As students, residents, city officials and the Madison Police Department concluded that an event on Mifflin Street in May is inevitable, the focus of a Mifflin neighborhood meeting Thursday was part of an initial discussion on how to make the party this year safer.
The city hopes to have plans for the party finalized by mid-March.
Along with the number of alcohol-related arrests and citations, last year’s block party was marred by two stabbings, which led Mayor Paul Soglin to threaten that he would cancel the party this year.
“[The mayor’s goal] is not to end the event this year,” said Mark Woulf, Madison’s alcohol policy coordinator. “There’s still going to be a large group of people that shows up on Mifflin Street on May 5. That’s the reality.”
In previous years, police said they could not set up a controlled environment around Mifflin Street because the area lining the street is residential private property.
“Our charge as police officers is to make the event safe, and what we’ve seen from last year is that it wasn’t,” Lt. David McCaw said.
Madison Police said they would make landlords more accountable for violations this year. Police may limit households to 50 people, and if fire marshals find houses that violate the rule, they will contact and hold the landlord responsible.
Other suggestions included giving the event a non-alcohol theme, requiring that only acoustic —rather than amplified—music be allowed, and moving the party to a nearby park where police could set up a controlled environment similar to Halloween on State Street.
Some police suggestions for improving the safety of the event included prohibiting drinking on the street, which was legal last year, as well and not closing off traffic on Mifflin Street.
Residents in attendance opposed allowing traffic down Mifflin, saying it would only push partygoers further onto private properties and limit the space available for vendors and portable bathrooms.
Most changes suggested by police at the meeting would involve putting more officers on duty, the funding of which would involve sponsors footing the bill for additional man-hours, according to one suggestion.
