Vancouver becoming the no-fun city again???

[jlousa]

Can you not have a fun time at a bbq in the park w/o liquor though? What is it about the liquor that increases the fun?

PS I am a drinker just don't see what drinking has to do with fun.

[zivan56]

Who says you have to drink? If you don't, then don't. If you want, then do...err...well if you hide it well enough.
What makes it fun? Depends on the person...I know most of my friends are pretty uptight and silent unless they've had a drink.

They probably hassle pot smokers less for that. "It's for my glaucoma sir!"

[dreambrother808]

i think/hope things will change in a generation or two when the older folk who were far too deeply instilled with guilt and fear about such topics have moved on to other realms. this goes for pot and alcohol and a host of other topics whose suppression and distortion frustrate the hell out of me.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I beleive you guys are acutally the minority, there is not the demand to change liquor laws. The public in general does not want people drinking in public or in cars. If you were the majority then the polictians would change the rules.

Guess again. The vast majority of people out there do want outdated liquor laws changed. Its just that it isn't that big of an issue to get people to get too vocal about it. (and maybe thats the problem).

To give you an example, for YEARS and YEARS, people in Vancouver were not permitted to consume alcohol anywhere other than in hotel rooms or private residences. This didn't stop basically the whole city (restaurants and "mix clubs" ) from allowing patrons to bring in and consume alcohol through a wide variety of laughable methods. The laws weren't liked by anyone, yet they lasted decades!

A more recent example; bars had to first close entirely, then close earlier on Sunday nights. Was this the will of the majority? Not by a long shot. Its just that its not an issue that people are going to say, organize a march onto city hall for.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Can you not have a fun time at a bbq in the park w/o liquor though? What is it about the liquor that increases the fun?

PS I am a drinker just don't see what drinking has to do with fun.

It simply comes down to the fact that I love the taste of beer. Whether it's a pilsner, a lager or an amber, it really doesn't matter to me. It's not like I have to drink it to have fun. I just enjoy the taste of a cold one at the beach on a beautiful summer's day. Some people love a can of coke or a perrier and they are able to drink it legally anywhere, but I can't drink a single bottle of beer in the same environment. It's a messed up situation.

[Skook]

To get back on topic, does anyone know if the "make everyone outside of the entertainment district close at 12" thing is for real?

If true, 12 is way too early, not to mention grossly unfair to anyone who works nights and doesn't want to wrestle yahoos in the entertainment district (or, for that matter, anyone who likes to socialize once in a while without suffering the morons on Granville).

If this policy is indeed true, we are continuing to make some very strange decisions in this city. In my neighbourhood, by Tinseltown, I see people shoot up or smoke crack pretty much everyday, and have to carefully scan the ground for needles whenever I go anywhere with my 4 year old boy. Junkies shoot up in plain view of the police, yet I could be fined for having a glass of wine in the park.

And the solution to neighborhood disorder is making the Public Lounge or Havana close by midnight? Get a grip. If certain establishments have noise problems and constant complaints, deal with those locations. The rest of us prefer to be treated as adults by our city, and that includes having entertainment options after 12.

And, finally, the type of idiots who want to get drunk and cause trouble are not hanging out at the kinds of places you find on Main or Commercial or in Kits, they're all in the freakin' entertainment district already. This policy, if true, is an act of staggering stupidity and breathtaking nanny-statism. And I, for one, will vote against any public figure supporting it. I prefer to make my own decisions, thank you city hall.

[djh]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Who says you have to drink? If you don't, then don't. If you want, then do...err...well if you hide it well enough.
What makes it fun? Depends on the person...I know most of my friends are pretty uptight and silent unless they've had a drink.

...and that's when normally good, upstanding citizens get a bit over the top. I think that remark is a good explanation of why the "sensible" and generally wiser older council want to restrict liquor from the "wild" and generally younger supporters of drinking. Younger people have a harder time self-regulating than more experienced and more mature people. It's just a fact, and it's a world-wide occurrence.

The Vancouver solution is, in typical Vancouver style overly heavy-handed (i.e., to stop a minor infraction by a minority, the city will come down heavy on the whole population, sledgehammer-to-walnut-style), but that's just how Vancouver council has always dealt with problems, and it's a combination of the very liberalised society and the fear of lawsuits and civil liberty issues, and the desire to be seen to be doing something and so on.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by zivan56

^^ And what type of people go to monster truck shows? The first thing that comes to mind is rednecks and trailer trash.

And who says many of them don't also go to the fireworks?

Have you seen some of the drunk and obnoxious idiots in the crowds at the fireworks? And those were just the ones that bothered to sneak their drinks. Multiply that by 20 to get an idea of what it would be like if everybody were freely allowed to drink there. (Not only would it be a nuisance, but it could also get bloody dangerous, considering the size and density of the crowds.

Originally Posted by zivan56

Why on earth would someone bring kids when it is full of men in their 30's-40's and their skanky girlfriends?

Because the entertainment level at those shows is supposed to be geared towards 5 year olds.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Who says you have to drink? If you don't, then don't. If you want, then do...err...well if you hide it well enough.
What makes it fun? Depends on the person...I know most of my friends are pretty uptight and silent unless they've had a drink.

They probably hassle pot smokers less for that. "It's for my glaucoma sir!"

I have yet to see pot smokers start a brawl.

Originally Posted by giallo

It simply comes down to the fact that I love the taste of beer. Whether it's a pilsner, a lager or an amber, it really doesn't matter to me. It's not like I have to drink it to have fun. I just enjoy the taste of a cold one at the beach on a beautiful summer's day. Some people love a can of coke or a perrier and they are able to drink it legally anywhere, but I can't drink a single bottle of beer in the same environment. It's a messed up situation.

Coke and perrier don't give you the "Molson muscle".

[Kwik-E-Mart]

This is going to be a first of a series of regulations geared towards the senior population...

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Kwik-E-Mart

This is going to be a first of a series of regulations geared towards the senior population...

And with the aging baby boomer population.....

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

And with the aging baby boomer population.....

That's my point!

They are likely the ones who can afford a place within the City of Vancouver.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

And who says many of them don't also go to the fireworks?

Have you seen some of the drunk and obnoxious idiots in the crowds at the fireworks? And those were just the ones that bothered to sneak their drinks. Multiply that by 20 to get an idea of what it would be like if everybody were freely allowed to drink there. (Not only would it be a nuisance, but it could also get bloody dangerous, considering the size and density of the crowds.

Well I guess the problem is with the people here. I have been to plenty of large festivals in Europe and everyone was drinking. Sure there was a fight or two, but that was among thousands or people. In fact, there were authorized beer vendors every couple of meters rights next to the stages...

Originally Posted by djh

...and that's when normally good, upstanding citizens get a bit over the top. I think that remark is a good explanation of why the "sensible" and generally wiser older council want to restrict liquor from the "wild" and generally younger supporters of drinking. Younger people have a harder time self-regulating than more experienced and more mature people. It's just a fact, and it's a world-wide occurrence.

The Vancouver solution is, in typical Vancouver style overly heavy-handed (i.e., to stop a minor infraction by a minority, the city will come down heavy on the whole population, sledgehammer-to-walnut-style), but that's just how Vancouver council has always dealt with problems, and it's a combination of the very liberalised society and the fear of lawsuits and civil liberty issues, and the desire to be seen to be doing something and so on.

I wouldn't say the same about self control. Rather, social situation warrant that younger people will drink more with friends than an older person will. I don't exactly see people 40+ gather in a park and get wasted.
Also, older people have higher rates of alcoholism...so I fail to see how it only applies to younger people.

Ultimately it's Vancouver's loss. I spend less and less time here and more time abroad...as do a number of my friends. Ultimately, I may buy a condo or two for an investment here, but would probably live and work somewhere else due to many factors (one of them being these older, perhaps senile, politicians enacting laws they believe in).

[amac]

Originally Posted by zivan56

...Ultimately it's Vancouver's loss. I spend less and less time here and more time abroad...as do a number of my friends. Ultimately, I may buy a condo or two for an investment here, but would probably live and work somewhere else due to many factors (one of them being these older, perhaps senile, politicians enacting laws they believe in).

How fortunate for you to have the option to spend more time abroad and just "buy a condo or two" here for investment purposes. The solution is always so simple for wealthy people isn't it? You just jet-off to someplace more interesting. "Ultimately" most of us here have to live and work in Vancouver year-round.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by amac

How fortunate for you to have the option to spend more time abroad and just "buy a condo or two" here for investment purposes. The solution is always so simple for wealthy people isn't it? You just jet-off to someplace more interesting. "Ultimately" most of us here have to live and work in Vancouver year-round.

Yes, I am very fortunate to spend time abroad. I guess they only accepts resumes of wealthy people to work abroad...especially places in remote parts of Europe?
I guess there is no need to spend over 15 years of my life in school if I can just pay for a fake diploma from SFU right? We all know how easy it is to buy one
Seriously though, it takes less than a month to earn a ticket to Europe.
I guess if you live on welfare and don't work then you could argue that. However, it is quite easy to find a job anywhere in the world...especially with higher education.
As for investing into condos...I guess you haven't heard of a mortgage? You should really try one, they are great. I think I have around 30 years left to pay it off (will sell beforehand however).

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Well I guess the problem is with the people here. I have been to plenty of large festivals in Europe and everyone was drinking. Sure there was a fight or two, but that was among thousands or people. In fact, there were authorized beer vendors every couple of meters rights next to the stages...

I take it they follow a strict guideline of not serving those who appear to be already drunk.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

I take it they follow a strict guideline of not serving those who appear to be already drunk.

Like they care?
If they don't serve them, then they just go to the store and buy something from there.

[jlousa]

Against my better judgement I'm bringing this post back from the dead, figured this would be a more approtiate place for this.

Looks good to me, not as bad as some of the rumours we had heard.



Downtown Commercial
1:30am 7 days/wk Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary

3:00 am 7 days/wk Closing Time Liquor Primary Closing Time(Extended Hours)

Downtown Mixed-Use
1:00am 7 days/wk Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary

3:00 am Fri/Sat Closing Time Liquor Primary Closing Time(Extended Hours)
2:00 am Weekdays (Extended Hours)

Downtown Residential
12:00am Weekday Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary
1:00am Fri/Sat Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary

12:00 am Weekdays (Extended Hours)
2:00 am Fri/Sat Closing Time Liquor Primary Closing Time(Extended Hours)

Non-Downtown Commercial/Industrial
1:00am 7 days/wk Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary

3:00 am 7 days/wk Closing Time Liquor Primary Closing Time(Extended Hours)

Non-Downtown Mixed-Use

12:00am Weekday Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary
1:00am Fri/Sat Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary

1:00 am Weekdays (Extended Hours)
2:00 am Fri/Sat Closing Time Liquor Primary Closing Time(Extended Hours)


Non-Downtown Residential

12:00am Weekday Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary
1:00am Fri/Sat Regulation Area Proposed Food Primary

12:00 am Weekdays (Extended Hours)
2:00 am Fri/Sat Closing Time Liquor Primary Closing Time(Extended Hours)

What if my closing time is later than the proposed policy?
The proposed closing times will not affect restaurants that obtained their liquor license prior to December 2002, AND who have later closing times than those proposed. For instance, if an existing restaurant is licensed to serve liquor until 2:00 am, it would not be required to adopt earlier closing times as a result of this policy. However, if an existing restaurant is licensed to serve liquor only until midnight, for example, it would be able to extend its hours to match those allowed for the sub-area in which it is located.

How did you choose the proposed closing times?
In developing the proposed closing times, we considered the character of each neighborhood, using the Liquor Primary sub-areas as a guide, and with the intent of choosing workable hours that would meet both public and Food Primary needs. In addition, we analyzed closing hours for existing Food Primary establishments, and tried to ensure that the majority of businesses would gain hours of service from the proposed policy. We also considered closing times for Liquor Primary establishments, and generally made Food Primary closing times about one hour earlier (although in some cases, such as in residential neighborhoods, the hours on weekdays are the same).

[SpongeG]

good to know - i saw something on TV the other night but i didn't have my sound on so i didn't hear what they were saying by the time i could get the sound going

[jlousa]

Hmm I swear we had a thread somewhere concerning the car free days upcoming in Vancouver but I can't find it. If somewhere knows where it is let me know and I'll move this there.
All the info regarding them is in the following link, interesting I felt the best proposal was one of the ones that was declined, it consisted of playing urban golf on the streets of Gastown.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090602/documents/ttra4.pdf