Are $2,000 Fines Unconstitutional?

[This post was originally published February 25, 2010, and Hoboken411 holds the same beliefs in 2011 – read on…]

Bait and Switch? Entrapment?

The whole debacle with the Hoboken St. Patrick’s Parade, and the ensuing community outrage, crazy parties, quality of life disruption, along with the ridiculous fines for drinking on the street or “unruly” behavior has been bugging me for a while.

For one, the city is encouraging both residents and visitors to come to Hoboken and celebrate the St. Patrick’s parade. It’s known that St. Patrick and alcohol consumption are synonymous. In other words, they’re promoting a citywide party that involves the imbibing of alcohol (and of course to celebrate the historic tradition of St. Patrick’s Day, our unique parade, associated festivities, and so on.)

The city of Hoboken is also known for the many bars that are packed into the mile square city, and has it’s fair share of booze-related issues each week. However, not to the enormous scale of a synchronized drinking event shared by tens of thousands of individuals on the first Saturday of March.

Encouraging thousands of people to ingest a substance known to cause bad behavior, violence, accidents and even death – but then fining them excessive amounts of money for the mistakes they have a higher statistical chance of making is just plain wrong in my opinion.

What is the purpose of the $2000 fine?

The Hoboken city government will try to tell you to your face that these fines are designed to be a “deterrent” for unacceptable behavior.

But as hard as we try, good judgment or awareness cannot be realistically expected for 100% of the participants – especially since there will be so many of them, including some undesirables, as well as “wet behind the ear” newbies who still have many life lessons to learn.

It’s obvious that the city is raising these fines to compensate for their own budget mismanagement – or to put it more directly – as a direct source of revenue (i.e., a hidden tax).

Two years ago, the city collected over half a million dollars in fines – and city officials must be drooling at the easy opportunity to add more money to city coffers.

Unconstitutional? Punishment fitting the crime?

411 note: If there are any lawyers out there looking for something to do – I’d suggest that a possible class-action suit against the city of Hoboken be considered for current and past fines issued.

The Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

A $2000 fine for walking on the sidewalk with an open can of Budweiser is most certainly an “excessive fine.” Especially considering that the fine for drinking and driving (DUI) – is considerably less – and much more of an offense. So at least we have a precedent or existing law to compare this to.

I’ve said this before – and will say it again: Public humiliation is much more of a deterrent to violating the law than a couple thousand dollar fine. An eight hour community service punishment and publication of the identity of the offending individual would work wonders. Perhaps make them walk (and clean) the sidewalks with bright orange (or green) t-shirts that say “Hoboken St. Patrick’s Parade Offender.” The shame and embarrassment would be enough to make most people think twice before committing that offense again. Showing photos and videos of previous offenders months before the next St. Patrick’s Parade would help going forward.

Any alternatives that make everyone happy?

If the city wants to have a big annual alcohol-infused party, some folks have suggested even relaxing the public drinking and intoxication laws.

  • Similar to how it’s done during Mardi Gras in New Orleans each year. Make a large designated area of Hoboken the “free drunk party zone” (say Washington Street – from Observer to 8th Street). This might help reduce the number of house-parties, bring more people to the city, etc.
  • Another idea is to build large Plexiglas “sobering chambers” where police can hold excessively drunk and problematic revelers for public display until they sober up. But since when is City Hall transparent?
  • Lastly, and the most extreme of all choices – is to eliminate Hoboken’s traditional St. Patrick’s celebration altogether – and celebrate it when everyone else already does – on March 17th. But this would impact the quality of performers and attendees, which would be a huge disappointment for the community.

How do you feel about the “excessive fines?” Or the parade in general?

Here’s a brief news segment from Eyewitness News which talks about the crackdown – but doesn’t go into details on what other remedies can be found to alleviate the problem, or whether the city has a right to levy such ridiculously high fines… like we’re supposed to simply accept them?

Enjoy the day nonetheless!

106 Responses

  1. MidnightRacer says:

    Sorry, I erred. The Eight Amendment does include the Excessive Fines Clause.

    “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”

  2. rightnyer says:

    Easy-e’s diatribes aren’t even worth responding to. He clearly has no sense of proportion, and evinces a very juvenile attitude. Grow up.

    • mooshu says:

      I disagree. Easy-E is right.

      If you don’t like the fines, then STFO of the line of fire. It’s really that simple.

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      Easy-e’s diatribes aren’t even worth responding to. He clearly has no sense of proportion, and evinces a very juvenile attitude. Grow up.

      • rightnyer says:

        You do realize that people who have had open containers on PRIVATE PROPERTY have received tickets too, don’t you? Are you a communist that doesn’t believe in private property rights? I DO stay out of the line of fire. But that doesn’t mean that I am unable to recognize when a fine is unjust. You and your ilk are basically positing that the ends justify the means. I suppose you are free to take that position, but don’t be surprised when that principle comes to bite you in the behind sometime.

        In response to mooshu who said:

        I disagree. Easy-E is right.

        If you don’t like the fines, then STFO of the line of fire. It’s really that simple.

      • mooshu says:

        Thaaaat’s too bad.

        Listen, I don’t like the rules, sometimes. And I like a nice cold drink. But this was a one-time rule. And if I were stupid as f*ck, I would have broken it and gotten a $2,500 fine.

        However, I didn’t.

        Do we understand each other, now? I’m all for justice in the world and a humanity-orgy and all that jazz, BUT I stand by the concept of common sense even more.

        In response to rightnyer who said:

        You do realize that people who have had open containers on PRIVATE PROPERTY have received tickets too, don’t you? Are you a communist that doesn’t believe in private property rights? I DO stay out of the line of fire. But that doesn’t mean that I am unable to recognize when a fine is unjust. You and your ilk are basically positing that the ends justify the means. I suppose you are free to take that position, but don’t be surprised when that principle comes to bite you in the behind sometime.

  3. rightnyer says:

    You’ve also badly misconstrued the meaning of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which does not occur in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence, a document that carries no legal weight.

  4. rightnyer says:

    And yes, I don’t disagree that the fine is effective. But then again, it would also be effective to sentence shoplifters to life in prison. It would also be effective to decrease drug use by making possession of heroin a mandatory capital offense, as is done in many countries in Southeast Asia. But our Western system of law requires proportionality.

  5. rightnyer says:

    mooshu, I agree with you that anyone who broke the rules exercised very poor judgment. They were stupid. I acknowledge that. But you could also say the same about the guy who was sentenced to life in prison for stealing golf clubs because he already had two felonies (three strikes law). I exercise common sense, and you say you do as well. But that doesn’t mean that people who lack the ability to exercise good judgment should be punished far in excess of what they do wrong. Open container is a VICTIMLESS crime, and this is especially so when it takes place on private property. I have no problem levying this fine against people who urinate in public. But equating open container with public urination is just patently stupid. The fact is, this parade is one day a year. The “residents” should get over it.

    • Easy-E says:

      We live here, we pay taxes, we spend a good part of our paychecks at local businesses, and we elect the folks who write the laws. We have to live with your stupid little party and the aftermath and a lot of people don’t like it. As a result, the fine was set to $1000 last year or the year before, I forget. It had little effect, so they raised it to $2000.

      If someone was fined improperly, they can tell it to a judge. You realize of course that you don’t have to pay the cops right? You have to go to court, plead your case and maybe win, maybe lose. Either way there is a process, so quit being so dramatic.

      People were warned, they had a big flashing sign at the PATH train for 2 weeks prior. It was on the TV News, it was in the papers, EVERYONE KNEW THE DEAL. House parties, public drinking and bad behavior would be strictly dealt with. So now after the fact, boo-hoo, I’m special, I shouldn’t get fined. You people don’t care about the constitutionality of the fine, you’re looking for a loophole. Good luck.

      The parade is once per year, the fine for shenanigans and open containers is $2000, visitors should just get over it or not come back.

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      mooshu, I agree with you that anyone who broke the rules exercised very poor judgment. They were stupid. I acknowledge that. But you could also say the same about the guy who was sentenced to life in prison for stealing golf clubs because he already had two felonies (three strikes law). I exercise common sense, and you say you do as well. But that doesn’t mean that people who lack the ability to exercise good judgment should be punished far in excess of what they do wrong. Open container is a VICTIMLESS crime, and this is especially so when it takes place on private property. I have no problem levying this fine against people who urinate in public. But equating open container with public urination is just patently stupid. The fact is, this parade is one day a year. The “residents” should get over it.

      • matt_72 says:

        The only problem I had w/ how they dealt w/ St. Patty’s Day is they don’t enforce things like jaywalking & open container laws more often. The city could write a ton of tickets by the PATH daily if they wanted to. And over on the fishing piers, how many open containers you think are over there on any given weekend when the weather is nice? Not at all a fan of selective enforcement especially when it is focused on non-residents. The same standards should be enforced against everyone every single day.

        In response to Easy-E who said:

        We live here, we pay taxes, we spend a good part of our paychecks at local businesses, and we elect the folks who write the laws. We have to live with your stupid little party and the aftermath and a lot of people don’t like it. As a result, the fine was set to $1000 last year or the year before, I forget. It had little effect, so they raised it to $2000.

        If someone was fined improperly, they can tell it to a judge. You realize of course that you don’t have to pay the cops right? You have to go to court, plead your case and maybe win, maybe lose. Either way there is a process, so quit being so dramatic.

        People were warned, they had a big flashing sign at the PATH train for 2 weeks prior. It was on the TV News, it was in the papers, EVERYONE KNEW THE DEAL. House parties, public drinking and bad behavior would be strictly dealt with. So now after the fact, boo-hoo, I’m special, I shouldn’t get fined. You people don’t care about the constitutionality of the fine, you’re looking for a loophole. Good luck.

        The parade is once per year, the fine for shenanigans and open containers is $2000, visitors should just get over it or not come back.

  6. Stpaddygirl says:

    Was at the Belmar Parade Sunday and people were walking around drinking beer openly on the streets in front of the police. Pretty tame day the bars were crowded but in control. Looking forward to the Morristown Parade this Saturday…

    • homeworld says:

      Seaside Heights is the same way. Everyone drinks out in the open and is under control.

      In response to Stpaddygirl who said:

      Was at the Belmar Parade Sunday and people were walking around drinking beer openly on the streets in front of the police. Pretty tame day the bars were crowded but in control. Looking forward to the Morristown Parade this Saturday…

  7. rightnyer says:

    A loophole for what? The law is of no consequence to me personally. You just don’t get it. You’re repeating the same tired cliches over and over again.

    As for the judge, he is elected too, and is thus, not impartial. The reason no one challenges the fines is because it’s not worth the cost of paying a lawyer. If anyone did, I can almost guarantee it would not stand.

    • mooshu says:

      I smelleth sour grapes.

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      A loophole for what? The law is of no consequence to me personally. You just don’t get it. You’re repeating the same tired cliches over and over again.

      As for the judge, he is elected too, and is thus, not impartial. The reason no one challenges the fines is because it’s not worth the cost of paying a lawyer. If anyone did, I can almost guarantee it would not stand.

    • Easy-E says:

      First you ask Mooshu if she’s a Communist, now the Judge isn’t impartial at all, she’s an Activist Judge.

      What next? Hitler/Nazi references? You came close with “don’t be surprised when that principle comes to bite you in the behind sometime.”

      First they came for the people having House Parties, and I did not speak out—because I don’t have House Parties;

      Then they came for the people pissing on the street, and I did not speak out—because I do not pee on the street;

      Then they came for the people with open containers, and I did not speak out—because I leave my beer inside;

      Then they came for me, an annoying blogger—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      A loophole for what? The law is of no consequence to me personally. You just don’t get it. You’re repeating the same tired cliches over and over again.

      As for the judge, he is elected too, and is thus, not impartial. The reason no one challenges the fines is because it’s not worth the cost of paying a lawyer. If anyone did, I can almost guarantee it would not stand.

  8. rightnyer says:

    There’s no sour grapes here. I have never received any citation for anything in my life. However, from what I’ve heard in the past, the judge has just blanket handed down the maximum fine to everyone. That reeks of activism, especially in light of the legislative history, with several members of the City Council stating clearly that the maximum fine should be reserved for the most egregious of offenses. Of course the judge is elected on the local level, and has the incentive to placate the busy body residents among us. And yes, someone who thinks that drinking outside on PRIVATE property should be a violation does not respect private property rights. It’s that simple.

    Easy-e, are you a Catholic? How would you feel if I passed a law that made it illegal to play bingo out in public?

    • getz76 says:

      You can try to fool some of us, but you cannot fool yourself Ms. Sour Grapes. Just beg for mercy from the judge and hope you get the fine slashed.

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      There’s no sour grapes here. I have never received any citation for anything in my life. However, from what I’ve heard in the past, the judge has just blanket handed down the maximum fine to everyone. That reeks of activism, especially in light of the legislative history, with several members of the City Council stating clearly that the maximum fine should be reserved for the most egregious of offenses. Of course the judge is elected on the local level, and has the incentive to placate the busy body residents among us. And yes, someone who thinks that drinking outside on PRIVATE property should be a violation does not respect private property rights. It’s that simple.

      Easy-e, are you a Catholic? How would you feel if I passed a law that made it illegal to play bingo out in public?

    • Easy-E says:

      No I am not Catholic, close enough though. I wouldn’t care, I don’t play bingo. Why would they ban bingo being in public? Does it make you act like an asshole, piss on someone’s stoop, pick fights, vomit, yell profanity at the top of your lung and throw your trash all over the place and make you a danger to everyone if you drive after? No? Well, then, no they shouldn’t ban it in public.

      You keep talking about people who were ticketed on private property. Who was fined and exactly what were they doing and where were having they at the time?

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      There’s no sour grapes here. I have never received any citation for anything in my life. However, from what I’ve heard in the past, the judge has just blanket handed down the maximum fine to everyone. That reeks of activism, especially in light of the legislative history, with several members of the City Council stating clearly that the maximum fine should be reserved for the most egregious of offenses. Of course the judge is elected on the local level, and has the incentive to placate the busy body residents among us. And yes, someone who thinks that drinking outside on PRIVATE property should be a violation does not respect private property rights. It’s that simple.

      Easy-e, are you a Catholic? How would you feel if I passed a law that made it illegal to play bingo out in public?

  9. rightnyer says:

    Yeah, okay, getz. Personally, I think that everyone should gets the fine should just not pay it. Let NJ put out a warrant for out of state resident’s arrests. Let’s see Maryland or Georgia extradite someone for this nonsense.

  10. getz76 says:

    Ms. Sour Grapes, just pay your fine. Or do not. It is up to you.

  11. rightnyer says:

    getz76, you’re like a little kid sticking your finger in your ear, screaming “La la la, I can’t hear you.”

  12. rightnyer says:

    “Does it make you act like an asshole, piss on someone’s stoop, pick fights, vomit, yell profanity at the top of your lung and throw your trash all over the place and make you a danger to everyone if you drive after? No? Well, then, no they shouldn’t ban it in public.”

    I don’t disagree with you about any of that! I fully support the fines for picking fights, public urination, screaming like an ass, throwing trash all over, and causing a dangerous condition. My point of contention is ONLY WITH the open container rule. Fighting, public urination, and throwing trash all have a victim or victims. Having a cup of beer does not. As for the private property, I have heard multiple instances of people being cited for open container for drinking on their front stoop (private property).

    • Easy-E says:

      Fair enough.

      I’m pretty sure that you can’t drink an open container on your front stoop any time of the year. Anyone know what the law is that applies to that area? It could very well be that you can’t even do it in your front yard if you are in full view of passers-by.

      No one wants to see their neighbor getting tanked in front of their house.

      Think about that for a moment… Maybe you haven’t lived in the Hoboken/NYC area long enough to know what I am talking about. Sure, NOW it’s all gentrified and full of yuppies. It wasn’t long ago that the sort of folks that think the front stoop is a great place to drink aren’t the sort you want out there until all hours of the day and night getting progressively more and more drunk. The whole street will hear everything going on, and who wants to deal the guy up the street who gets drunk and yells into his cell phone on his stoop 4 nights out of the week in the summer just because he likes to be outside?

      In response to rightnyer who said:

      “Does it make you act like an asshole, piss on someone’s stoop, pick fights, vomit, yell profanity at the top of your lung and throw your trash all over the place and make you a danger to everyone if you drive after? No? Well, then, no they shouldn’t ban it in public.”

      I don’t disagree with you about any of that! I fully support the fines for picking fights, public urination, screaming like an ass, throwing trash all over, and causing a dangerous condition. My point of contention is ONLY WITH the open container rule. Fighting, public urination, and throwing trash all have a victim or victims. Having a cup of beer does not. As for the private property, I have heard multiple instances of people being cited for open container for drinking on their front stoop (private property).

  13. rightnyer says:

    I definitely see your point, but I think it’s a slippery slope. There’s a lot of things one could do outside that other people might not want to see. Selectively banning what people can do on private property (obviously, excluding things like throwing objects at another house or person) is a problem, in my opinion. But yes, the law isn’t any different on St. Patrick’s, it’s just more heavily enforced. I haven’t found any conclusive evidence as to how the courts have construed the open container code, e.g. whether it applies on private property.

    My solution would be if someone is drunk and screaming, cite them for being disorderly. If someone is outside on their stoop drinking a glass of wine quietly, they’re not disturbing anyone. It’s the same with states changing the drinking age to 21 to combat drunk driving. It would be a lot easier and fairer to simply more aggressively target drunk drivers.

  14. truth1 says:

    If you received a summons, consider obtaining the services of a local attorney who is willing to represent you at a reasonble rate. Check the local papers….

    • rightnyer says:

      I didn’t receive a summons, which is a good thing for Hoboken, as I have enough legal resources to force the city to spend several hundred thousand on legal fees.

      In response to truth1 who said:

      If you received a summons, consider obtaining the services of a local attorney who is willing to represent you at a reasonble rate. Check the local papers….

      • verf1 says:

        Having just re-read the thread here, I just wanted to add a few things that I learned while fighting my fine last year.

        1. The municipal court judge is appointed, not elected.

        The Qualifications to Become a Municipal Court Judge

        “Attorneys who are New Jersey residents and have practiced law for at least five years may be appointed to three year terms as Municipal Court Judges by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the council, or in some cases by the governing body. In joint Municipal Courts, which are courts serving more than one municipality, the appointment is made by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. Municipal Court Judges do not have tenure and are not subject to a mandatory retirement age, characteristics which distinguish them from other Judges in the Judiciary. The majority of the State’s Municipal Court Judges serve only part-time and, as a result, are able to maintain private law practices, subject to the Rules of Court.”

        2. New jersey State Constitution Article I, paragraph 12

        “Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines shall not be imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. It shall not be cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death penalty on a person convicted of purposely or knowingly causing death or purposely or knowingly causing serious bodily injury resulting in death who committed the homicidal act by his own conduct or who as an accomplice procured the commission of the offense by payment or promise of payment of anything of pecuniary value.”

        In response to rightnyer who said:

        I didn’t receive a summons, which is a good thing for Hoboken, as I have enough legal resources to force the city to spend several hundred thousand on legal fees.

      • getz76 says:

        Right. Several hundred thousand. I bet.

        In response to rightnyer who said:

        I didn’t receive a summons, which is a good thing for Hoboken, as I have enough legal resources to force the city to spend several hundred thousand on legal fees.

      • rightnyer says:

        You apparently haven’t seen any legal bills in a while.

        In response to getz76 who said:

        Right. Several hundred thousand. I bet.

      • getz76 says:

        Actually, I saw about six this month from a big, international firms. In aggregate, they were less than $100,000.

        If you insist on being ridiculous, people expand on how you will rack up several hundred thousands of dollars of legal bills for a municipal citation for $2,000. Good luck finding a judge that would not throw you out of his or her court.

        In response to rightnyer who said:

        You apparently haven’t seen any legal bills in a while.

    • animal_lover says:

      I am thinking that one good law suit will wipe out any attempts of the administration to pad the budget.

      I will take a person drinking on the street any day over those locals who make it unsafe to walk or drive in Hoboken on a regular basis. For instance those who regularly run stop signs in town while talking on their cell phones, aggressive tailgaters, those who hound you regarding a parking spot, bike riders riding against traffic and on side walks, and aggressive strollers pushed aginst my shins or heels on the sidewalk. Yes the average person drinking in public is a lot less offensive and more safe than these more dangerous people on a day to day basis.
      [quote comment=”188514″]If you received a summons, consider obtaining the services of a local attorney who is willing to represent you at a reasonble rate. Check the local papers….[/quote]

  15. rightnyer says:

    It’s very simple. You could go to federal court and ask for a restraining order, saying that the fine violates the 8th Amendment. You could also allege violations of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause by showing evidence that the DA in recent years has sought the maximum fine for everyone without regard to the nature of the violation. Then, if the violation occurs on private property, you file a 1983 claim against the city and officers individually, alleging violations of the 4th Amendment’s search and seizure provision. Etc. etc. Defending this stuff costs money, whether a court would entertain it or not.

  16. xtreme says:

    The point I was trying to make with the “waterboarding” comment is that “the means do no justify the end.” Just because something is effective doesn’t mean its necessarily right. Conceptually, its the same issue. I think rightnyer summarized everything every nicely.

    What I WOULD like to know is whether these fines apply throughout the year.

    DISCLAIMER – I was not trying to offend. Just make a point.

  17. emarche says:

    Public humiliation is a great idea, but it could arguably fall under the whole “cruel & unusual punishment” umbrella and so it’s not really an option.

    Here’s my suggestion: ban the St. Patty’s parade for one year. Cancel the whole thing. Let the idiots go over to the city for their drunken shenanigans, but we’ll sit this one out. While we’re at it, get rid of ONE of the ‘Hoboken Music & Arts Festivals’. Use the savings from both events to throw ONE kick-ass parade/event that has decent security and something other than the usual mozzarella-in-an-arepa/corn-on-a-stick/poorly-perpared-sausage-and-peppers bullshit food vendors or the awful ‘I painted/knitted/filled-this-glass-bottle-with-pretty-colored-sand myself!’ garbage.

    Turn it into a meaningful event, a source of pride for the town. Something unique, something fun, something actually worth going to rather than simply providing an excuse for Friday night to show up Saturday-day or lousy vendors with lousy crap to make a few extra bucks shilling their shoddy wares.

    Where was I? Punishing the offenders? Put ’em up against the wall and shoot. Works in China.

  18. Anneliese22 says:

    **This is not intended in any way to be a political comment about Dawn Zimmer.** It was better last year with the porta-potties, an idea I do believe came from Dawn Zimmer. I noticed that having places for the drunk people to pee that didn’t involve trying every store in town, only to be told the bathroom is closed even when the drunk person was willing to buy something, cut down on a lot of the angst of the drunk people. I felt it was unfair in years past for, say, Starbucks employees to just decide that the bathroom is closed to everyone, even paying drunk parade patrons, because they don’t feel like cleaning it at the end of the night. Kings did this also, as well as many other businesses. The city should ban that practice, with or without the porta-potties.

    The amount of the tickets has gotten insane. The HPD has to be careful giving them out, too, since they are so high. Two years ago I believe H411 did a story of a person on 13th that caught a “green shirt” peeing on his lawn, chased him, lost a crox, called the HPD, only to be given a ticket himself since the “green shirt” denied peeing and the resident was in a rage. Also, if the bars throw out the drinkers after a certain amount of time, and there is a line to get into another bar, where is the drunk person supposed to go to avoid a public intoxication ticket?

    • youme66 says:

      No, Dawn Zimmer didn’t come up with the porta-potty idea. Parades have been using those for years and I remember a fight in front of the porta-potty by the bank at 4th & Washington in 2009. That was before Zimmer was mayor. The line of drunks in front of that toilet were disgusting and the stench from it was revolting. We passed by that scene as quickly as possible, took the PATH into the city and stayed until Sunday night.[quote comment=”203742″]**This is not intended in any way to be a political comment about Dawn Zimmer.** It was better last year with the porta-potties, an idea I do believe came from Dawn Zimmer. I noticed that having places for the drunk people to pee that didn’t involve trying every store in town, only to be told the bathroom is closed even when the drunk person was willing to buy something, cut down on a lot of the angst of the drunk people. I felt it was unfair in years past for, say, Starbucks employees to just decide that the bathroom is closed to everyone, even paying drunk parade patrons, because they don’t feel like cleaning it at the end of the night. Kings did this also, as well as many other businesses. The city should ban that practice, with or without the porta-potties.The amount of the tickets has gotten insane. The HPD has to be careful giving them out, too, since they are so high. Two years ago I believe H411 did a story of a person on 13th that caught a “green shirt” peeing on his lawn, chased him, lost a crox, called the HPD, only to be given a ticket himself since the “green shirt” denied peeing and the resident was in a rage. Also, if the bars throw out the drinkers after a certain amount of time, and there is a line to get into another bar, where is the drunk person supposed to go to avoid a public intoxication ticket?[/quote]

  19. animal_lover says:

    wait, wait…”act like an asshole, piss on someone’s stoop, pick fights, vomit, yell profanity at the top of your lung and throw your trash all over the place” this sounds like Zimmer initiated activities – whether through her press releases or lack of administration of the city sanitation.

  20. elainetyger says:

    They should stop running extra NJ Transit trains to bring people to and from the parade. If they had to drive, they wouldn’t drink as much, especially if you publicize about checkpoints in and out of the city that day. Also put it on a Wed. night like the Memorial Day parade instead of a Sat. afternoon. If Wed. night is good enough for dead soldiers who defended this country, it should be good enough for any other nationality’s religious icons.

    • homeworld says:

      And then you’d hear complaints that NJ Transit doesn’t run enough trains and the trains are so crowded that it’s a safety hazard…

      Plus more trains means less drunks on the roads.[quote comment=”203752″]They should stop running extra NJ Transit trains to bring people to and from the parade. If they had to drive, they wouldn’t drink as much, especially if you publicize about checkpoints in and out of the city that day. Also put it on a Wed. night like the Memorial Day parade instead of a Sat. afternoon. If Wed. night is good enough for dead soldiers who defended this country, it should be good enough for any other nationality’s religious icons.[/quote]

    • bluhorshu says:

      Lighten up.[quote comment=”203752″]They should stop running extra NJ Transit trains to bring people to and from the parade. If they had to drive, they wouldn’t drink as much, especially if you publicize about checkpoints in and out of the city that day. Also put it on a Wed. night like the Memorial Day parade instead of a Sat. afternoon. If Wed. night is good enough for dead soldiers who defended this country, it should be good enough for any other nationality’s religious icons.[/quote]

Leave a Reply,