Reeves Says He Was “Surprised” by Council Pushback on Curfew; Bare Says No One Wants One
Mayor D.C. Reeves says he intends to bring the juvenile curfew ordinance back to city council, but Councilman Charles Bare says his constituents have told him a curfew won’t solve anything.
Pensacola Mayor D.C. Reeves said Wednesday he was caught off guard when city council members pushed back on his proposed juvenile curfew ordinance, pulling it from the agenda after its first reading rather than moving to a vote.
The council’s hesitation centered on one substantive issue, Reeves said: whether the age of an adult who can legally accompany a minor after curfew hours should be 18 or 21. Reeves said the rest of the ordinance largely mirrors state statute and a state template already used by other Florida cities, and that the administration didn’t change curfew hours.
“There was no pushback from us on that. But I think it just is a symbol of that’s a conversation that could have happened on August 4th, 5th or 6th or 7 th or 8th or 9th, all the way ’til the meeting.”
Reeves said he still supports the ordinance and expects to bring a revised version back to council, though he wouldn’t commit to a timeline. “We got more work to do this week to figure that out.”
A Pointed Exchange Over Councilman Bare
Reeves singled out Councilman Charles Bare, who represents District 2 and read a statement opposing the ordinance before Pensacola Police Chief had a chance to speak at the meeting. Reeves noted that Bare had reached out roughly two weeks earlier asking to help write the ordinance himself. The city sent him the draft on Aug. 3 to redline. The mayor said he never heard back from Bare before the meeting.
- “You have to ask him on how his position changed in a few days,” Reeves said. “I would say… probably took us by surprise, considering the biggest opponent of it was the one asking to write it, not six months ago, but like two weeks before.”
Bare’s Side: A Knee-Jerk Reaction, Then Second Thoughts
Speaking later Wednesday on Rick’s Blog Live, Bare confirmed he initially supported a curfew in the immediate aftermath of the Fourth of July incident downtown that prompted the proposal.
“It was kind of a knee-jerk on my behalf as well, but then I started listening to people. Listened to my family, listened to people in the community, and I’ve not had a single person tell me they want a curfew.”
Bare said he pushed for a workshop instead of a vote at the first reading, arguing a workshop would allow council members and staff to work through concerns without the pressure of taking an up-or-down vote that night.
The councilman laid out several specific objections:
- 18 vs. 21: Bare agrees with Reeves that an 18-year-old is a legal adult and questioned why the ordinance would require someone 21 or older to accompany minors.
- Age cutoff: Bare noted the police chief said the ordinance is meant to protect younger kids, 10 and 12-year-olds, and questioned why it applies to everyone 17 and under rather than a lower cutoff, such as 16.
- Enforcement logistics: Bare raised concerns about how officers would verify whether an adult with a group of minors is actually responsible for them, calling it a recipe for “babysitting kids.”
PODCAST
Besides discussing the curfew, District 2 City Councilman Charles Bare explains his opposition to AI data centers, addresses the TDC funding delays leaving tourism nonprofits like Foo Foo Fest unpaid, and reflects on nearly two decades of Pensacola’s strong mayor system, from early growing pains to today’s improved (if still imperfect) communication between council and the mayor’s office.
If PPD has long wanted a curfew, and today Chief Winstrom told Andrew McKay that Acting Chief Goss had put together a draft juvenile curfew ordinance but unexplainably never sent it to the city council, it ain’t that hard. The easiest way would be to ask the city council to adopt the simplistic model state law as a starting point. We do know it is constitutional. And, to date, no one has explained why PPD felt it needed to station 50 officers downtown on the night of July 4th to deal with the juvenile problem. If asked, the city council could have adopted a very simple juvenile curfew ordinance by its June 18th meeting. Or at a special meeting. And, if proposed as an emergency ordinance, only one reading would be required. Earlier on McKay’s show, both PPD PIO Wood and Chief Winstrom have claimed enforcement of the juvenile curfew ordinance would have no impact on PPD manning. That can’t possibly be true. What is the manpower cost in other cities? Further, when McKay pushed back on certain aspects, Wood said that the ordinance “could be adjusted later.” Why not get it right the first time? Better yet, this topic screams out for the City Council to hold town hall meetings in their districts to speak directly to the public and parents and minors to get some real input. Bigger picture, the city council should hire someone independent to give it an honest review of crime in the city. FDLE statistics are posted online going back to 1995. And PPD does know what violent and property crimes are reported to it and also what violations of city codes are reported. (PPD mostly ignores the city code. One PPD Sergeant truthfully told me that PPD does not enforce city ordinances in city parks. Very sadly, we all know!) For sure, Reeves was lying at the League of Women Voters mayoral candidate forum on July 29th when he boasted that the City of Pensacola has been “the fourth safest city in the United States during my administration.” Not even factoring in the actual total of violent and property crimes reported to the PPD (not all types of crime get reported to the FDLE and then FBI), and also not counting all violations of the Code of Ordinances, we can uncover some crime numbers reported to the FDLE. As example, in 2025 PPD reported 1060 violent and property crimes to FDLE. That big “1060” number includes 3 murders, 17 rapes, 216 assaults and a whole lot more. Worse, we know as a nationwide trend that less than half of crimes are ever reported to law enforcement agency. And, the PPD’s 2025 numbers are very, very, very suspect because there were “0” crimes reported to FDLE in 15 categories to include for burglary, prostitution, purse snatching, etc. Really, 15 x “0”? Clearly, we have no honest information about crime in the city but we do all know its not a safe place. PPD Officers vote with their feet. Almost none of them live in “our” community. The city council should ask Chief Winstrom why PPD Officers living in Alabama, outside the city or even in Santa Rosa County or further east get a private PPD vehicle to drive to/from work? The extra cost drains the General Fund and the burden on LOST funds hurts our city parks.