The Downtown Holland Social District allows patrons ages 21+ to purchase alcoholic beverages from participating establishments… but you don’t have to finish it before you leave—you can carry it anywhere within the district boundaries.

From the Tulyp Hotel on 6th Street to the Park Theater near 10th Street, and most places on 8th Street, you can buy a drink and consume it within the district lines.

But it doesn’t end there.

A recent amendment to the existing boundaries has proposed the addition of East 6th Street and 7th Street, both attached to the Window on the Waterfront Park. This comes in a timely manner as the Holland Ice Park is nearing its grand opening at the end of this week, November 14.

This proposed amendment will permit patrons to carry and consume their alcoholic beverages into the areas surrounding the new ice park. And this has been met with controversy.

"With the opening of the ice park, we think there’s going to be some interest for people to grab a beer or two at New Holland and come on down,” Van Dyken said.

Sure, it would mean more good business for participating establishments and a greater interest in those who partake in the social district to check out the new ice park… but what’s the cost?

The Proposal Showed to Be a Bit More Complex

The proposal to expand the social district was met with a collective wariness by the Holland City Council.

For which there were three crucial areas of concern: public safety, the donor’s intent for the park, and the public notification process.

Because the proposal expands the social district, particularly into the areas of Window on the Waterfront and the Holland Ice Park, it clashes with the already existing boundaries of alcohol presence in park settings. The expansion into these areas would necessitate additional special ordinance amendments be made so that the district can be properly expanded into the park area.

Holland City Manager, Keith Van Beek, alluded to this: “It’s the fact that it’s in a park that is the ordinance change.”

Another concern, namely, the donor’s intent for the nature of the ice park, was at the forefront. Scott Corbin, Fifth Ward Councilmember, read off donor statements and the project’s funding statement to suggest that the park has been intended to carry the aspect of family and community—to which the presence of alcohol is not a component. In his commentary, Corbin stated, “The vision behind the donations… has overwhelmingly emphasized the role of a park—a community space for families.”

Corbin and other council members suggested that the proposal undergo procedural first and second readings for the ordinance amendment. This would require further consideration that would take additional time.

Lyn Raymond, Second Ward Councilmember, suggested “I think that this will enhance the experience for some. I don’t think that it will distract or will take away from the experience for many.” So while alcohol may be present in the park, it may not be a feature that would necessarily detract from the experience of others who choose not to participate.

But other concerns did arise—public safety. If alcohol is permitted in a park setting, it could possibly ensue issues for overall patron safety.

With a varied sense of resolution amongst the board, Councilmember Lyn Raymond led the first formal motion which included the expansion of the social district boundary and adoption of the ordinance amendment as an emergency ordinance (so that it would be in effect for the grand opening this week). This motion was seconded by Councilmember Kim Rowan.

With a proper roll call, the motion elicited four YES (Freeman, Raymond, Rowan, and Mayor Bocks) and three NO votes (Shea, Scholteis, and Corbin).

The councilmembers failed to reach the minimum six votes needed for the emergency ordinance approval to pass through.

The proposal to expand the social district boundaries is currently still being thought over. An official resolution has yet to be decided.