Sleepless in Chicago?
We must be safe!! Let's close down all the bars so we can get rid of crime, prostitution and littering. Let's vote entire neighbourhoods dry. Mr. Duis reflects perfectly my thoughts on this situation.
"We complain about the fact that we've become cities of strangers," said Duis, "and yet for some strange reason we go out and destroy places where people meet face to face."
***
You know, while we're at it let's just reintroduce prohibition. It is working so well with drugs!
"We complain about the fact that we've become cities of strangers," said Duis, "and yet for some strange reason we go out and destroy places where people meet face to face."
***
You know, while we're at it let's just reintroduce prohibition. It is working so well with drugs!
posted by z @ 1:59 PM
6 Comments:
At 7:06 PM,
nell said…
It would be interesting to note how many people voting for a dry precinct have spent time at the local tavern, drinking it up.
Anyway. In theory it could be a sound plan. Close down the troublesome bars. Retain the "good" ones.
But when some people get on the warpath, there's no stopping them. So I am a little afraid about the potential prohibitionist actions. I am also a little afraid of the people who move into communities for the express purpose of improving them; I remember this was a hot topic for one of my profs in the Social Work program. Gentrification often squeezes out the people that used to live there because they can no longer afford the rising cost of living in these refurbished neighborhoods. And then where do you go? And where do these business owners go, and what do they do?
On the other hand, to a certain extent, the people who live in a community should have some say in the type of establishments there. Not exclusive control; there must be checks and balances. Like our government is supposed to have. However, I think both sides should have proof that either the establishment is harming the community or proof that is it not. You should not be able to challenge a business without any proof of your own, and then expect them to provide the evidence to the contrary of your accusations. Buncha dictators, otherwise.
Anyway. Just some thoughts on both sides, there.
At 10:42 PM,
z said…
Yeah, I hear ya. That happened to this entire area. When a one bedroom condo costs ~$450k and minimum wage is $7-8/hour see where you go. Then they pass laws to artificially control prices on certain properties in order to allow access to regular people. It's a screwy business, but so it goes.
How does a bar prove that it is not harming a community? That is an absurd request. What do you submit? A low number of arrests? Noise complaints?
Sure, some establishments should probably be closed. It seems to me that it should be done with a little more consideration for certain intangibles - i.e. the cultural price we pay by eliminating gathering places.
At 8:26 AM,
Rama said…
The burden of proof would be on the plaintiff, in this case, the residents attempting to extricate a business from their community. Defendants, i.e. the businesses, do not have to prove the contrary. It all rests with how good a case the prosecution brings to the table, and how valid the rebuttals are from the defense.
I've been absorbed in the judicial system structure and case law for work the last month or so. However, each state is different, and certain states give way more discretion to the plaintiff than others (even within states, certain jurisdictions are more pro-plaintiff).
I hear ya about a 1 bd condo at $450K (that's what my old apartment sold for)... even the managers at my firm rent instead of own, and they make a good six figures. Really, my gut tells me the only people that should have a weighted say in what goes on in their community are those people that have lived there for more than 5-10 years. Because they are the ones who have watched it grow/fall apart, change, etc.
At 9:02 AM,
nell said…
Good question. How would you prove any of this!
At 5:16 AM,
z said…
Yes, I agree - the burden of proof should fall on the accuser.
Sam - I like your idea of restricting newcomer input for a certain amount of time. I think it would help restrict the "i just moved here and let me tell you how to run the neighbourhood" mentality. You can chip in your ideas on running the neighbourhood once you lived there for a few years and became a part of it.
Nellie - I have no idea. The whole thing is just silly. Let's say the plaintiff presents evidence showing that 2-4 arrests happened at that particular establishment in the past year. So? How does that compare with other bars and areas in the city? The reason for the arrests is fairly important too. In the end it becomes a witch hunt by a buncha self-righteous safety crusaders. It's all just a bunch of malarky.
At 2:10 PM,
Rama said…
I think anyone that lives there, regardless of longevity, should have a say, but not necessarily a vote/power to change the community. This would allow new residents to speak up, but ultimately the influence of the "elders" make the decisions.
As for the arrests example, if there are 204 arrests at an establishment in one year, you'd have to present an argument such as "arrests have doubled/tripled etc in the last few years due to the patrons of said establishment". That would probably be decent proof to base a case on.
Post a Comment
<< Home