Guns, no. Booze, yes.
Because of public pressure, Councilwoman [Laura] Freidman and her colleagues a few months ago decided to ban the “gun show” on public property because it sent the wrong message to the community, that the gun show was near the college in a residential neighborhood and the show sold guns and ammunition. However, according to our chief of police, in all the years the gun show was at the civic auditorium there never were any law and order problems.

Recently, Councilwoman Friedman told the public if we really want to get the wedding business, we need to make sure people should be able to serve alcohol on public property. Her colleagues all agreed.

Mrs. Friedman further stated, “It’s something that would be revenue generating.” In this writer’s opinion, that was the reason we needed to bend the established rules, we need the money to balance the budget. Wow! Another new fee!

There was no public outrage at city council to have sanctioned drinking on city owned property. Only long time community advocate Margaret Hammond spoke against the ordinance.

How many DUI driving arrests will follow? Who will monitor how many drinks one can have before that person gets behind the wheel with a buzz or inebriated and kills someone? What was the message our council members were telling our children? That public drinking is okay, because our city leaders said so. And most of all, we needed the revenue to pay for those unfunded and unsustainable city employees salaries and pensions.

Glendale City Council will now be competing with the small business merchants for the “party business.”

No gun show on public property, but public drinking on city owned property is okay. Who cares if the struggling small merchants have to compete with the powerful arm of the city?

Where were the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Crescenta Valley Drug and Alcohol Prevention Coalition, chamber of commerce or did nobody in the city really care?

Mike Mohill
Glendale