HomeMy WebLinkAboutA011 - Letter from Tom Northrup dated April 11, 1989 to Council SUBJECT: Allowing 19 & 20 yr. olds in Bars.
UPDATED: 4/1 1/B9
1 ) This act is a complete reversal of the actions of the
city council for the last 2 years. Underage people will now
have easy access to alcohol with the very, very slim chance
of ever getting caught. This is presently true in the ether
2 campus university cities.
2) You will in no way be keeping that many 19 ter 20 year
olds "off the street". There are several thousands of 19 or
20 year olds, and only 200 or so will be able to get into the
bars since space is limited
3) This ordinance is completely unenforceable. Ask your
44- awn Police Department. I have yet to read any 2roposal by_
any parties involved that has a specific me Th s to keep
alcohol from netting into the hands of underage people, in a
bar, THAT WORKS ! ! ! The present 2 university cities with a
similar ordinances will back this up. I have heard from
dozens of students that will verify this. The same students
that are proposing the ordinance have the information that
will back this up. They can tell you how to get ar—c--und the
law and how they are doing it.
4) It is to the advantage of the bar to let underage
people drink. (the orders for alcohol would be placed by of
age drinkers, their friends) . Why? The bar makes more
money, much more money at very, very little risk.. How does
a Police officer, whether undercover or not, try to tell if a
person is drinking a "COKE" or a "RUM & COKE"? Is the
officer to go around the bar and "sniff" peoples drinks?
5) There should be written in the law ( in case a court
case would come up) a statement that would specifically state
what is considered "reasonable monitoring". For example,
should there be one monitor for 50 people? Or one monitor
should be required for 75 people? This way if the bar is
busted, we can prove in a court of law that we made the
attempt to "reasonably monitor" the aituatic�rl acecrding t
the city ordinance. If you DON' T do this, once again you
will be placing more liability ��n the bar owners hands which
will probably increase it' s insurance rates. They already
are burdened with unreasonable pressures from the local
Police and existing laws. Why do you have to add more?
6) If someone underage does come into the bar drunk with
a . 11% blood alcohol level, can they be fined $100 for R_iblic
intoxication?, (WITHOUT CHARGING THE BAR - WE DID NOT SERVE
THEM ALCOHOL ! ) Otherwise, underage people can drink.
illegally outside the bar, came into the bar,, spend n c-, money,
cause trouble, and we can' t do anything about it. With this
possibility, we could call the Police, point out the trouble
maker, and have that person fined on the spat, pretty much at
our discretion.Win. (We would not try to prosecute a perfectly
innocent bystander, acting in a responsible manner because it
would benefit us in no way. )
7) This actin rewards the bars that have been acting
irresponsibly in the past. It promotes irresp 1risibility in
the future.
MINORS. 039 - Page 1
t
UPDATED: 4/11/89
8) Underage people certainly WON' T threw away their fake
ID' s, its now just a better situation in which to use it, now
more than ever.
9) With new ordinance, can a person mis-represent their
age to a 21 year old bar doorman, and still be fined $100 for
attempting to enter the premises? We' ve worked several years
to get this ordinance passed, hopefully we can still use it.
10) Lack of revenue should be considered. Last weekend,
(4/14, 4/15) , 10 underage people were found on the premises,
probably fined $100 each x 10 = $1000 x possibly 20
weeks/year = $20, 000/year can be collected easily in a year.
It helps pay for the extra patrolmen needed to enforce. With
new ordinance, will you still be able to fine violatc nrs as
easily?
11 ) Nationwide, people are trying to DE-emphasize
% alcohol ! Sales are currently down in many areas, including
central Iowa. Why do you want to put 19 and 20 year olds in
an alcohol environment, and have them constantly thinking of
and observing alcohol whenever they are socializing? This
action is counter-productive. It' s a step backwards.
FINAL THOUGHT: What happens if someone comes into the bar-
that had already been drinking, looks to be
sober, but had a blood alcohol level of . 11/, is underage ( 19
or 20 years old) , sits at a table with 21 years olds, downs c
shots of alcohol in the next 15 minutes ( it takes only 1
second to dawn a shot ) , then leaves the bar, and gets run
over by a. car in an accident.
Obviously the parties involved will sue the bar and the
city of Ames. If we can prove that we were responsibly
monitoring by the city ordinance ( i. e. : 1 person/50 people) ,
,
cc,uld we then prove that we were acting in a resp,Dnsi ble
manner? Could the city prove that they passed a responsible
ordinance? This could be a $1, 000, 000 plus lawsuit. Car,
the city or bar afford the risk.? What happened in the case
in Nevada where the girl was run over, by a ti^ain? It can
happen in Ames near Main St. , we definitely have more
exposure risk !
> > > > > I believe, as does the Police chief, that the solution
is to bring the drinking age back down to 19 years. Why not
devote all legislative lobbying efforts of the city in that
direction, especially because of our situation trying to
handle the college drinking problems. Keep the control of
19 and 20 year old people in the bars, under supervision,
rather than out in the streets, where it is much more
difficult to control.
A concerned citizen' s thoughts,
1,4W
MINORS. 039 - Page 2