Protect 21 ordinance

I'm puzzled by the motives for reintroducing the 21 ordinance issue, and especially since it seems to be working. Data indicate that since the ordinance went into effect, the health and safety of Iowa City's young people has dramatically increased - e.g., a 17 percent decline in high-risk drinking among University of Iowa students.

When I tried to find out more about the rationale for putting the 21 ordinance back on the ballot, I found this explanation from one of the two men responsible for submitting the petition to repeal the ordinance (George Wittgraf, the owner of the Union Bar): “The kids basically rule this town,” he said. “Iowa City wouldn't be the same without them. They're 18, they're adults, and they should be able to enjoy all the businesses, not just a few of them” (“21-only up for debate once again”, The Daily Iowan, June 28).

To me this rationale - give the “kids” the choice to frequent bars and drink because they are the majority in Iowa City - makes little sense. Apparently Wittgraf would like to have more customers in his own bar, and he is not even considering the effect of that on the community. His primary concern, in other words, is getting more business and making more money.

Given that rationale and all the positive effects of the 21 ordinance since its implementation, I encourage all to vote “no” this November to protect the 21 ordinance.

Art Spisak

Riverside