Profits Outweigh Public Safety

Robert Casey

English 1A

April 15, 2013

Essay 3

Profits Outweigh Public Safety

     AB2433 proposes to allow restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in large cities throughout California to extend drinking hours from 2 AM to 4 AM or 6 AM depending on the facilities after hours permit. The reasoning behind the bill is two-fold: longer drinking hours will increase profits not only for serving establishments, but for service industries as well; and that California cities will have a better chance of securing additional tourist dollars through increased competition with other cities that offer extended drinking hours. New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and many international cities have a last call later than 2 AM or none at all.

     Are the economic gains by businesses serving alcohol more important than the injuries and loss of life that are caused due to intoxicated drivers? Is the morning commute going to become the next killing field? Will people actually drink less if they are not rushed to finish their drinks by 2 AM? Are California cities at a disadvantage as an international tourist destination because of our drinking laws? These are only a limited number of questions that must be answered prior to proceeding with AB2433.

     The San Francisco Late Night Coalition, SFLNC, is one of the proponents of AB 2433 and states that the restaurant industry is the largest employer in the state and tourism is the third largest employer. San Francisco can draw more Bay area residents and other in state visitors on a more frequent basis if allowed to extend drinking hours. They feel that extending late night hours for theaters, nightclubs, dance clubs, bars, restaurants, street fairs, conventions and other events will increase attendance thus increasing economic impacts. All of San Francisco’s service industries will benefit from the added attraction. SFLNC in their publication SFNLC|LEGISLATION|LAST CALL, EXTENDING LAST CALL makes the following important points:

Ø  Later last call hours will help keep San Francisco a world class city.

Ø  Later last call hours will create additional revenue for the city of San Francisco and the State of California.

Ø  San Franciscans should have the same rights as those in other major cities.

Ø  Many other cities have later last calls without the problems imagined by opponents of the legislation.

Ø  National Traffic Safety Administration data indicates that later last call hours do not increase and may actually decrease the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities.

Ø  This proposal applies only to on-site alcohol sales at restaurants, bars, or nightclubs.

Ø  This proposal does not allow alcohol sales after 2 AM in supermarkets or liquor stores. (SFLNC1)

    San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are already huge international and national tourist destinations. Other Bay area cities, Central Valley cities, and Southern California cities are international destinations because of their proximity to National Parks such as Yosemite, Death Valley, Lassen, Kings Canyon, and Joshua Tree. Napa Valley and Lodi area vineyards are international destinations that draw wine connoisseurs from all over the world. Access to Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Nevada mountains keep tourist dollars in the Central Valley. As for the statement that serving alcohol later in San Francisco is instrumental in keeping the city a world class city is ludicrous. Tourists will not stop visiting San Francisco if last call remains at 2 AM.

     Later last call will generate more revenue for the state, city and businesses serving alcohol. Restaurants, night clubs, and bars will undoubtedly be busier. What does the extended hours do for local neighborhoods close to those businesses? Overnight revelry will more than likely spill into those neighborhoods creating a noisy and sleepless night for residents. Crime is likely to increase with intoxicated people out for an extra four hours. Littering, loitering, public urination, and sleeping in the streets are more likely.

     How is it that San Franciscans do not have the same rights as other major cities? How many major cities allow citizens to walk around in public smoking marijuana or appear nude in public? San Francisco has some of the most liberal laws in the country.

     Many large cities do not have some of the same problems presented by opponents of AB 2433. A good example is New York City where a very small percentage of residents own motor vehicles. New York City residents enjoy a 24 hour public transportation system that reaches nearly every neighborhood, borough, and surrounding metropolitan area. They have a taxi system that is available within seconds of a hail or call. Las Vegas, Chicago, and Washington D. C. have similar transportation systems. In San Francisco try catching BART after midnight or before 4 AM and late hours on weekends and holidays. You can’t, it is closed. Catching a cab is also difficult in a timely manner anywhere in the city.

     National Traffic Safety Administration data does indicate that later last call hours do not increase alcohol related fatalities in a very select few cities. New York and Chicago have very large 24 hour public transportation systems. The data for other large cities does not indicate an even or reduced incident of alcohol related traffic fatalities and accidents. Law enforcement in areas surrounding San Francisco are worried that morning commuters will encounter increased incidents involving drunk drivers. A large percentage of drivers outside San Francisco use park and ride stations just outside the city and this will increase the likelihood of encounters with intoxicated drivers leaving the stations at peak rush hour. Most cities are not prepared to take on the added risk to the motoring public and the resources are unavailable for additional traffic monitoring. Accidents tie up many additional resources like fire and rescue and put many additional lives in danger for extended periods of time.

     This bill only applies to on-site sale establishments such as bars, restaurants, nightclubs, dance clubs, and other late night venues at this time. As profits and tax revenues increase the likely outcome is to expand the program as other types of businesses want their share of these increasing profits.

     Neighborhood leaders that voiced concerns were largely ignored at the San Francisco City Services Committee meeting. Committee members unanimously voted to present the proposal to the entire city council. The city council voted 8 to 3 in favor of putting city support behind the bill in the legislature. Council members supporting the bill said that while they understand the concerns of law enforcement and neighborhood leaders, stimulating the economy of San Francisco takes precedence.

     A review of the reasons behind the proposed changes in the current alcohol serving laws is comical at best. Putting on blinders and culling partial facts from other major cities to justify a position on the proposed law change that has such a large impact on citizens of San Francisco and surrounding cities is dangerous and concerning. Putting business profits and tax revenues above public safety is ill conceived and shameful. The power of the dollar is once again influencing public policy in favor of special interests at the detriment of the overall public.

     It is next to impossible to change the influence of big money in our law making system when only thirty five percent of the registered voters actually vote. Those who do not vote are just as responsible as the politicians they complain about. If we are to make a difference and change the way our public officials make policy, we must educate ourselves on the issues and be proactive in demanding that those we put in office follow the will of the people. Allowing people to drink for longer periods in the public areas invites disaster. A conscious effort against this proposed change is warranted and necessary to protect public safety. To influence this decision let your feelings be known to your friends, family, city, county, and state representatives.

Works Cited

Terrance Allen. “Extending Last Call.” SFLNC|LEGISLATION|LAST CALL. Web. www.sfnlc.org/lastcall/html. 13 March 2013