All in favor of champagne-infused sunsets and suds in the
San Diego sun may be in luck. An organization opposed to recently approved ban
prohibiting alcohol on all of the city’s beaches turned in nearly 46,000
signatures to the City Clerk’s Office on Jan. 4, halting the prohibition
pending a citywide vote.

The group — Ban the Ban 3 — had 30 days to meet the
30,209-signature threshold to force the City Council to either repeal its
November sanction of a one-year trial ban or to initiate a referendum to appear
on the June or November ballot.

Volunteers and paid signature gatherers aimed to round up
75,000 signatures protesting the ban but fell short because the 30 days fell
over December, when many beach-area residents and college students were out of
town for the holidays.

The group’s ability to collect 46,000 signatures despite the
cold weather and holiday-related restraints shows the support of local San
Diegans, said Ban the Ban 3 organizer Jacob Pyle.

The City Clerk accepted the petition the same day the ban
was to go into effect. The signatures were then sent to the county Registrar of
Voters, which has 30 days to certify that signers are registered to vote in the
city of San Diego. If enough signatures are deemed valid, the petition will be
sent to the City Council, which will have 10 days to decide its next move.

Ban supporters expressed disappointment that the opposition
did not give the trial prohibition a fair shot. They cited other areas from
Imperial Beach to Ventura County, Hawaii, Florida and many urban beaches along
the East Coast with similar measures as good examples of cities that have
addressed public safety concerns arising from beach alcohol consumption.

“These cities have all made the decision that public safety
requires an alcohol-free beach policy and, to my knowledge, none of these
cities put public safety to vote,” said Scott Chipman, a spokesman for the Web
site www.safebeaches.org.

Chipman also mentioned the alcohol-free policy at La Jolla
Shores, which was implemented 17 years ago without generating a referendum.

Ban the Ban 3 members fought the regulation because they did
not think it addressed any of the relevant issues, Pyle said. He called the
measure overly punitive, without establishing parameters or responding to the
recommendations set forth by the Beach Area Alcohol Task Force commissioned by
Councilman Kevin Faulconer after the Labor Day skirmish that motivated the
initiative.

“You don’t take the most punishing step first,” he said.
“Let’s punish the 1 percent of people causing problems, not the rest of the
law-abiding citizens, enjoying the beaches as they are … they’re not just
interested in beach alcohol, they have a bigger agenda.”

Pyle argued that the majority of issues brought up by ban
supporters — such as urinating in public and DUIs — don’t revolve around beach
alcohol. He attributed the public urination problem in Pacific Beach to the
fact that there are only six operating toilets at the site, and he said that
most DUIs occur during late-night hours when beach alcohol is prohibited.

Proponents of the ban, however, note that people are
increasingly coming to Pacific and Mission beaches to be a part of the “alcohol
scene” that takes place there, said Chipman, who served on the Beach Area
Alcohol Task Force. While beer bongs, alcohol luges and drinking games are not
permitted at bars or nightclubs, they are commonplace at the beach, where there
is no one to regulate if someone is binge drinking or when underage kids try to
join the games, he said.

“Unfortunately, there is no practical way to allow one
person to drink responsibly without letting many others drink irresponsibly,”
Chipman said.

The Ban the Ban 3 petition echoes efforts of previous years,
in which two other trial bans were successfully defeated.

In 1991, the City Council approved a one-year trial ban but
rescinded its decision when opponents gathered enough signatures for a
referendum. The city compromised by restricting drinking between 8 p.m.
and noon.

In 2002, the council attempted to impose an around-the-clock
trial ban on parts of Pacific and Mission beaches, which failed by a slim
3-percent margin.

While the prospective success of a ban may look dismal when
considering past efforts, times have changed, according to Chipman. He added
that problems are worse now than ever, diverting city resources and forcing law
enforcement to “babysit” drinkers at the beach rather than protect city
streets.

The idea that people need to be babysat is precisely the
problem, according to Pyle, who maintained that drinking-related problems occur
within a small two-block stretch, and that the majority of San Diego locals
enjoy their liberties responsibly without necessitating police intervention.

“I think the bigger principle is that San Diegans are sick
of the nanny state our government is making us live in,” Pyle said. “Heck, if
they had their way, we’d each have a government-assigned nanny following us
around to correct everything we are doing wrong.”