Controversial Nuisance Ordinance to be Voted On Tonight

GTWMA says:

Answer: Yes, to all of them.  In most college communities that have done a good job of balancing these issues, all of the topics you have listed (as well as others, like medical amnesty) have been part of the solution. 

Keirans’ comments, as well as many found on the CDT, criticize the law for something it does not do.  These nuisance laws make hosts responsible for incidents on immediately neighboring public or private properties.  As it says: “An event or gathering that results in one or more of the following illegal activities at or within one hundred (100) feet of a Premise.”  Police cannot chase people all over town, and the specific laws that have to be violated have long been applied in many settings.  They are not unclear or nebulous if one understands the terms used in state and local law.  Nearly identical laws have been passed in more than two dozen communities and been upheld by multiple state appeals courts. 

Keirans further shows his failure to understand the issues when he criticizes the fact that it is not applied to bars.  The borough cannot do so, because state nuisance laws already regulate those businesses and preempt local regulation.

Students offered no viable alternative to the nusiance proposal at the public hearing on this.  These ordinances are part of an effective approach to holding party hosts responsible for the situations they create.

Fraternity Member says:

Your responses seem highly biased in comparison to those offered by Matthew.  As a student, I do see a problem with public drunkeness, but having a nuisance ordinance is not the way to stop it. 

One solution, offter public restrooms that are open late night.  Unlike these “mature” adults that choose to live in the surrounding areas, most students do not have access to a car.  Hence, many of them choose to walk to social functions, which can many times be 1-2 miles away.  Late at night and early in the morning, the only real public restroom available is McDonalds.  Even consuming one or two alcoholic beverages can give a person the extreme urge to urinate, reguardless of the level of intoxication.  

In the past, I myself recieved a citation for drinking underage.  What was I doing? I was walking home to my dorm, not disturbing a single person.  Cops already have enough power to fine people for the most menial of things. 

The larger the party, the less drunk people usually get.  These regulations will serve no purpose other than a source of money for the borough.  Small parties are much more likely to result in highly entoxicated persons than the frat parties everyone seems to be complaining about.  In the past semester, I have attended about 7 parties at my Fraternity, and about the same number of parties at apartments.  Out of those instances, I only got buzzed at my own fraternity.  At the apartments, however, I had a tendency to drink more. Fraternities offter a more social scene that, while alcohol is present, offers the ‘partier’ to do other than drink.  Apartments do not offer djs, dancefloors, alternative beverages/snacks, and a plan in case something goes wrong.  In a time where Fraternities are being blamed for everything, they should really be endorsed.

You seem to want to compare the ordinance to other towns.  One example-bloomsburg.  Having gone there several times to party and socialize, it really hasn’t had that great of an impact.  Frats got in trouble for minor violations, so slowly those parties died.  Then the parties moved into apartments, where instead of an organization getting screwed, individual people are getting screwed.

GTWMA says:

Those are not rhetorical questions.  I’ve read both the local ordinance and ordinances in about 6 other communities.  I’ve carried on an extended email exchange with leaders in 3 of those areas to learn more about what they have done.  I’ve reviewed documents that have examined the impact of these ordinances on the local communities.  My questions are real.  How much have you really studied this issue?

The ordinance does not say anything at all specific to students.  It focuses on party hosts, as do all these ordinances. 

Contrary to your impression, social host and party host laws that have recognized third-party civil and criminal liability have a long tradition in American history and law.  If you create a nuisance that extends to immediately neighboring properties, you are responsible for your guests’ actions.

GTWMA says:

Again, you are clearly uninformed on the IFC regulations.  Smaller functions held by smaller fraternaties do NOT have to have bouncers.  They simply have to pay a small registration fee to Greek Life.  I have no doubt that some fraternaties have acted very responsibly.  I’ve written and spoken elsewhere about how both rewards and penalties need to provide much stronger incentives for Greek organizations.  And certainly, enforcement of existing regulations would help with that.  But, these aren’t mutually exclusive alternatives.  Enforcement and new rules go hand in hand as part of an effective approach.

And you’ll get no argument from me that the University and Borough need to do a much better job on alternatives.  But those are only part of the solution.  Every community that has done a good job with this, does ALL of these things, as I’ve said.  The problem in SC and PSU is that almost NONE of the effective solutions that other communities have used have been done in close to a decade.  IFC, Old Main, Greek Life, the Borough, faculty, and more have all let this situation deteriorate to what we have now.

Fraternity Member says:

Because every business in state college benefits from the presence of college students.  State College is the name of the town, so don’t attempt to reduce the role of the college students.  A large portion of the taxes payed in this area are from college students, so therefore it is their right to benefit from such taxes.

You use the term “effective” when describing other towns with similar rules.  What defines this?  To me such regulations are like a weed killer that only kills the top part of a plant.  The roots will still be there, and gradually the same situations will arise.

GTWMA says:

No, a large portion of the taxes in State College Borough are not paid by students.  Local governments are primarily funded by property taxes (students are not large landowners in the Borough) and earned income tax on residents (students pay this only if they declare State College as their primary residence–most do not–or if they are a nonresident and their local municipal government does not have an earned income tax–which is rare).  While students represent 70 percent of residents, they pay less than 50 percent of local taxes.

GTWMA says:

First, even a fraternity that is half the size of the average fraternity and holds a bouncer required social every weekend of Fall and Spring semester would have to increase its annual dues by less than $100 per member.  Second, those that can demonstate the effectiveness of their own risk management practices can apply for an exemption after the 9 month trial period.  I think fraternities like the one you mention ought to be rewarded far more than they are now by the system.  They ought to have preferential rush, greater access to University support, and more.  Right now there’s little to no benefit to positive behavior and little regular and consistent punishment of poor behavior.  The IFC social policy adds a new mechanism to give greater benefits to those that manage well, and greater control to those that cannot or will not do so.

Fraternity Member says:

They may not be paid directly by the students, but the students do indirectly pay the majority of the taxes.  Thier rent goes to the landlords who pay property taxes. The income people recieve that is taxes is largely due to the fact that college students do a lot of buying.  Take away the college, and there would be no income to pay taxes on.

GTWMA says:

There are multiple goals of these policies.  Reducing dangerous and destructive drinking is one.  But, reducing the impact of drinking on the rest of the community is another.  I haven’t cited all statistics in all cases, but most of them do show that they have at least kept drinking level or reduced it.  At Penn State, which has taken few of these actions, has seen a dramatic increase in drinking.  Many of these measure DO reduce the negative effects of dangerous and destructive drinking on the rest of the community, even if they do not significantly reduce student drinking.  Reducing student drinking will take a number of other measures, in addition to these.

GTWMA says:

Average discretionary spending by college students was recently estimated to be $8,400, so a $100 increase would require less than a 2 per cent reduction in spending on clothes, cell phones, and yes, maybe alcohol, where the average student is now estimated to spend nearly a $1,000 annually.

Won’t get any disagreement from me that IFC, Greek Life and others need to take real action on those fraternities that will not be responsible.