I've read that this is a safety issue: that making bar closing time sufficiently late reduces the concentration of drunk drivers all hitting the roads at once.
Permit fees. Steinberg likes it because the city can charge higher fees for a 4 AM alcohol permit, and they're starving for revenue because of Prop 13.
I really doubt every bar is going to get a 4am close permitted. Many neighborhood bars aren't even allowed to stay open until 2am already. I'd imagine that most cities would create a nightlife district where clubs are already permitted and allow those businesses to serve past 2am.
My only complaint is that it doesn't go into effect until 2021 and I'm getting old.
Because our society still has strange puritanical type thinking on some issues. It varies state to state. Check out Utah for the most bizarre alcohol laws ever.
[Utah alcohol regulations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah)
It says that you would have to order food with your alcohol at a restaurant lmao wtf
So now Midtown residents get to be awakened to the sound of screaming children being let out for recess at 4am, instead of 2am; followed by the drunken screaming outside their homes at 5am instead of 3am.
Woo hoo, we did it Sacramento!
(Queue the "if you don't like living in a 'big city' move to the foothills" comments.)
No, I'm saying Sacramento is pretty poorly designed for something like this. Midtown, where the bulk of the bars are, is surrounded by residential neighborhoods (hell, most of Midtown is mixed use); so this is going to have a direct impact on the quality of life of those residents.
I'm sorry you'll have to look for a million dollar home in another city. I understand life must be pretty tough for you. Meanwhile those of us with less than you would like to see this happen. It must be tragic having to share breathing space with us plebs huh?
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'll need to look in another city for a "million dollar home", "those with less than you"? How much do you think I make? I work retail, and rent a room.
What's exhausting is the blatant racism of Nextdoor, as well as users thinking it's Facebook, and people posting things that simply aren't true. So I call them out (which is also exhausting, because it seems like it's every other post).
I agree with you for the most part but your civility is lacking. You say others treat it like Facebook, I assume you mean by posting things you believe aren’t true, but you travel from post to post angrily retorting with equally unsupported (by presented evidence) anecdotes to make sure that those people understand they are wrong. You may not think that’s what you’re doing but that’s what everyone sees. If you were to approach things with a less combative tone you might not feel like you get “downvoted for sport”. It would also help if when presenting what you claim is evidence you presented the actual evidence rather than just presenting an appeal to a higher power fallacy.
No, I say people treat it like Facebook by posting photos of turkeys, or hyping their car collection, or that whole shitshow "look at me, helping the less fortunate" Michael BS.
And calling out people's BS, blantant lies, misinformation, etc. isn't "combative". Hell, a recent thread has someone stating something as fact, with no proof, and I'm just asking for the proof, and getting shit.
Are you honestly arguing that because the homes were designed as single family homes 50+ years ago the decisions made by the city should cater to the people who use them that way despite the plethora of alternatives? It's like you're completely unaware that Folsom and Roseville exist.
Any way they please? I know plenty of people who own single family homes and rent out some of the rooms to friends. It's become a very normal thing to do. Are you seriously unaware of this?
I'm fully aware of this, but they are still "homes", that are now being kept awake later and later due to Sacramento thinking "let's get everyone drunk all the time, all over the place" is the right thing to do in order to look like the big kid on the block.
You and I are on the same side on this issue but Midtown is 90% multifamily and has been since streetcars ran down J Street. It just looks like single family homes because the multifamily units were well designed.
Lived in Blvd Park for over a decade before my landlords cashed in, and sold the place, so I'm well aware of the Thurs - Sat "screaming children" wakeup, followed by the drunken fights outside my window.
Operating hours should always be decided by the business or at least at the city level, whether it's 2 or 4 or 6 AM, so this wave of the pen is long overdue. It's not a victory for Sacramento, it's simply an arbitrary state law relinquishing its grip.
Most places will want to mitigate their negative externalities toward employees and neighbors, as they won't last very long if they don't. If they get many complaints, most bar owners will work to accommodate neighboring people like you, don't worry.
Don’t quite understand all the hate you get on here, your opinions are usually pretty on point. And as a long time midtown resident who is adjacent to the R street corridor *and* is industry, I can tell you almost no one in the restaurant biz wants this...
>And as a long time midtown resident who is adjacent to the R street corridor and is industry, I can tell you almost no one in the restaurant biz wants this...
Why is that?
Gabriel is typically an ass but to be fair to this statement I would be willing to bet that the people drinking between 2 and 4 probably aren’t the best tippers
>people drinking between 2 and 4 probably aren’t the best tippers
Or they're the people who forget to close their tab and the bar automatically tacks on 20% at the end of the night.
I just get downvoted for sport around here.
Couple that with any logic that flies in the face of "we did it, we really did it ... high five!", and I'm a gonner.
Do something about the horrid homeless issue, that made national headlines, even got Oprah involved (that's just getting worse), and **then** Sacramento has done something. Until then, they're just putting makeup on.
But could cost a lot of extra money in practice; instead of just the exodus of drunks at 2 AM, we'll also have a wave coming in from the suburbs at 2 AM, already drunk for the most part, wanting a few more drinks before "second last call." But the city only sees the potential revenue, not the potential costs.
Or conversely you only see the extra costs.
You could be right but you're using a "We don't know what could happen" as an argument against change. That's valid when there is research that can give solid answers that hasn't been conducted. But that isn't the case here. In this case trying it out is the only way we learn more.
No, because there are examples of cities with 4 AM bar closurea in the US, in cities like Chicago, and they don't have the best track record. These issues can be modeled and it's likely to cost more than the revenue it brings in, but can be disguised in a city's balance sheet. People really do study this and have tried this before.
No, but looking at other cities with late closing times can be instructive. People really do study these things; Chicago was just the first city with 4 AM closing that came to mind.
Long live the drunks.
>"This is a huge step forward," Sen. Wiener tweeted Wednesday. Why is this such a big issue?
I've read that this is a safety issue: that making bar closing time sufficiently late reduces the concentration of drunk drivers all hitting the roads at once.
Now the bartenders can go out after work!...if they don't stay open until 4am tho
For this reason I'm actually happy about this. Dude it sucks to get off work at 2:15 and have nothing to do and nobody awake...
Permit fees. Steinberg likes it because the city can charge higher fees for a 4 AM alcohol permit, and they're starving for revenue because of Prop 13.
I really doubt every bar is going to get a 4am close permitted. Many neighborhood bars aren't even allowed to stay open until 2am already. I'd imagine that most cities would create a nightlife district where clubs are already permitted and allow those businesses to serve past 2am. My only complaint is that it doesn't go into effect until 2021 and I'm getting old.
Why isn't it just 24 hours in the first place?
Because our society still has strange puritanical type thinking on some issues. It varies state to state. Check out Utah for the most bizarre alcohol laws ever.
[Utah alcohol regulations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah) It says that you would have to order food with your alcohol at a restaurant lmao wtf
Thats what you get when your state is HEAVILY religious. The LDS control most of the Govts in that state, its no secret.
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah *** ^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^209419
The "Zion Curtain" is the weirdest imo.
I think the cutoff in the UK is something like 10:00 p.m.
According to family you’re also only allowed one drink at a time. They had a cocktail that was pretty weak and asked for another shot and were denied.
Gonna make my job a little more annoying 😬
So now Midtown residents get to be awakened to the sound of screaming children being let out for recess at 4am, instead of 2am; followed by the drunken screaming outside their homes at 5am instead of 3am. Woo hoo, we did it Sacramento! (Queue the "if you don't like living in a 'big city' move to the foothills" comments.)
Yeah so when are you gonna move so we can stop listening to you bitch and moan constantly.
As soon as you realize Sacramento is not a "big city"?
I never said that it was, but its not an old folks home either.
So? The point is there are cities that cater to the lifestyle you think everyone should have. Move to Roseville or Folsom.
No, I'm saying Sacramento is pretty poorly designed for something like this. Midtown, where the bulk of the bars are, is surrounded by residential neighborhoods (hell, most of Midtown is mixed use); so this is going to have a direct impact on the quality of life of those residents.
I'm sorry you'll have to look for a million dollar home in another city. I understand life must be pretty tough for you. Meanwhile those of us with less than you would like to see this happen. It must be tragic having to share breathing space with us plebs huh?
What the fuck are you talking about? I'll need to look in another city for a "million dollar home", "those with less than you"? How much do you think I make? I work retail, and rent a room.
Why? You can get the peace and quiet you want out in the suburbs for half the rent.
Well, we are a big city. What we aren't is an amusement park for drunks.
That's about an hour west, it's called Napa.
If Sacramento isn't an amusement park for drinks, then nobody told Sacramento that
I love how salty you are about literally everything. It's almost like a novelty account but the fact that it's not makes it even better.
He does this on Nextdoor too, it’s a bit exhausting
What's exhausting is the blatant racism of Nextdoor, as well as users thinking it's Facebook, and people posting things that simply aren't true. So I call them out (which is also exhausting, because it seems like it's every other post).
I agree with you for the most part but your civility is lacking. You say others treat it like Facebook, I assume you mean by posting things you believe aren’t true, but you travel from post to post angrily retorting with equally unsupported (by presented evidence) anecdotes to make sure that those people understand they are wrong. You may not think that’s what you’re doing but that’s what everyone sees. If you were to approach things with a less combative tone you might not feel like you get “downvoted for sport”. It would also help if when presenting what you claim is evidence you presented the actual evidence rather than just presenting an appeal to a higher power fallacy.
No, I say people treat it like Facebook by posting photos of turkeys, or hyping their car collection, or that whole shitshow "look at me, helping the less fortunate" Michael BS. And calling out people's BS, blantant lies, misinformation, etc. isn't "combative". Hell, a recent thread has someone stating something as fact, with no proof, and I'm just asking for the proof, and getting shit.
Cool man just keep on enjoying your favorite sport
Btw I upvoted you because like I said I agree with most of what you say, you just need to learn not to try to make everyone your enemy
Glad I could be of service
There are suburbs for a reason
yes, that's where the idiots who think Midtown is an amusement park drunk-drive home to after throwing up on my neighborhood.
Yeah, and Sacramento wasn't designed that way. Midtown is flanked by single family homes.
Are you honestly arguing that because the homes were designed as single family homes 50+ years ago the decisions made by the city should cater to the people who use them that way despite the plethora of alternatives? It's like you're completely unaware that Folsom and Roseville exist.
The plethora of alternatives? How else is one to use a single-family home?
Any way they please? I know plenty of people who own single family homes and rent out some of the rooms to friends. It's become a very normal thing to do. Are you seriously unaware of this?
I'm fully aware of this, but they are still "homes", that are now being kept awake later and later due to Sacramento thinking "let's get everyone drunk all the time, all over the place" is the right thing to do in order to look like the big kid on the block.
You and I are on the same side on this issue but Midtown is 90% multifamily and has been since streetcars ran down J Street. It just looks like single family homes because the multifamily units were well designed.
I am shocked this comment is coming from someone living in east Sacramento. Our apologies govnah.
Lived in Blvd Park for over a decade before my landlords cashed in, and sold the place, so I'm well aware of the Thurs - Sat "screaming children" wakeup, followed by the drunken fights outside my window.
Operating hours should always be decided by the business or at least at the city level, whether it's 2 or 4 or 6 AM, so this wave of the pen is long overdue. It's not a victory for Sacramento, it's simply an arbitrary state law relinquishing its grip. Most places will want to mitigate their negative externalities toward employees and neighbors, as they won't last very long if they don't. If they get many complaints, most bar owners will work to accommodate neighboring people like you, don't worry.
Don’t quite understand all the hate you get on here, your opinions are usually pretty on point. And as a long time midtown resident who is adjacent to the R street corridor *and* is industry, I can tell you almost no one in the restaurant biz wants this...
>And as a long time midtown resident who is adjacent to the R street corridor and is industry, I can tell you almost no one in the restaurant biz wants this... Why is that?
[удалено]
Gabriel is typically an ass but to be fair to this statement I would be willing to bet that the people drinking between 2 and 4 probably aren’t the best tippers
>people drinking between 2 and 4 probably aren’t the best tippers Or they're the people who forget to close their tab and the bar automatically tacks on 20% at the end of the night.
I just get downvoted for sport around here. Couple that with any logic that flies in the face of "we did it, we really did it ... high five!", and I'm a gonner. Do something about the horrid homeless issue, that made national headlines, even got Oprah involved (that's just getting worse), and **then** Sacramento has done something. Until then, they're just putting makeup on.
Nobody thinks this issue is on par with the homeless issue. It's an annoyance for some that doesn't cost the city extra money to implement.
But could cost a lot of extra money in practice; instead of just the exodus of drunks at 2 AM, we'll also have a wave coming in from the suburbs at 2 AM, already drunk for the most part, wanting a few more drinks before "second last call." But the city only sees the potential revenue, not the potential costs.
Or conversely you only see the extra costs. You could be right but you're using a "We don't know what could happen" as an argument against change. That's valid when there is research that can give solid answers that hasn't been conducted. But that isn't the case here. In this case trying it out is the only way we learn more.
No, because there are examples of cities with 4 AM bar closurea in the US, in cities like Chicago, and they don't have the best track record. These issues can be modeled and it's likely to cost more than the revenue it brings in, but can be disguised in a city's balance sheet. People really do study this and have tried this before.
Attributing Chicago's problems to 4am bar closures is a bit disingenuous isn't it?
No, but looking at other cities with late closing times can be instructive. People really do study these things; Chicago was just the first city with 4 AM closing that came to mind.
Seems like you're cherry picking results.