Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 19 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Council revisits 'social host' ordinance
Published Monday, November 16, 2009
The Austin City Council will decide Monday whether hosts of parties where minors drink alcohol should be subject to punishment.
If the so-called “social host” ordinance passes, people who knowingly allow minors to drink without taking steps to prevent it would be slapped with misdemeanors.
A draft ordinance was received favorably by council during a Oct.19 work session and the potential law has wide-ranging community support.
The Austin Area Drug Task Force, which is comprised of local teachers, leaders and law enforcement personnel, presented the draft and has been pushing for the law to pass.
“I really have confidence that this is a good ordinance,” said Bonnie Rietz, former mayor of Austin and current member of the task force.
There is no specific state law regarding social hosts — only penalties for those who actually furnish alcohol to minors.
If Austin passes the ordinance, it would join roughly 30 other cities and counties in Minnesota with such a law on the books.
Rietz said it would give law enforcement some “teeth” — and she added that officials in Albert Lea have applauded their ordinance since it was adopted last December. That law helped guide the Austin task force.
“Yes, it’s working for them,” Rietz said.
Police chief Paul Philipp, who is also on the task force, said he too has heard Albert Lea officials praise their new, tougher law.
Philipp said underage drinking is a problem in Austin but this ordinance would allow parents and others a better way to fight it.
“They work,” he said of social host laws.
St. Paul is the most recent city to enact a social host ordinance — the measure passed last month — and it did so quite easily.
The ordinance passed unanimously and a public hearing held earlier did not provide any dissent, the Star Tribune reports.
But that’s not always the case — discussion on social host laws sometimes brings up questions of how to prove responsibility and whether the ordinances may be too invasive into peoples’ homes.
“It’s been a controversial ordinance in other communities,” Philipp said.
But Rietz said the potential reward — saving the lives of young men and women who may endanger themselves by drinking — is worth any criticism.
“If you think of the consequences,” she said, “the argument (against) really diminishes.”
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by notsuprised (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kids, are sneaky. I, was very sneaky. To suggest that my friends parents would have been liable for me having booze in my diet coke can. Or for sneaking a bottle in the back door and down the back steps, it’s just not right. You could be parent of the year, and end up in a legal battle if your child’s friend makes one bad choice. And even the best and brightest make poor choices, especially as teens.
We don't need more laws.
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps the council should check with Mr. Rude in about a year or two once he tries to find employment with a blemish on his criminal record. This is a made up crime that can cause people to be denied credit, housing, promotions, and even from being considered for a job. All because the police or incapable or unwilling to chase down the original criminal who supplied liquor to the minor in the first place.
Continuing to put more power to the STATE and taking away freedom from the CITIZEN...er...SUBJECT.
Posted by Littletoad (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Are there really that many "dopes" for parents that "knowingly" supply illegal beverages to kids nowadays....statistically this ordinance seems to be geared to such a small group that it seems council members time would/should be used in "greater need" agendas!
Notsurprised.....you say you "were" sneaky.....you still "are"!!!! (just kidding) LOL
Toad
Posted by notsuprised (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Guilty as charged! :)
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe this will make parents be more aware of what happens in their house.
Posted by GWAnderson (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need more laws so that the Key Stone Kops can catch more wrong doers. They need to fill up the new pokey after it is finished.
Posted by dabbler312 (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another copycat town doing a copycat business.
A town that seems to always be playing "Keep up with the Jones" only in this case it's "Keep up with Albert Lea"
My opinion is the former mayor is a busy body with nothing better to do with her time; and the police chief - well he's in charge of the B. - Phyfdom and all the little barney phyf's.
Council persons - let's just let this one go away - VOTE NO - stay out of my house and mind your own business.
Posted by sherwood22 (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anything we can do to get today's parents to wake up and be responsible for what goes on in there house and with there kids is useful. If it takes laws then let it be laws.
Posted by notsuprised (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is like kicking the cat to make the dog stop biting.
Posted by austinmn55912 (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have teenage sons. I have a stream of young teenagers in and out of my basement. Some I know, some I don't. I do talk to them, I wander down the basement and chat. Mostly they play video games.
From what my kids tell me, I don't have booze in my house. They do tell me that kids carry booze in water bottles, etc. I know that the guys show up with pop, at least I think it is pop. SO... am I supposed to sniff their drinks?
This DOES happen. I have heard stories of other parents, good strict parents, finding out after the fact that someone brought in booze.
I just don't understand how I can be responsible for something that I am not aware of. And it does happen.
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sherwood and Lefty -
Certainly there are parents that need a good slap upside the head but I don't understand why you feel we just need to turn that responsibility over to the government. For the last 6-7 decades since the dawn of the Raw Deal we have turned over our social responsibilities to the federal government and watched our society decay. If your brother has a delinquent for a kid you need to tell him that his kid is not welcome at Thanksgiving until he shapes up. If your neighbor's daughter is future episode of "COPS" waiting to happen tell him that he needs to man up and stop sending the neighborhood into the toilet. Give shiftless parents the stink-eye at church, encourage others to do the same.
Waiting on Washington, St. Paul or Town Hall to solve social problems is a proven failure and a waste of resources. Surrending OUR freedom to the STATE because YOU don't feel comfortable standing up for what is right is worse than the offenses you seek to regulate.
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How does this have anything to do with the government? There should be no issue if parents are more aware of what is going on. Be curious to what they have if they bring "pop" over. This has nothing to do with politics so stop jumping to conclusions about it.
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lefty,
It has to with government because the council is considering making something illegal, and punishable by law, something that was previously legal. This law does not require the accused to have done a single thing to contribute to the situation and they can be arrested. They do not even have to be home. It is not just parents that can be charged. Say two underage college students share an apartment, one is at class taking a test, the other skips class and has a few beers with his buddies (supplied by someone over 21 who has broken a law). If the student taking the test has his name on the lease he can be charged under the social host ordinance. What did he do to deserve the penalty of law? How much effort does the APD put into finding the supplier? Sorry, we have a conviction - pay attention to how low the bar is set for proving this "crime" - no need to look for the other guy. You are correct this has nothing to do with politics, I never stated it did, that was your jump. This has everything to do with passing the societal buck.
Posted by GWAnderson (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Become a landlord and then find out the drug laws. You unknowingly rented to a drugie. You are now guilty of operating a drug house. I rented to man who after a year, his apartment was raided by the police for drugs.
The police told me they were going to search the other seven apartments in the building for drugs. The warrant only listed the address. The next apartment they wanted to search was that of another police officer. All of the other tenants were also upset. They were stopped by a city attorney who told them no.
I was mad because the police didn't turn door knobs; just bust the doors down. I tried to sue the City for the over $5,000 in unnecessary damage the police did. The city countered by suing me for operating a drug house. I had to pay the cost for the damage the police did.
.
Posted by ruserious (anonymous) on November 16, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The cops are above the law, unless of course they get caught red handed with drugs in their hand,
Posted by GWAnderson (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 2 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They passed this law Monday evening. Good luck all.
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where did you read that the person who signed the lease is the one responsible or was it something you "heard."
Posted by GWAnderson (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Notice, I didn't say it was the Key Stone Kops.
Posted by sherwood22 (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Notfromhere
All the alternatives that you gave such as voice your concerns to the neighbors and giving the stink-eye to the shiftless parents are not bad ideas but here is the reality of the situation. The neighbors in our society don't give a damn about your concerns or opinions about becoming a future episode of COPS plain and simple. The shiftless parents are not attending church to be able to hold them accountable by giving them the stink-eye and the countless few that do you can resort back to the first comment I made about the neighbors. This is the reality of these situations and mandating laws was not the first solution to these problems. But it is now a growing concern that is getting worse and now mandating laws to hold these shiftless parents accountable is necessary. Situations like these do not go away by telling them they are doing the wrong thing. This may have worked 30 years ago but that was 30 years ago. The solutions that you posted are unrealistic but I do wish they would solve problems these days vs. mandating every law we can. Rest assure these situations will be looked at differently case by case due to the elements involved. The parent that went out for the evening with the husband to come back and find a juvenile with a bottle of booze in the basement will be looked at differently then a parent at home with juveniles in the basement partying it up.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)