REPORT TO PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL

PROPOSAL FOR AN ALCOHOL IMPACT AREA IN NORTH PORTLAND

December 22, 2004

1.  INTRODUCTION

Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) Administrative Rule 845-005-0303 sets forth a process to create an Alcohol Impact Area (AIA). An AIA provides for mandatory alcohol sales restrictions in an area where there is a history of street drinking and related problems. This report sets forth the process undertaken by a group of citizens and government representatives to utilize the Administrative Rule to establish an AIA in North Portland.

There is a lengthy and pervasive history--documented in police reports and crime statistics--demonstrating that chronic public inebriation, illicit street drinking and related problems have negatively impacted the quality of life in North Portland. As a result, community members formed a working group in early 2001 with the Portland Police Bureau, Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office to explore solutions to the problem. The working group decided to use the Administrative Rule to attempt to reduce problem street drinking.¹

The Administrative Rule requires a serious and good faith effort by the city to develop a plan to reduce illicit street drinking and have OLCC licensed retailers voluntarily agree to it. The proposed plan calls for restricting the sales of alcohol most abused by illicit street drinkers and chronic public inebriates. Fearing a loss in revenue and that not all liquor retailers would agree to the plan, however, most of the retailers refused to sign it.

Since a voluntary, good faith agreement could not be reached under the Administrative Rule, the community is now requesting that the Portland City Council recommend to the OLCC that it establish an AIA in an area in North Portland roughly encompassing the St. Johns and Cathedral Park neighborhoods.²

These neighborhoods were chosen due to the fact that nearly half of the illicit street drinking and detoxification reports in north precinct emanate from this area and because, as noted below, illicit street drinking and chronic public inebriation are significant problems in this area in north Portland in particular.

Restricting sales of large containers of high alcohol per volume beer, malt liquor and fortified wine from licensed businesses selling off-premises alcohol should improve the quality of life in North Portland since this is the type of alcohol sought most by chronic illicit street drinkers.³

Alcohol restrictions were first proposed in the Old Town area of Portland in the late 1980’s. At that time “winos” were deteriorating the quality of life of merchants and community residents. The community complained that alcoholics who consumed “…inexpensive—high alcohol content wines, became more aggressive, more violent, and were a contributing factor in other problems such as litter (wine bottles and broken glass), urinating in public, harassing, panhandling, and other undesirable activity.”⁴

The Old Town community collaborated with the Portland Police Bureau to negate the deleterious effect public inebriates were exacting on their quality of life and business vitality. Convinced that the problem was a serious one, the Portland City council adopted a resolution recommending that OLCC impose restrictions on the sale of fortified wine in Old Town in January 1986, which the OLCC did.

By 1987 city council requested that the test period restrictions become permanent due to their findings that disorderly conduct, litter, vandalism, pedestrian traffic congestion, harassment, panhandling and criminal activity had abated as a result.⁵

But even as these restrictions were being enforced, street drinkers simply switched to drinking inexpensive, unfortified wine, which meant that the regulations had to be amended to include any 13.8 % wine.⁶

By 1992 street drinkers had again adapted and switched their drink of choice to unrestricted 32-ounce and 40-ounce beer and malt liquor. As a result Central Precinct signed agreements with six major retailers in the downtown and central eastside areas to restrict sales of these products.⁷ The liquor industry then began marketing 22- ounce beverages in the area.⁸

Central Precinct responded by recommending restrictions on sales of all beer and malt liquor in containers more than 16 ounces; by 1993 the city was recommending that all liquor licensees in the affected area adhere to these restrictions.⁹ Several retailers, in fact, received unfavorable license renewal recommendations from the neighborhood association at least in part because of their refusal to abide by the voluntary plan.¹⁰

By August of 1993 more than 40 retailers were voluntarily restricting sales of larger than 16 ounce beer and malt liquor.¹¹

The initial six retailers who volunteered to restrict alcohol sales reported that in the first 10 months they had fewer problems in and around their stores with litter, loitering, panhandling and disruptive behavior and fewer customer complaints.¹²

By 1994, one year after implementation of the voluntary plan in the larger voluntary compliance area, detoxification holds declined 20%, and had decreased 60% by 1996; drinking in public incidents dropped approximately 40% by 1994 and remained there through 1996; disorderly conduct incidents dropped about 25% by 1996. ¹³

The OLCC adopted this Administrative Rule in January 1995, at least partially in response to what had occurred in Old Town.¹⁴ It appears the OLCC created the rule to standardize the process required to impose area alcohol restrictions.

The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WLCB), in July of 1999, enacted similar administrative rules to allow its local governments to address chronic public inebriation, particularly in its urban core areas. In commenting on the idea for its Alcohol Impact Area rules, Chuck Dalrymple, Director of the Licensing and Regulation Division for the WLCB, said that the AIA “… regulations were based on an Oregon regulation, which had been somewhat successful in its voluntary approach to dealing with these problems in a downtown area of Portland.”¹⁵ The WLCB hoped the AIA would assist local governments combating chronic public inebriation and concomitant problems, including “…assaults, destruction of property, public intoxication, public urination, excessive noise, and litter.”¹⁶

Tacoma was the first city to recognize that an AIA could assist them by reducing the availability of alcohol in areas negatively affected by chronic public inebriates. In December 2001 the urban core of the city of Tacoma, Washington was designated an Alcohol Impact Area.¹⁷ By March 1, 2002 some 30 brands of high alcohol content, low price beer and wine products were restricted from sale in any size flavor or alcohol content.¹⁸

Seattle was the next city to begin working on an AIA. The King County Public Health Department and Pioneer Square community residents and business representatives, concurred with the WLCB, when proposing an AIA in the Pioneer Square area of Seattle, that low-cost, high alcohol content products contribute to chronic public inebriation and related negative public health and safety problems.¹⁹ The area was designated an AIA July 23, 2003; alcohol restrictions took effect September 15, 2003.²⁰

Although an evaluation of the Seattle AIA is not available, a comprehensive study of the Tacoma AIA was released June 17, 2003. Several key findings from the study are as follows: there was a 35% decrease in emergency medical service incidents; a 21% decrease in detoxification admissions; a 61% decrease in liquor in the park police calls for service; citizens responding to a survey reported fewer chronic public inebriates and problems, such as panhandling and litter in their community; residents felt safer and better about their neighborhood; sales revenues for local liquor retailers did not show a systematic change as a result of the AIA; and, although beer and wine distributors opposed the AIA and reported losses in revenue because of it, there was no available evidence to demonstrate their claim, and the little data available in fact demonstrated increased revenues for the distributors after implementation of the AIA.²¹

The study concluded “…that the AIA rules have been effective at achieving most of the goals of dealing with the problem of chronic public inebriation. Some of the results are quite strong, especially the reductions in police service calls within the AIA, the decreases in alcohol related emergency medical services incidents and detoxification facility admissions, and the public perceptions of changes in problems associated with chronic public inebriation.

[I]t is probable that the AIA restrictions are just one aspect of an entire community wide effort to deal with chronic public inebriation. Putting the AIA restrictions in place strengthened the community wide efforts and gave others more motivation to deal with the problem of chronic public inebriation.”²²

2.  REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ALCOHOL IMPACT AREA

A petition for rulemaking to the OLCC from Portland City Council is required before the proposed area can be designated an alcohol impact area.²³ Prerequisites for petitioning include a serious and good faith effort by the city to work cooperatively to develop a voluntary program to address the problems, providing affected persons an opportunity to participate, including the opportunity to comment on the proposed limitations and any reasons their business should be exempted from the proposed limitations, and, finally, establish that a fair and neutral process was employed.²⁴ The working group has complied with these requirements.²⁵

3.  DOCUMENTATION OF ILLICIT STREET DRINKING PROBLEM

Portland City Code (PCC) 14A.50.010 makes it unlawful to possess an open container or consume an alcoholic beverage in public. Both behaviors are forms of illicit street drinking. ORS 430.399 (the civil detoxification statute) requires police officers to take custody of publicly intoxicated persons who are incapacitated, whose health is in immediate danger or who is dangerous to him/herself or others and deliver them to an appropriate treatment facility.

As reflected in police and other reports documenting illicit street drinking and public inebriation, there is a lengthy history of problems related to street drinkers and public inebriates in the proposed area who sometimes harass or annoy passersby or aggressively “panhandle” them; they dispose of their alcohol containers on the street or in parks or private real estate, degrading the cleanliness of property; they create hazards when they fail to utilize cross walks or obey pedestrian control signals, wandering into traffic; they sometimes defecate and often urinate in public; and they have been known to use vacant residences as shelter, resulting in either unlawful camping or criminal trespass or burglary; they often steal from area stores in order to acquire the funds to purchase more alcohol.²⁶

There is also a history of illicit street drinking and public intoxication in the proposed area. From 2000 through 2003, the police responded on average 130 times per year to public intoxication calls for service from the community.²⁷ There have been 122 public intoxication calls for service through September of 2004.²⁸ At this rate there will be 162 calls for service by year’s end in the proposed area, a 25% increase over the previous three years. Police officers dispatched to such a call have limited options. If the person is in possession of an open alcohol container, the officer may cite them or take them into custody, but if the person is inebriated and incapacitated or a danger to him/herself or any other person, the officer must take them to an appropriate treatment facility (e.g. Hooper Detoxification Center; emergency room); the officer sometimes does both.²⁹

In 2000, 2001 and 2002, 84% of containers noted by police officers in illicit street drinking reports for the proposed area were for sizes 16 ounces or larger.³⁰ The working group also conducted a survey in 2003 to determine what type of alcohol and container size illicit street drinkers preferred.³¹ The survey found that, when known, 44% of the persons possessing open alcohol or consuming alcohol in public possessed beer, 43% possessed malt liquor and 27% possessed wine. And, when known, 83% of the survey respondents indicated that the alcohol containers were 16 ounces or more. Survey respondents were also asked whether they knew the brand names of any of the illicitly possessed alcohol and responded as follows: Old English, Steel Reserve, Milwaukee’s Best, Cammo, Mad Dog 20/20, Cisco, Hamms, Red Dog, St. Ives, Fosters, Smirnov Ice, Icehouse.³²

In January of 2003 the liquor investigators in the Drug and Vice Division (DVD) of the Portland Police Bureau began gathering this type of information from police reports, including open container and drinking in public offenses, detoxification holds (individuals cared for by PPB under community caretaking for extreme intoxication), and, when noted in a report, alcohol type and container size.³³

3A.  CITYWIDE 2003

In 2003 DVD recorded 7,598 alcohol incidents citywide. Of these incidents, 64.8% required public care-taking action by the police as the result of extreme intoxication. In 37.5% of the cases a person was cited for a drinking related criminal offense.³⁴

In 2,702 police reports the alcohol that was possessed by the individual was identified: 77% of the individuals possessed beer, 14% possessed hard liquor and 9% possessed wine.³⁵

Six brands comprised 67% of the known beverages consumed by illicit street drinkers; 46 brands made up the other 33%. Three brands of alcohol fortified malt liquors--211 Steele Reserve, Camo and Old English—accounted for 37% of the illicit street drinking reports.³⁶

In 1,235 reports, liquor containers were identified: 61% of illicit public drinking was from 22-ounce or larger containers.³⁷

 3B.  NORTH PORTLAND 2003

In North Portland, two brands of alcohol—211 Steele Reserve and Old English-- accounted for 51% of the illicit street drinking reports. Both are fortified malt liquors.

The 22-ounce size container was the most commonly identified size in illicit street drinking reports.³⁸

These findings by DVD are very similar to the findings of the aforementioned survey conducted in North Portland in 2003 wherein respondents cited Old English and 211 Steele Reserve as two of the most prevalent malt liquors possessed by illicit street drinkers and that, when known, 83% of open alcohol containers on the street were 16 ounces or larger.³⁹ Likewise, in the Pioneer Square Alcohol Impact Area Main Report (the Seattle Report), the King County Public Health Department found that chronic public inebriates ‘disproportionately consume certain selected alcohol products typified by low cost, high alcohol by volume and large container size.’⁴⁰

Public drinking and detoxification reports in North Precinct rose by more than 10% from January 2003 to June 2004. This compares to a twelve (12) percent drop citywide.⁴¹

 3C.  PROPOSED AIA 2004

In the proposed area during the first half of 2004 there continues to be a problem with illicit street drinking.

The St. Johns and Cathedral Park neighborhoods accounted for 46.6% of all reported detoxification and street drinking offenses in North Precinct for the first half of 2004.⁴²

In the first six months of 2004 there were 58 drinking in public arrests or detoxification reports in the proposed area where alcohol type was identified. 88% of these reports involved beer or malt liquor. When the container size was noted, nine (9) reports were for were in 40 oz. containers, four (4) were 24 oz., twelve (12) were 22 oz., Seven (7) were 16 oz. and seven (7) were 12 oz. The most common brand / size combination was a 22 oz. 211 Steele Reserve.⁴³

4.  FORMATION OF A WORKING GROUP

Based on the extraordinarily high number of citizen complaints and calls for service and arrests for illicit street drinking, in the fall of 2001 officials from the Portland Police Bureau, Office of Neighborhood Involvement and the District Attorney’s Office, together with concerned and affected citizens (the working group), undertook, in good faith, a serious effort to cooperatively reduce illicit street drinking in North Portland.⁴⁴

5.  PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT

All businesses with off premises alcohol licenses in North Portland were invited to voluntarily participate with the working group to establish cooperation to reduce illicit street drinking. Two meetings were held between the working group and affected businesses. Disappointingly, no more than five out of 43 business appeared at each meeting.⁴⁵

During the fall and early winter of 2001 a proposal by the working group to reduce illicit street drinking was made to various community organizations, including the St. Johns, Cathedral Park, Kenton, Arbor Lodge, Portsmouth and University Park neighborhood associations, North Portland Business Association, Caring Community of North Portland and James John School. All of these groups, including about 28 individual St. Johns business owners, endorsed the AIA, a voluntary compliance program to regulate single sales and large container sales of malt liquor and fortified wine, or some form of “aggressive action to curb street drinking activity.”⁴⁶

Contemporaneously the Korean-American Grocers Association requested to meet to discuss the proposal. Two meetings were held between the working group and the Korean-American Grocers Association in early 2002.⁴⁷ These meetings, however, did not result in a voluntary agreement. As with the sparsely attended meetings held in fall of 2001, retailers refused to restrict off premises alcohol sales without compliance by all of the 43 affected businesses.⁴⁸ The officers who originally made the voluntary AIA proposals in Old Town/Chinatown encountered similar responses.⁴⁹ In Seattle this was known as the “level playing field” argument: “…until everyone signed creating a ‘level playing field,’ there was strong disincentive to signing. The ‘catch 22’ of the level playing field argument in a voluntary program proved exceptionally difficult.”⁵⁰

The working group here has encountered the same difficulties in the voluntary process.

None of the stores has requested exemption from the proposed limitations.⁵¹ They also refused to implement the proposal for a short trial period.

Of the stores subject to the proposed restrictions (as noted in footnote 46), the parts of the businesses contributing to the problem include the sale of beer, malt liquor and fortified wine in large sizes. It is the position of the working group that the sale of these items in the proposed area is diminishing the quality of life of local residents and negatively impacting area businesses.

Only four businesses have voluntarily agreed to—and signed--the proposal.⁵²

6.  THE PROPOSAL

The proposed alcohol sales restrictions are as follows:⁵³

1.  No single container sales of packaged beer or malt liquor containing 5.8% or more alcohol by volume in amounts less than 16 fluid ounces, except in quantities of six or more.

2.  No sales of packaged beer or malt liquor containing 5.8% or more alcohol by volume in amounts 16 ounces or more.

3.  No sales of packaged fortified wine containing more than 13.8% alcohol by volume.

7.  ANTICIPATED AFFECTS OF AN ALCOHOL IMPACT AREA ⁵⁴

7A.  NEGATIVE SHORT RANGE AFFECTS

The proposed restrictions might result in lost revenue to some licensed businesses. The smaller convenience stores that rely heavily on alcohol sales to generate revenue might be most negatively affected. There is no means by which the working group is able to accurately forecast what the effects might be on each individual business. Although no loss of business is forecast, any such loss should be proportionally relative for each business.

While an immediate drop in revenue to some licensed businesses might be perceived as a consequence of implementing the Administrative Rule, the working group does not forecast any significant short-term economic damage to the to the area as a whole or to the surrounding area. Therefore, no negative consequences are forecast for the local governing body.

Opponents of alcohol impact areas typically fear that displacement of the street drinkers to other areas will increase the sales of others and decrease the sales of retailers in the AIA. However, evidence from Tacoma is that although it was believed street drinkers went elsewhere to purchase alcohol the retailers did not demonstrate any significant loss of income.

7B.  NEGATIVE LONG RANGE AFFECTS

In the Tacoma AIA study, 58% of liquor retailers felt that their alcohol sales had decreased as a result of the AIA.⁵⁵ However, the study demonstrated that overall retail sales of businesses with liquor licenses remained fairly constant, with approximately half of the businesses showing an increase in sales and half of the businesses showing a decrease in sales.⁵⁶ It was believed that chronic public inebriates went elsewhere to purchase alcohol.⁵⁷ It is anticipated that each licensed retailer in the proposed AIA will be impacted the same. There are no negative consequences forecast for the local governing body.

7C.  POSITIVE SHORT RANGE AFFECTS

The working group anticipates an immediate reduction of alcohol-related problems including illicit street drinking, public intoxication and related criminal behavior, both in the proposed and surrounding area, resulting in the conservation of the government resources of the Portland Police Bureau and Multnomah county detoxification center. As the availability of high alcohol per volume subsides, the incidence of public intoxication and possession of open containers of alcohol should decline, particularly since the next closest licensed liquor retailer is more than one mile from the proposed AIA. This forecast applies to every licensed retailer in and around the proposed AIA.

7D.  POSITIVE LONG RANGE AFFECTS

According to Sheryl Lahey, Intervention Specialist, Student Services Department, Portland Public Schools, restricting “…the availability of types of alcohol, 40 ounces and fortified wine, could reduce the negative impact that availability of alcohol has on our youth, families and the communities that they live in.”⁵⁸

Licensed businesses should regain any lost revenue if the AIA works as anticipated. The working group predicts two principal improvements for licensed businesses, the area as a whole and the local governing body if the administrative rule is adopted. First, there might be economic improvement if the reputation of the area improves. Second, the local governing body should conserve resources as fewer illicit street drinkers are arrested and sometimes booked in to jail, or taken to the Hooper Detoxification Center. As previously noted, neighborhood livability improved as a result of the AIAs in Portland and Tacoma.

In Portland the initial six retailers who volunteered to restrict alcohol sales reported fewer problems in and around their stores with litter, loitering, panhandling and disruptive behavior and fewer customer complaints;⁵⁹ detoxification holds declined 20% by 1994, and had decreased 60% by 1996; drinking in public incidents dropped approximately 40% by 1994 and remained there through 1996; disorderly conduct incidents dropped about 25% by 1996. ⁶⁰

In Tacoma emergency medical service incidents decreased 35%, detoxification admissions dropped 21%, “Liquor in Park” police service calls dropped 61%, and there were fewer chronic public inebriates and problems, less trash and litter from chronic public inebriates and community residents felt safer and better about their neighborhood.⁶¹ At the same time overall retail sales for businesses with liquor licenses remained fairly constant and revenues for liquor distributors might actually have increased.⁶²

8.  CONCLUSION

The working group has made a serious good faith effort to cooperate with OLCC licensed alcohol retailers to reduce illicit street drinking, public inebriation and its degrading side effects in North Portland. The seriousness of this effort is captured in a process that included four community meetings over a period of almost six months, correspondence between the working group and licensed retailers for almost one year and continued monitoring of the problem in the proposed area. However, the effort to voluntarily reduce sales of targeted alcohol in North Portland has been unsuccessful. Since all available evidence suggests that an AIA could greatly improve livability in the proposed area with very little, if any, detrimental effect on businesses in the area selling alcohol, the working group is requesting that the Portland City Council recommend to the OLCC that the OLCC establish an AIA in the proposed area.

   1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  12.  13.  14.  15.  16.  17.  18.  19.