Council Takes Another Stab at Banning Booze on Beaches : Politics: Committee move comes despite pending referendum that legalizes drinking at shore and parks.

A City Council committee voted unanimously Wednesday to investigate the feasibility of enacting a modified ban on alcohol at beaches this summer and putting the issue to the test of a referendum in June, 1992.

Bob Glaser, who engineered the effort that succeeded in gathering enough signatures to keep a ban at city beaches and parks from becoming law April 17, was outraged by the 5-0 vote of the Public Facilities and Recreation Committee.

“They’re playing legal games,” said Glaser, the adviser to People to Ban the Ban. “They don’t want to follow their own law--the City Charter--so they violate the law. They’re no better than the people they’re trying to regulate with a booze ban.

“This is so arrogant. It belittles the voters. It’s as though the council is anointed to ignore all laws, to do things any way they want to. It’s really sad. Maybe our only recourse is a courtroom.”

Backed by contributions from major beer distributors and retailers, People to Ban the Ban gathered more than 45,000 signatures to keep the booze ban from being voted into law. The council approved the ban with a 7-0 vote in February.

Council members argue that a ban is necessary to stem the rising crime at beaches and parks. Proponents say that gang-related violence at Mission Beach and vandalism at La Jolla Shores, among other areas, make the ban almost imperative.

They note that San Diego County is one of only a handful of California coastal areas that still permit drinking on the beaches.

Council members also complain about cost, saying that to place the issue on the ballot in September would cost about $500,000, since that isn’t a citywide election. To put it on the ballot in 1992, during a citywide election, would reportedly limit the cost to $50,000.

But Glaser said that violates the City Charter. He’s also angry that no one with People to Ban the Ban was notified of Wednesday’s committee meeting or kept abreast of recommendations being sent to the council.

“They seem to prefer secrecy,” he said. “And, they keep citing cost as the reason they don’t want to put this to a vote in ’91. Believe me, if it were an issue they knew they could win, the cost wouldn’t be a factor. They’re scared of it in ‘91, because (Councilmen) Ron Roberts, Bruce Henderson and Bob Filner are all running for reelection. The last thing they want is to run against this issue.”

Pete Hogan, the legislative specialist to the Public Facilities and Recreation Committee, said the council will be asked to vote on the group’s recommendation June 17. The council will be asked to place the issue on the ballot in June, 1992, and to enact an “emergency” summer ban.

He said a possible compromise, for the summer and beyond, would be drinking within “nodes,” areas set aside for exactly that purpose, which Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer proposed at an earlier meeting.

As to legal issues, Hogan said the city attorney is scheduled to give the committee a full report June 12.