Over the last decade, there has been considerable debate in Savannah about the legal rights of 18- to 20-year-old citizens.
For the most part, those young adults have been on the losing end of those debates.
Savannah once allowed that age group to enter live music venues and dance clubs under strict conditions. Those young adults would typically have Xs put on their hands at the door. Obviously, if they were seen drinking, they’d be kicked out.
Venue owners and managers took this seriously. If they allowed anyone under 21 to drink alcohol, the establishment’s survival could be at risk.
The policy worked just fine here, and many cities across Georgia and around the country have a similar policy today.
Most obviously, important venues in Athens, which has a flourishing music scene, allow anyone over 18 to see bands even though the establishments do not have food service and do have liquor licenses.
In the last couple of years I’ve talked to an increasing number of new Savannah residents in their 20s and 30s who previously lived in cities that allowed adults aged 18 to 20 to enjoy live music while successfully restricting them from buying drinks.
Those folks seem utterly puzzled that Savannah doesn’t have such a policy. They are even more puzzled when I tell them we used to have a similar ordinance but city officials changed the law because of concerns about crime.
They are even more puzzled when they attend shows at the Civic Center and see teenagers in the crowd with drinks in hand, but that’s a column for another day.
During the public debates a few years ago, those of us who opposed the additional restrictions made arguments that were roundly ignored by those in power. The most cogent of those arguments has turned out to be true.
If you kick 18- to 20-year-olds out of every live music venue that derives most of its revenue from alcohol sales, they aren’t all going home and sitting on their hands.
In the years since the ordinance change, we have seen a veritable explosion of totally unregulated house shows that are open to anyone who is in the loop, no matter what age. Both local and touring acts have been able to find regular places to play in houses and apartments.
At such shows, there is typically no one at the door to keep out even younger teens, and no one is checking for identification when someone shows up with booze.
For the most part, these house shows have been loud but uneventful. An individual residence might just host one such gathering, but often one party leads to another. The next thing you know, we basically have an illegally operated venue.
Sometimes these venues stick it out literally for years.
When I first heard in 2013 that the city of Savannah was revisiting our increasingly labyrinthine alcohol ordinance, I was led to believe a new ordinance might roll back those counterproductive restrictions on young adults’ access to live music venues.
In a country that values freedom, we need to have a pretty high bar for restricting a certain class of legal adults from any type of public accommodation.
But the first draft of the new ordinance didn’t offer more freedom. As has been discussed with much derision in recent days, city officials who created the ordinance decided we should ban almost all 18- to 20-year-olds even from restaurants that serve alcohol after 10 p.m.
It’s been good to see city officials beat a hasty retreat on that 10 p.m. policy, albeit only after a massive public outcry on social media.
But will the nanny-staters who came up with the idea merely propose a later time? Will they continue to try to keep legal adults out of restaurants just because there might be someone drinking alcohol at the next table?
If you think 20-year-old soldiers should be banned from Vinnie Van Go-Go’s at 10 p.m. or that 18-year-old college students should be banned from Foxy Loxy Print Gallery & Café at 10:30 p.m. or that a young second-shift worker should be banned from eating at B&D Burgers at midnight, you probably shouldn’t pursue a career in public policy generally or city management specifically.
Savannah city government, though, seems to have highly placed employees in multiple departments who hold those views. Maybe it’s time for a little housecleaning.
The draft ordinance also singles out 18- to 20-year-olds in another area. They would be barred from working with a “a licensed alcoholic beverage caterer” if the job would bring them into any contact with alcohol.
I am eager to hear the rationale for this change. What is the demonstrated need for this additional bureaucracy? If individual caterers have had issues with alcohol, why haven’t their licenses been pulled?
If the city reserves the right to ban 18- to 20-year-olds from working for caterers because they might handle alcohol, the city is logically reserving the right to institute a similar policy for restaurant servers – probably even for cooks and busers too.
I don’t think city officials would ever propose anything like that, but I sure didn’t think they’d ever propose some of the policies that made it into the draft released last week.
Over the coming weeks and months, City Talk will likely take a deeper look at various other elements of the draft.
By the way, I have already – repeatedly – suggested via social media that the coming public debates would be far more productive if the city pulled this draft off the table and began a series of meetings about specific areas where policy changes might be warranted.
City Talk appears every Tuesday and Sunday. Bill Dawers can be reached via billdawers@comcast.net. Send mail to 10 East 32nd St., Savannah, Ga. 31401.