Alcohol: Don’t Legislate Where No Problem Exists
Council looks likely to adopt a policy that will allow alcohol to be consumed in parks, with certain common-sense restrictions about proximity to play areas, wading pools, etc., if councillors ask for it.
It will be left up to city councillors to determine which parks, if any, could allow drinking on a pilot basis to run through the fall. I’ve said before that I support the measure. Intensification means that for many residents their outdoor amenity space is the local park. Half of the housing in Kitchissippi is in multi-residential buildings. I believe there is a real equity issue here. I’m also aware that many feel uncomfortable around people drinking in proximity, and there are parks that have problematic histories.
—
This newsletter excerpt from Kitchissippi Councillor Jeff Leiper is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours.
—
I would like to choose at least one park for a pilot, possibly more, and have been thinking about parks where there is lots of space between play areas and places where people can enjoy a can of beer or glass of wine. The ones that come to mind are Champlain Park, Laroche Park and I’m also thinking about Parkdale Park around the gazebo. The latter may be too tight to work, but I’m leaning toward asking that we implement pilots in the other two. But, what do you think? I’m not invested in making this happen, and there are likely considerations I haven’t thought of. Would you support a pilot in any of those three parks? Are there other parks you’d suggest?
Alcohol wouldn’t be allowed within a five-meter radius of playgrounds, wading pools, beaches, skating rinks, or playing fields, and there would be designated areas within the park where it would be allowed. Consumption would only be allowed between 11 am and 9 pm.
Write to me at jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca with your thoughts!
—
Now my thoughts.
This just in … there already is alcohol in parks.
Is it a rampant, hideous problem? No.
So rather than measuring how far drinking can occur around a wading pool, let’s leave the current bylaw in place but work on discretionary policing.
In other words, if a family is having a picnic that includes a bottle of wine and they’re not causing problems, let them have a glass of wine. Let police and bylaw decide. If there’s a problem, enforce the law. No problem … don’t bother.
We don’t need to legislate this. Let the people decide how they want to act with alcohol and if it’s fine, don’t use the bylaw. We have bylaws on top of bylaws and other laws duplicating existing legislation (take the bubble bylaw for example).
Let people, police and bylaw use common sense with drinking in parks and if their common sense is lacking, enforce the law.
What we don’t want to see are untoward acts in parks from drunks or families using common sense with drinking being slapped with fines.
Let common sense among people, bylaw and police prevail. You can’t legislate common sense.
Responsible people don’t need laws to govern their behavior.
We can’t legislate everything two times over. Furthermore, what problem are we solving here? When did alcohol in parks become an issue before council decided to make it an issue?
Council should be spending its time getting the LRT to work properly or studying the Lansdowne proposal or making the ByWard Market a better place. Those are real issues.
Ken Gray
For You:
Market Violence Is A Job For The Police
Invest Ottawa Needs Transparency: STANKOVIC
City Cash Liability Undecided In Taxi Case
Leave Policing To The Trained Police
Is Staff Pulling A Quick One On Parks? BENN
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
I accept as a given that there are a lot of people who lack private outdoor amenity space to share a can of beer or pre-mix, or a glass of wine with a friend or seven. I also accept that the proportion of the population that lack private outdoor amenity space will grow, given the Official Plan DEMANDS that more people live in less space. This is not new. This is not something that just appeared out of thin air.
Go visit parks like Britannia and Andrew Hayden on a not winter weekend. A delightful kaleidoscope of colours, sounds, languages, aromas as multi-generational families arrive en masse with coolers, grills, picnic blankets and toys. Why? Because they live in confined spaces that lack private, outdoor amenity space. Because these parks are their backyards.
Why are there so many people who lack outdoor, private amenity space? Because the city failed (a word I chose with deliberation) to require the developers of mid and high rise buildings to provide adequate on site private outdoor amenity space. With the diminishing setbacks of the last decade or so, even less space is available. Self inflicted problems that no one at city hall dares to acknowledge.
The demand for more outdoor amenity space is growing. Especially inside the greenbelt. Yet the city is busy reducing the amount of outdoor amenity space. See Lansdowne. See the draft by-law to rezone parks to recreational, which would permit residential structures above city buildings inside a park. Again, self inflicted problems that no one a city hall dares to acknowledge.
On to the subset of outdoor amenity space usage that is the flavour of the day at council. The right to consume alcohol in parks. I accept that our laws pertaining to alcohol were set when Victoria was Queen. I accept that it would be better to have laws that reflect the 21st century, not the 19th century.
Before council jumps all over this latest crisis, how about they review some objective, empirical evidence that confirms the NEED for the proposed change to the rules. Objective as in not gathered in a manner that is designed to support the preferred outcome. Empirical as in actual numbers, not anecdotal or “well it’s obvious” or “Toronto’s doing it”. Where are the objective analyses of possible outcomes, including the negative ones? Analyses regarding resource allocations? If there is a complaint will it be forwarded to by-law officers or the police? What are the expected response times? These are the types of information that council is supposed to consider before making a decision. Because a decision based on rhetoric, anecdotes or envy is not an informed decision. It is just an expedient decision.
Councils over the last decade or so have chosen to make more and more expedient decisions, not objective evidence based decisions. Like the one to build a new public library (Halifax and Calgary have really nice ones, so we need a nice one too – paraphrasing then Knoxdale Merivale Councillor Keith Egli). Like the decision to sole source the redevelopment of Lansdowne – not once but twice. Like the decision to decimate the public transit system with a New Way to Bus by increasing the commute time of the ever diminishing number of transit users.
Expedient decisions resulting in less than optimal outcomes. That is what Ottawa council excels at.
Ron. I was writing a response as yours was being posted, I guess. When I read your response I discarded mine because you had already made all the points I hoping to and then some. What I would like to see come out of city council’s vote concerning this legislation is a one-page (or less) report from each councilor explaining why they voted “yay” or “nay” including their analysis of the impact of the proposal. Clear, concise bullet-points would suffice.