4 ms·

I realize you are not defending these ideas, just stating them. However, they are absurd.... objections In order: 1. Charging rent would cost more administrati

I realize you are not defending these ideas, just stating them. However, they are absurd.... objections In order: 1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People want this! It's in the public interest! 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX. 3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial. 4. ...Okay? Laws shouldn't discriminate between businesses of the same class, this is a good thing. Sure, there might be reasons a fence was built. But there might not be! We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy.

JamesBarney 5y ago
2. It's legal in Houston,Tx too. And It's never been a problem. The only I remember anyone even taking advantage of this is the occasional neighbor walking their dog in the evening with a beer or a glass of wine.
handrous 5y ago
> 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX. https://www.wideopeneats.com/states-can-drink-public/ https://www.wideopeneats.com/states-can-drink-public/ Scroll to the map. Looks pretty mixed. California and Texas in the "mostly OK" bucket, but then you've got Illinois, New York, and Florida as high-pop states in the "mostly not OK" bucket. State-wide bans in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, too. I'd guess, based on that, that more people live places with significant restrictions on open containers in public than not, but it may be fairly close to an even split.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > We appreciate your interest in our content. Unfortunately at this time, we are unable to allow international traffic or online transactions. wow
  - handrous 5y ago
    Oof, sorry, didn't know I was linking one of those sites.
supertrope 5y ago
Square footage in prime locations is extremely valuable. One use of section of a street precludes another. Most land in America is privately owned. Way too much public space in cities has been devoted to roads, parking, and highways. So the precious little urban land available is fiercely contested. Should a section of a street be outdoor dining, greenery, parking, a bus lane, sidewalk, a utility box, product display, or a driveway? Who decides? The law formalizes the boundaries between people. Without any restrictions people will consume as much land as possible until they come into conflict with others and use informal means to resolve disputes. Banning sleeping in your car or tents seems cruel until you experience the logical extreme of people settling permanently on public space. Stores would use the sidewalk as extensions of their sales floor and let pedestrians walk on the road.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Should a section of a street be outdoor dining, greenery, parking, a bus lane, sidewalk, a utility box, product display, or a driveway? Who decides? It's called a "government", and its both a process and an institution that can, in a pinch, be used to make decisions like this.
wolverine876 5y ago
> 1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People want this! It's in the public interest! I don't see it. Imagine rent in Manhatten or SF - it's hard to believe they couldn't make a mint. People want lots of things that commercial businesses sell; that's not what public interest means or all business is 'in the public interest'. > 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX. Can you back up your claim about popularity? It's illegal in most places I know. > 3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial. That's called a public nuiscance: We could have concerts and everything else on sidewalks, which would both attract foot traffic and obstruct it. That doesn't lead to good results. > We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy. That doesn't tell us much: Do we throw out all laws? Traffic lights? The question is, where to draw lines. But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from. For many of us, we have ancestors (and cousins) in parts of the world where this is all just fine. So why would we prefer one set of ancestors over another? Why should we believe that the decisions the US-based ancestors somehow reflect a different reality here, rather than just, say, the motivations of the Prohibition movement?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    We might also consider that we are just as likely to do idiotic things as our ancestors. Looking around these days, maybe more likely.
johannes1234321 5y ago
> 1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People want this! It's in the public interest! It costing more isn't an argument, if society wants it. Building a road costs money. Keeping it clean costs money. We invest in roads. We invest in bureaucracy enforcing policy. The cost can then be a measure to control the behavior. Here in my European city there is a few between 16 and 77€/m²/year depending on the district for using sidewalks for a restaurant. As well as other regulation (remaining space, noise, ...)

JamesBarney 5y ago

2. It's legal in Houston,Tx too. And It's never been a problem. The only I remember anyone even taking advantage of this is the occasional neighbor walking their dog in the evening with a beer or a glass of wine.

handrous 5y ago

> 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX. https://www.wideopeneats.com/states-can-drink-public/ https://www.wideopeneats.com/states-can-drink-public/ Scroll to the map. Looks pretty mixed. California and Texas in the "mostly OK" bucket, but then you've got Illinois, New York, and Florida as high-pop states in the "mostly not OK" bucket. State-wide bans in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, too. I'd guess, based on that, that more people live places with significant restrictions on open containers in public than not, but it may be fairly close to an even split.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fallingknife 5y ago
> We appreciate your interest in our content. Unfortunately at this time, we are unable to allow international traffic or online transactions. wow
- handrous 5y ago
  Oof, sorry, didn't know I was linking one of those sites.

supertrope 5y ago

Square footage in prime locations is extremely valuable. One use of section of a street precludes another. Most land in America is privately owned. Way too much public space in cities has been devoted to roads, parking, and highways. So the precious little urban land available is fiercely contested. Should a section of a street be outdoor dining, greenery, parking, a bus lane, sidewalk, a utility box, product display, or a driveway? Who decides? The law formalizes the boundaries between people. Without any restrictions people will consume as much land as possible until they come into conflict with others and use informal means to resolve disputes. Banning sleeping in your car or tents seems cruel until you experience the logical extreme of people settling permanently on public space. Stores would use the sidewalk as extensions of their sales floor and let pedestrians walk on the road.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Should a section of a street be outdoor dining, greenery, parking, a bus lane, sidewalk, a utility box, product display, or a driveway? Who decides? It's called a "government", and its both a process and an institution that can, in a pinch, be used to make decisions like this.

wolverine876 5y ago

> 1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People want this! It's in the public interest! I don't see it. Imagine rent in Manhatten or SF - it's hard to believe they couldn't make a mint. People want lots of things that commercial businesses sell; that's not what public interest means or all business is 'in the public interest'. > 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX. Can you back up your claim about popularity? It's illegal in most places I know. > 3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial. That's called a public nuiscance: We could have concerts and everything else on sidewalks, which would both attract foot traffic and obstruct it. That doesn't lead to good results. > We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy. That doesn't tell us much: Do we throw out all laws? Traffic lights? The question is, where to draw lines. But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> But let's assume our anscestors weren't idiots, that you and I aren't smarter than all of them, but that they were people who had good ideas that we can benefit from. For many of us, we have ancestors (and cousins) in parts of the world where this is all just fine. So why would we prefer one set of ancestors over another? Why should we believe that the decisions the US-based ancestors somehow reflect a different reality here, rather than just, say, the motivations of the Prohibition movement?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  We might also consider that we are just as likely to do idiotic things as our ancestors. Looking around these days, maybe more likely.

johannes1234321 5y ago

> 1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People want this! It's in the public interest! It costing more isn't an argument, if society wants it. Building a road costs money. Keeping it clean costs money. We invest in roads. We invest in bureaucracy enforcing policy. The cost can then be a measure to control the behavior. Here in my European city there is a few between 16 and 77€/m²/year depending on the district for using sidewalks for a restaurant. As well as other regulation (remaining space, noise, ...)