wiseup wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:02 AM:
" Wait, maybe the city will issue 64,000 drinking a beer in the park tickets annually, like parking tickets! Think of all that NEW revenue and national recognition for city! "
Darwinism wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:28 PM:
" We can legislate til the cows come home. Alcoholism is what it is. Keg registration, public intox. ordinance, raising legal drinking ages, lowering DUI levels, limiting hours of beverage sales, permit to drink in a park, no swimming after midnight... same results, we have alcoholics here! now what??? Build a new jail??? Watch the local treatment centers close (Laar house this month). Let's make a ton of new laws, that will solve this problem no doubt... "
wiseup wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:33 PM:
" TYPICAL, because of a few people in only a few parks, THEY want to tromp on the rights of the tax paying citizen to enjoy a legal product in the park that he is paying for! AND charge him extra on his property tax to hire more ENFORCEMENT, ENTRAPMENT, COMPLIANCE POLICE to give him a ticket because he didn't get a permit because they haven't hired more people to issue the permits! WHERE IS THE OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OUTCRY FOR THIS CONTINUED NONSENSE ON ALCOHOL ISSUES??? "
balanced budget wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:12 PM:
" The police have better things to do than fine people for having alcohol in a park. Lets focus on real problems before we try to legislate morality. "
Sconni Fan wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:13 PM:
" I'm not from La X, but this article caught my eye. Wouldn't public intoxication cover this? Seems like someone wants to suck out all the fun...does Ken Witt have his fingers in this? "
Chip wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:11 PM:
" Hey Gator, looks like the gig is up! "
Curly wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:01 AM:
" Only MACK would bring the tavern league into this. The tavern league is against all of this over-legislation. I have asked this before but you have never answered , MACK. What did the tavern league or bars do to you that makes you so angry and bitter? You are the anti-bar broken record! "
*PrivateSectorDoesIt Better* wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:42 AM:
" So they are trying to tell us that this is such a big problem with people who "drink and drink" all day at the park, located next to a river, but yet none of them have fallen into the water and drowned? It seems that they don't fit the profile of young male athletic college age students now do they??? "
TinMan wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:40 AM:
" Leave well enough alone. "
down2512 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:18 AM:
" What a waste of time and space! Laws on this have been in practice for a long time. We even have the new PIO. So why do I have to read this garbage? and Jaci you'd better do some editing before you speak on these issues! Your comment reeks of bias! If people are panhandling in the parks report it, if people are highly intoxicated in the parks report that, if there is a violation of existing law -report it. We don't need or want anymore bozo laws because a VERY FEW persons use public parks to feed their addictions. "
6464656 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:13 AM:
" This is just another example of LaCrosse hemming and hawing and passing more ordinances instead of just fixing the problem with existing laws. I believe there are already ordinances in place covering public nuisance/public drunkeness. Just USE them!
If you don't let the bums drink in the park they'll just go drink under a bridge and then come back to panhandle. "
doctor9 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:40 AM:
" I'd like an explanation of why we can't use the existing laws that cover public intoxication, and panhandling. Are these people using some sort of legal loophole that prevents them from being arrested for what they're doing? If you're in a public park and so inebriated that you're causing a "disruption" -- even at a ball game -- you're breaking the law, right? Tim Quillin seems to have a grasp on reality at least. "
CJ wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:35 AM:
" LaCrosse bans dogs from the parks??? Wow how bad is that..........people to lazy to clean up if their dog has to dump or what. "
Ya'Right wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:45 AM:
" Here we go again! Deny the rights of the many to deal with the few.
Why not just use the newest drunk in public ticket? or lottering? disorderly conduct? vagrancy? panhandling?
I'm sure the books are full of laws that police could apply with creative thinking.
Maybe goverment needs to think more about normal citizens rights?
City council needs give police the power to go back to night sticking bums. Or maybe a public tar and feathering, then we could run them out of town on a rail.
I'm sure it is pretty scarry for these park drunks, to think they might have to go to city hall for a beer permit. They can paste it to there registered keg. "
Krusty wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:42 AM:
" The park and rec director should be in charge of ordering landscaping, maintaining parks, buying playground equipment,etc, he shouldn't be trying to create new laws and ordinances for the city. Obviously "elocs" you have a hard time figuring out sarcasm so I won't even try to explain the ambulance comment to you. It went over your head. "
never cease to amaze me wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:23 AM:
" How about ban all non drinkers from going to park so they have something to complain about. If you are in a park and have a problem with a group then call the police, that is what they are there for. Don't go and whine to the park department about it. "
Mack wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:04 AM:
" Smells like a Tavern League proposal. "
Seriously Now wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:43 AM:
" On behalf of all of those in the area that do not center their lives around drinking, I apologize to viewers from outside La Crosse. The fact that some residents are in denial about the Wisconsin/La Crosse drinking problem does not diminish the fact that this is a nice area with a lot of nice (and sober) people.
I realize that seeing more discussion about the rights to get drunk in public park or smoke in a pubic place than discussions on the environment and war may lead you to believe that the area residents are a bunch of backward hicks. It's not the case. "
JD5400 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:40 AM:
" Permit to have a beer in a park? I understand that they don't want hardcore drunks harassing tourists or families or anybody else in the parks, but make everyone get a permit because of a few. I have seen these people and there aren't THAT many. Why can't the city police just patrol the areas a little more, and if they see a nuisance, get out of their air conditioned cars and write some tickets. Then the nuisance will move on to a different area of town. Don't try to solve the problem Council, just use the "out of sight, out of mind" theory. That way when people come to La Crosse they won't see this City for the town of drunks it really is. "
random annoying bozo wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:38 AM:
" one line says it all.
"i want to make sure the 'rights' of the ones not targeted are still being preserved" says Ms Gamroth.
i take that quote at face value, and it strongly implies that the 'rights' of some are targeted by the City. so which 'rights' are next on the 'hit list' of the City? and who picks whose 'rights' are 'preserved' and who's 'taken away'? "
possom133 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:56 AM:
" What a stupid idea, how many people are going to get a permit to go have a beer during a picinic in the park. Also I'm sure if the police wanted to they could rid the park of these dregs. "
jn wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:49 AM:
" What a ridiculous proposal! Next we'll need a permit to visit the restroom. "
bb wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:27 AM:
" Why don't the enforce the ban on dogs in the parks, they are a far bigger nuisance. Plus isn't there a new disorderly conduct law on the books already? "
wizard wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:19 AM:
" Give the pit bull a ride in the city ambulance from the new bus station and let him loose.Lay off all other city workers and police "
elocs wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:48 AM:
" You know, Krusty, this is a tough one, but let me see if I can help sort it out for you. Now the Parks and Recreation Director does not really have anything to do with ambulances, so he probably would not be involved in that issue. But he does have the word 'parks' in his job title so there just is an outside chance he might have something to do with helping to draft an ordinance that deals with drinking in the parks.
This is an obvious connection which you may have overlooked, but I do congratulate you for exercising that keen and razor sharp display of logic and wit that we so often read on the Tribune comments message board. I must bow to your obviously superior intellect and I really enjoy your work on 'The Simpsons'. Say hi to Homer for me. "
Krusty wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:45 AM:
" What exactly is a "Parks and Recreation Director" doing drafting city ordinances? Isn't he overstepping his bounds a little? Next thing you know the "Parks and Recreation Director" will be setting up a city ambulance service. "
Krusty wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:34 AM:
" Here's an idea...STOP HARRASSING THE NORMAL LAW ABIDDING CITIZENS, use the laws already on the books to clear the drunks out of the parks. Does the city and its committees breed idiots or do they just find their way to city hall on their own? "
Sully wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:32 AM:
" It really is a simple fix. Ban drinking in all parks and use selective enforcement like we do now with other laws and ordinances. Problem solved. "
Advertisement
