Patch Survey Results: How Late Should Bars Stay Open In CT?

CONNECTICUT — Patch readers who responded to a survey about a proposed pilot program under which alcohol may be served until 4 a.m. in certain Connecticut cities were overwhelmingly against it.

State Rep. Christopher Rosario, who represents Bridgeport, introduced the bill into the current legislative session in Hartford last month. Cities participating in the delayed last-call program would be Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Stamford, Waterbury and West Hartford.

Current law allows Connecticut establishments to serve alcohol until 1 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and until 2 a.m. on the weekends.

If the views expressed in the recent Patch poll are any indicator, Rosario will have a tough row to hoe getting his bill passed if legislators vote the vox populi. A little over 88 percent of the 2,075 Patch readers who participated in the survey were against serving alcohol any later in the state. And if the overuse of exclamation points in the negative responses is any indication, the prospect of later last calls really strikes a nerve.

A frequently cited adage among the 1,832 "no" voters was, "Nothing good happens after midnight." (Or "1. a.m." Or "2 a.m." Readers couldn't agree on the old aphorism's trigger time, but made it clear those coaches turned back to pumpkins well before 4 a.m., and we'd best be safe at home when they did.)

One Milford reader played the Euro-Card: "In other countries like Portugal the bars are open till 4 and 5am and they found that they have less drunk driving infractions. Because they found that a high percentage of drinkers actually drink less than they did when 2am was the closing hour."

For another aye voter, it was all about what it means to be an American: "Freedom. Let people live free and end government overreach," a Newtown reader wrote.

Most of the responses were pithy and shot from the hip, but a reader who identified as a veteran bar worker in Granby had clearly given the matter a lot of thought:

"I have been working in bars for a long time. I feel it's absolutely foolish to give them two more hours. Think about it: on Fri average person gets up at 6 am gets ready for work, goes out after work or even 8 am, drinks till 4 am, then drives home after being up for almost 24 hrs. Look at all our wrong way driver accidents lately. All drunk, and now we want to give them 2 more hours. Not a good idea!"

But a Stamford reader made the case that serving liquor later would result in fewer drunks on the road, at least in the New York border towns:

"Once bars close at 1:45-2 am, people take the drive to Port Chester or White Plains to keep the party going. This has caused innumerable drunk driving crashes and fatalities. Staying open longer, keeping the bars open to 3 am at least will help people have less temptation to drive farther distances for 1 hour of partying."

Chuck Bunnell, Chief of Staff for the Mohegan Tribe, has already offered testimony to the state legislature that made the case for closing taverns later. While "extending liquor service hours to 24 hours would be optimal," Bunnell's organization would settle for stretching liquor service hours to 4 a.m., a move he says will increase slot revenue to the state.

"Connecticut is a small state and as a result our entertainment industry is in direct competition with our neighboring states. There are some competitive issues we cannot control but those issues we can engage in we should. This proposed bill is an important step toward achieving economic competitiveness for Connecticut's entertainment venues," Bunnell wrote in his testimony.

One Patch reader in Stonington suggested carving casinos out into their own legal category when it comes to late-night drinking:

"I can see addressing the issue with the borderline businesses however, only Casinos should be allowed to serve alcohol until 4:00AM because they provide a form of entertainment to keep most from getting into too much trouble and they are connected to a hotel, have onsite security and can easily get you transportation. Additionally they are strictly following CT liquor serving laws (which bars do not) and are providing tons of dollars to the state via slot revenue, so keep them playing."

Another in Enfield wrote that similar exemptions for burgs on the state line might be in order:

"I think if Danbury which is a border town would like to keep their bars open till 4am I have no problem with that. I think by keeping bars open state-wide until 4am will only cause more problems like increased accidents, increase police enforcement and more alcohol related deaths in our state."

Many readers bemoaned that the proposed legislation was another sign that "Connecticut is turning into NYC," but one pointed out a key distinction:

"In metropolitan areas, bars are open late without an increased danger to the public because public transportation is readily available and individuals often live within walking distance of their neighborhood pub. Not so in Connecticut, where suburban sprawl acts as a buffer to the local nightlife and the majority of folks drive everywhere."

As to be expected, many of the nay votes were served up with a side of judgement:

From Stonington: "People should be home in bed in the middle of the night, not hanging around a bar drinking. Anyone who is out drinking all night is obviously not going to work in the morning."

…and that's exactly the kind of buzzkill thinking that's driving people away from Connecticut, a Hartford reader suggested:

"An early bedtime is part of what makes CT a bad state to live in. Need to keep up with making things better before everyone moves out. Adults deserve more fun too."

Many saw the proposed bill as just another brick in the road carrying the state's handbasket closer to hell, a journey begun with legalization of retail marijuana sales in the state last month.

"We have had serious pedestrian deaths here in Stamford caused by impaired drivers. Bars should close by 1 on weekends and by 11 during the week. Now that CT has senselessly approved recreational weed, there are even more opportunities for deadly accidents. Let’s be considerate of those of us who want safe, wholesome lifestyles. If someone wants to drink til 4AM, they can do so in the privacy of their respective residences" another Stamford reader told Patch.

One West Havenite implored the legislators to think of the pubs' neighbors:

"Give people who live close to bars a rest from bar noise and inebriated persons. Bars are open long enough now. 2:00 am is already subject to late night noise. The folks who come over the border from NY don't have to, they can find watering holes in their own neighborhoods."

For one reader in Windsor, drunk drivers would be only the beginning of the problems Connecticut legislators would see if they decided to extend bar hours:

"Additional hours makes for additional potential for intoxication and drunk driving and behaviors that lead to crimes such as domestic violence, battery and assaults. Harm to self and others are often byproducts of alcohol abuse or overindulgence."

Although this Fairfield reader didn't have an opinion yay or nay, they did demonstrate a strong grasp of the issues with which Hartford will be wrestling:

"2 AM is probably late enough for a suburban town. The anecdotal evidence suggests that more fatal crashes occur late at nigh/early morning, especially on the weekends. Does it make a difference if closing time is 12/1/2/4 AM? How about 11 pm? Does an establishment have a right to operate at any time they want? How is the public interest served versus private right to operate? All tough issues with unsatisfactory resolutions, depending on what side of the fence you sit."

Posts from readers are presented "as is" and have been edited only for brevity.