Alcohol fueled violence

[Smurf1976]

Finally Matt Barrie says what everyone who actually lives in Sydney has been thinking. That gormless, weak ex-Premier O'Farrell has a lot to answer for for this short-sighted bit of stupidity. For the supposed party of small business, it's incredible how many small businesses they have sent to the wall.

Exempting the casino says all you need to know about this one. Looks pretty blatant that there's money involved....

That said, Sydney clubs were always too pretentious in my view (just my personal experience, a few years ago now though so maybe out of date). Always ended up having far more fun in other cities as the whole thing was just easier with less nonsense.

 

[McLovin]

Exempting the casino says all you need to know about this one. Looks pretty blatant that there's money involved....

That said, Sydney clubs were always too pretentious in my view (just my personal experience, a few years ago now though so maybe out of date). Always ended up having far more fun in other cities as the whole thing was just easier with less nonsense.

I'd say the exemption of the casino was more because the casino has a contact and would have sued the pants off the state governmet. No such luck for other businesses. The Cross was never a place I liked particularly much, but it was a part of Sydney and it is sad that it has been destroyed. Sydney, and Australia, is becoming so sanitised.

 

[SirRumpole]

King's Cross is a residential area. If you want clubs, pubs and entertainment venues then they would be better placed in the CBD where the overspill doesn't disturb residents who just want to sleep or have a quiet night.

 

[McLovin]

King's Cross is a residential area. If you want clubs, pubs and entertainment venues then they would be better placed in the CBD where the overspill doesn't disturb residents who just want to sleep or have a quiet night.

Kings Cross has been what it is for far longer than any residents of Kings Cross. If they don't like it they shouldn't have moved there. If you move under the flight path expect planes to fly over.

 

[SirRumpole]

Kings Cross has been what it is for far longer than any residents of Kings Cross. If they don't like it they shouldn't have moved there. If you move under the flight path expect planes to fly over.

Well, things change and it appears that the residents have won.

There should be little difference going to the CBD for entertainment than going to KC.

 

[McLovin]

Well, things change and it appears that the residents have won.

There should be little difference going to the CBD for entertainment than going to KC.

Great, another out-of-towner with NFI. The CBD is affected by the same lock-out laws.

The residents weren't asked. It was the NSW government not the City of Sydney that introduced the laws.

 

[SirRumpole]

Great, another out-of-towner with NFI. The CBD is affected by the same lock-out laws.

The residents weren't asked. It was the NSW government not that City of Sydney the introduced the laws.

So why do you think they did it ?

 

[Tisme]

Kings Cross has been what it is for far longer than any residents of Kings Cross. If they don't like it they shouldn't have moved there. If you move under the flight path expect planes to fly over.

I remember going there regularly on my trips to Sydney and it seemed to me to have residential as well as the theatres, hotels, etc. At one stage it was touted as one of the densest residential populations .... I wonder why

 

[SirRumpole]

. At one stage it was touted as one of the densest residential populations .... I wonder why

A lot of bogans lived there ?

 

[Value Collector]

Interesting article that's going viral at the moment.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/would-the-last-person-in-sydney-please-turn-the-lights-out/news-story/3ac474b2b168b029c5080f29d2e5510a

 

[SirRumpole]

Interesting article that's going viral at the moment.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/would-the-last-person-in-sydney-please-turn-the-lights-out/news-story/3ac474b2b168b029c5080f29d2e5510a

No wonder everyone’s apparently moving to Melbourne.

Of course if you read the linked article about people moving to Melbourne there is no mention of being able to get a drink after 10pm, the reasons are better planning, cheaper housing and better transport infrastructure.

I'm sure VC would appreciate the strawman argument there.

 

[Value Collector]

Of course if you read the linked article about people moving to Melbourne there is no mention of being able to get a drink after 10pm, the reasons are better planning, cheaper housing and better transport infrastructure.

I'm sure VC would appreciate the strawman argument there.

That's not really the part of the article I found interesting, more the death of Sydney nightlife, I don't go out late nights in the city as much as I used to ( I am more of a local club guy these days ), but I think a vibrant night life does a lot for a city.

it's just a little sad to see areas of Sydney dying, it's a hard topic I know, but I wonder if they have done the right thing.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's not really the part of the article I found interesting, more the death of Sydney nightlife, I don't go out late nights in the city as much as I used to ( I am more of a local club guy these days ), but I think a vibrant night life does a lot for a city.

it's just a little sad to see areas of Sydney dying, it's a hard topic I know, but I wonder if they have done the right thing.

My concern would be keeping the night life and residential areas separate which is why I favour the entertainment sector being close to the CBD, and in a fairly restricted area which is easier to patrol by police.

The CBD is well served by public transport which helps to keep drunks off the road.

I think we need a vibrant entertainment sector, but there is no reason why over consumption of alcohol needs to be an essential part of that. A lot of people want to go to the theatres and have dinner at restaurants without risking being hit on the head by drunks.

I think the fear of violence is as much a factor in small businesses shutting down due to lack of patronage than the lockout laws.

As in all cases, a compromise has to be reached.

 

[Smurf1976]

Nightlife in the CBD - agreed that it's a good location in principle but one problem is that in recent years councils and others have allowed, even encouraged, residential development in these otherwise commercial areas. You only need one lot of appartments and that makes the surrounding area problematic for anything noisy.

Sydney's Luna Park, a place not associated with drinking, is a case in point. The Park has been there a very long time, longer than most of us have been alive, but then someone came along and built appartments next door. No surprises for guessing what happened next - they tried to shut the amusement park down and did succeed in putting some restrictions on its operation.

So far as I'm concerned that is wrong in every way - clearly the appartments are poorly built if they didn't take existing land uses into account and properly sound proof them. Secondly it's just arrogant to move next to something very long established and then complain about aspects of its operation that would be very obvious to anyone who checked out the area before moving there. An amusement park makes some noise - no surprises there, that's what happens at such places.

So the problem of newly arrived residents versus existing businesses isn't unique to places serving alcohol although they are one of the issues.

As for Kings Cross, well I knew the reputation of that area well before becoming an adult and at a time when I'd never visited Sydney. It's reputation is very well known right around the country or at least it was before it all shut down. Anyone who moved there has only themselves to blame so far as noise and the nature of businesses in the area is concerned and ought to have no right to object. Same concept as anyone who chooses to buy a house next to an airport - you'd have to be an idiot to expect peace and quiet.

As for the economics of late night venues, I'm told (by someone who owns and runs nightclubs) that there are really two big changes comparing now with the past and they both produce the same outcome.

One is the widespread trend toward binge "pre-drinks" and the other is the use of certain illegal drugs which leads to people drinking less alcohol. Neither are particularly helpful if you're running a business which derives most of its revenue from selling alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Another point she's mentioned is that a lot of clubs are effectively discriminating against what would be their "medium" profit customers if they actually let them inside. They end up with a club full of those who won't bring much profit and those at the opposite end who want to become blind drunk. Whilst the latter obviously bring a lot of revenue, they also cause most of the trouble which is one of the things which has ultimately lead to the tough regulations and which, even without those regulations, still makes the business more costly and difficult to run (more security needed, far more likely to end up with police and licensing authorities taking a dim view of the place, etc).

There's a lot of issues here but personally I do think that the huge surge in the number and geographic spread of bottle shops is a factor. There's very easy availability of take away alcohol now and it accounts for the vast majority of alcohol sold these days. It has contributed to a change in the scene from "go out partying and have some drinks" to "the whole point is to get drunk, and it's cheaper to do that at home before going out".

I do see a need for some regulation where alcohol is concerned but I also think the wrong approach has been taken. Locking people out of clubs and sending them broke may get a few trouble makers off the surrounding streets but have no doubt that they're just drinking somewhere else instead where it's far harder to police and where any trouble quite likely won't be reported at all.

 

[SirRumpole]

I take your points Smurf with a couple of provisos.

1. The demand for and shortage of housing in Sydney especially is so chronic that any available land is prime real estate for housing development. Yes you may say that people have no right to complain if they buy near to "other uses" businesses but I think that always implies a reasonable standard of behavior from the patrons of those businesses. Residents should have a right to object to people urinating over their fences as they have a right to object if airport noise curfews are suddenly removed.

The character of our cities is changing due to massive population increases (which I disagree with) and places like Kings Cross and other quasi entertainment areas will be overtaken by demand for residential properties, like it or not.

2. It should be up to councils to require developers of housing or apartments to provide adequate insulation, resident parking and access to those residences separate from those of surrounding businesses so that various land users can live together without getting up the others noses.

There's a lot of issues here but personally I do think that the huge surge in the number and geographic spread of bottle shops is a factor. There's very easy availability of take away alcohol now and it accounts for the vast majority of alcohol sold these days. It has contributed to a change in the scene from "go out partying and have some drinks" to "the whole point is to get drunk, and it's cheaper to do that at home before going out".

This implies that lockouts may not be the prime cause for clubs etc going out of business. Whether the spread of bottle shops is good or not I have doubts about. I also have doubts about the wisdom of availability of alcohol in supermarkets. As I said, enjoyment does not necessitate getting pi$$ed out of one's mind all the time as you pointed out with the example of Luna Park.

Some other countries can get away with more alcohol consumption, because as has been pointed out before they use it to enhance conviviality whereas for some reasons Australians use it to enhance violence. Until we can change our drinking culture I think we need to run a damage minimisation strategy, and if that involves less alcohol being available, so be it.

 

[McLovin]

Nightlife in the CBD - agreed that it's a good location in principle..

Not all nightlife is the same. The nightlife in Newtown is very different to what's going on in the CBD and similarly I don't think we'd want brothels and street walkers on George Street, but they were fine in the X. Sydney is a city of almost five million people, it's a tad provincial to think we're going to have one area where everyone goes and everything else will be sleeper suburbs. In fact, the majority of people who live in the inner city do so because the neighbourhoods have, amongst other things, nightlife. Within spitting distance of me, I have seven or eight pubs. I love having them nearby, eat at them most nights during the week and drink there regularly.

Sydney's Luna Park, a place not associated with drinking, is a case in point. The Park has been there a very long time, longer than most of us have been alive, but then someone came along and built appartments next door. No surprises for guessing what happened next - they tried to shut the amusement park down and did succeed in putting some restrictions on its operation.

So far as I'm concerned that is wrong in every way - clearly the appartments are poorly built if they didn't take existing land uses into account and properly sound proof them. Secondly it's just arrogant to move next to something very long established and then complain about aspects of its operation that would be very obvious to anyone who checked out the area before moving there. An amusement park makes some noise - no surprises there, that's what happens at such places.

Absolutely. There is zero reason why someone living in an apartment or house anywhere in Sydney can't have complete silence with double glazing and half decent insulation. It happens in New York, London, Paris...any large city.

 

[Smurf1976]

Residents should have a right to object to people urinating over their fences as they have a right to object if airport noise curfews are suddenly removed.

Agreed there. But if the airport is existing, and then someone builds housing nearby, then that should not result in new restrictions on the airport in my view. Rather, the onus should be on the housing developers to build in a manner compatible with the existing surrounding environment which in this example includes noise from aircraft.

The character of our cities is changing due to massive population increases (which I disagree with) and places like Kings Cross and other quasi entertainment areas will be overtaken by demand for residential properties, like it or not.

It's a different subject but personally I don't see how there's anything gained to current residents, or Australia in general, by continuing to grow the population of Sydney in particular and also Melbourne.

They're already struggling with infrastructure etc, that's one problem. Then there's the issues with appartments crowding out other uses in the inner urban areas. And if we do add another million people to Sydney then what does that enable, in terms of critical mass, that the city doesn't have now? Where's the benefit?

Considering our current cities, my thought is that we'd gain if the population if Adelaide in particular were increased so as to obtain a greater critical mass in that city, which would make it more of a self sustaining economy with less reliance on a few key industries, but that we're not really gaining by adding more people to Sydney or Melbourne.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's a different subject but personally I don't see how there's anything gained to current residents, or Australia in general, by continuing to grow the population of Sydney in particular and also Melbourne.

They're already struggling with infrastructure etc, that's one problem. Then there's the issues with appartments crowding out other uses in the inner urban areas. And if we do add another million people to Sydney then what does that enable, in terms of critical mass, that the city doesn't have now? Where's the benefit?

Considering our current cities, my thought is that we'd gain if the population if Adelaide in particular were increased so as to obtain a greater critical mass in that city, which would make it more of a self sustaining economy with less reliance on a few key industries, but that we're not really gaining by adding more people to Sydney or Melbourne.

You are absolutely right, there is nothing to be gained by growing the population of our major cities. Doing so is a Ponzi scheme that will only end in tears for a lot of people unable to find housing or faced with inadequate public transport or other infrastructure.

The fact that governments have been conned by the business sector that they need more consumers, but don't want to employ them is one reason we are in a mess today.

However, I just state the facts that if the population is increasing rapidly they have to be housed somewhere, and they have a right to live peacefully unmolested by drunks or druggies.

But if the airport is existing, and then someone builds housing nearby, then that should not result in new restrictions on the airport in my view. Rather, the onus should be on the housing developers to build in a manner compatible with the existing surrounding environment which in this example includes noise from aircraft.

Yes, I agree with that, but the thread is about alcohol fuelled violence which is a different issue.

 

[Tink]

This probably comes from the Violence Royal Commission that was set up in Victoria, when they said, Nothing was being done.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30643&p=894954&viewfull=1#post894954

I would be quite happy to swap Premiers, you can have Daniel Andrews.

Isn't Baird from Melbourne.

 

[SirRumpole]

Violence in Sydney down due to lockout laws, NSW Premier Mike Baird says on Facebook

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...kout-laws-mike-baird-says-on-facebook/7152212

"Alcohol-related assaults have decreased by 42.2 per cent in the CBD since we introduced the 'lock-out laws'," Mike Baird said.

"And they're down by over 60 per cent in Kings Cross."

Mr Baird added that the number of small bars in Sydney has almost doubled in that same period.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore said she understood why some people were frustrated with the lockout laws.

"There are a lot of people in Sydney who like to go out late and they like to go out and socialise and meet their friends and listen to music and dance, and they should be able to," she said.

The Premier said his government would review the laws in coming months.

"But as I've said before, it is going to take a lot for me to change my mind on a policy that is so clearly improving this city," Mr Baird said.

Let’s start with a statistic about Sydney’s nightlife that matters: alcohol related assaults have decreased by 42.2 per cent in the CBD since we introduced the “lock-out laws”.

And they’re down by over 60 per cent in Kings Cross.

But… didn’t we achieve this by shutting down the whole city and killing its nightlife?

Well, one last statistic: the number of small bars in Sydney has more than doubled in the same time period.

There has been a growing hysteria this week about nightlife in Sydney.

The main complaints seem to be that you can’t drink till dawn any more and you can’t impulse-buy a bottle of white after 10pm.

I understand that this presents an inconvenience. Some say this makes us an international embarrassment.

Except, assaults are down by 42.2 per cent.

And there is nothing embarrassing about that.

From the outset, these laws have been about fixing a serious problem. Violence had spiralled out of control, people were literally being punched to death in the city, and there were city streets too dangerous to stroll down on a Friday night. The community was rightly outraged. I was personally outraged. I met face to face with the families of victims. You don’t need to see that sort of pain too often to realise there is a problem that needs fixing. And the Government was determined to act.

We introduced laws to curb violence and to eliminate drinking ghettos by redistributing the nightlife across the city, making the whole city more vibrant.

Now, some have suggested these laws are really about moralising. They are right. These laws are about the moral obligation we have to protect innocent people from drunken violence.

Doctors right across the city are now telling us that they are seeing far less emergency room presentations on the weekends. Transport workers are telling us that the trains are safer. Small bars and restaurants are opening across Sydney. And residents across the city, particularly women, are telling us they feel safer walking home at night.

At this stage, some of the evidence is anecdotal. But lots of hard data is starting to come in. And it is all telling a similar story.

Over the coming months a detailed review into the effects of the lock-out laws will be undertaken. I await this work with interest. But as I’ve said before, it is going to take a lot for me to change my mind on a policy that is so clearly improving this city.

Now some, who wish to define our city by one street on Kings Cross, make the hysterical claim that Sydney is dead.

They couldn't be more wrong. This is the greatest city in the world and it is now safer and more vibrant than ever.

Long Live Sydney.