The Can Ban: let’s hammer out some of the details.
First, Texas State has agreed to put can-ban rules in Sewell Park that match whatever the city comes up with for the River Parks. So that’s good!
Next, there was a long bit on enforcement, by the City Marshal’s office. The City Marshal’s office has two sergeants, eight marshals, and two part-time park rangers. It was basically a big pitch on why we need to hire more marshals.
Here’s the main differences between marshals and park rangers:
- Marshals can arrest people, park rangers can just give minor citations.
- Marshals are hired fulltime, park rangers are just hired for the summer. During the off-peak months (ie during the school year), marshals help out SMPD.
- Marshals wear blue uniforms and look like cops, park rangers wear green uniforms and look like nerds. (Kidding! Sorry!)
That last point is the most important one: Marshals wear blue, rangers wear green.
So when it comes to the can ban, why do we need more Blue, instead of more Green? Here’s what it says on the slide:
Park rangers writing citations isn’t enough? We need law enforcement officers who can arrest people? This is ludicrous.
Alyssa asks if we could hire more park rangers, instead of marshals. She points out that we’re not planning on enforcing the can ban via arrests.
The answer given is that it’s very hard to hire park rangers, because they’re part time.
Surely the city can invent some sort of, idk, FULL TIME park ranger? If we are interested in finding ways not to over-police this town, we’d reach for Green Uniforms over Blue Uniforms when they’re equally qualified to do the job at hand.
Here’s the plain truth: the City Marshal’s office already wanted more marshals hired. (They said this explicitly.) They are using the can ban as an opportunity to lobby for the marshals they already wanted. It just rings a little phony to pretend that a can ban is a dangerous crisis that can only be solved with more cops.
Mark Gleason feels very strongly in favor of hiring more marshals, regardless of whether or not we pass the can ban. The whole presentation pulled at his heartstrings.
….
A few decision points for Council:
- Should it be a ban on single-use beverages, or all single-use containers?
The consensus is just beverages. I’m okay with this.
- Should it be on the river alone, or only in the parks, or should it be both river and parks?
Everyone thinks it must include the river.
One possibility is “go zones and no zones” – little carved out areas where you may have single-use beverages, like inside the playground at the children’s park, or inside the fence of the baseball fields, at the pool, or at picnic tables set back from the river. Everyone is open to the idea of go-zones/no-zones.
Coolers: should we limit cooler size?
No, we shouldn’t. Next question!!
Why would you even? New Braunfels limits cooler size, because they’ve got a tight exit on the river, and giant coolers cause tubing traffic jams. But that’s not our situation. We’ve got large multi-generational families holding large picnics. Are we really going to make Mom/Dad/Aunt/Uncle/Grandma each bring their individual cooler? That seems dumb as shit.
What does council think?
Jane Hughson: This is just another thing to enforce. But why does anyone need a giant cooler?
(See, she’s missing the bit about large groups bringing one big cooler.)
Mark Gleason: Yes on limiting cooler size. 30 quart limit for both river and the parks.
He means this:
So you are not going to be able to bring your big tray of shredded pork for sandwiches, or your tub of potato salad, or much of anything.
Seriously: this is more about shutting down big family gatherings than about controlling litter. Maybe Council doesn’t intend that, but that’s the effect. It’s kinda racist and classist because the river parks are a free way to have large, inter-generational family gatherings.
Matthew Mendoza: 30 quarts on the river, no restrictions for coolers in the parks.
(I’d be okay with that.)
Alyssa Garza: No restrictions anywhere.
(and this.)
Saul Gonzales: 30 quarts in both the river and the parks.
Jane Hughson: If we say 1 cooler per person, can two people bring a 60 quart cooler?
No one answers.
Jane: Okay, I’ll say 30 quarts in both river and parks, too.
So there you have it: 3-2 for banning big coolers, both in the river and in the parks. (Shane Scott and Jude Prather are both absent.)
Note: the amendment that Alyssa or Matt should offer is to tag coolers to the “go zones”. In go-zones, you can have your big cooler. In no-zones, you can’t.
What about jello shots?
The way New Braunfels banned jello shots was by banning containers that hold less than 5 oz.
Everyone likes this, besides Alyssa, who says she needs to go talk to her constituents.
My two cents: sure, ban the jello shots and mini-liquor bottles. These seem like single use beverage containers to me, anyway.
When should this go into effect?
Everyone wants to aim for this summer, instead of waiting for 2025.
The next step is for staff to write up a proposed policy, and bring it to city council for a vote.
WE’RE DOING THIS! STAY TUNED!
The San Marxist 