Seattle neighborhood irked at city for ignoring alcohol problems
Jul 9, 2015, 2:21 PM | Updated: Jul 10, 2015, 10:19 am
Community members are irritated that nothing is being done by the city to prevent people from purchasing extra-strong alcoholic drinks.
Mickey’s, Steel Reserve, Colt 45, MD 20/20. These are just a few of the alcoholic beverages that are giving Eastlake residents a headache.
Community members are irritated that nothing is being done by the city to prevent people from purchasing extra-strong alcoholic drinks.
The Eastlake Community Council has been trying for years to get the neighborhood to become designated as an Alcohol Impact Area. Such a designation would keep cheap, high-percentage alcohol drinks from being sold, or at least restrict when those items can be sold. But the city is ignoring the council’s requests.
People are being funneled into Eastlake and its businesses to purchase what are restricted or banned beverages in other neighborhoods.
“It’s very unfair to any neighborhood being hurt by this problem,” Community Council President Chris Leman said.
The result: People “misbehaving,” litter, public urination, vomiting, crime. And what follows intoxication: Falling asleep in the middle of sidewalks.
“Basically not being particularly civil,” Leman summed up.
Which is why the council would like the city to add Eastlake as an Alcohol Impact Area. However, the city has said the current Impact Areas don’t work well, Leman said. Then why not remove the designation for neighborhoods that have it?
Current Alcohol Impact Areas include South Lake Union, Capitol Hill, the University District, and Wallingford.
Leman said Mayor Ed Murray and former Mayor Mike McGinn “dropped the ball” on the Impact Areas.
“There’s nobody in the mayor’s office, or any of his departments, who are taking ownership of this problem,” Leman said. “It’s an example of city government just not working very well right now.”
Related: Seattle activists are addicted to helping the poor stay poor
In order to become an Alcohol Impact Area, an ordinance must be adopted by the city, according to the Liquor Control Board. After that, there must be voluntary compliance attempted for a minimum of six months before the city can petition the Board for Impact Area designation.
The community council sent a letter to the Mayor McGinn in 2013 urging for the designation, but received no response. It wrote the council again in April 2014, and heard back from council members Tom Rasmussen, Nick Licata, and Mike O’Brien.
The council also wrote Mayor Murray, who never responded. Instead, the Department of Neighborhoods responded with: “The City of Seattle is continuing to assess the Voluntary Ban pilot (note, the establishment of a voluntary ban is a preliminary step for the creation of an AIA) and its ability to mitigate community problems with public inebriation and other illegal activities associated to the sale of alcohol. Additionally, the Mayor’s Office is continuing to work with beer, wine and liquor distributors to evaluate the success of the pilot voluntary ban areas in Greater Duwamish, Beacon Hill, and Lake City.”
The response, Leman said, is completely meaningless.
“We know the voluntary efforts aren’t for our neighborhood,” he said. “We think the mayor hasn’t responded in any meaningful way.”
As one of the City Council members that did respond to the Eastlake council, Tom Rasmussen could be the neighborhood’s saving grace. Leman said he believes the outgoing council member is planning to get back to the council with “good news.”
