PBPG not asking for a moratorium I want to set the record straight regarding your recent article about the Pacific Beach Planning Group (PBPG) community meeting held on June 14, 2010. Contrary to the story headline, the PBPG did not ask the community to lobby for a moratorium on alcohol licenses. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the community about current alcohol license policies and how they have played out in Pacific Beach, and what options we have. I am a member of the PBPG subcommittee that was formed last November with the expressed mission to support new alcohol licenses for restaurants in Pacific Beach, with conditions that would minimize negative impacts by preventing them from acting like bars. When we did the research, we found that fulfilling our mission under current policies was impossible because the community has no control over ABC decisions to grant licenses and modify conditions. PB is fortunate to have many wonderful restaurants that are true assets to the community. However, over the last 20 years, dozens of PB restaurants that once served drinks with dinner and closed at 10 p.m., have been replaced by restaurants that now serve alcohol until 2 a.m., have upgraded their licenses from beer/wine to full spirits, have expanded their premises to serve more patrons, and offer drinking games and/or cheap drink specials. This is all perfectly legal under current ABC regulations. Most of the “bars” in PB are actually restaurants. In the western business district, there are 64 alcohol licenses — 44 restaurants, 11 stores and 9 bars — where only 10 total licenses are allowed by state guidelines. In this area, alcohol-crime is 19 times the city average and general crime is five times average. Contrast this with the northern and northeastern PB residential areas that have no alcohol licenses and well-below-average crime. PB (zip code 92109) also has about 600 DUIs each year, the majority of which occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., and most (73 percent) are committed by drivers who live outside of PB. Since 2005, at least five people have died from DUIs in PB. Other communities facing similar circumstances have established local control by requiring alcohol-licensed businesses to obtain a city-issued conditional-use permit (CUP) that can specify conditions of operation, and they have seen dramatic drops in crime and DUI, along with improvements in business practices. If PB wants to support and encourage new restaurants with alcohol licenses, while ensuring these establishments don’t act like bars and aggravate our crime and DUI, local control, such as a CUP, would need to be established. The full presentation can be found at www.pbplanning.org. — Marcie Beckett, Pacific Beach A sharp difference of opinion Writer Chris Decker claims, in his letter (June 24 Beach & Bay Press) supporting expansion of local bars, that younger PB residents are intimidated out of participating in civic affairs by militant Gray Panthers in their walkers and wheelchairs, who won’t tolerate younger people having their say at community meetings. Come on! There’s certainly a sharp difference of opinion on the direction the community should take between two resident groups in PB, young singles who typically are short-timers here for the party scene, and older people, most of whom are not seniors but are simply trying to raise families in an environment that is loud, rude and often threatening, particularly late at night when the bars are in full swing and the streets are full of “revelers,” most of whom don’t live in PB, if the city-leading DUI arrest records are to be believed. People are entitled to reasonably peaceful neighborhoods, and abutting the so-called “commercial” district are many residential neighborhoods subject almost nightly to vandalism, public disturbances of all kinds, and assaults, not to mention the danger of being run over by drunks. Try calling the cops after 11 p.m. about a loud party in the house next door. Good luck on a response; the cops are tied up keeping Garnet and Mission Boulevard under control. Into this situation comes the Shore Club request to expand its deck, which will increase its capacity by 2/3! They stop serving food at 10 p.m. but keep pouring until 2 a.m., now to a much larger clientele? How can that benefit the community? Here’s a challenge for those on the fence: Walk down Garnet Avenue between 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. on any Thursday, Friday or Saturday night and judge for yourself whether the community needs more drinking capacity.?— Bill Bradshaw, Mission Beach Listen to the elders Chris, perhaps the reason you and your friends were asked to join the Town Council and other organizations in Pacific Beach, was not just to give your point of view, but also in the hope that you might also be willing to hear our (the elders) point of view as well. We have nothing against the owners of The Shore Club. They seem like fine, young business men. But do you honestly believe that what Pacific Beach really needs is more and/or larger restaurant/bars? When you and your friends want to go out and enjoy a night of partying, is it hard for you to find somewhere in P.B. to go. If you want to get a tattoo or have your body pierced or visit a smoke shop, do you have trouble finding one in the area? I know that when I want art supplies, or fabric, when I want to shop at a Hallmark Gift shop or even just buy a box of Sees candy (all things I used to be able to do right here in P.B.) I now have to head for Clairemont or the Midway/Sports Arena area. Do you think that every business establishment here has to cater to your particular demographic? And what about when your ENJOYMENT of the community keeps us from our enjoyment of it. Are those of us who enjoy a quiet sunset by the ocean, or a family picnic in Kate Sessions Park, or who would like to take a peaceful neighborhood stroll in the evening, just out of luck? When it comes to being narrow minded I don’t think our age group has a monopoly. In fact, there was more mud-slinging in your article than I have ever heard at any of the Town Council meetings I’ve attended. I’m sorry you seem to feel that those of us who disagree with you about what would make Pacific Beach a better, more inclusive, place to live, have no right to express ourselves or have our opinions count. But those of us who have seen this area change from a family oriented, residential community, to party central for college kids and young adults, are part of this neighborhood, too. There are also young families here who want to have a pleasant, safe place to bring up their children. After all, much as you would like to send us oldsters packing, this is our home, we have invested many years of our lives in it and don’t see why we should just give up and let you take it over. Just remember, hard as it is to believe, some day you too will be in our shoes. — Marcia Zeddies, Pacific Beach Lend more support to the other 1,272 businesses I wish Chris Decker could have joined me as I delivered flyers for last month’s alcohol license forum. He, too, could have heard from families upset at vandalism and PB’s changing business district. Folks were puttering in their yards and chatting with neighbors as their little kids played nearby. Their constant refrain: Garnet’s a mess, but our street is wonderful. That changing business district reflects only one part of PB. More families are moving in and remodeling — and they need the services we’re losing. For instance, when AAA Vacuum ‘s rent on Garnet jumped from $1,350 to $4,500, the owner moved to Cass and Loring. He’s happy; it’s safer. But those in Crown Point now must travel further. There are 1400 businesses in PB, but only 128 with alcohol licenses. Instead of spending so much of their time and energy working with bars on Garnet and near the beach, Discover PB should lend more support to the other 1,272 businesses. Those 1,272 don’t draw DUIs, create noise at 2 a.m. or increase the crime rate. They also provide the majority of Discover PB’s funding. We’re fortunate not to have oil on our beautiful beaches; instead we have alcohol, washing up Garnet and wiping out a shopping district that once served residents and visitors alike. Rather than expanding Shore Club’s deck to add another 126 drinkers (who will later drive home through our neighborhoods), let’s publicize — and patronize — shops throughout PB who serve everyone, safely. —Eve Anderson, Pacific Beach They don’t care Chris Decker directed his mudslinging rant against all concerned citizens of PB. He blames the feeble minds of the aged. He doesn’t want to hear the statistics one more time! Maybe if we don’t talk about them they will go away. The plain facts are: PB’s business district has alcohol crime 19 times the city-wide average, 600 DUIs per year, and 4 ½ times the city crime rate. I have been a member of the PB Town Council since 1996. I also served on the PBTC’s board of directors. At the PBTC meetings I attended over many years, concern was expressed about the growth in bar expansions. This was voiced by young parents, young adults, the middle aged with teens, and, yes, even older, perhaps wiser, individuals than Chris. This is not an anti-business attitude; it is concern for the much larger residential neighborhoods surrounding Garnet Avenue. Chris says the PB Shore club “has a right to expand” to serve another 126 patrons. He does not cite alcohol license policy or how it affects the entire community. ABC recommends one alcohol license per 2,000 residents. PB now has one license for every 312 residents. The Shore Club has a #47 restaurant license. However, they advertise their kitchen closing at 10 p.m. while “Bar North” and “Bar South” continue to serve alcohol until 2 a.m., seven days a week. Their census tract already has high crime and too much alcohol being served. If PB Shore Club really cares about the PB community, then they should act like a restaurant. Stop serving alcohol at midnight and help reduce the 2 a.m. crime. But the Shore Club doesn’t want to operate as a restaurant; their profits come primarily from alcohol not food. The residents that make up the actual community of PB do not matter to them. —B. H. Demaree Lament For a City Parties at the beach Cruising the boardwalk At night On bikes Friends were everywhere & more to meet Down there As you rode The cops didn’t bother us Much We were free to roam Times are different now Too many people Too many transplants Too many fools I doubt we can restore This once great city To its former brilliance All we can do Is remember The good times we had Growing up — Michael E. Monahan