Ok, been awhile since I last visited (I couldn't find the forums link and thought they'd been removed
), but I do still believe this is something that should happen and would benefit all involved.
Originally Posted by lxman93
I've had this discussion several times with a friend of mine who is a Sgt. for SMPD. The city has looked at the tax revenue generated by 2 more hours of alcohol sales versus the amount of money they would have to pay the officers to enforce the additional 2 hours. The city would be loosing money. I think the figure in increased revenue per year was around 24,000 dollars. That isn't jack for the amount of revenue needed to pay overtime and added officers it would take to patrol that extra 2 hours for a year. So, the property tax payers would have to make up the difference. Who are the property tax payers? Not the students who are the ones that want the 2am drinking limit. As a tax payer, I would rather see my money go towards more beneficial things such as roads, city services, better parks for the children of San Marcos, etc. I don't want my tax money to pay for the ability of college kids to drink for 2 more hours. That, in my opinion, would be a complete waste of MY tax money.
Thank-you greatly for your input, lxman93, it helps to know the other side of the story.
Respectfully, though, you say "Is the bar operating schedule the primary topic of concern in San Marcos?".
My retort to that would be, "Is the only criteria for handling community issues judged by the tax revenue it generates?"
If they are concerned that they would lose money by the extra police force needed, don't they realize that from midnight-2am that they would need fewer roaming (off the square) patrols? All the drinkers would all be in one concentrated area....would it be easier to patrol a 10 sq mile area or a 1 sq mile area?!?