Who We Are - Overview

6 March 2002 -The San Diego Union-Tribune
Outcome remains uncertain early lead vanishes; race too close to call

By Angela Lau

Supporters of a ballot measure that sought to impose a round-the-clock test ban on alcohol on parts of Pacific Beach and Mission Beach watched a strong early lead disappear last night and feared the trend would mean the worst. With nearly three-quarters of the ballots counted, the measure had turned into a dead heat with voters.

"I'm going fishing," said Bill Bradshaw, chairman of San Diegans for Safe Beaches, which supported Proposition G but was heavily outspent by opponents. "We gave it our best. If we don't win, we don't win," Bradshaw said. "It's very difficult to run a campaign without a fairly proportionate amount of money to the other side, but there was a lot of support for it."

Opponents were encouraged by the vote swing and said they expected to win. "We got the message out on the truth," said Bob Glaser, consultant to the opponents. "Voters found out the ban was taking away our freedom as opposed to enforcing the law." Regardless of the outcome of last night's tally, the measure, if it remains close, could be determined by an undetermined number of absentee ballots still to be counted. If it passes, the trial ban would begin in about a month and would run through Dec. 31. It would prohibit drinking on parts of Pacific Beach and Mission Beach from the south jetty in Mission Beach to Felspar Street north of Crystal Pier in Pacific Beach, and from Mission Point in Mission Bay to Zanzibar Court south of the pier outside the Catamaran Hotel.

However, the trial ban left Ocean Beach and much of Mission Bay open to alcohol use, although restricted by existing law to the hours between noon and 8 p.m. There were nearly two dozen sites within the beach and bay-side proposed test-ban areas where people could seek a city permit to use alcohol. Throughout the campaign, supporters contended alcohol use on the beach contributed to high crime rates in the two beach communities.

According to police statistics, Pacific Beach and Mission Beach accounted for one-third of the city's alcohol-related crimes in 1998-2000, with 17,393 arrests and citations during that period. However, the police could not pinpoint how many such crimes originated from the beaches. After a series of public hearings last year, the City Council decided in April to implement an 18-month test ban. It would have begun June 1 and ended Dec. 31 this year. However, opponents – many residents and alcohol-related businesses – joined forces and gathered enough signatures to force the City Council to put the test-ban issue on the ballot. Ban opponents argued the ban would punish responsible drinkers and suggested stepping up enforcement of existing laws, among other measures. Ban supporters cited public safety as their overriding concern and argued that beach goers do not have to drink alcohol to enjoy the beach. They also accused opponents of serving the financial interests of the alcohol industry, noting that almost all of their campaign funding came from beer distributors and alcohol retailers.

According to finance disclosure statements filed with the City Clerk's Office, Proposition G opponents received at least $22,150 from alcohol-related businesses outside and in the beach communities to run their pre-election campaign.

In addition, they obtained $77,896 in cash and loans to conduct last year's signature campaign that forced the referendum. The bulk of that money came from beer and wine distributors and alcohol merchants. Glaser said most of the contributors were small beer, wine and liquor stores trying to protect their livelihoods. Supporters ran a quiet campaign with $8,701, as reported before the election. The money paid for rallies, mailers and fliers. Despite their financial disadvantage, they tried to stay optimistic, reasoning that their cause was just and that voters would agree with them. Last night's returns, however, told them many voters were not ready to relinquish alcohol at the beach.