THE TIMES POLL : Alcohol Ban at S.D. Stadium Lot Supported

San Diegans favor banning alcohol in the parking lots at San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium, but they do not believe that a temporary prohibition on drinking at some city beaches and parks should be made permanent, the Los Angeles Times Poll shows.

With the San Diego City Council expected to consider a total ban on alcohol in the stadium parking lots during all events, the Times poll shows that 49% of San Diegans would like to see beer, wine and liquor eliminated from pre-game tailgate parties.

San Diegans are more ambivalent, however, in regard to drinking at the beaches and parks, according to the poll. By a nearly 3-2 margin, they approve of the trial six-month ban that the City Council imposed last month on La Jolla Shores Beach, Kellogg Park and North Park Community Park. But, when asked whether that ban should be made permanent, a majority of the poll’s respondents were opposed to that idea.

“It seems that people are willing to give this beach ban a try, but they don’t want to get locked in with something so rigid over the long term,” said Times pollster I. A. Lewis. “They’d like to see how it works out before making a commitment.”

Mayor Maureen O’Connor, who has argued that a beach ban is unfair to “responsible drinkers,” said she believes that the poll results show that San Diegans prefer to take a “common-sense approach rather than a heavy-handed one” to the problem of beach crime.

“An awful lot of people go to the beach for picnics and family out

ings, and a lot of them like to have a beer when they’re there,” O’Connor said. “They don’t feel there’s anything wrong with that and don’t want to be made criminals.”

The Times poll is based on telephone interviews conducted Sunday of 842 people throughout the city of San Diego. The poll’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The poll’s findings suggest that locale was one of a number of factors influencing San Diegans’ feelings about the propriety of drinking in public places, as illustrated by the difference of opinion on whether to ban alcohol in the stadium parking lots or at beaches and parks.

For example, despite the near majority support for a ban in the stadium parking lots, a narrow majority of those polled was opposed to a permanent prohibition on drinking at city beaches and parks. In each case, the gap between proponents and opponents of the respective proposed bans was 10 percentage points, with the stadium ban being favored by a 49%-39% margin, while the beach and park prohibition was opposed, 51% to 41%.

The six-month ban at several city beaches and parks that the City Council approved last month was a scaled-down version of a citywide prohibition on beach drinking that the council approved last December, but then withdrew in the face of strong public opposition. Even the trial ban drew criticism from some who claimed that the council was overreacting to the complaints of beach community residents and that stronger enforcement of existing laws would be a better approach.

The poll showed that, although San Diegans are willing to see whether the limited six-month ban helps reduce beach drunkenness and rowdiness, they are not yet convinced that such a ban is necessary or advisable on a permanent, across-the-board basis.

By a 57%-39% margin, San Diegans said they support the temporary ban at La Jolla Shores Beach and the two parks, the poll showed. But a question about whether that ban should be made permanent at all city beaches drew the 51% negative response.

That split may be partly attributable, pollster Lewis explained, to San Diegans’ reluctance to embrace the beach drinking ban until the six-month trial is completed and its effect analyzed. Furthermore, although some people who usually use other beaches may be quite willing to support a ban at La Jolla Shores--simply because it would have little effect on them--they perhaps are less enthusiastic about seeing such a prohibition applied to all beaches.

“People perceive a problem, but they don’t want to be blue-nosed about solving it,” Lewis said. “What they’re counseling is moderation.”

Another factor in people’s reluctance to make the temporary beach ban permanent, the poll showed, is their belief that excessive drinking is only one of a number of causes that contribute to crime and rowdiness at the beaches. Though 44% of those polled blamed beach crime on those intoxicated at the beach, an equal percentage attributed the problem to “too many young people with nothing to do,” and 39% pointed to gangs that gather on the beaches.

Furthermore, more than three-fourths of San Diegans--79%--said they believe that it would be better to enforce laws prohibiting public intoxication and rowdiness than to forbid everyone to drink at the beach.

“That’s what most people think is the sensible, reasonable answer,” O’Connor said. “You can’t assume that everyone who drinks on the beach is violating the law. There are a few who are intoxicated and rowdy, and they should be arrested. But when you get into a permanent, across-the-board ban, that penalizes everyone.”

Individuals’ gender, age and their own drinking habits also affect their attitudes on the proposed bans, with males and drinkers being less supportive of such restrictions than women and non-drinkers, the poll showed.

Predictably, support for a ban--temporary or permanent--on alcoholic consumption at the beaches was strongest among people who said that they usually do not take liquor along on their own beach outings. Of those polled, 66% said that they never drink alcoholic beverages at the beach and another 22% said that they seldom do so, while only 12% said that they often drink at the beach.

Among those who said that they never drink at the beach, the idea of a permanent ban was supported by a 56%-36% margin. In contrast, an overwhelming 87% of the San Diegans who usually drink at beaches opposed the permanent ban.

Similarly, women are more favorably inclined toward both the proposed drinking ban in the stadium parking lots and a permanent beach ban than men, the poll showed. Fifty-five percent of the women polled said they would support a ban in the stadium parking lots, 10 percentage points higher than the men interviewed. A similar gender gap existed on the question of a possible permanent beach ban, with women being divided, 46% in favor to 45% in opposition, while men opposed the plan by a 57%-37% margin.

In addition, older people are more supportive of the drinking bans than are younger people. Among San Diegans over age 40, a possible ban in the stadium parking lots was supported by a 50%-34% margin, while support among those under 40 came by a narrower 49%-44% margin.

That discrepancy was even more pronounced in regard to a possible permanent ban at the beaches, with older people favoring it, 50% to 40%, while younger people--who are more frequent beachgoers--opposed to the idea by a 2-to-1 margin, 63% to 31%.

Los Angeles Times Poll Generally speaking, do you approve of a ban on drinking alcohol in the parking lots at San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium? Favor: 49% Oppose: 39% Don’t know: 12% Do you think there should be a permanent ban on drinking at all city beaches? Yes: 41% No: 51% Don’t know: 8% From what you have seen or heard, do you think beach crime results from intoxication, from gangs that gather on the beaches, or that trouble starts because there are too many young people with too little to do? (Up to two replies accepted from each respondent.) Intoxication: 44% Young people: 44% Gangs: 39% Drugs: 5% Other: 5% Little crime on beach: 2% Don’t know: 11%