A proposal to extend Dunedin's central-city liquor ban to permanently include the North Dunedin student area will be considered once again by the Dunedin City Council this week, for at least the fourth time since 2006.
The ban was not supported by students from Castle and Leith Sts spoken to by the ODT yesterday, who called the idea ridiculous and said it would be impossible to enforce and would do nothing to change drinking culture in the area.
"It's a bad call, because that's [drinking in the streets] what we do," said one Hyde St resident.
"It's [street parties] one of the main attractions of coming here. It's the culture of it. If it wasn't like this we wouldn't come here, we would just stay in Auckland, so it's shooting themselves in the foot a bit."
Students in Castle and Leith Sts said a ban would force people back into houses where they would not be as safe drinking as they were outside where Campus Watch and police could keep an eye on them, and questioned how easy it would be for police to enforce it properly and whether it was just a revenue gathering exercise.
The proposal, which will be discussed by the planning and environment committee tomorrow, includes a recommendation that public submissions on the matter be sought later this month.
The committee will also consider reviewing the present liquor restrictions in the central city to add a requirement for police to warn people in the first instance, unless it is impractical to do so.
Liquor licensing and projects officer Kevin Mechen said in a report to the committee Dunedin only extended its 24-hour, seven-day central-city liquor restriction into North Dunedin when events that were likely to "lead to excessive alcohol consumption and subsequent street disorder" were expected.
However, some of these events were "impromptu" and occasionally organisers changed the times or deliberately avoided announcing the date too early, making it difficult for the city to respond.
The issue of extending the liquor ban has been regularly raised since 2004, and multiple requests to extend the ban to cover North Dunedin have been formally put to the council since 2006.
In 2004, hoteliers in the area suggested extending the ban to North Dunedin, but police did not support it as they did not have the staff to enforce it.
It was not until 2006, after vandalism and disorder in the area increased markedly, that police first raised the issue of an extension to the Liquor Bylaw 2004, but after consultation, the value of a ban was questioned.
Police area commander for Dunedin at the time Inspector Dave Campbell wrote to the mayor of Dunedin at least four times in the following years, asking that there be some public debate on the matter.
The idea was rejected each time it was considered, the reasoning given that, among other things, it was too intrusive on people not involved in causing disorder and other problems in the area, and, latterly, that time was still needed to gauge the effectiveness of Otago University's new security force, Campus Watch.
In 2008, after police requested the council reconsider the extension of the ban again, a questionnaire was sent to those mainly affected in North Dunedin to gauge support for the idea.
A range of responses was received and a health impact assessment was commissioned by Public Health South. It recommended a city-wide liquor ban should be implemented although there were concerns about its impact on quiet gatherings in parks and reserves.
In July last year, the University of Otago vice-chancellor and senior staff discussed the issue again and concluded a liquor ban should be extended to at least North Dunedin, if not the city generally, in order to complement a ban being introduced on campus.
Mr Mechen's report said police asked that the ban be extended to the area bounded by Queen St, Opoho Rd and Logan Park.
The only changes to the bylaw would be the insertion of a section detailing that it should only be used to address nuisance associated with drinking alcohol in public places and that police were to issue warnings on every occasion unless it was impractical to do so.
The report recommends the proposed extension go out to the public for submissions from February 25 to March 23 and that a hearing of the submissions should follow.
