Iowa City OrdinanceEssay Preview: Iowa City OrdinanceReport this essayIowa Citys Bar Ordinance ControversyThis paper examines Iowa Citys current controversy with the 19-only bar ordinance approved by Iowa Citys City Council on August 1, 2003. The controversy of underage drinking that included implementing a 21-ordinance has been an oft-debated issue for Iowa Citys City Council who is split over the issue. The current ordinance allows 19 and 20 year olds in the bars after 10 p.m. I have examined several sources and classified them into the following criteria: a) Pro-ordinance based on safety perspectives, b) Pro-ordinance based on unrestricted environment issues, c) Anti-ordinance based on alcohol statistics, d) Anti-ordinance based on crime rates, e) Anti-ordinance based on overall community as it stands in Iowa City today.
HISTORY:
In the late ’60s and early ’70s the city attempted to legalize alcohol as an official method of drinking, by changing the license plate from “S” to “Y” to accommodate the requirement that a person age 21 or older had a special permit necessary to carry it. The ordinance was also supported by a number of socialites, including city councilmen, who viewed licensing as an essential right, for people 21 and older in this public area to maintain themselves, eat well, sleep well, and protect themselves from the dangers associated with alcohol use, particularly in school settings where young people are not expected to follow safety codes. The ordinance did not gain broad public support in that community. When the ordinance first passed, a number of pro-ordinance groups formed, including the Council of People that Respect the Constitution and the Iowa State Bar, that started following suit in the late 1960s to lobby and to have the ordinance adopted. But before enacting this type of legislation, the ordinance became a target of the growing opposition to alcohol regulation, and a number of socialites who supported and promoted it made it their sole tool to oppose regulation. To this end, city councilors met in the late ’60s and early ’70s to discuss ordinances aimed at improving alcohol safety in areas of limited use and alcohol in drinking that were not well known to the average person, or had no public use. Councilors discussed the issues of safe drinking and of prohibition related issues, but concluded that regulation of the public spaces would be an important component in reducing drinking in the public space. The new ordinance, HEP-16, included a new bar licensing standard and the elimination of age limitations as well as a new permit requirement for all residents 21 and older. In addition, the city expanded the number of bars in that city and made it possible for other municipalities to enforce existing restrictions on alcohol use. While in effect, HEP-16 was a new ordinance that did not affect certain areas where this proposed ordinance was being made, it did substantially expand the ability of citizens to sell alcohol in that specific city or town. Despite these favorable conclusions, however, the proposed ordinance was not implemented long after the city had adopted HEP-16. Instead, it was enacted as a temporary measure and was not implemented until the city’s Board of Appeals ruled in August 2001 that it was too lenient. The ordinance also created a new bar licensing standard. The new standard, HEP-18, was considered a permanent requirement and was modified in August 2001, when a judge threw out the case filed by the bar in favor of the plaintiffs’ rights as the plaintiffs’ plaintiffs. The District Court upheld the District Court’s ruling in 1999. In 2010, the City Council unanimously passed HEP-18 to authorize the city to regulate local venues. Currently, HEP-18 is not as necessary to prevent underage drinking; however, it provides some safety oversight in certain areas. Although the ordinance was never enacted, it did provide for the establishment of a new bar within the boundaries of which many bars continue to serve, such as schools in cities such as Chicago, St. Louis or New York City.(29) In a review of the current situation, the Department
Pro-ordinance based on safety perspectivesHaving a 19-only bar ordinance, students can drink in a relatively safe environment that provides responsible outlets for alcohol consumption because attacking the issue entirely would be impossible. Underage students are not going to stop drinking even if they arent allowed in the bars (Jeffrey Patch 2/12/03). Most bars provide at least reasonable assurance that all customers will be drinking safely with staff members paid to keep patrons in line and police officers an earshot away (DI Editorial Board 9/25/06). Downtown establishments monitor the patrons alcohol intake, use careful wristband systems, employ sober staff, and pay heavy fines if found to be serving to minors (Lindsay Schutte 10/1/04). Police records show that 93 percent of underage drinkers cited for possession of alcohol were ticketed at the bars (Drew Kerr & Nick Peterson 12/9/05). Irresponsible and underage consumers are hit where it hurts the most, their wallets, while responsible users are free from expensive tickets and fines. “We are not after underage drinking but rather binge drinking,” said City Council member Connie Champion. “It is about the abuse of alcohol, not the consumption” (Jessica Seveska 10/19/04). Enacting a 21-ordinance in Iowa City would cultivate too much competition among bars to attract the small crowd of legal age drinkers. When Iowa State passed a 21-ordinance, the intensity of binge drinking at bars worsened because bars were forced to compete with each other due to less business, reducing prices per drink to as little as one penny (Katherine Bisanz 11/2/05). “Iowa City is a vibrant, energetic, and healthy community,” said Connie Champion. “Students and all members of the community can benefit from the social scene. Its not the 20 year old having a beer that concerns me, its the 20 beers that concern me” (Jessica Seveska 10/19/04). Underage drinking will always remain a fixture of Iowa Citys nightlife, but the 19-ordinance will result in patrons curbing their irresponsible alcohol use in a controlled, safe environment.
Pro-ordinance based on unrestricted environment issuesHaving a 21-ordinance in Iowa Citys bars would push drinking to house parties, with no rules and regulations, where most underage excessive, drinking occurs anyways. House parties are ignored by the police and the only appearance officers make at these parties are to break them up. The fear of being caught by police is a strong enough deterrent to ensure an unrestricted environment (DI Editorial Board 9/25/06). A Daily Iowan review of Iowa City police records shows house party hosts and their guests are rarely, if ever, reprimanded for their indiscriminate dispensing of alcohol (Drew Kerr & Nick Peterson 12/9/05). Iowa City police have not arrested any party hosts for bootlegging since 2001 and just seven have been cited for distributing alcohol to minors during that same time (Drew Kerr & Nick Peterson 12/9/05). Unlike the bars, parties have no entry age minimum, nor do the faceless hands pushing toward a house party keg have ages as they hold cups awaiting a refill. People as young as 15-years-old were found at one party, according to police records. Besides offering easier access, a house party can be cheaper than a night at the bars. Its all the beer a drinker wants, until the party dies, for $5 – an amount that would translate to only a couple of bottles downtown. “Im not going to spend $50 at a bar when I can spend $5 at a house party,” said 19-year-old Kelly McInerney. “Plus, cops dont bust house parties; they bust people in bars. At house parties, they tell everyone to go home” (Drew Kerr & Nick Peterson 12/9/05). By raising the age to enter bars in Iowa City, we would only push more under-age drinkers to unsafe, unrestricted environments with more dangers while consuming greater amounts of alcohol.
Anti-ordinance based on alcohol statisticsThe University of Iowa, the top eighth party school in the nation, has one of the highest underage drinking rates in the Big Ten schools (Katherine Bisanz 11/2/05). The U of Is rate of binge drinking among teens and young adults is among the highest in the nation, and nearly one-eighth of the schools freshman fail to return for their second year, according to the Wechsler Study, which is conducted at 140 universities nationwide (Mark Magoon 10/10/06). Concerned Iowa City residents want to shake the perception that alcohol is the blood running through the citys veins (Mark Magoon 10/10/06). “If a 21-ordinance were enacted, overall alcohol consumption by underage students at the University of Iowa would drop by 25 to 30 percent, which will then decrease alcohol-related consequences,” said UI psychology, Professor Peter Nathan. All though Nathan admitted an increase in house parties is inevitable if a 21-ordinance were enacted, he does not believe what goes on at house parties can compare with a bar (Katherine Bisanz 11/2/05). Since April 2004, 14 establishments have been cited for selling alcohol to minors in Iowa City bars, according to the Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Division, which further proves that under-age patrons should not be allowed in the bar settings (Katherine Bisanz 11/2/05). The disproportionate drinking frequency in Iowa City is because people younger than 21 are allowed into the bars, and enacting a harsher 21-ordinance will decrease the university and citys battle of underage drinking.
Anti-ordinance based on crime ratesThe 19-only bar ordinance decreases law enforcement throughout