, incredibly insensate people
of the "hospitality" industry -- people who intend to steal your money,
induce you, your kids, and your grandkids to buy ever more of their poison,
knowing, to a mathematical certainty, that sooner or later, you, or someone like
you will act badly under its influence. Then, when they've sucked away all
your resources, they'll abandon your victims to grinding poverty and you to
jail and dishonor, while they trot off, untouched, with your wherewithal.Don't you mind being played for a chump?
Most State Liquor Stores are adjacent to neighborhoods. The State of Utah is
the sole distributor of liquor and would be on the receiving end of increased
sales. When it comes to irresponsible drinking and antisocial behavior, I am
confident that you will find a much larger percentage in establishments
relegated to commercial zones catering to throngs of strangers as opposed to a
nearby establishment where you can socialize with friends and neighbors while
having a few drinks. One thing about Utah: there is never a lack of people
trying to tell other people how to live their lives. It's ironic that some
of the best bars in the city are local hangs that were "grandfathered
in" before zoning restrictions were incorrectly believed to be a viably form
of CONTROL. Scare tactics aside, it will not be necessary to hide the women and
children from establishments catering to your friends and neighbors.
Would it kill anyone to have to walk a few more blocks to the business district
to get a drink? Why not set up fruit and vegetable stands in the neighborhoods
rather than bars? You can socialize, buy healthy products, bring healthy food
and encourage walking and sustainable living. Not sure how pubs/bars/clubs is
promoting a healthier lifestyle....Just saying, they should start
practicing what they preach. The fact of the matter is, having vegetable/fruit
stands wouldn't pull in the tax revenue that alcohol can.Just
be honest council members.
"Why not set up fruit and vegetable stands in the neighborhoods rather than
bars?"People are free to do that. YOU are free to do that.
There is no Government Regulations preventing that. The reason it does not
occur is because people don't see it as profitable.
"Bars have alcohol and cigarettes"These are not tied
together... what in the heck. Here in North Carolina - home of the Tobacco
industry, you can't smoke in Bars. Why in the world would smoking be
mandated in public Bars in Utah?I love this image of bars (by
Utahns) that they are these dens of inequity, where all morals are loosed, and
are filled with slobbering drunks. More examples of over generalizations run
amuck. Yes, many people go to bars to have a drink. More go there to hang
out with friends in a neutral spot, to chat, to watch a game, to meet new
people. I best love this whole "we need to protect our
children" line. Is it your opinion that in other parts of the country Bars
are filled with under age drinkers loosing their virtue. Good grief.I don't drink. Have no desire to. I held many of these like views when
I lived in Utah. Now living with normal people, I have found that guys go to a
bar to watch a game. They don't leave drunk, and they are good church
going and family people. These over exaggerations are laughable.
@jttheawesomegreat commentAlso I think it should be
noted that a restaurant with a liquor license is NOT the same thing as a barThere are neighborhood restaurants all over the city and they do not have
issues because food must be consumed along with drinking; mitigating some of the
effects of the alcohol
cachedoutCenterville, UT"@procuradorfiscal How many of those
16,885 alcohol-related traffic deaths were caused by people walking home from
the bar? Oh, right. Zero.I always get a big laugh out of people who
quote statistics that actually contradict their position. Nicely done."I don't know about the Zero. In Las Vegas I have helped more than
one drunk individule accross a street or over ruff ground to saftey while being
cussed out for judging them all the way.I have seen them hit and killed as
well as the unsespecting driver being injured in their damaged car trying to
miss the drunk.
@jttheawesome"Establishing bars near areas that obviously are heavily
Mormon neighborhoods"Salt Lake City is just about the least, if
not the least, Mormon part of the state. @procuradorfiscal"please take credit for 16,885 [2005 figures -- last figures I had when I
updated my slides in 2008] alcohol-related traffic deaths"That
depends, do you want to take credit for the over 10,000 gun caused homicides in
2004? "no one honestly believes that more alcohol outlets in
more neighborhoods will have any effect other than increasing drinking."At a minimum it won't reduce drinking. I doubt people would start
drinking because of it so more likely it would be from people going out maybe 6
times a month instead 4. What it would also do though is reduce the commute to
and from the place they're drinking at which could reduce drunk driving
rates.@Liberal Ted"The city needs to restrict renters from
voting on the future of the city and allow actual homeowners the ability to
decide what is going to happen."If I wanted to restrict guns as
much as conservatives wanted to restrict voting, I'd be called a fascist.
@Liberal Ted"Would it kill anyone to have to walk a few more blocks to
the business district to get a drink? "It might... someone who
has to walk 10 blocks to get a drink might be more likely to drive drunk than
someone who only has to walk 4 blocks.
Think all this may be part and parcel of the "consequence of evils and
designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last
days?" I was asked. No. This last days thing is hooey. Fear mongering
fabrication, like the real motive behind the idiocy that is liquor law in utah.
As if I didn't need a reason to NOT live in SLC here comes another one!