Booze or mismanagement?

Battle over proposed alcohol ban marks preparations for 100th Bay to Breakers
|
(3)

news@sfbg.com

The centennial celebration of the Bay to Breakers race and party is once again being targeted for a crackdown on alcohol. But many participants say the problem is mismanagement more than booze or public urination.

Organizers this month announced that all racers and revelers in possession of alcohol will be cited and possibly detained by the San Francisco Police Department. Those pushing floats or, as event spokesperson Sam Singer put it, "alcohol delivery devices," will be cited as well.

After hearing concerns from residents along the race route and losing corporate sponsor ING, executives from organizer AEG said its decision to curb excessive drinking is an attempt to save the venerable event.

"We received significant complaints from neighbors and residents about people peeing, puking, and passing out on their doorsteps who were not registered to race but were there to take advantage of the event and stage an open street party at expense of the community," Singer told us. "Bay to Breakers will be 100 [years old] next year and, unless we take steps to ensure public safety, we are concerned for its future."

Drawing more than 100,000 spectators and racers annually, Bay to Breakers is one of the largest races in the world. Even greater than its size is the reputation it has garnered as one of the city's premier street parties, where revelers wear ridiculous costumes or sometimes nothing at all.

That reputation caused ING to pull out, announcing that it "evaluates its sponsorship programs and strategies to make sure they align with the goals of the business. The decision to not renew our sponsorship was based simply on ING's shifting priorities."

The company and others associated with the event last year tried unsuccessfully to ban kegs and glass bottles along with alcohol carried on floats. But opposition from participants and area Sup. Ross Mirkarimi saved the party.

Yet Singer said the outcome of the failed ban only strengthened organizers' conviction to prohibit alcohol in subsequent years. "After the ban was put forward, a negotiation between people who are the party element took place and we ultimately allowed alcohol that year," Singer said. "However, because alcohol was originally banned and the ban was later eased, the confusion contributed to having a safer experience. Most of the drinking element stayed away, which led us to realize we have to prohibit alcohol to keep a certain type of people away from the race."

That "certain type of people" who seek to uphold the lenient alcohol precedent last year banded together to form Citizens for the Preservation of Bay to Breakers. CPBB cofounder Edward Sharpless said the group considers the ban a simplistic distraction from AEG's gross mismanagement of an event whose biggest problems could be easily mitigated.

"They have no respect for the event and no interest in preserving the San Francisco tradition of Bay to Breakers," Sharpless said. "They have failed to provide an adequate amount of Porta Potties or set up appropriate barriers. It has nothing to do with booze or floats. They are merely trying to mask their incompetence by pointing the finger yet again."

According to the race website, AEG provided only 705 portable toilets last year. Although that number may be sufficient for the 30,000 racers, it proved too few for the more than 100,000-person event. Even Mayor Gavin Newsom last year ran in the event without registering, he told the San Francisco Chronicle.

"They just aren't addressing issues," Sharpless said. "Their mind-set has been to support only the 30,000 registered runners, and once those people have gone by it's everyone else's problem. It doesn't work like that."

Comments

I bought my home in SF because I love the culture of SF.

And to support this beautiful culture you sometimes have to deal with a few people passing out on your stoop once in a while. It is a choice. If I don't like it I can always leave and move to Walnut Creek.

There are many more homeowners like me than the ones complaining.

save b2b.

Posted by scott st home owner near alamo square on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 8:53 am

Exactly. Why move to Walnut Creek when Walnut Creek comes to your doorstep and pukes on it once a year?

Posted by Guest LD on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 9:43 am

That's such a tired old argument: "if you disagree with me, move to the suburbs". Just move the stupid race to Walnut Creek and the problem will be solved.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 11:11 am