Tuesday’s city council meeting had a report from Police Chief Landy Black on Picnic Day 2015, and discussion by council that largely focused on lamenting the decline in the participation in the voluntary community covenant.
The background for this issue is that, in 2010, there were a number of incidents in and around downtown Davis, where uncontrollable crowds and problems fueled by the irresponsible use of alcohol led to a community crisis that presented a clear alternative – either clean up Picnic Day or end it.
The city and campus and other stakeholders came together to create a solution that is multipronged. The three main prongs are as follows. First, they established a Safety Enhancement Zone which doubles the fines for four violations of City ordinance – open container violations, public urination/defecation, noise violations, and smoking in prohibited areas. Second, the police, who were often outnumbered, have brought in out-of-town officers, sometimes in large numbers, to help patrol.
Third, the community covenant is a voluntary agreement for ABC license holders in Davis to place certain self-imposed restrictions on the sale and provision of alcohol on Picnic Day. The key portion is the controversial provision not to sell alcohol prior to 11 am on Picnic Day.
While the Safety Enhancement Zone remains in place, the other two prongs have declined in recent years. While Chief Black’s report did not account for the decline in officers from other jurisdictions, it made note of the decline in the participation in the community covenant.
However, immediately following Picnic Day, I was told that the number of officers have declined over the years. In 2011, I walked Picnic Day and there was a huge show of force by the police. However, it was overbearing at times. There were often law enforcement officials standing in groups of up to eight on downtown street corners with little to do. The result was that they often tried to find things to do.
In one case a small verbal argument, a story I have told here many times, led to a group of eight officers approaching an unsuspecting man who had just had a fight with his girlfriend. The look on his face when he saw eight officers standing over him was priceless, but the potential for misconduct under such conditions escalates. The next year a man was Tasered by the Department of Fish and Game, allegedly after being non-cooperative, in an alleyway.
My personal observation from 2011 and 2012 was that the local officers were friendly and generally respectful of the public. The out-of-town officers were rude and standoffish. Clearly, the city does not need to have police officers causing the problems, and so the decline in out of town participation might not be alarming.
More was made of the declining participation in the university covenant. As the staff report explains, “The Covenant is structured as a business to business agreement. The City has no jurisdiction to regulate alcohol for existing businesses; that is the purview of the State (Alcoholic Beverage Control). However, the concept behind the Covenant is, if all businesses are providing alcohol responsibly, the overall atmosphere will be more manageable and safer. It is meant as an intermediate action to prevent the need for more drastic actions, and its success is based on the majority of businesses agreeing to abide by the tenets outlined in the Covenant.”
Staff continues, “While it is difficult to provide a direct correlation, the Covenant has been credited with keeping the overall atmosphere downtown and in other locations in the community manageable. At the very least, it provides a way in which the partners can talk to ABC license holders to make sure they are preparing adequately for Picnic Day.”
However, much to the lament of city council, “the number of participants dropped to 57, the lowest participation rate to date.” Staff writes, “In 2014, 75 license holders signed the Covenant, 2013 saw 59 signatures and 2011 and 2012 both had participants in the mid-60s.”
They continue, “With over 130 eligible ABC license holders in the city, the participation rate of less than half is problematic and creates an uneven playing field, where those who choose not to sign may benefit to the detriment of signers. In addition, a few businesses who signed the Covenant were locations where resources were necessary to address problems.”
There are plans, and council was very encouraging, about redoubling the efforts to get key businesses to sign onto the covenant.
But the question I think we have to ask is whether all of this is necessary.
Despite the lower outside agency participation, the Davis Police Department and Fire Department handled 526 incidents, a small decline from the numbers in previous years: 543 incidents in 2014, 629 in 2013, and 533 in 2012.
There were 41 arrests as compared to 44 in 2014, 47 in 2013 and 54 in 2012. Most of them were for intoxication and intoxication-related violations. There were 82 citations including 25 traffic violations – again for alcohol-related violations. Of the 44 arrests, 29 of them occurred in the Safety Enhancement Zone. Of the 57 non-traffic citations, 38 of them were for violations subject to the Zone penalty enhancement.
It is dangerous making sweeping conclusions based on a small set of data, but let us at least draw some inferences.
When I went out in 2011 and 2012, things were very tame. In fact, tame enough that, by 2013, I no longer went out and walked around on Picnic Day to see what was happening.
In my view, from my observation, most of the police activity focused on drinking offenses that were minor, and the arrests that were made seemed rather arbitrary. The police did not cite it, but the number of serious offenses – fights, assaults, sexual assaults – have declined.
The scene continued to be calm even with the covenant participation declining and the police presence declining. While the covenant has been credited with calming things down, there is really no evidence to support that belief, and there is some evidence to dispel it.
The police presence did not seem to impact things either and, as I observed, sometimes police presence caused more problems than it solved.
In short, we may have been reacting to a worst case scenario from 2010 that is not likely to replay again. I am not suggesting that we abandon efforts such as the Safety Enhancement Zone and Covenant, but they may not be as critical as we once believed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As an entertainer, I have witnessed the demise of live music venues in Sacramento and elsewhere due in large part to police intimidation. In other words, if want to spoil the fun, invite on duty cops.(Off duty, they are party animals)
;>)/
i understand that the slippage in the convenient numbers concern some people but the overall data doesn’t bear out the viewpoint that something is dramatically off. at some point in the response to 2010, they had to find a new normal and perhaps this is it.
I don’t think the idea of “slippage” was the main point of the discussion and if 2010 is the baseline against which we measure progress then I think we have a problem. The conversation was about moving away from a “dual” picnic day: one which has fun and enjoyment for all ages/groups on campus and another which has, at its core, an alcohol-drenched, community-unfriendly atmosphere downtown.
For ABC license holding businesses to state that it is not in their interest to do something as simple as limit alcohol sales before 11:00 IS a problem–especially in a town (perhaps not unlike others) in which alcohol addiction among teens and young people is among our greatest public health challenges.
The most promising part of the discussion (and one that will certainly be ongoing) is how to “reclaim” the downtown as a community space that invites the same kind of free flowing fun that occurs on campus to spill over into our downtown*. With support from downtown businesses, the YCVB and community groups (Odd Fellows, the various art galleries and service organizations), I believe we can create a seamless campus to city zone in which families do not pack up as soon as the parade is over. ABC license holding businesses need to participate to help make this happen.
Creating a community space in our downtown is the future of picnic day from the City’s perspective.
*As an example of what this might look like consider how the Pence Gallery closed off part of D Street last Saturday evening. By providing hula hoops, a craft table, sidewalk chalk and live music featuring local talent (i.e. relatively low cost), the Pence created a wonderful community space for people of ALL ages. Imagine expanding that the length of 2nd and 3rd Street on picnic day.
This has to be one of the most intelligent views of Picnic Day I have heard. Thanks Robb Davis for contributing to a saner view of what Picnic Day should look like, rather than shrug off more than 500 alcohol fueled arrests as acceptable.
Anon – When is the last time you were in the downtown core area at 11:30 PM on a Friday or Saturday during the spring or fall when school in in session?
While I would like a more family friendly downtown for Picnic Day, most of these Fridays and Saturdays are simply a reflection of the same only smaller. Most of the downtown restaurants convert to night clubs around 10:30 – 11:00 PM. Part of the reason they resist this idea to stop selling drinks at 11:00 PM is that is the usual time that they start to make a profit in their business. The venues are small and the rent is high and the food service end tends to break even at best. Note that Tucos did not do the night club thing and it went out of business.
So we are basically talking about a “tax” in lower revenue to these downtown businesses to reduce the amount of drunkenness downtown.
Frankly wrote: “Part of the reason they resist this idea to stop selling drinks at 11:00 PM is that is the usual time that they start to make a profit in their business.”
Perhaps he misunderstood the “community covenant” arrangement. That is, businesses who signed on were not to sell alcohol before 11 a.m. on Picnic Day (as had done by at least one business, the Graduate, beginning at 6 a.m. on Picnic Day 2010 and, I assume, some years earlier). The covenant didn’t say anything about not serving alcohol after 11 p.m.
I think the only “tax” being imposed would be on just one day a year.
The 2015 covenant text may be seen here: http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CMO/PicnicDay/Picnic-Day-2015-On-Sale-Covenant.pdf
500 arrests over five years perhaps…
This is a great idea, Robb. This year I went down to the parade and then went home. Next year, I will probably not even do that. Over the years, I have done all the traditional campus activities and frankly, it is too crowded for me. Most of the departments shut down around 3 or 4, so if you see the parade, get something to eat, then you have time to go to one or two departments. Not worth it. Downtown, with all of the police standing around, is a drag. The Davis Music Festival does it much better, starting late in the day, charging a ticket price to get into bars & venues, which keeps the “let’s get drunk, assault women and fight” crowd out, great entertainment, and makes for a great afternoon and evening.
That is the kind of visionary leadership we need from the City Council. Thank you very much for that.
I believe if the downtown area were more of a “family” or “kid” zone, it would push out the hard drinking partiers. It just harshes their mellow too much. There is no reason why a pledge for no alcohol sales before noon ONE day a year cannot get 100% participation with an exception made in restaurants when there is a food order that equals or exceeds the price of the drink ($5 beer, at least a $5 food item). I would very much like to know who has previously signed the Picnic Day covenant and why they chose not to do so subsequently. I disagree very much with David that the covenant has had no effect and I think it should be ratcheted up, no down, on Picnic Day.
Thursday and Friday night drinking is an entirely different problem and I get the tradeoff of profitability of bar sales versus simply running a restaurant. Davis is not New Orleans, for better and for worse, but I don’t want to see it evolve into something potentially a lot worse. I have thought a lot about his problem and I can’t put my finger precisely on what is going on. If that means spending more time downtown on Thursday nights, I will probably remain in the dark. However, as I listen, I am learning and I do believe we as a community are not interested, overall, in making Davis a destination for binge drinking and gang activity (which is increasing during the Thursday and Friday evening bar scene) with the associated violence or threat of violence.
And yet New Orleans never threatens to shut down Mardi Gras.
Davis isn’t New Orleans, or Nashville or even New York City. What is the magic element that allows people to binge drink in some of those cities without the same negative impacts? On the top of my head I can think of some differences, but I’d like to hear what you think the reasons are.
Are there more negative impacts in Davis, or maybe just more sensitivity and reaction to them?
the latter…………..
Haven’t they been through these same types of issues in San Luis Obispo and Chico?
“The conversation was about moving away from a “dual” picnic day: one which has fun and enjoyment for all ages/groups on campus and another which has, at its core, an alcohol-drenched, community-unfriendly atmosphere downtown.”
one of the under-discussed conversations we have in this community is that as much as we are a city that is focused around the university, we have become quite unfriendly to students. the focus on all-ages, means there is no a place in our town for people who want to drink and party one day a year. i’m fine with the conception of cracking down on the worst offenses, but i see a move like this as once again pushing the students off to the perphery. what is wrong with a dual picnic day as long as people reasonably behave?
There is an unstated assumption in what you write that most or even many of the students at UCD want to drink in order to have a good time. Why do you assume that? Are you saying that students would not enjoy activities that focus on fun, food, music rather than alcohol and the attendant bad behaviors that come with its overconsumption?
You could, rather, assume that there are students for whom the boorish behavior of their peers is something that would keep them out of our downtown. One need look no further than the throngs of students who participate on all the on-campus activities where alcohol consumption is not part of the mix to get an idea of the diversity of things that constitute fun for students. I am suggesting we extend that atmosphere into downtown.
I am not using some kind of coded language when I say “all ages” and your stereotyping of students is not helpful. As I said the other night, I am not opposed to alcohol consumption but I would hope we can all agree that responsible consumption thereof is what we all want. For ABC-licensed businesses to be unwilling to sign on to a covenant that does nothing more than ask them to voluntarily refrain from serving alcohol BEFORE 11:00 AM in the morning would seem to indicate an unwillingness to promote that responsibility.
Beyond that, our downtown should be a place where, during the time when those too young to drink are out and about, everyone feels welcome and can have a good time. And that should be the case 365 days per year.
during the time when those too young to drink are out and about, everyone feels welcome and can have a good time.
Too young to drink is 18-20, and they are out and about downtown after 11:00pm when the so-called “nightclubs” are open.
The Thursday – Saturday scene, most especially “Little Friday”, are getting more out-of-control and becoming more and more “Little Picnic Days”. We see the effects in our adjacent neighborhoods, where the drunks from apartments come through to knock over garbage cans on garbage night (also Little Friday), vandalize whatever they can smash in a drunken state, subwoofers pump beats into the neighborhood, have sex in the bushes, drunk drivers walk over to hide their cars from the police who are all clustered downtown, and occasionally one runs into another car, up onto the tracks, or into a fence.
I called the city a few years ago to inquire about the expanding problems downtown and the effect on adjacent neighborhoods, and the person I talked to said it was illegal to run a nightclub in Davis. I said there were several businesses that convert to “nightclubs” late on Thursday through Saturday, and if so, didn’t the City know this? Perhaps someone could enlighten us on, if that is true, and, if so . . . on how businesses get around the “nightclub” designation?
I can’t remember where you stand on peripheral development, but most of what you have complaints about are the result of a large population of people with few options and so they congregate into our small downtown footprint. And the concentration of partying people attracts others from out of town. And the merchants do what merchants do and they respond to what the paying customer wants.
This is not going to get any better anytime soon. The population of the university is growing and the downtown is not getting any larger. The retail shops are going away and being replaced by entertainment. The downtown will more and more be a place where they adults infrequent during the day and stay completely away from at night.
What Davis needs is larger and more numerous neighborhood retail centers with shopping and entertainment options that provide an alternative destination. For example a couple of larger venues that can hold hundreds and employs bouncers and security guards that help the police keep everything contained. The police then don’t need to patrol the entire downtown with these drunk young people all over the place.
And the adults also might have some better choices for late night entertainment targeting their interests.
Your question is a bit of a non-sequitor for me. I do not “stand” anywhere on peripheral development. I take each project on the merits. I oppose J/R, and would probably be one of the leading opponents of bad proposed projects if J/R did not exist. I favor Nishi, Gateway, preferred NW as site of business park. Cannery lack of definitive bike/ped access makes it a down-thumb until/unless that is resolved. Developing the right-of-way should the tracks actually be removed by the scam artists is going to be over my dead and horrifically mutilated corpse. That is a transit right-of-way, and shall forever remain so.
Thus Little Picnic Day every Thursday.
And drug dealers respond to what their paying customer wants.
I would like to support Robb’s observation that although many students do use Picnic Day ( and night) to drink to excess, many more do not. I think that my son and his girlfriend are not exceptional. They attended some of the events on campus and then went home “before things got crazy”.
Folk… please remember that one of the big problems of Picnic Day 2010 were the “out-of-towners”, many of whom were college-age/students. Yes, UCD rowdies were a big part of the problem as well, along with teena-age Davis wannabies. As we look for solutions/improvements let’s not forget the “outside” factor, that some local “businesses” actually advertised toward.
The early Picnic Day tradition was students/parents/local community. New Orleans advertises Mardi-Gras world-wide. Don’t think we need/want to.
OOOPS! Meant to put this at the ‘basic’ level, NOT as a reply to Tia’s post!
That’s always been the claim but I’ve never actually seen data to support that contention (not saying it’s wrong, just making that point).
If you really want this to be the case then you should should also do something about the panhandler and homeless vagrant problem in our downtown because believe me many people don’t feel safe.