Skip to main content

Drinking ban on public property in the city extended to picnic areas

By Howard B. Owens

If you're the guy who wants to walk down to your neighborhood park afterwork, kick back and drink a beer, Councilman Frank Ferrando has a message for you: Use your own backyard.

Ferrando was among five Batavia council members on Monday to vote in favor of a change in the local code banning adult beverage consumption, without a permit, in picnic areas in public parks.

Drinking was already banned on all publicly owned property in the city, with the exception of picnic areas.

"We keep having the example of the guy who wants to have a beer in the park," Ferrando said. "He can have the beer in his back yard if he wants to have a beer. We don't want to have somebody seriously injured because he drove to the park, got drunk and then got in his car. The guy doesn't need to have a beer in that park."

John Roach and Dan Jones (inset) both used the public comments section of the council's agenda to speak against the proposed ban.

"It has nothing to do with public safety and it has nothing to do with public health," Roach said. "There are plenty of laws in place to deal with disorderly conduct or throwing trash around, but this is unnecessary. It's just something to keep people you don't particularly like out of the parks."

Jones, a candidate for city council, called the change in the law an affront to personal liberty.

Roach said he found it ironic that it was the Republicans (supposedly the party of individual freedom) on the council pushing for the change in the law.

Ferrando said the decision had nothing to do with politics.

"Whether it's Republican or Democrat, I don't know what that means," Ferrando said. "I think we all vote our conscious and what's best for the community. I don't think any politics is involved."

Rosemary Christian was among the three Democrats -- along with Kathy Briggs and Sam Barone -- who voted against the change.

"It's a violation of my rights," Christian said. "I pay for the right to enjoy these parks. If I want to smoke, if I want to have a beer, without bothering anybody else, without hurting anybody, without destroying property, then it's a matter of rights."

Even before the change, it's not like the guy with the beer could go toss a line into the Tonawanda Creek and pop open a Miller High Life, nor could he take his girlfriend down to Ferrell Park and spread out a picnic blanket and uncork a bottle of pinot noir. Alcohol consumption outside of the picnic areas -- defined, it seems, as the pavilions, was already illegal.

Now the guy with the beer needs to apply in advance for a permit, which will cost him $25.

Ted Wenzka

This is the most stupid thing I can think of. The city council must not have anything else to do. I also want to know who made Councilman Frank Ferrando the wise one who rules over everyone in the city.
I would also like to know into what city coffer does the $25 go to? I know the city is hurting for revenue but $25 for a sheet of paper is a little too much.
Another reason why people are leaving the city and why the Town of Batavia would never vote to consolidate with the city.

Aug 9, 2011, 10:46am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

John, not true. You can get as drunk as you want, walk to the park and slide on the slide and swing on the swing until you puke.

Just do your drinking at home, first, not in the park.

Aug 9, 2011, 2:41pm Permalink
Liz Fuchs

Is this going to effect then when their is a wedding reception held at a park or birthday party or reunion. Alot of these go on at city parks. Are they now unallowed to have a drink at these events.

Aug 9, 2011, 2:53pm Permalink
Ron C Welker

Have you read the book "1984'? In the very near future your home TV will be watchig you, if not already doing so. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.Do we just stand by and and let this happen? Wake up before it is to late.
What if you dont have a back yard to drink beer in? What then I might ask? Lets say your apartement complex has no provisions for outside dinning or socilizing and you and your friends/family want to have a couple beers and cook hot dogs. 25 bucks every time you want to do so! CRAZY

Aug 9, 2011, 3:20pm Permalink
John Roach

Liz, if you pay the $25.00 fee to rent the pavilion, you can drink.

This whole thing came up because a few council people did not like people sitting around having a beer. The people were not causing any problems, were behaving, and did not litter. They were just there too long for our new behavior watchdogs. The drinkers were just not the right kind of people.

Pass a new behavior control law, problem solved. Now only approved people will be at the park for hours.

Aug 9, 2011, 3:21pm Permalink
william tapp

i don't drink but very little but i don't think its right, one more freedom taken away, as Jack said some of these people who voted for this are running for election in November. Just remember to vote.

Aug 9, 2011, 3:35pm Permalink
Jessica Moscicki

This is nuts, so they pretty much are saying you can still drink just gotta pay me money? Either make it you can drink with rules and times. Or not at all. Another way you got us for our money. Just like NYS raising taxes on beer and pop? Are you JOKING?! What next raise taxes on oreos bc they are bad for you too? What about me, I am mom and live with my mother currently. The only person who watches my child is my mother. So i am going to have her watch my son and relax and have a drink where? lol At my home? I think the point of me asking her to watch him is to leave and relax and not pay $5 for 1 beer at a restaurant. You are more likely to drive to a restaurant and drink and drive then a park. Are you going to have to pay $20 before you do that too? This is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard of!

Aug 9, 2011, 3:43pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

My question for council is how many people can apply for a permit to use a pavilion on the same day..Can the permit just be for myself.Can i have the whole pavilion for just me..Making it so other can't use it..So i can just sit there and drink..sounds like just another knee jerk rule the city lays on us..Remember the lady last month who was fine for parking in front of her house..the city's answer was to stop parking on that side all together..or when the city and GACSA deciede we can long smoke in the park that we pay taxes to the city to maintain..Thanks John and Dan for speaking up and for Rosemary Kathy and Sam..Whats next city council..Do you want us to only walk single file on Main Street..Like good little Lemmings do..When are you going to outlaw coffee drinking in the park..Thats a stimulant.....

Aug 9, 2011, 3:57pm Permalink
dennis wight

How many people can i have drink with me on my $25 permit? What happens if i hurt myself in the park after "buying" permission from the city to drink in OUR park? Will the city be liable?

Aug 9, 2011, 4:23pm Permalink
dennis wight

Maybe the city should focus on getting the hoodlums out of Austin park before they tell the tax payers what they can't do there. Almost every time my kids, 15 and 12, go to Austin park they come back within 20 minutes because of "hoodlum" behavior going on.

Aug 9, 2011, 4:29pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Remember that $25 absolves you from offending children who may see adults drinking. You can rent the pavilion; invite your entire family (including children) and drink as much as you like.
Children, not invited into the pavilion, can also witness the legal use of alcohol because the party paid their $25.00
Would it not be a better use of our tax money to have the police rid the parks of those causing trouble rather than impact the entire city with what amounts to a scuff law?
Mr Ferrando, I recall, held a birthday party for his mother in the community room at 400 Towers. They put up signs saying the room was off limits to residents because it was a private party. That party included alcohol beverages (at the time, residents of the Towers were not allowed to have alcohol in the public rooms or even outdoors). No money was paid to have a private party that prevented residents from entering THEIR community room.
Even now, if the room is used for a private function, one cannot stop other residents from entering the room.
I guess, Frank lives by the "do as I say, not as I do" motto.

Aug 9, 2011, 4:50pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

How many people are allowed to drink in the pavilion on one permit? I had thought there was a limit on how much booze could be brought in as well.
City council reminds me of grade school, because one or two students were out of line, the whole class was punished.

Aug 9, 2011, 5:58pm Permalink
John Roach

Frank, nobody was out of line. The reason they gave last month when this was first brought up was that some people were staying too long. That's it. That bothered some of them.

Aug 9, 2011, 6:13pm Permalink
John Roach

Frank,
No member of the public came to council to complain and only council members said they had a personal issue with it. I bet if you ask now, a bunch will tell you they were getting complaints all the time.

Aug 9, 2011, 8:07pm Permalink
wayne bell

Does anyone know if we can get the e-mail addresses of the city council ? Then maybe we can send our complaints directly to them, because at a meeting you are given only 5 minutes and the concil doesn't even allow for open debate with the public. It seems to me that they are really scared to go face to face with the people of the city and hear that they are really out of touch with what people want from their elected officials.

So now it is okfor me to sit along Main Street on one of the benches having a Jack Daniels and a cigar but I can't do it in Austin Park where kids may see me. The city council is not now or ever was the moral compass and the parent of the city , they are there to assist in the running of the city, Stop trying to make us all regret living in Batavia.

Aug 9, 2011, 8:45pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Wayne, the council e-mail addresses are all on the city's website.

Also, sitting on a bench on Main Street drinking JD will definitely get you a citation (if caught).

Aug 9, 2011, 9:12pm Permalink
Kim Grant

Next will come the dress code law. You just know that someone on the council will have a problem with or be offended by the length of some girls shorts or the bare chest of some guy. Any guesses on how long that will take? How about someone's dog that barks too loud? Or, a child budging in line at a slide? Running too fast? Yelling too loudly? Looking to be having waaaay too much fun?? It's just a matter of time.

Aug 9, 2011, 9:40pm Permalink
Tom Guentner

Just another case of disallowing the use of a park by law abiding citizens because of the misuse by a few. You can't single out the "misusers" in any way,shape ,or form because that would be discrimination. Aren't you all just warm & fuzzy now??

Aug 10, 2011, 9:03am Permalink
Ted Wenzka

The scary part is two of them (Clattenbug and Ferrando) are running for county legislature. The worst part is I will be stuck with Clattenburg because no one is running against here. HEAVEN HELP US!!!!

Aug 10, 2011, 9:08am Permalink
Mary E DelPlato

yea ...i think its the bottom line...more ways to make money off of us...since they are so dependant on us...we pay them to make our lives miserable....doesnt make sense does it...they make laws in hopes to make money...sad that God put me on this planet to be enslaved by political diabolic leaders

Aug 10, 2011, 9:44am Permalink
Mary E DelPlato

Voting for different candidates doesnt absolve a dam thing....city council needs to find a more logical item to discuss...like job growth...(too late)...oh my mortgage went up btw...cuz..taxes went up LMAO...less money I will put into blahtavia...

Aug 10, 2011, 9:49am Permalink
RON GIBSON

Thanks, Mr. Roach for this information. When Mr. Cox comes to my home looking for his vote, while I'm on my front porch drinking beer, I'll remember this, or will I need a "PERMIT".

Aug 10, 2011, 10:25am Permalink
Mark Potwora

Ron i too have Mr.Cox here in the first ward..He tries to label himself as a conservitive and also runs as such.But yet he votes to either raise the city tax rate or come up with these restrictive rules to live under.....That i do not understand...He also decided to build his company in the town of Batavia in the new AG-Park,but at the same time voted to create a new Economic Agency Head here in Batavia..Why not go into the new Masse Mall he voted to give Mancuso money to create..

Aug 10, 2011, 10:40am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Firstly, I do not have anything negative to say about any member of council personally, but I do not think that this decision is going to do much besides give a hard time to law abiding citizens or young families who aren't bothering anyone by drinking a beer or a glass of wine. I said it at the Council meeting and I'll say it again, if someone is acting in a disorderly way, then they are guilty of disorderly conduct and should be removed from the park (alcohol or not). Many of the people who use the parks in my ward live near them and walk to or from them from their homes, I know this because I am one of those people. Our parks are a beautiful resource, our DPW does a wonderful job maintaining them and our police do a great job of keeping them safe, lets not run people out of them because they want to peacefully enjoy a beer there.
<P>
<P>
Government, from local right up to the federal level was meant to govern, but only with bounds that respect people's rights, passing a law to remove people from the park because they are drinking while not bothering anyone, or, acting disorderly, is overstepping it's bounds. I don't think it's right and had I been on Council I would have voted no.

Aug 10, 2011, 1:04pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Our representatives in all levels of government should reflect on the old adage: "If it ain't broke- don't fix it!" Unfortunately, when confronted with the eventuality of problems- clearly "broke," they don't fix them. Why? Because the party bosses and special interest groups who manipulate/buy votes don't want those problems fixed. The "fix" would impede the progression of greed, constitute a 'loss of face' or violate some political sacred cow. So... Instead of fixing problems, politicians pass politically 'safe' laws that give the appearance of "doing their job" while the work they are elected to do never gets done. ...Or in the case of health care reform, job creation or deficit reduction, gets half (a**) done.

The Middle Class (if there really is such a thing) should get its act together and create a special interest lobby of its own. The Tea Party could have been such an organization, but it allowed itself to be co-opted by the GOP. Maybe if Americans bulldogged a legitimate force that actually promoted issues average Americans deemed important, the government (two parties) might accomplish something other than buttressing its self-image with 'feel good' legislation that costs taxpayers money and infringes on personal liberty.

Aug 10, 2011, 2:23pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

CM maybe you are reading the Tea Party wrong..Maybe they are the ones who is going to be co-opting the GOP..not the other way around as you so state..

Aug 10, 2011, 2:31pm Permalink
Tara Pariso

How does this take away a personal freedom??? No individual owns the park, so they have no right to be mad about what is allowed in it. As a parent, I am glad to see that the city cares enough to ban certain behavior in PUBLIC areas. If someone wants to drink, why is it such a big burden to do it in their own space instead of in public space? Children have a right to go to parks and not have to see drunks while they are playing. This does happen whether complainers believe it or not. Having a party at a city maintained park should be considered a priveledge unless individuals plan to mow the lawn, pick up trash, and maintain the park. Stop complaining about losing freedom and look at the bigger picture. Substance abuse is a huge problem and it effects children and adults everyday. Do some research and you'll learn that growing up around consumption leads youth to believe it is ok, which can in turn increase the possibility of addiction. Go drink your beer in your own space!!

Aug 10, 2011, 3:43pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Tara - I understand where you are coming from, but someone drinking does not mean someone is acting disorderly. It is possible to have a beer without becoming rowdily drunk, and if someone is being rowdy or unreasonable then they can be charged with disorderly conduct and forced to leave. The park belongs to the citizens of Batavia, all of us, and we should be able to use the park to our liking so long as we aren't bothering anyone else or being obscene.....and I do not drinking a beer or a glass of wine is being obscene. The City has it's DPW to maintain the park, and we the citizens comprise the city. Parks are a right for citizens to use so long as our government pays for them.
<P>
<P>
Many people also grew up around people consuming alcohol and have not become alcoholics. Should we ban tobacco so people will not become addicted? Cars so the environment doesn't become polluted? Of course not, we have standards for each of those things and we have them with alcohol consumption, it's disorderly conduct, it's a fair standard and one we should keep instead of outright banning alcohol consumption for those who may not have a backyard or can't afford to go to the bar.

Aug 10, 2011, 3:58pm Permalink
William Cox

Its pretty interesting that I got criticized by several people for having the drink in the park ban passed. For the record everyone, I was out of town on business for 3 days and was not even at the meeting. Therefore I did not vote and could not have voted.

For those who are interested I was originally in favor of the ban during our conference meeting. Since that time I spoke with several residents and as a result decided it infringed on people's rights too much. Dan Jones made a compelling argument which I read when I returned yesterday afternoon. Dan thinks thing through and often speaks out at council meetings. We need a lot more public comments on all topics. Public comments work, because it worked on me for this topic.

I would have made an amendment to ban proposal to eliminate glass containers in the park so we had no broken glass, but allow cans and kegs.

I welcome the input of any citizen in any ward at anytime to discuss any city topic. Before you jump the gun and tell others what you think I did, call me. I can be reached at 344-3914 (home) or my cell at 356-5430.

It would be nice if the people who made false comments about what I supposedly did, own up to them and publish a retraction. This will show what they are all about. We all make mistakes and what we do about them defines who we are.

Bill Cox
Councilman - First Ward

Aug 10, 2011, 4:41pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bill, thanks for jumping on and clarifying. To my memory I didn't think you were there, but with people stating with such certainty that you were I was like -- wow, is my memory faulty? Looks like it wasn't.

Aug 10, 2011, 5:07pm Permalink
John Roach

Bill, yes, you missed that meeting. But the month before (July) you went on record as being in favor of it and voted to fast track the law. It was the 3 Democrats who refused to allow the fast tracking, delaying the final vote for one month.

You could have told the council and public by letter of your opposition if you could not make the meeting, or could have asked another council person to at least mention it. If you had your way, this would have been law last month.

Also, glass is already not allowed in the parks, so your amendment would have been moot and nobody was suggesting kegs.

I look forward to your proposing a reversal of the law next month.

Aug 10, 2011, 5:49pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by John Roach on August 10, 2011 - 6:54am

Richard, to fair to Ferrando, he had help passing this with Bob Bialkowski (4th Ward) and Bill Cox (1st Ward).

Making things up again?

Aug 10, 2011, 5:50pm Permalink
Trina Goodman

Please tell me if I've got this right. If I want to consume a legal drink or smoke a cigarette in a city park I cannot because its not healthy for children to witness such behavior. Yet I can allow my dog to urinate on the grass where your children will be playing and that's OK? What we seem to be in need of is representatives with a little common sense. By the way I smoke (wish I didn't) and sometimes drink, and yet have been able to raise 3 wonderfully well adjusted daughters.

Aug 10, 2011, 5:58pm Permalink
John Roach

Bea, good try, but no. Both of them helped Frank pass this. Please read very carefully what I wrote. I did not say Bill was at the meeting, but he supported it and voted last month for the law to be fast tracked. It takes all 9 members to approve fast tracking and three voted no, so the final vote was delayed until this month. If they had not voted no, the law would have gone into effect in July.

Aug 10, 2011, 6:12pm Permalink
Billie Owens

I often go to Austin Park to walk Pachuco and see all ages, races, etc., enjoying the park, with the biggest draws of course being the playground and the water sprinklers. Most of the kids are so absorbed in their play and fun, I doubt they notice very little else unless it's right under their noses, like when my 160-pound rottweiler/Swiss mountain dog and I amble over to say Hi. I usually see parents watching their kids, and occasionally three or four people gathered here and there under the trees just hanging out. There is, or was, a regular contingency of folks, many wearing red (for what it's worth), who hang out in the pavilion and smoke cigarettes and drink beer. If a family picnic/birthday party wanted to use the space, I doubt anyone would stand in the way. The people I've spoken with at the pavilion have always been pleasant, coherent, easy-going, and most of them like my dog, too. A few weeks ago, before this new rule was approved, I saw two women in their 30s or 40s, peering through binoculars at the pavilion. They were standing by the sidewalk in front of the credit union and the senior housing building. They were, basically, spying on the people, who weren't causing trouble or being obnoxious. The women were all atwitter -- about who was there and how frequently they had seen the same people there, what were they doing now, what were they drinking, smoking? If this kind of "evidence" -- of what I know not -- can create new rules, I feel uneasy. (Gladys Kravitz and her chum Mrs. Grumbacher come to mind.) Pleasure police are ruthlessly nosy.

Aug 10, 2011, 7:08pm Permalink

I am confused, They don't want people to drive to the park to drink and get drunk then possibly hurt someone....unless that person pays $25 for a permit? Or is the possible revenue from parties being held there only possible if this ban is passed so that if someone has a get together there, they have to pay to have any alcoholic beverages. If the true concern was of what children might see at the park, you are far more likely to see rowdy over indulgence at a party( a far more likely scenario for obtaining a permit as well) than if a solitary or even three friends sat around leisurely sharing a six pack. Telling people what they can't do is never popular and I foresee this ban causing more headaches for whomever passed it than anybody drinking in the parks before had. This is from someone who very, very seldom drinks anything alcoholic, but I can't say never. Yes you can imbibe on occasion without it being an issue.

Aug 10, 2011, 11:59pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

How come no one spoke up in favor of it at the council meeting...Two people spoke against it....Does our input really matter to those on council..

Aug 11, 2011, 12:54pm Permalink
Bea McManis

I bring my book to the park and one of those tall transparent thermal mugs filled with ice and a clear non alcoholic beverage. Will I be asked to uncap the thermal mug to prove that my beverage meets the law? Will law abiding citizens be searched to make sure they aren't breaking the law?

Aug 11, 2011, 2:08pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Mark - I have spoken to 2 people who are for it, and at least 30 or 40 who without me asking tell me they are against it. There was no public campaign that prompted this, nor does there seem to be much support community wide for it if the comment threads on The Batavian and the Daily News are any indication.

Aug 12, 2011, 1:13pm Permalink
Bea McManis

lol, Dan. It is "drunk steak", not liquor stew. Can you imagine trying to explain that the alcohol in the beer evaporated leaving only the flavor of the grain and hops?
Maybe the investigating officer can finally find out what happens to all the onions that go into that dish. They disappear long before serving.

Aug 12, 2011, 3:17pm Permalink
John Roach

Bea, Frank said if you have to go to the park to drink, you might need help. Besides, he told you to use your backyard. Oh, that's right, your apartment complex have a backyard?

Aug 12, 2011, 7:27pm Permalink
Bea McManis

John
Since the amount of alcohol I consume in the course of a year can be measured by the ounce, this is really a non issue for me. I do use wine, beer, and other spirits in cooking - ergo - "drunk steak" and other appetizing dishes that are enhanced by the flavor imparted by said beverages.
The complex has a front yard, facing Main St., and a back yard that parallels Swan St. To my knowledge, rarely will you find residents imbibing on either lawn.

Aug 12, 2011, 11:52pm Permalink

Authentically Local