95 replies to this topic

[Coreyburger]

Well said.

Perhaps one of the solutions to our policing crisis in the core is to have the cops from a rowdy individuals' municipality pick them up if they need to be arrested or fined. Once Saanich cops receive 30 calls a night to pick up their drunken residents and deal with the accompanying paperwork they'd begin to soften up on the issue of lending Victoria their excess fuzz on Friday/Saturday evenings (given that the hear no evil, see no evil mentality is obviously the attitude among Victoria's police departments).

Lovely idea, but a terrible precedent. For example, if a Canadian commits a crime in another country, it is a problem for that countries cops, not ours. I do agree that Saanich and Oak Bay need to realize that a good chunk of the people downtown are not Victoria residents and thus should help out, but your implementation isn't great.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Other countries? Will I soon need a passport to go to Saanich?

<jk>

[Holden West]

That's why I live in Victoria. Oak Bay has no extradition treaty but I face life in prison if I step across the border (I was wearing white shoes after labour day.)

[Nparker]

I do agree that Saanich and Oak Bay need to realize that a good chunk of the people downtown are not Victoria residents and thus should help out...

Hence my insistence on the amalgamation of services or better yet municipalities ASAP.

[Mike K.]

Lovely idea, but a terrible precedent. For example, if a Canadian commits a crime in another country, it is a problem for that countries cops, not ours. I do agree that Saanich and Oak Bay need to realize that a good chunk of the people downtown are not Victoria residents and thus should help out, but your implementation isn't great.

Somehow I doubt that sending a few cops from Saanich to help out Victoria cops on the weekends would cause an international policing crisis, but that's just me.

[Caramia]

As a Rockland resident, I think that Victoria police should be looking more closely at Holden West and his crimes. We are far too soft on such things this side of the curtain.

[Rob Randall]

The hearing continued this afternoon for four hours without resolution as Council is requesting access to additional e-mail correspondence. It will probably continue on Thursday. It was held informal-courtroom style with cross-examination of witnesses.

There were some interesting moments. On display was a sandwich-board-style display sign that begged Pita Pit customers to behave, saying "Let us roll you a big fattie so you can roll on home safely". The bylaw enforcement officer asked if the Pita Pit "condoned the consumption of marijuana cigarettes" and the owner replied that "big fattie" referred to the large, plump appearance of the establishment's pita wraps.

I addressed Council saying the conditions there are due to a perfect storm of circumstances:

• inability of taxi commission to find creative solutions to the problem of increased demand between 1-3 a.m.
• the nearby payphone
• the taxi stand outside Pita Pit
• the narrow sidewalks of Wharf that funnel people through this pedestrian arterial.
• the impossibility of having private security patrols due to the issue of public/private property rights.
• overworked police officers that are unable to effectively ticket and fine drunks and other violators as the bulk of the fines go directly to the Province, not the City (and the lack of other dis-incentives).
• overserving by the bars (and restaurants operating like bars).

I then said that Council cannot simply fine businesses into obedience.* Everyone must get together to come to a solution that is comprehensive and long-lasting.

*Non-profits like the needle exchange and Our Place wouldn't be hard pressed to pay fines if their activities were found to be a nuisance.

[G-Man]

What a freaking bizarre city we live in. You can legally operate a brothel (I mean escort agency); serve people so much booze that they crash into a wall killing themselves; and openly shoot heroin in the street but serve a pita full of chicken at 2am and you get hauled in front of a quasi-judge and get threatened with fines!

We need to get a grip here people. These are just businesses operating legally serving hungry people food.

Holy crap if no one can see just how ridiculous this is then they need to check their pills, they are taking the wrong ones or perhaps smoking one too many marijauna cigarettes.

I might add if these people were spending the whole night smoking marijauna the pita pit would be twice as busy but their wouldn't be any fighting so they should condone it.

[Ms. B. Havin]

G-Man's right. It's crazy that Pita Pit should pay the consequence of other places overserving booze to patrons.

Re. Rob Randall's weather report: the taxi stand and pay phone issue intrigue me. Wouldn't it help if both were moved further away from the Pita Pit?

As for fining businesses into obedience: the bars that are essentially filling patrons up with liquor between the hours of 11 or midnight and 2 a.m., filling 'em up quickly because they depend on volume of (cheap-ish?) booze to make their money (as opposed, say, to a pricier locale like Irish Times, which charges ~$7 for a pint [ouch!] and makes half its revenue in food service, vs. the bars, which make almost all their revenue in booze service): how about monitoring those places more closely and simply lifting their licenses for a week or a month if they can't clean up their act? That's much worse than a fine, which is laughed off.

Just to clarify: Rob wrote "Non-profits like the needle exchange and Our Place wouldn't be hard pressed to pay fines if their activities were found to be a nuisance." Don't you mean "would be hard pressed"? They have limited funds and would find it difficult. The bars that are making trouble, on the other hand, weigh paying a fine v. changing behaviour, and can easily do the math to conclude that paying the fine is a cakewalk. Fines are nothing compared to what they take in over a weekend of overserving.

[Holden West]

PITA PIT CUSTOMERS IN THE SPOTLIGHT AGAIN

C-FAX News
Jan 28, 2008

A LENGTHY PUBLIC HEARING AT VICTORIA CITY HALL MONDAY EXPLORED THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE 'PITA PIT' -- AND DOWNTOWN AFTER-HOURS ROWDINESS.

THE PITA PIT HAS BEEN TAGGED A 'NUISANCE' BUSINESS, MEANING IT COULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR POLICING COSTS WHEN OFFICERS ARE CALLED TO THAT SECTION OF WHARF STREET.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE BEING ASKED TO EITHER UPHOLD OR OVERTURN A CITY BYLAW STAFF RULING WHICH SLAPPED NUISANCE STATUS ON THE EATERY LAST SEPTEMBER.

COUNCIL LISTENED AND ASKED QUESTIONS MONDAY, BUT WON'T MAKE A DECISION UNTIL LATER NEXT WEEK -- LIKELY AT THE EVENING COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7th.

CITY COUNCILORS HEARD FROM SIX MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC -- FIVE OF WHOM THINK THE PITA PIT IS A NUISANCE, AND ONE WHO DOES NOT.

ONE OF THE FORMER WAS KEN KELLY, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE DOWNTOWN VICTORIA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION -- KELLY SAYS THIS IS A GROUND-BREAKING CASE, AND SAYS DOWNTOWN'S IMAGE MUST COME BEFORE THE INTERESTS OF A SINGLE BUSINESS.

"THERE IS THE LATE-NIGHT BOISTERISM AS A RESULT OF PEOPLE COMING OUT OF BARS," KELLY SAYS. "THEY GRAVITATE TO THE TWO FACILITIES DOWN THERE, 'PITA PIT' AND 'THE JOINT.' WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENSURE IS THAT THE BUSINESS PLANS HAVE AS LITTLE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ASSOCIATED BUSINESSES AS POSSIBLE."

KELLY SUPPORTS THE USE OF THE BYLAW, AND SAYS LATE-NIGHT ROWDIES REFLECT POORLY ON OUR CITY.

"WE'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH LIFE WITH CARROTS IN FRONT OF US ALL THE TIME, BUT AT TIMES, YOU'VE GOT TO BRING OUT THE STICK," SAYS KELLY.

PITA PIT OWNER IAN LAIRD SAYS HIS BUSINESS RELIES HEAVILY ON THE AFTER-BAR CROWD -- AND SAYS HE CAN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS OFF HIS PROPERTY.

SCOTT GURNEY SPEAKS FOR THE VICTORIA BAR AND CABARET ASSOCIATION -- HE SAYS THE PITA PIT IS NOT TO BLAME, BUT RATHER A TAXI STAND LOCATED IN FRONT OF IT.

"THERE'S A TAXI STAND RIGHT DOWNTOWN ON WHARF STREET THAT ATTRACTS A LARGE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS LATE-NIGHT THAT ARE CREATING A NOISE ISSUE FOR THE RESIDENTS AND HOTEL-STAYERS AT THE REGENT HOTEL," SAYS GURNEY. "WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A GREATER ISSUE TO LOOK AT ASIDE FROM JUST A LATE-NIGHT EATERY SUPPLYING A SERVICE THAT IS WITHIN CITIES AND TOWNS ALL ACROSS NORTH AMERICA."

GURNEY SAYS THE NOISE PROBLEMS HAVE MORE TO DO WITH THE PLACEMENT OF A TAXI STAND IN FRONT OF THE PITA PIT.

"WE NEED TO SUPPLY OUR DOWNTOWN-GOES MORE TAXIS AND MORE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE NEED TO SUPPLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS A SAFE RIDE HOME IN A TIMELY FASHION."

PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND STAY AT THE VICTORIA REGENT HOTEL ARE LOSING SLEEP, AND THE HOTEL IS LOSING GUESTS.

THE PITA PIT COULD BE SUBJECT TO HEFTY FINES IF THE NUISANCE TAG STICKS -- INCLUDING UP TO $200 PER HOUR FOR POLICING COSTS, AND A LARGE ADMINISTRATION FEE.

- IRELAND

[gumgum]

Column: Finger-pointing doesn't solve Wharf Street problems
Carolyn Heiman, Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Could more fingers be pointed during the seven-hour Pita Pit bun fight unfolding at Victoria City Hall?

Responsibility is under a microscope at a hearing to determine if the late-night eatery franchise is a "nuisance" under a city bylaw. In no particular order, Pita Pit representatives -- wanting to stave off bills for street-cleaning and any additional police trips to the area that erupts in chaos after bars close -- are blaming the following:

- Drunken people leaving bars.

- Bars serving too much alcohol to customers. No, make that all bars and restaurants in the area. Specifically named ones include The Sauce, The Joint, the defunct Boom Boom Room, Lucky Bar, Steamers (now closed), Irish Times, The Reef, Garrick's Head Pub and Darcy's Pub.

- Too few police officers.

- A taxi stand (said to be too close by).

- The Regent Hotel (whose occupants complain about the noise, making the hearing -- in the minds of some -- a business grudge), and -- get ready for this ...

- The proximity of a garbage can and a telephone booth.

Business owner Ian Laird, through his lawyer, stops at nothing to defend his position that he should not shoulder responsibility for what happens on the street. At one point his lawyer Greg Harney suggested a Victoria police officer wasn't truthful when she read a line from a police file as "unknown males went into the Pita Pit." That's because the synopsis included a typo, making the clause look like this: "unknown males went the tht Pita Pit."

The defence style can be likened to the gun lobby argument that repeats "guns don't kill people, people do" as a means of diverting the argument from core issues. It's the kind of statement that leads to the word truthiness. That's something that on an intuitive level might seem true but on closer examination of the facts is less so. The author of the word once said "Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."

Oversimplified, it's the "not my problem" argument and it's temptingly seductive when applied to the issue before council. Isn't it obvious that the Pita Pit can't be responsible for people on the street? Never mind that staff tell customers poised for fisticuffs to "go settle their issues in the street."

If dismissed as a bicker between the city and an owner of one of 200 franchise operations, then only the cost would make one flinch. Seven hours of hearings involved a lawyer for the city, two police officers, three staff from bylaw enforcement, some of the city manager's time and two other administrative staff. That's just the city's side and doesn't count time documenting the case, which isn't over.

But in many respects, the hearing gets at the heart of what it means to live in a civil society, and that includes a person's right to operate a legal business, a neighbour's right to consideration --indeed even sleep -- taxpayers' obligation to pay for the fallout of rowdy crowds, and the right of everyone to walk safely on the street without harassment or fear.

We want all of those things, yet they don't seem possible along Wharf Street. Which brings me to the statement: Just because something isn't wrong, doesn't make it right.

What's happening at Wharf Street -- and the Pita Pit is one small part of the problem -- isn't right. On a minuscule scale, it's not right that 81-year-old Renata Bohringer, a Regent Hotel resident, has to sleep upright in a chair because it is too noisy in her bedroom. (She's not the only resident complaining.) It's also not right to be lackadaisical about a situation in which omnipotent, alcohol-fuelled young people put their safety at risk in the volatile area. Personally, I would take my chances walking past someone shooting up along Cormorant Street before passing drunk rowdies on Wharf Street after bar closing. It is a matter of time before some fight -- probably triggered by ill-timed verbal jousting -- ends in tragedy in the area.

The fault will be pinned to a narrow legal point. Morally however, the blame will be spread a little further. For nine years the area's been a problem but none of the sides seems willing to find solutions to it.


© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

....

[G-Man]

^ in a civil society people obey laws and in this case no one from the Pita Pit has broken a law. The laws are being broken by the bar servers and the drunken patrons.

I truly hope they sue the city after the fight goes to the supreme court and the city loses.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Is being falling-down drunk in public or fist-fighting or disturbing the peace legal? If it isn't, why can't the police seriously fine the people who do these things? Not arrest them or lock them up, which just costs us more money. Fine them heavily instead...?

PS/edit: my point re. the fines is that they would at least bring money into city / policing coffers, whereas arresting people doesn't, and furthermore, it can be kinda fun to brag about getting arrested. Bragging about a $300 fine might not be so rewarding.

[Mike K.]

Let's add sailors falling over Wharf Street's barriers into this melee. I'm sure that's the Pita Pit's fault, too.

[Rob Randall]

Is being falling-down drunk in public or fist-fighting or disturbing the peace legal? If it isn't, why can't the police seriously fine the people who do these things? Not arrest them or lock them up, which just costs us more money. Fine them heavily instead...?

PS/edit: my point re. the fines is that they would at least bring money into city / policing coffers, whereas arresting people doesn't, and furthermore, it can be kinda fun to brag about getting arrested. Bragging about a $300 fine might not be so rewarding.

When I brought this very idea up with the police, they said that the majority of the money from fines goes directly to the Province, so there's little incentive unless it's a high priority. Cops are just too busy.

[Ms. B. Havin]

When I brought this very idea up with the police, they said that the majority of the money from fines goes directly to the Province, so there's little incentive unless it's a high priority. Cops are just too busy.

Can somebody look into that to find out if it's really true? I've heard differently. I also wouldn't be surprised if it's a matter of changing or introducing a bylaw (that would be council's job) to get the money to flow to the city instead. At any rate, it's totally ridiculous that the fines should go to the Province -- that must be fixable.

[gumgum]

City won't cut Pita Pit hours

Downtown late-night eatery a source of complaints, but evidence is lacking


Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist

Published: Saturday, February 16, 2008
There's not enough evidence for the city to force a Wharf Street late-night eatery to close early, Victoria councillors have decided.
The Pita Pit is popular with bar patrons who spill onto downtown streets late at night because it stays open until 4 a.m. The small business has no seating so people congregate in front.
That has sparked noise and nuisance complaints to city council from both police and some downtown neighbours. Council had sought to apply its newly amended nuisance bylaw against the Pita Pit restaurant.


Under its nuisance bylaw the city could order businesses to close earlier if they generate more than six nuisance complaints to police. As well, the owners could be billed the cost of that service.
"We felt there was not enough evidence for us to proceed by calling the Pita Pit a nuisance business at this point due to the fact we could not substantiate six of the 13 nuisance items brought before us," Mayor Alan Lowe said.
Under the bylaw, there has to be at lease six substantiated complaints within a calendar year for an outlet to be classified a business that has been causing nuisance.
"I think at the end of the day, council looked at the various incidences and said, 'Yes, there are a few of these that we could say are due to the Pita Pit,' but we couldn't find six of them and six was the magic number," Lowe said.
"I think that's bloody good news," said Greg Harney, a lawyer representing Pita Pit co-owner Ian Laird, when told of council's decision.
He said the nuisance bylaw needs to be reworked.
"I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have a nuisance bylaw but they are going to have to change it so it actually accomplishes what they want it to accomplish and they are going to have to apply it evenly across the board rather than singling out a business -- deciding they are a nuisance and then retroactively trying to prove it," Harney said.
Lowe said the city solicitor has been asked to review the bylaw to see where it might be changed "so there's less left open to interpretation."
bcleverley@tc.canwest.com


© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

....

[Rorschach]

It's a correct decision, but for the wrong reason. A nuisance is an unreasonable use of property that interferes with a reasonable use of property. Nothing Pita Pit is doing is a nuisance regardless of the bylaw. The drunks are the problem. The bars serving intoxicated patrons are the problem. The bad actor is the problem and the bad actor should be held responsible -- not the business the bad actor happened to go to just prior to acting out. Where did the bizzare reasoning that Pita Pit is responsible come from anyway?

Why not just prosecute the problem drunks who break the law? How difficult is the obvious solution? Is it any easier to prosecute Pita Pit for a nuisance bylaw? It's cheaper and more effective to just go to the effort of prosecuting rowdy drunks rather than letting them go without any charges as soon as they sober up -- which is the existing practice.

Maybe Pita Pit can go after the drunks civilly for the cost of their legal expenses. I'm sure the police wrote down the names of the drunks they arrested and released. Pita Pit should go ahead an sue the bad guys since the Crown refuses to pursue prosecution for criminal offenses. It's a slam dunk civil case and the obvious next legal move. It makes such sense and would get such play in the newspaper that the issue would by necessity be properly framed in the public eye.

[G-Man]

^ I agree. This was the right decision. However why 6 cases against the restaurant. I think they just knew that if they had actually tried to do it they would have been taken to court and lost whereas now they still have there bylaw on the books.

[VicHockeyFan]

I just spoke to our liquor inspector. He says that the late-night bar-dispersal trial (letting folks out as late as 3am, instead of 2:30) that ended in July will likely not continue. Apparently only two bars (us and one other) were interested in keeping it going. I'm pretty sure it made things a little more quiet around town, but then again, one guy still got murdered within the program's trial period.

He says other bars experience too much extra labour cost (with zero extra revenue) to justify it. That seems lame. An extra $75 or $100 a night (usually Friday and Saturday nights only) seems worth some sanity on the streets.