News -> INDReporter TUE, OCT 5 7:14PM by Walter Pierce

CPC gets an earful from downtown business owners

The introductory ordinance banning open containers from downtown Lafayette and elsewhere passed unanimously Tuesday night at the City-Parish Council meeting. It’s unclear, however, how the measure will fare when it’s voted on as a final ordinance; it was voted on Tuesday in globo, meaning the council voted on the "go cup" ordinance and 11 other ordinances at once. But unlike two weeks ago when the ordinance failed on a 5-4 vote and the majority of residents who addressed the council did so in opposition to the measure, councilmen on Tuesday heard mainly from downtown business owners who support the ordinance.

Supporters of the ordinance included Jaci Russo, owner of a marketing/branding firm; Cathy Webre, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority; Thomas Guilbeau, an attorney whose firm is located on Jefferson Street; Julie Calzone, an ad agency owner; and Acadiana Center for the Arts Executive Director Gerd Wuestemann, among others.

“When I come to work Friday morning, Saturday morning, Sunday morning, there is quite a bit of litter from the go cups, but I think that’s a very small detail,” Russo told the council. “When we look at the open alcohol ordinance, what I see it doing first and foremost is preventing the bums who hang out in the park all day drinking, from being able to do that anymore. There are no rules right now that give police the power to move those people on, and at times there will be 13, 14, 15 men, and occasionally women, sitting in the park drinking alcohol in the middle of the day. And that really keeps families from using this asset that is a taxpayer public park.”

Russo also referred to what police have characterized as “trunk drinkers” — people who drive downtown with alcohol, which they consume on the sidewalks without ever patronizing the bars. Supporters of the go cup ban argue that the prohibition would significantly reduce this population, thereby addressing the overall problem of large, unruly crowds on weekends.

Hector LaSala, an architecture professor at UL who has editorialized eloquently in The Daily Advertiser on the need for embracing smart growth principles in our urban core, characterized the revitalization of downtown Lafayette as “halfway there,” and suggested that downtown Lafayette becoming a Bourbon Street, which it closely resembles after midnight on weekends, isn’t what the community envisioned more than a decade ago when the revitalization effort began.

“Vibrant downtowns, which is our goal, have clubs and bars,” LaSala acknowledged. “But they also have retail, offices and more especially housing. And as long as our downtown is known as just party town, I think that we are basically preventing the downtown [from becoming] what actually all the effort has been about — to make it a full-time, 24/7 place where people of all ages can live, play, shop and have a great community to live in.”

“Are any of us going to move out or take our businesses out if you don’t pass this ordinance? No. But I do think what happens is, more residents will not come to the district, more people will not come to the district, more businesses will not come to the district,” said Calzone, who also lives downtown. “And the perception is, the situation we have downtown on some nights, on weekend nights, really does create a negative impact for the district. So again, it’s not the cure-all, it’s not the panacea. But it’s an important first step in helping us do what we need to do in the downtown area.”

The council did hear from a few residents opposed to the ordinance, some of whom used a “slippery slope” argument: First we ban go cups. What’s next? One asked rhetorically whether a ban on open containers could lead us to a “police state.” Others enshrined go cups among the pantheon of cultural touchstones that make Acadiana unique.

“I feel like my rights are under attack,” observed Jacob White, a 20-something resident who opposes the proposed ban. “Now I can’t carry my drink. What’s next? Now I can’t use my cell phone when I’m on the sidewalk? I don’t know. I just find this to be an assault.”

District 1 Councilman Purvis Morrison took exception with information provided to The Independent from a source who said Morrison is now in favor of the ordinance. (He was one of the five-member majority that voted against the ordinance two weeks ago.) “It’s not a done deal to say that I’m supporting the ordinance or not supporting the ordinance,” Morrison said.

The public comment portion devoted to the go cup ordinance took the better part of an hour and a half. Council Chairman Jay Castille was evidently so ready for the meeting to conclude, he accidentally gavelled its adjournment before the council voted.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (17)add
...
written by Preaux Geaux Cup , October 05, 2010 - 07:52 pm
Wuestemann, Thomas Guilbeau and Hector LaSala? Looks like the city's known far leftists are out in full support of banning the go cups.
...
written by Jason D. Faulk , October 05, 2010 - 11:25 pm
Geaux Cup, one of the issues here is whether or not the citizens of this town, particularly those in my age demographic and below (and sadly some quite a bit older than me) are going to learn what most of us learned in elementary school, the need to not sully the place where we live.
It's unacceptable that every event that happens in this town is accompanied by a mountain of one-time use throwaway plastic litter.
Of course, one could ask the city to supply recycling bins downtown and make them widely available like other smart cities would. They don't have to be sophisticated either. I've been to Birmingham, Alabama and Athens, GA recently, and one cannot go without see cigarette receptacles installed in the urban core, mounted directly into the sidewalks.
There is just no excuse in 2010 for this trashing of our community to continue. Being slovenly pigs does not go hand in hand with our culture. I believe our ancestors did not know such a thing as "waste." Pretty much everything was reused, or composted.

What the heck this has to do with liberal values, I don't know. I think being clean and efficient is a community value, not a political value.
...
written by Compassionate One , October 06, 2010 - 06:57 am
While you're naming leftists, you left out Don Bertrand.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 06, 2010 - 07:31 am
Any time the government considers a law to control what individuals do, leftists will be in full support. The only exceptions are sex and drugs.

Leftists, liberals, socialists, communists, fascists -- all share the belief that the individual's rights are secondary to the good of some collective group -- society as a whole, the children, ethnic groups, gender groups, minorities, the poor.

They hate individualism.


...
written by holeinthedonut8 , October 06, 2010 - 09:36 am
"written by Preaux Geaux Cup , October 05, 2010
Wuestemann, Thomas Guilbeau and Hector LaSala? Looks like the city's known far leftists are out in full support of banning the go cups"

Compliments on your deep and thoughtful contribution to the discussion of how a city controls itself. Welldone and thanks. . . you must be a teabagger (I see that you like to communicate by name calling). :)


...
written by ragin_cajun , October 06, 2010 - 09:47 am
Geaux Cup and Jason --

I have a question. Who picks up all this trash now?

if there's a big weekend event downtown in the park, like Cowboy Mouth plays for free, and it ends late at night with a thousand cups on the ground, who picks all that up today? does the city do it? do the cops have to do it? do concerned business owners do it? do the people who sold the beer have to do it? If it's some private company, who pays them?

...
written by LookSomeThings , October 06, 2010 - 10:05 am
@Ragin_Cajun: Instead of making us all yawn with a hackneyed "LiBeRalS aRe sOcIaLiStS!!!" post, I'd love to hear your actual thoughts on the (incredibly inane and hilariously divisive) matter at hand. Keep in mind "facts" and "logic" are something we libs also launch into b0n3r-mode for. Sorry I ended that last sentence with a preposition. It was an unusual sentence.

But to respond to whatever your post was, I don't get off on letting the government control what people do. But I will admit I looooove when people who sing the praises of "personal responsibility" day and night bitch about a law that literally asks the bare minimum of personal responsibility be mandated. It's a cup for God's sakes. A cup that has caused tangible problems. The kiddies and hilarious man-children who actually enjoy partying downtown have proven they have no self-control en masse. Ergo, it's an issue. Does that make sense coming from me? Or would you prefer me to put on a Neil Cavuto mask and yell at you?

But since we're generalizing, I'll assume you're a conservative who only is concerned with dollar signs. So do me a favor. Get a big, comical scale and a bunch of checkers. Weigh the bad and the good of NO-CUPS and GO-CUPS and tell me that the former wouldn't save us more money as taxpayers. I'm talking litter, police, no picking up the slack for lack of future investment.

I have yet to hear a logical reason as to why we should keep these cups around that isn't, "Because it'd be less fun."

Grow up.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 06, 2010 - 12:02 pm
OK. I agree with you that this is a pretty minor issue. The philosophies behind the proposed solutions are all that is really interesting in all this. The attitudes and beliefs of the people involved.

If we restrict the whole issue to cups being left on the ground, just for the sake of the discussion between you and I, then I see no reason to make a new ordinance. There is already a law against littering that the police aren't enforcing. Enforce that law, and this all goes away.

Also, when I weigh the pros and cons of "GO-CUPS" versus "NO-CUPS", (leftists love rhymes and slogans :)), your pros are not true. Lemme explain--

"I'm talking litter" -- the law has a looop hole for go cups at sanctioned events. We've seen posts here telling us after sanctioned events there is litter, too. Go cup ban would not stop that. There'd still be litter after Festivals and arts walks, right? so this law would not solve the problem--if the problem is trash in the streets, that is.

"police" -- so they could cut back on police patrols downtown if it weren't for all those pesky go cups laying on the ground? That can't be right. Is that what you're saying? Police aren't down there trying to stop littering, and drunks aren't flocking down there because it's a cool place to throw cups on the ground.

"picking up the slack for lack of future investment" -- trash on the ground is why investment in downtown is not what was expected? That's not right, either. Is that what you're actually saying? Hmmm....I would have bought a condo where all those " kiddies and hilarious man-children" hang around drunk til 3AM, but I decided not to when I saw that half of them had a GO-CUP in their hand. That's a show-stopper in any real estate transaction :)

So the pro's aren't really there. What would be some cons?

detracts from the attraction of a drinking destination -- I really thought that Downtown Lafayette at some point decided it was going to be like Bourbon Street--a drinking destination for tourists. If it is, then it has to be competitive with Bourbon Street, and that means friendly and convenient for drinkers. Open containers are a draw for drunks. http://wikitravel.org/en/New_Orleans Must be SOMETHING to this if the council saw fit to allow open containers for some events, but not others.

minor decrease in liquor sales -- although probably minor, it's important to the business owner. Most people would not buy that one last beer if they knew they were about to leave and throw it away. It might be so significant as to depress sales tax, and the police's bar levy, too. It COULD be that the drop in sales tax from loss of sales of "one for the ditch" would be more than the cost of a street cleaning crew! :)

possible legal challenge -- because it's a drastic and sudden change in government policy toward some business owners, it's only in some areas of town and not all of the city, and because it exempts some events in the downtown area as well, the law would be prejudicial and could very well be litigated. That's expensive.

But my real problem with the go cup ban is that go cups are just not the real issue. The real issue is government turned downtown into Bourbon Street, and some people don't like that. That is totally separate from another issue -- spike in crime from vagrants in the area. Then there's the third issue--taxpayer funded downtown property development that will be a total bust if the bars leave because no one else wants to be down there.

If a go cup ban addressed any one of those three real issues, I'd see it differently. If the go cup ban were applied evenly and fairly across the city, I might support it. If the go cup ban didn't have an exemption for the arts walk, the festival, mardi gras, you know, all the pet projects of the city fathers, I might support it.

So there it is--my "actual thoughts on the (incredibly inane and hilariously divisive) matter at hand". I hope you're in "b0n3r-mode".

Lemme know if you want me to explain my thoughts on how Socialism/Fascism/Leftism/Progressivism/Liberalism are all varying degrees of the same basic 2-3 philosophies/beliefs.
...
written by no one of significance , October 06, 2010 - 12:41 pm
"I have a question. Who picks up all this trash now?

if there's a big weekend event downtown in the park, like Cowboy Mouth plays for free, and it ends late at night with a thousand cups on the ground, who picks all that up today?"

The person renting the park pays a fee for cleanup which is done by the city either before 10pm or the next morning.
...
written by The Holy Goofus , October 06, 2010 - 01:02 pm
Reminds me of the effort to ban cock fighting in Louisiana a few years ago. After a lot of moaning and gnashing of the teeth, the forces of common sense ultimately prevailed. The same will soon happen with go-cups.
...
written by PInball Wizard , October 06, 2010 - 03:16 pm
written by The Holy Goofus Reminds me of the effort to ban cock fighting in Louisiana a few years ago...The same will soon happen with go-cups.
----------------------

Rrrright, banned cock fighting. At least not in public.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 06, 2010 - 07:29 pm
"The person renting the park pays a fee for cleanup which is done by the city either before 10pm or the next morning."

LOL! This just keeps getting better and better. They lay a tax to pay for building it, and to maintain it, and then they rent it out, too? And charge a fee for trash pickup, too. THE CITY'S RUNNING A NIGHTCLUB DOWNTON!

And Bertrand's agitants are really just upset that the City's doing a crappy job of it :) What Durel and the Council need to do is ask someone who actually knows how to run a niteclub to show them how to do it. Instead of harassing the owners of Karma, and Marley's, et. al, maybe they should ask them for guidance?

Bourbon Street doesn't have a ban on go-cups. Why do we need one? Ask New Orleans for advice!


...
written by Resident , October 07, 2010 - 07:17 am
"There is already a law against littering that the police aren't enforcing. Enforce that law, and this all goes away."
No. Addressing the problem at the point-source if more effective, more so than trying to have cops write a ticket for every person that throws a cup on the ground. It's analogous to pollution; treat it at the point-source rather than trying to clean the whole water body.

Your attempt to use the Festival and Mardi Gras needs a rebuttal. First of all, these events happen once a year; the problem at hand is every weekend. Secondly, most of the cups at the Festival are not go cups; they are sold directly on the street. If we're talking go cups from bars, that's a valid point. Thirdly, there is a concerted effort to prevent and clean up litter during the Festival (and Mardi Gras to a lesser degree), including many volunteers.

Just because New Orleans has go cups does not mean that Lafayette should. New Orleans is, to put it mildly, the exception to many things. How many other places allow people to take drinks into the street? Virtually none, I'd wager. I've been to downtown Mobile and that was a great place to go out; no go cups there.

On a final note, throwing around cliches like "socialism" and "leftism" is rather pathetic here. This isn't the Sean Hannity show.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 07, 2010 - 09:29 am
resident --

arts walk is every weekend. Downtown Alive is every weekend for 4 months of the year. concerts in the park are much more often than once a year. those all contribute greatly to the problem, if you believe the reports from those who comment on this website.

if your "NO-CUPS" ordinance is an attempt to save tax dollars, then let's save the tax dollars caused by littering at all those weekly events, as well as mardi gras and festivals. Why should they be exempt?

You've asked me to post my thoughts. I have. You've asked me to weigh the good and the bad. I have. You've asked for good reasons NOT to have a go-cup ban. I've given two and also explained the "it'd be less fun" in terms of market competition between tourist destinations for drinkers.

so now, show me the same courtesy. explain to me how it is that it's ok to pass a prejudicial law against a particular group of LICENSED, LEGAL BUSINESS owners downtown while exempting the EXACT SAME behavior when it is sanctioned by government.

Now that I've learned that the City charges rent and fees for entertainers to play in a public park, that puts them running a private business. This ordinance could be construed as government using the ordinance to stifle its business competitors. I'm no lawyer, but I think the bar owners have a case if they choose to squash this in court.

on a final note, ""socialism" and "leftism"" are not cliches. They are words that educated people use to describe philosophies and belief systems that motivate people's behavior. Socialism and leftism are characterized by a belief in using government to achieve social change. In other words, leftists run to the government and make a law when they see something they don't like going on. That's exactly what's happening here, as several others have pointed out.

If you don't want to be called a Socialist or a Leftist, then quit talking/thinking/writing like one. I wouldn't mind it a bit if you called me a Capitalist, a Libertarian, an Objectivist, or a Conservative. If you said I were merely regurgitating the anti-federalist, anti-government rhetoric of a radical like Patrick Henry, I'd accept that. Why do statists resent accurate descriptions of their policies?
...
written by Resident , October 07, 2010 - 10:05 am
"explain to me how it is that it's ok to pass a prejudicial law against a particular group of LICENSED, LEGAL BUSINESS owners downtown while exempting the EXACT SAME behavior when it is sanctioned by government."

This is YOUR characterization of the issue. I don't have to explain why your characterization of the issue is OK. I know by now that trying to address flaws in your characterizations is fruitless. This is not to say that I don't agree with some of your points.

Socialism, liberalism, conservatism and fascism certainly do describe philosophies. But that does not mean the people flinging the words about really know what they mean. I find your description simplistic and comical, as well as your inability or unwillingness to separate issues on the federal, state, and local levels.

Since you are flinging labels at me, I will tell you that I am more conservative and libertarian (in the true sense of the words) than many people who call themselves conservative.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 07, 2010 - 11:24 am


:) OK, resident. I will grant you that "prejudicial" is my characterization. But, "law against a particular group of LICENSED, LEGAL BUSINESS owners downtown while exempting the EXACT SAME behavior when it is sanctioned by government"--That's pure fact. That is a completely accurate statement that no reasonable person could dispute. There is not a single value judgement in that statement. It is what it is.

" I find your description simplistic and comical" Really? Do you? I said "Socialism and leftism are characterized by a belief in using government to achieve social change." What could you possible say about leftist thought that sums it up better than that? Is that not a completely correct statement? If I'm in error, then educate me.

"inability or unwillingness to separate issues on the federal, state, and local levels" Here's the problem. you like things like freedom, liberty, limited government, and less government spending at the federal level because that's way over there where it doesn't inconvenience you. But when those ideals conflict with your own lifestyle at the local level, when you have to actually live those ideals in your own life, when they prevent government from providing the services, and "quality of life" you want, then you toss those beliefs at the door of the Arts Center and tell people like me that you're actually noble because it's really for the good of "the community".

"Consistency is the foundation of virtue".


...
written by Grannie , October 07, 2010 - 03:48 pm
Build it and they will come!!!!! What did you expect....Can you imagine what the horse farm will look like on FRri. Sat. Sun mornings. Prehaps we should let the private sector develop this one.. And about the farm...prehaps the money used to buy the farm could be used to support police, firemen, schools, streets for the good of this wonderful community. Thanks
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it