I spent almost eight hours out on the streets on Saturday night watching Picnic Day. There were few major problems. And really by mid-evening, the crowds had died down and it was closer to a normal Saturday, maybe even a slow Saturday, than it was to any type of special event, except for the presence of large numbers of police.
Nevertheless, the word creeping out is of the problems of Picnic Day. Some people are talking about canceling the event (which is something the city cannot do anyway). Some are talking about cutting off booze in the downtown.
This is actually a misleading figure. There is an erroneous perception that statistics can be made to say anything you want – the truth is that with the proper analysis of statistics, taking into account more than two variables, statistics tell a pretty good story.
So, the story behind those statistics that show arrests up is that the key variable was not that there were more crimes committed, rather that enforcement was up. We had a much larger police force out there this year, they were told to crack down on drinking and other activities – and while there was some overkill, they did exactly that.
Because of the changed policy, comparing drinking-related arrests from last year to this year is close to comparing apples to oranges.
The key question was: was problem drinking up? Walking around there were clearly a few people drunk out of their minds. But they were a small contingent.
What about assaults, which fueled the concerns last year – were they up? No they were down.
There are complaints about destruction of property north of the safety area and reports that the whole scene is a nuisance to the downtown owners. I get that. But overall, there was a fairly mild scene.
A commentator wrote, “But no matter how you slice this thing, it was not a proud moment for a city that prides itself on creative solutions to the normal problems that sometimes plague city life.”
He continued, “Despite a full year of hand-wringing and game-planning and public awareness campaigns since last year’s disaster, the cold, hard numbers from Picnic Day 2011 are not encouraging.”
Was there an expectation that people would stop drinking at this event? If so, then people just had unrealistic expectations. I thought the goal of the increased enforcement was to prevent things from getting out of control as they did last year, and by that measure it worked.
He continued, “Even more troubling this year, there were nine arrests for driving under the influence, which basically means nine of these intoxicated revelers were driving a loaded weapon and were simply lucky they didn’t kill someone.”
That is a concern. On the other hand, there were few reports for drunk driving accidents that I know of that day. And the increased enforcement efforts probably led to preventing more problems.
You are of course free to disagree with me, but from my perspective walking around and actually looking for problems, I did not find a lot and the problems that were there were mild. The arrest figures reflect less about the actual number of crimes and more about the enforcement by authorities of those crimes. In fact, I would argue that those numbers were inflated somewhat by singling out people who were really not causing problems.
There was a good response by “a student” to that column.
The student wrote, “This is a very surface level argument. It’s pretty easy to simply glance at numbers and assume they can be easily compared to other years. However, a fuller understanding of the big picture is necessary, and should be expected out of people paid to write for future bird cage lining. The reason the citations and arrests were up, as explained by both campus and city policy, is that there were simply more police present and they had a stricter no tolerance policy. Increases were expected! The point was to increase minor infractions, and minimize the serious ones- which is exactly what happened. Yes, DUIs are problematic, but the majority of the citations and arrests were for minor crimes that were of minimal safety concern- over half were for open containers! And I’m sure you have opened a container before.”
Now, some people took issue with the statement that “DUIs are problematic.” But even that point is right on. The DUI stops are also preventative policy, preventing intoxicated individuals from driving those loaded weapons.
I have not seen anyone point out a single accident that was the result of drinking and driving on Saturday. I’m not saying there was not one, but I have not seen it.
The increased enforcement likely led to fewer people drinking and driving but more people being caught doing so.
The other point I would make is how few cars there actually were. Even at 4 pm, we had no problem finding a parking space right outside of the bars on G Street. Even at 7 pm and later at 11 pm, we had no problem finding parking outside of the Davis Graduate.
Far more people were walking than they were driving. That is a good thing.
The one real issue here, going forward, is what the businesses want to do. A lot of the non-bars simply closed down for Picnic Day. A lot of the places that didn’t had problems with destruction of property and messes in their restrooms.
That is certainly a problem that will have to be solved.
From my perspective, things went off pretty well. I think people’s sensibilities are out of whack here. I think a lot of older people are imposing their vantage point on the younger generation.
College students are going to drink. Do we want to make this a dry city on Picnic Day? Do we want to ban alcohol in the downtown area?
We can do that, but I think we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. In the end, if the students want a day to drink, they are going to find one on their own without any help from the older folks.
The sad part of it all is that one reason for the problems is that the residents of this community were really not to be seen around town. They abandoned the streets and downtown to the drinking students. A larger mix of people probably diffuse what remains of the problems. But if people abandon the streets to the troublemakers, those people get free rein.
I do not have the perfect solution. I think eliminating Picnic Day or outlawing alcohol is an overreaction to a situation that was really well under control all day and all night.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Criminy, I haven’t seen this much public whining since UC got the City to prohibit any booze within three miles of campus. And we all know how well that one worked.
dmg: “College students are going to drink. Do we want to make this a dry city on Picnic Day? Do we want to ban alcohol in the downtown area?
We can do that, but I think we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. In the end, if the students want a day to drink, they are going to find one on their own without any help from the older folks.”
In other words, you don’t want picnic day to return to the family friendly event it used to be and was envisioned to be many years ago? You would rather it remain an opportunity/excuse for binge drinking to the point people are stumbling drunk, vomiting in bathrooms and on sidewalks? Some of us “older folk” don’t feel the need to get stumbling drunk to have fun… call me an old “fuddy duddy” that I don’t feel the need to take mind altering drugs to have a good time…
dmg: “The sad part of it all is that one reason for the problems is that the residents of this community were really not to be seen around town. They abandoned the streets and downtown to the drinking students. A larger mix of people probably diffuse what remains of the problems. But if people abandon the streets to the troublemakers, those people get free rein.”
Now let me get this straight. You want us “older folks” and “teetotalers” to show up downtown and be subjected to watching students stumble around drunk, vomiting in restrooms and on sidewalks, to keep these students from having “free rein” to continue being stupid, obnoxious, dangerous, destructive? So us “older folks” and “teetotalers” are supposed to act as a sub rosa volunteer police force to somehow keep things in check? No thank you, I think I’ll just stay home and enjoy my Saturday away from all that craziness. I don’t care to volunteer for the job. Tell you what – how about the one’s arrested for drunk and disorderly be made to clean up the vomit in the bathrooms and on the sidewalks they left behind, and pay for the broken merchandise they destroyed? Or pick up the trash they left behind? How about that?
dmg: “I do not have the perfect solution. I think eliminating Picnic Day or outlawing alcohol is an overreaction to a situation that was really well under control all day and all night.”
A lot of downtown merchants who don’t sell alcohol may disagree with you.
Also, I want to know who footed the bill for the extra police in town. IMHO, it should be UCD – it is their event, and they should bear the full cost.
Secondly, the jury is still out on what happened AFAIK. Police Chief Landy Black and the Picnic Day Committee were going to have an after event debriefing to determine how things really went. I’m waiting for the final verdict from the professionals. It will be very interesting to see what they have to say.
To Don Shor: Would closing down your store for Picnic Day cause you to lose a significant amount of revenue or have other significant impacts? For me, that is a basic consideration in terms of the drinking problem. Because from where I sit, on a normal Saturday night, I have not heard of people vomiting in bathrooms and on the sidewalks, the sort of thing that is taking place on Picnic Day. It seems as if Picnic Day now has a reputation as a day to binge drink – not what was ever intended nor is good for the town. Just personal observation…
First of all, this looks like a Bimonthly bill to me.
Second of all, yes, it’s bad. But whatever part of the bill is determined by using less water, each of us can derail some of this charge. First of all KILL YOUR LAWN, it’s painful, but it’s time! Next, get plants that actually can live on what they get naturally here in the valley, many nurseries don’t carry them. I won’t name names but I was at a nursery the other day asking for native plants. The had what they called “drought tolerant’ plants. I was told how much water they needed, a joke, I kept a lawn alive on that much. Then I was told “nothing really grows here naturally but weeds”. Not true, find a nursery who knows, it can look great. And in the house, conserve, conserve conserve.
Oops, sorry, my comment belongs after the water story .
[i]Would closing down your store for Picnic Day cause you to lose a significant amount of revenue or have other significant impacts?[/i]
Closing a garden center on a sunny Saturday in April? Yes, that would be a significant loss of revenue. It already is.
There were nine drunk driving arrests on Picnic Day. How many drunk driving arrests does Davis average in a given month or year?
I think that the easiest solution is to keep out the riff-raff. Close downtown to anyone not wearing a wristband- you get the wrist band on campus during the day only. Show student card, alumni letter or local ID and you get a wristband (with a $ donation) and the funds raised from the wristbands pays for the enforcement downtown. If you aren’t going to campus to see the doxie races, pancake breakfast or put your fist in a cow, don’t come downtown. We just don’t want you.
Don Shor: “Closing a garden center on a sunny Saturday in April? Yes, that would be a significant loss of revenue. It already is.”
Then I consider that a very valid concern. If downtown merchants are losing significant business bc of Picnic Day, then things need to change. And 9 drunk driving arrests is 9 drunk drivers too many. Actually Gunrock’s suggestion has some merit. I would like to see Picnic Day revert to the purpose for which it was intended – showcasing the University.