Nicki Arnold
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Warning — I’m about to dive into a topic drenched in confusion, concern, anger, worry, and other generally disconcerting things: the proposed Social Host Ordinance in Santa Barbara County. This legislation, which was initially developed around May 2007, essentially aims to punish party hosts who let minors drink alcohol at their events. It spawned from concerns about increased underage drinking in the county and mimics social host ordinances adopted elsewhere.
If the world were black and white, the well-intentioned law would be that straightforward and simple. But Isla Vista is in perpetual shades of gray, and it isn’t looking like this law will work well here.
Nicki Arnold
I’m going to give you my reading of the text of the ordinance, then a rehashing of what others had to say at last week’s town hall meeting concerning the ordinance. I should warn you that I’m still a bit confused about this whole thing myself, so question what I say and correct me when you can.
The first section of the ordinance most plainly lays out its intentions: “persons who actively and passively aid, allow or tolerate loud or unruly gatherings shall be responsible for the nuisances created by such gatherings and the costs associated with responding to such gatherings.”
The second section is the legal part — and, predictably, the messier part. It begins with the outline of definitions, some of which are clear and others of which are less so. A “loud or unruly” gathering is defined as an event at a private property with five or more people, at least two of whom are minors, where there is enough of a ruckus caused that the “quiet enjoyment” of people nearby is ruined. Examples of “loud and unruly” conduct are as follows: excessive noise, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, public drunkenness or unlawful public consumption of alcohol, fights, vandalism, litter, etc. (Yes, litter, like discarded cans or cups on the lawn. Hang on, let’s finish outlining before we start pointing out its flaws.)
A “responsible person” is someone who owns, rents, leases or is in charge of the house where the party is; the person who organized the gathering; anybody getting money for granting access to the shindig; or anybody else who raises their hand and accepts responsibility for the bash. There is some confusion over whether this means landlords are responsible for parties or if it's tenants only, but is somewhat clarified later in the penalties section.
The definition of “response costs” is quite vague. It basically means the responsible person has to pay any costs incurred by the response of police officers, fire departments, and other emergency responders to the loud and unruly gathering. These include salaries and benefits of the officers, any medical treatment the officers needed to get because of something that happened going to, at, or leaving the party, or repairing anything that was damaged on the way to, at, or leaving the festivities. This ambiguous section has been hotly debated by community members.
Then comes the whole shebang: the “prohibited acts and exceptions” clause. In layman’s terms, the ordinance makes it a “civil violation and public nuisance” — not a criminal offense — for anybody to host a rambunctious get-together where underage people are drinking. There are, of course, exceptions: if said minors are drinking for religious reasons, if the location is regulated by the California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, or if the drinking is going on exclusively between a minor and his or her parent/legal guardian.
The next part goes on to say that the citation will either be served directly to or mailed to the responsible person or people. If nobody can be immediately identified as host, a notification will be mailed to the property owners. This note tells the owner that he/she is liable if another rowdy soiree happens at that property again in the next 12 months. But the ordinance does go on to specify that if the property owner doesn’t actually live there, he or she will not be held responsible.
The penalties section outlines the fines. The first violation gets you a $250 fine, unless you complete a court-recognized counseling program, like teen court or “alcohol rehabilitation.” The second violation at the same residence OR by the same responsible person within a 12-month period earns a $500 fine, which can be reduced to $250 if said person completes a counseling program. All additional violations within the 12 months are $1,000 fines, with no chance of reduction. If the loud or unruly bash is at the same house, it doesn’t matter who technically is the responsible person each time: the fine doesn’t reset just because Roommate A hosted the first party and Roommate B hosted round two. These fines are in addition to the response costs.
Any appeals must be filed within 10 days of the party, and if the person is still unhappy with the outcome, he or she is welcome to take it to the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
There’s a section near the end that says an officer can, verbally or in writing, tell the person responsible for the gathering that he or she will be personally liable for the county’s cost in providing follow up or additional police response in the next 12 months. The ordinance will go into effect 30 days after its passage by the Board of Supervisors and will be published in the Santa Barbara News-Press within 15 days.
Phew. That is absolutely as cut and dry as I can present the ordinance. You can see why some Isla Vistans have their panties in a bunch over this. Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr set up a town hall meeting last week with various guests to discuss the ordinance. The panel included Sue Paul, Santa Barbara County assistant CEO and Human Resources director; I.V. Foot Patrol Lieutenant Brian Olmstead; Chuck Eckert, a representative of I.V. Property Owners Association; Raquel Granados, I.V. Tenants Union Tenant advocate; Ashley Day, UCSB Associated Students On-Campus representative, Dr. Shereen Khatapoush, director of Youth Services System Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Fighting Back; and Dan Hicks, program administrator for Ventura County Limits Projects, where they already have a social host ordinance in effect. Audience members had the opportunity to ask questions and voice any concerns over implementation of the ordinance in I.V.
For example, a huge percent of people move every year. The tenants at currently at 6636 Pasado one year might have no idea who was living in their house the year before. But, under this ordinance, if last year’s tenants received a first Social Host Ordinance violation in April, another violation in November would technically count as a “second violation” — even if the tenants are completely different.
Or what about the fact that tons of people in I.V. live in houses with five or more roommates? Can cops just go into those houses and bust those enjoying a glass of wine with dinner? Actually, a lot of people seem to believe that this ordinance gives cops the ability to just walk into your house whenever they feel like it, but as far as I can tell, that’s not true. They still need legitimate reason to knock on your door and come in, whether it be crowds leaking into the street or a pissed off neighbor who called them in.
The definition of “loud and unruly” gathering is annoyingly ambiguous, especially when you think about the constant state of I.V. The streets are often peppered — if not covered — with discarded trash and every other fence has been spray painted by some budding artist. It seems to any sane person that these things could be called “litter” and “vandalism” — so does that gives cops all the more reason to come up and rap on my door?
Lt. Olmstead swore it’s not the intent of the Foot Patrol to bust every house where there might be minors and there might be drinking. Now, I actually like the Foot Patrol — shocking, I know — so I tend to believe him. But what is to keep the officers to their promise? I’ve lived in I.V. long enough to know the Foot Patrol is made up of a host of different people — who’s to say they’ll all act the same way Lt. Olmstead will?
If you’ve ever been to a party on Del Playa Drive, you know how hectic it can get. You don’t always know who all of your guests are. What if an 18-year-old freshman walks in with her own bottle of alcohol or already drunk?
Why hit the hosts with this fine when there are already other laws prohibiting this type of behavior? Why not just make the Isla Vista-specific nuisance ordinance applicable to the whole county?
When it comes down to it, it’s obvious that this law wasn’t written for Isla Vista. High school students and communities were consulted in the development of the ordinance; college students and others in Isla Vista were only recently involved. If this ordinance does pass in its current form, it will face some serious issues in I.V. I hope the supervisors will take I.V.’s questions into serious consideration when the ordinance comes up at their April 21 meeting. If not, I wish the Foot Patrol the best of luck in enforcement—with a slew of brilliant law school-bound kids who can find every loophole in any law in your jurisdiction, you’re going to need it.
NOTE: The Board of Supervisors meeting on the social host ordinance had previously been scheduled for late March. That date has since been chanced to April 21.