By Miles Layton

PLYMOUTH — The Plymouth Town Council voted Monday to establish a social district in the downtown area, approving two ordinances that will allow patrons to carry alcoholic beverages purchased from participating businesses within a designated stretch of the historic waterfront — though not before a spirited debate over public safety, policing and the town’s readiness for such a step.

More council news will appear in the next edition of the Plymouth Beacon.

The vote was 3-1, with Councilwoman Micah Weathersbee opposed. Councilman John Shelton made the motion, seconded by Councilman Jerry Rhodes, with Councilwoman Kim Williams voting in favor. The district will operate with a 9 p.m. closing time on Fridays and Saturdays — a change from the planning board’s recommendation of 10 p.m. — on the grounds that no downtown businesses currently stay open that late.

The district boundary runs from Jefferson Street to the wood line behind the Port of Plymouth bathrooms, up Adam Street to the old Central Garage on the west side only, and along Washington Street from Water to Main Street.

Town Manager Joanne Floyd explained that the ordinances also reflect a statutory change made after the legislation was originally enacted. Under the revised state law, beverages must be purchased from businesses located within the social district — not merely contiguous to it — and must be consumed within its boundaries.

Subscribe — it’s free!

Supporters Point to Economic Lift

Rhodes, who said he recently visited Manteo during a First Friday event that included an active social district, argued the concept has a proven track record in small towns similar to Plymouth.

“I talked to a couple of patrons and a couple of business owners while we were there, and they cited no issues or problems with having a social district,” he said. “The town reported any disturbances or instances related to having the social district.”

Shelton drew on personal experience from Oxford, N.C., where he lived when that city implemented a social district.

“They were able to completely rehab their downtown because it brought extra businesses in — more restaurants, a couple of microbreweries — and they were family friendly,” Shelton said. “These are places where they have live music, cornhole, all kinds of activities for the whole family. Oxford, Washington, Edenton, Elon, my hometown of Thomasville — all of those have social districts and have no uptick in crime.”

Williams agreed, framing the proposal as a necessary step forward.

“If we don’t start doing something new down here to try new things, we’re going to still be just where we’re at instead of moving ahead,” Williams said. “If it doesn’t work out, I think we could shut it down. If we find that it doesn’t work, or it brings the crime rate up, we can shut it down just like we set it up.”

Sarah Forner, a downtown business owner, told the council that a sip-and-shop event held last November offered a preview of what the district could feel like.

“Downtown was busy, bustling — people stayed,” Forner said. “The atmosphere was completely different down here. I want that to just be considered, that it really changes how people spend their time down here.”

Forner also confirmed that under the ordinance, individual businesses retain the right to opt in or out by displaying a sticker in their window.

Mayor and Teel Raise Cautions

Mayor Crystal Davis and Councilwoman Donsenia Teel both raised concerns about whether Plymouth’s police force — already short-staffed amid persistent crime concerns — is equipped to manage the additional demands a social district might create.

“Alcohol has a tendency to change the way people behave,” said Teel, who attended the meeting via Zoom but was not present, so she could not vote on the matter. “Who’s going to pay for the extra policing that’s going to be needed? Who’s going to pay for the extra cleanup? We need to consider the fact that we’ve been having so much crime now.”

Davis, who said she personally researched the pros and cons of social districts, echoed those concerns.

“We just had a meeting last week where people were complaining about violence and we’re saying there’s a problem with police shortage,” Davis said. “If someone who is 21 years old and a gangbanger can go in there and buy a drink, you can’t stop them because it’s a social district. And if we just had a meeting talking about crime being high and our kids killing each other, then we want to put alcohol in the mix?”

Floyd told the council that she and staff had spoken with Police Chief Louis Banks before the planning board’s initial consideration of the proposal.

“He didn’t see any issues with it at this time,” Floyd said, noting that only two downtown businesses would currently be eligible to serve alcohol within the district.

Shelton also noted the district will not take effect immediately. Before it becomes operational, the town must submit the ordinance and district map to the state ABC Commission, install signage, establish a website, and order specially branded cups for use within the boundaries.

“Even if we vote on it tonight, it’s going to be months before it ever actually takes place,” Shelton said.

Davis also attempted to have Shelton recuse himself from the vote due to his role with the Washington Chamber of Commerce, arguing a statutory connection between chambers of commerce and travel and tourism created a conflict of interest. Town Attorney Arnita Gula disagreed.

“I don’t see a conflict because this particular ordinance is not connected to the Chamber of Commerce,” the attorney said. “They have no jurisdiction over it, no authority to do anything with the social district.”

Shelton noted he holds a volunteer, unpaid position with the chamber and does not personally gain from the vote’s outcome. The recusal request was dropped and the vote proceeded.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​