Quaffing in the parks

Proposed change in Denver policy needs more airing

Rocky Mountain News

Sunday, May 11, 2008

We take you to La Alma Recreation Center in Denver, where the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board last week conducted a public hearing on proposed changes in the alcohol policy for the parks.

Most of the changes are routine, but one has caused alarm among neighborhood representatives who fear that it will open parks to commercialization, privatization and limited public access. About 25 residents, including Cathy Donohue, a member of City Council for 19 years, were on hand, many seeking their allotted three minutes to register their concerns and objections.

We share some of that concern. And while we're not prepared to oppose outright the proposal, we do agree that several questions deserve further exploration.

First some background. Currently, beer, wine, champagne and hard- liquor mixed drinks may be sold at events for which a "festival permit" has been obtained from Denver Parks and Recreation - provided it is accompanied by a "Special Event Liquor Permit" issued by the city's department of excise and licenses. Only a nonprofit entity may qualify for a special event permit.

What most upset the citizens at the recreation center last week is a proposal to remove the requirement for a special event license so that for-profit groups can operate admission-based events in the parks at which booze is served. Among the questions they posed:

Will this change open the doors to steadily increasing commercial use of city parks? If so, will nearby residents increasingly be denied the use of these premier public amenities?

How do police officials feel about an expansion of liquor sales in parks?

Is the city attorney's office correct that this does not require an amendment to the City Charter or, perhaps, even a change in state law?

How will the city monitor liquor sales to ensure that neighborhoods are not disrupted?

Aren't the most popular locations for public gatherings already in high demand, without this change?

What exactly are the names of the "numerous for-profit entities" the city says have made requests "to host events and sell or serve" alcoholic beverages?

Denver parks are marvelous amenities that enhance the quality of life of residents and promote the enjoyment of simple pleasures. City officials have stated emphatically that the proposed changes will not "open the floodgates to countless 'alcohol heavy' events," and we'd like to believe that's the case. But the implications of the new alcohol proposal are potentially serious, and they deserve a much fuller public airing before the city decides whether to finalize them later this summer.

• May 12, 2008

  9:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  uncledave writes:

  Totally agreed. Aren't there enough bars and restaurants to buy a drink? Now bars in Parks. Bad idea. And, allowing for-profit liquor sales in the camel's nose under the tent of allowing all kinds of commercialization of public ammenities.

• May 12, 2008

  10:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  what do you care?

  stay out of other's biz.

  if you don't want to watch it, turn the channel. if you don't want to smoke it, don't. if you don't want to drink it, don't.

• May 12, 2008

  11:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  280Pagoda writes:

  Perhaps it is a sign of the times, when schools are more concerned about tests than thinking, but history indicates the surrounding communities aren’t impacted nor do they care.

  If you are offended by historical context, look away now. For those few who think the past can teach us something: At Chief Hosa Lodge, liquor was allowed at the restaurant from opening in 1918 until 1920 when Prohibition started. Mayor Speer offered the first toast. No mention if the surrounding community was outraged.

  From 1920 to 1933 the 18th amendment to the Constitution banned liquor consumption, but it did sneak back, bringing gambling and prostitution along for good measure. I think we can image it was the local community being served. Later, it wasn’t the local community shutting Chief Hosa down, but the Feds. Perhaps Elliot Ness and his Feds were the only ones not corruptible. When money got tight during the Depression, Denver spent more time fighting about where the money for maintenance would come from than if liquor should be prohibited, even during Prohibition.
  
  Just focusing at Chief Hosa Lodge, over the last ninety years, liquor has been officially served there for about all but about two decades, and was often there even when Prohibition was in effect. What kind of a local impact was there? Seems like there was more "crime" when it was banned than when liquor was legal.

  Besides, just because Denver doesn’t issue a license, doesn’t mean Jeffco won’t. After Denver issued liquor licenses on and off during the first half century or so, then in the 1980s, Jefferson County started issuing the Chief Hosa liquor license – without anyone noticing – where it stayed for a couple of decades until Denver got things rolling again by asking itself for permission to “allow” liquor in April of 2005. No debate, only bureaucratic confusion - as usual.

  It doesn’t seem like anyone in any community, local or legal or political cares if there is a liquor license or who issues it. And the ones celebrating seem determined to have a drink regardless. Other than the new Prohibitionists, who else is impacted?

  Setting aside Denver's laughable incompetence and inability to figure out who has jurisdiction, only the guests at the lodge are impacted - that and whichever tax man gets the money. What other lesson can be drawn from nearly a century of history?

  Jay's posting hits the nail on the head. If you don't want to do it - don't. If you do, enjoy the fact that the moralizing nannies haven't prevented it. Yet.

  I propose a toast: To Freedom of choice; enjoy it while you can.

• May 12, 2008

  4:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  me2 writes:

  I remember my time in Germany, where you can buy beer and hot wine from street corner vendors.

  Americans need to travel more, they might not be so quick to call themselves the freest people on Earth if they lived somewhere else for even a little while. Alcohol in public places all over European countries, but the penalties for drunken behavior are five times stronger than here.

  Europe treats people like adults, and holds them responsible for their actions like adults. We still treat each other like misbehaving children who don`t know what is good for them.

• May 13, 2008

  11:10 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kc41 writes:

  Pagoda and m32 are missing the point. It's not the use of alcohol that is at the heart of the issue here (after all- alcohol is currently available at special events), it's walling off public park land for private, fee-based events. In addition, the damage to parkland from the concentrated pounding of hundreds or thousands of people for 2,3,5,7,whatever days in a row could cause irreparable damage.

  Chief Hosa has the infrastructure to support large events, where alcohol will continue to be available. Why not create other locations specifically to handle this type of event? How about a couple of "festival parks" in/around Denver?

  This isn't an adult vs non-adult issue, it's whether this is a correct and reasonable use of PUBLIC parkland.

• May 13, 2008

  4:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay writes:

  kc, that is not at all what this uproar is about.

• May 14, 2008

  8:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  anarchist writes:

  jay, I thought it was about the public paying for parks that private bussiness could now rent and make a profit on, please correct Me if wrong, is it proper to use public funds to support private interprises, and if so, who makes the determination which private entity gets that priveledge?

• May 14, 2008

  11:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  280Pagoda writes:

  The PUBLIC deserves to use these assets. Who else will be visiting the sites and having a drink? The PUBLIC. Where are these "walls"? Where is this "irreparable damage"?

  Any business using these assets makes them more available than any asset only staffed by any government "servants". The government encourages neither education nor use, mostly content to warehouse these assets because that is cheaper and easier. But parks are to be used - that is why people willingly pay taxes for them.

  Today, every citizen pays to use those assets, after paying taxes to create and hold them. Any business who rents the asset pays more fees to do so; those rental fees not only keep the assets in much better and more usable condition, but Denver gets hefty additional fees for the privilege, which further subsidizes upkeep and offsets the need for higher taxes to otherwise just warehouse or repair empty assets.

  There are no assets suffering any "irreparable" damage - just the opposite - this use and fees, even if a slight profit is being made, are keeping the assets more usable and available.

  And after the few hours any of these sites are rented for a party, they revert again to being almost universally free and open to the public to enjoy, study and take in at their pleasure.

  Don't pretend these assets revert to private ownership, or that any "walls" are built, but these sites become even more public and accessible and used than they are or would be otherwise.

  Using past usage as a guide, when there are no concessionaires in place to take care of and promote these assets, or no official alcohol is taxed and allowed to be served or promoted, they mostly remain closed, unavailable and deteriorating. Special uses, including the ability to charge for adults to enjoy a drink of wine or spirits, gets people out and enjoying the assets. And if you don't "allow" alcohol, it will be used anyway, just without as much control or benefit.

  kc41 promotes a convenient fiction there is some "walling off public park land for private, fee-based events"; anachrist fears some new evil of profit. If you rent a site now, no one else can use it when you do. What has changed?

  Let's drop the pretense and empty rhetoric. There are no walls being built other than those who want to prevent someone else from having a drink, or having some profit making company provide the service for someone else who doesn’t have the time to do it themselves.

  We the public deserve to use these assets. We have earned the right to have a drink while doing so to celebrate our lives and where we live. That is why these assets exist in the first place. If that isn't the best use of PUBLIC parkland, then the words have meanings other than the ones I find in the dictionary.

• May 15, 2008

  10:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  anarchist writes:

  Pagoda posted in part "Any business using these assets makes them more available than any asset only staffed by any government "servants". The government encourages neither education nor use, mostly content to warehouse these assets because that is cheaper and easier. But parks are to be used - that is why people willingly pay taxes for them.", in reading the above I found "so that for-profit groups can operate admission-based events in the parks". Admission-based, to Me that means I pay to get into a park My taxes already go towards supporting, what changes is it opens it to for-profit entities, that means far more can avail themselves to charging entry to public parks,public being the key here, that sell liquor isnt a problem to Me, its the premise that My tax dollars support a private enterprise. I plan to vacation soon, and dont want to use My car, so can i borrow yours, and you can buy the gas? Sounds like the sort of deal to Me you would support.

• May 16, 2008

  1:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  280Pagoda writes:

  Denver has more parks than any other city in the world. Denver has more parks than the state of Colorado. The 47 mountain parks are by themselves nearly 15,000 acres. Stapleton nearly doubled the number of Denver's urban parks. This is a good thing. It makes them plentiful and available. It also means that when one is used, there are HUNDREDS more available, many close to the one already used.

  You couldn't visit or use them all anyway. Why is it important to keep someone, somewhere from using a park? How are you enriched by denying use to another?

  When a special event is held in a park, it is for a short period of time and a nominal fee is charged for the additional facilities, services and to offer additional opportunities to use it. Approx 90% of any fee charged for a special event goes to the employees, renting the space, providing the service, etc. Some of that 90% goes to the Denver park system which continually complains they don't have enough money to take care of these parks. This additional money helps all Denver parks.

  If lucky, the provider makes 10%; it is most often much less than that. These special events are usually because of the passion for food, music, cars or some other special group.

  If it isn't popular and doesn't draw support, it goes away. If it does attract a crowd and is popular, it is the PUBLIC who is supporting it.

  There is a latent gene that seems to surface in humans when they are about two years old: this is the need to say, "Mine". It takes a while for many to learn to share. Some struggle longer to learn this lesson. Trust me, this is a good lesson to learn.

  Parks bring us together - even if someone is having a drink on occasion, and even if we pay a buck or two every now and then for a more special experience in the park. Let's come together and stop looking so hard to justify why it is better to live in a world of empty assets instead of places we go to play together.

• May 17, 2008

  1:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  anarchist writes:

  Pagoda posted in part "There is a latent gene that seems to surface in humans when they are about two years old: this is the need to say, "Mine". It takes a while for many to learn to share. Some struggle longer to learn this lesson. Trust me, this is a good lesson to learn." so does this mean I can come pick up your car and credit card now?
  Pagoda, you seem to view parks as "a world of empty assets", I view them as public places open to all for all to enjoy, not as an empty asset, and already paid for with tax dollars. Do you also advocate home despot using parks for home improvement demonstrations and sales instead of the expensive stores they have to build as it is now? Also, could you be sure the car has good tires, thanks.