Decatur City Commission To Consider Lifting Distance Requirements From Schools for Alcohol Licenses
Decatur Metro | October 5, 2015 | 2:09 pm
On the agenda for tonight’s Decatur City Commission meeting, something that was referenced a while back in the ongoing discussion about the Callaway property, the potential of a grocery store there, and its close proximity to Decatur High School property.
Now that the Georgia Legislature has passed House Bill 85, which allows local municipalities to lift the “no off-premise consumption alcohol sales within 200 yards of a school” restriction in situations where they deem it appropriate, Decatur is making its move.
The City Commission is scheduled to vote tonight on removing the distance requirements “in relation to schools for licenses issued for a “Consumption on Premises” license issued to restaurants.” They will also take up removing the distance limitation “for a “Consumption Off Premises” license for beer and wine sold in a grocery store.”
A note from Asst. City Manager Lyn Menne to City Manager Peggy Merriss explains the proposed change thusly…
“The City of Decatur, like many cities around the state, is experiencing growth and development based on Smart Growth principles that encourage a variety of uses within walking distance. Because Decatur High School is located in the central business district and possible school expansion is contemplated in the East Decatur commercial district, the current distance limits from schools and colleges are not compatible with plans for mixed-use developments and our desire to attract a new grocery store and specialty market tenants.”
This makes perfect sense.
Right on. Those state laws are a throwback to the days when a teenager could walk into any number of establishments, be asked “How old are you?,” respond “18” and then buy some beer.
Present day difficulties in obtaining alcohol — both the higher drinking age and much stricter enforcement by merchants — renders this relic pointless in the modern world, especially in light of the goals referenced by Ms. Merriss.
The throwback basis makes sense in terms of the way adults think, “We shouldn’t have alcohol sales right next to the school,” but wouldn’t a teenager be far more likely to try to buy their alcohol NOT right next to the school?
My understanding is that homes are one of the most common sources of alcohol for teens these days. I know that teen binge drinking tends to occur in the home setting–either that of teen or another home.
Seems like someone, somewhere, sometime would have studied whether the proximity of schools to alcohol sales increases the risk of drinking, binging, and/or adverse consequences of alcohol for teens. I wonder if persuasive alcohol advertising provides the biggest risk for teens, rather than the fact that alcohol is sold.
The treatment of alcoholic beverages as forbidden fruit is, imo, one of the reasons kids end up binge drinkers in college. Kids in Europe learn early that drinking is no big deal and to do it responsibly (don’t drink and drive, etc.), and they don’t generally dive into alcohol when newly free to do so.
Exactly. Remove the mystery of alcohol before the young ones are on their own, and they won’t go crazy when they’re college freshmen.
By the way, it’s also sort of cruel fun to give little kids wine. Watching their faces pucker is memorable.
I don’t think the data support that. And actually alcoholism is a huge problem in certain European countries. I’m not in favor of restrictions for the sake of restrictions but haven’t good studies supported a drinking age of 21, in terms of decreases in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents, other injuries, and other drinking related consequences among teens? I’m too lazy to check that right now but I believe the data are there. And the more we learn about how the teen brain is still developing, the more I worry about teens taking any unnecessary drug, medication, or other substance that has neurological effects. Now it’s possible that the change from a legal drinking age of 18 to 21 has shifted the type of consequences–to more binge drinking vs. previous patterns of drinking (that were also risky), but I don’t know that to be true. I just know that injury experts tend to support the older legal drinking age.
I’m definitely not in favor of restrictions for the wrong reasons. I know of a study in the Southwest that showed that drinking restrictions on Indian reservations had an unintended effect of forcing residents to go off res to drink and then be at risk for accidents due to drunk driving.
“I don’t think the data support that.”
The U.S. is the world leader in binge drinking among young people, particularly among females. The U.S. has the highest rate of binge drinking among young women in the developed world. The data is easy to find online.
http://mic.com/articles/57211/can-you-guess-where-in-the-world-people-are-binge-drinking-the-most
Right, but binge drinking isn’t the only negative outcome from teen drinking that injury experts consider.
Every family makes their own decision but I err on the side of enforcing (when possible) no drinking until age 21. I am shocked at how incredibly different a 21 year old mind is from a 15 year old mind or even an 18 year old mind.
If I was able to attend tonight’s meeting, I would make the following comment:
Good Evening… I did not come to tonight’s meeting to speak on this topic but I would like for you to vote against the recommendation. Instead of being guided by the principles of Smart Growth, I believe that the commission should be influenced by Smart Sense, as in Common Sense. This means that you should not vote in favor of a justification for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within a reasonable distance of a school, place of worship, park or cemetery. I base this on not only an old Southern (and Decatur) tradition of temperance but also the idea that young people/ high school students are greatly influenced by appearances. If they believe the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages near schools or athletic facilities is condoned by adults, then why shouldn’t they drink alcohol or smoke dope before a DHS football game?
In my opinion, it was a serious mistake for the commission to allow the Grind Burger to offer a full bar so close to the high school. I ask the commissioners to hit the brakes on this ordinance and vote NO on the expansion of the sale of alcohol near school zones.
I’ll probably regret asking this, but here goes: what does the proximity of a bar to a cemetery have to do with kids drinking?
kids will think it’s ok to drink alcohol before you die.
Mr. B, as you probably know, I tend towards your views on many issues, but I am sorry to say this post is reminiscent of the “oh what the hell let’s just regulate everything because it might just help” attitude of progressives. I think the government needs more than speculation — a lot more — to justify prohibiting shop owners from selling, and consumers from buying, perfectly legal products within close proximity to schools.
In that regard I remind you that the temperance movement not only ended as a national joke, but it sprang in large part from the progressive belief that government must stifle our urges and “protect the children” from the excesses of adulthood. It was proven folly during Prohibition. Progressives learned nothing from that episode (witness their current campaign against sugar, among other things). Those of us with more of a rightward bent know better and should leave the progressives to their unjustified love of regulation. 🙂
Though you are right about the Progressives and Prohibition (at the time, though, Christianity was a major player in the movement; it’s much less so among progressives now, leftist pope notwithstanding), there is academic debate about the success or failure of Prohibition. I’ve read some pretty convincing arguments that the targeted group–working lower class men with families–actually did drink much less during Prohibition. However, the upper classes began to drink more because off alcohol’s new status as forbidden fruit and the accompanying cachet, coupled with their ability to pay black market prices. This glamorous flaunting of the law undermined Prohibition, and ultimately led to its repeal. Not saying I agree with this view, but I don’t think the verdict on Prohibition is as cut and dried as most people believe.
I recall that you are right — Prohibition did reduce drinking to some extent. But I can’t agree with any attempt to revise prohibition into a success story (which I know you are not arguing, I am addressing the general point). It was repealed, after all (and thank heavens for it), and nothing less than a very broad political consensus could have done that.
Hmm – I feel the word “progressive” was over used here. I get the comparison to regulating sugar, but it is usually conservatives who lead the charge when it comes to alcohol regulation – i.e. blue laws.
Regulation is a tool used by any “group” that wants to control people’s behavior, whether it is progressives targeting sugar and trans fats in the food supply, parents wanting to curb alcohol exposure misuse by children, or conservatives restricting what grown women can do with their bodies.
IMHO Teenagers will be curious and try stuff regardless if it is within 200 yards of their school.
The comparison was to the capital P Progressives of the early 20th century. There is, though, some points of similarity to both contemporary progs. and Christian conservatives.
One think that surprised me when I read Last Call (highly recommended) was that the early 20th century temperance movement was equal parts religious fervor and progressive meddling with individual choice. I agree that both sides have an urge to regulate and control. It’s a debatable point but I personally dread the progressives, especially the current incarnation, a lot more.
I dread any control in the name of religion, more than I like some regulation that’s “progressive”. That aside, I think on issues of people choosing behaviors that are primarily harmful or potentially harmful only to themselves, social shaming is a better tool than regulation. Smoking rates have been greatly reduced without total bans, partly due to smokers having near pariah status. I think a similar thing is happening with sugared soda, as fewer people are choosing to drink it regardless of any failure to regulate it. Unfortunately, progressives (and I consider myself one on many issues) tend not to like so-called “fat shaming”. The one social issue (perhaps the only one) where I agree with conservatives is on single parent families, which I agree (mainly for economic reasons) are problematic in general. But public pressure on this issue is verboten for progressives.
Shame has its place though. I used to listen to Neil Boortz back in the 90s, even though I disagreed with him most of the time. He would frequently mock smokers for their idiocy, which irked me because I was a smoker (though his Libertarian views kept him from ever calling for additional regulation, if I recall correctly). But it mostly irked me because, on that issue at least, I knew he was right. I give some credit to Mr. Boortz for spurring me to eventually quit that nasty habit.
It’s frightening when two groups come together to use the power of the state to regulate behavior. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
I see a similar dynamic in the brewery regulation here. The religious folk provide cover for legislators and their anti-free market votes that the alcohol distributors lobby for behind the scenes.
I would observe that half of Renfroe and DHS students already hang out in the middle of Decatur Square on any given Friday afternoon, while the adults sit immediately adjacent on their outdoor patios sipping craft beer, and sometimes even embarrassing their children 🙂
So if you are worried about appearances, maybe we should just ban anyone under 21 from loitering on the square. And tell Jeni’s and Starbucks they have to be at least 200 feet from an alcohol serving establishment, since so many of their clientele are under 21. And tell Java Monkey to stop serving alcohol, since kids buy coffee and study there while I sit one table over with a beer. And tell my kids they cannot go with their friends to Raging Burrito or Sushi Avenue anymore.
So exactly what influence-by-appearances will this prevent?
Boo.
Decatur is becoming more and more of a destination for drunks. Wealthy drunks, yes, but drunks nonetheless.
This just tells children that it’s okay to self-medicate with addictive substances while acting like an irresponsible idiot.
Wait. What? Allowing businesses to responsibly sell legal goods in walkable proximity to thousands of people tells children that it’s okay to self-medicate with addictive substances while acting like an irresponsible idiot?
I’m not sure I see the connection.
it’s also teaching kids to be wealthy, so, you know…, yin yang y’all.
I like the idea of a bar being close to the school so I can grab a drink before picking my kids up.
I see that again, my opinion on temperance- MODERATION of food and alcohol, has sparked both a discussion and the usual snarks and jokes. Whatev’ to the usual.
A little story. Not long ago, I met a prominent Decatur couple in the Decatur cemetery who reminded me of the dangers of alcohol consumption. One of their children, a Decatur grad*, was an alcoholic throughout high school, drinking before, during and after school. I know this because I spoke to the kid not long ago and he verified that he was drunk throughout much of his time at DHS. He continued on this road until a run in with the police. The judge gave him two choices, jail or treatment. He chose the later and today, after years of struggle to remain sober, he is successful but still an alcoholic.
During this conversation in the cemetery, the parents describe another former student, a friend of their child, who suffered from alcoholism. They described his constant struggle. *FYI- These students were Northside Decatur white kids.
Commissioners not only represent adults and voters who demand more and more access to alcohol (and surely more intoxicates in the future) but also the innocent, the young and the foolish. What I ask is MODERATION, and that means common sense restrictions on alcohol consumption near schools, parks, cemeteries and places of worship.
PS- May God help those parents in Decatur who must deal with alcoholic or drugged kids. I pray that they never lose hope.
I couldn’t agree more that teen addiction is a parent’s nightmare. Reading “Beautiful Boy: A Father’s Journey Through His Son’s Addiction” gave me the chills. The scary part is that there seems to be little way to predict when fairly harmless teen experimentation is going to veer into intractable addiction to substances that change the brain chemistry forever. But I’m not convinced that it’s bars, restaurants, or liquor stores near schools that are the danger. I believe the data show that much substance and alcohol abuse among teens occurs right at home–one’s own or that of your child’s friends. A critical mass of teens in a home with alcohol or abusable substances around, without an adult present, is just not a good idea even if some of the kids are wonderful developing people with excellent grades. One of the best things we can do as parents IMHO is be a pain in the neck and check in with other parents when our kids go to parties or sleepovers. Eau de parent, however faint, can be an excellent deterrent.
some of us just think it’s the parents’ responsibility, and not the government’s, to determine how, when, and where a child will be exposed to alcohol. government control and regulation of alcohol has been proven not to work over and over again. addiction is a mental health issue anyway. don’t take my constitutional rights away just because some kid shoots vodka at school.
Moderation in consumption is a good thing, and no one is arguing otherwise. But it has nothing to do with whether or not adults — not children — should be restricted from buying a legal product within some arbitrary distance from a school.
Any story of alcoholic teenagers is unfortunate. But the fact those stories exist despite the current restrictions on sales in close proximity to schools suggests that kids are getting their hands on booze no matter what, and the restrictions serve only to interfere with the liberty of responsible adult consumers and shop owners.
“common sense restrictions on alcohol consumption near schools, parks, cemeteries and places of worship.”
While stipulating that I don’t agree with the logic of any of those, I’ll let the others slide and, again, ask about just the one: how is it “common sense” that places that serve alcohol should be a certain distance from a cemetery? I see it merely as you wishing to force your sense of propriety on others. There is no logical reason that a bar should be, for example, 501 feet from a graveyard instead of 500.
I find a call for this kind of regulation particularly odd coming from someone who has offered up his own snark and derision regarding residents’ efforts to lower speed limits where their children walk to school. One can agree or disagree with the efficacy of such a move, but at least there is a logical connection between increased speeds and the harm done in accidents.
BTW, is there even a law on the books regarding the distance a bar can be from a cemetery? Or is this a new regulation you’re asking to be enacted?