Party ordinance passes unanimously
The law passed 6-0, with one council member absent from the meeting.
Published Nov. 8, 2006
College parties might not be the same in Columbia anymore.
The Columbia City Council had a wild debate about nuisance parties Monday evening and eventually voted unanimously to support the ordinance in a discussion that featured withdrawn and flip-flopped amendments.
The ordinance, which passed 6-0, defines nuisance parties as social gatherings of 10 or more people where any of 16 prohibited activities occur. First Ward Councilwoman Almeta Crayton was absent from the meeting.
Nuisance party violations include underage drinking, drug use, fighting, public urination, blocking traffic, noise violation and littering.
The ordinance's task force presented opening thoughts on the amendment it proposed, and then the debate was opened to the public.
Steve Scott spoke on behalf of the Columbia Apartment Association and proposed possible changes to the ordinance. He pleaded to delay the date of effectiveness to coincide with the next leasing season so landlords could revise their leases. Scott also asked that each offense involve at least one tenant in common. Finally, he questioned the ability of a landlord to prevent nuisance activities, a popular point among landlords.
Davie Holt, Missouri Students Association Senate speaker, opposed the legislation because of "arbitrary definitions."
He said that there were problems defining many of the violations listed in the nuisance party ordinance.
"I don't think a party is when 10 people are at a residence and there is a parking violation," Holt said.
The main arguments opposing the ordinance were the involvement of the landlord and defining the number of people that make up a nuisance party.
Ordinance supporters consisted mostly of Columbia residents.
Resident Kate Akers said she was concerned with noise from late-night parties. Other residents supported her opinion, but they did not mention other offenses, such as parking violations and littering.
Resident James Harrington asked the council if enacting legislation was the right thing to do.
"We don't really need legislation when we could just use better enforcement," Harrington said.
The discussion turned to the council and required lots of debate.
First, the council debated the involvement of the landlord. On a first offense a letter will be sent, and a meeting is necessary on a second offense if it occurs within one year. If a third offense occurs within one year of the second offense, there could be fines or prison time.
Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser proposed an amendment that would have required each offense to involve a tenant in common with the past offense, but withdrew her amendment after Nuisance Party and Property Task Force leader Ben Orzeske said he strongly opposed the amendment.
In another uncommon event, an amendment was passed to raise the number of people defining a nuisance party from 10 to 15. Later, Sixth Ward Councilwoman Barbara Hoppe, whose district includes the East Campus area, proposed an amendment to bring the number back down to 10 people. That amendment also passed.
Two other amendments were proposed with only one passing. The failed amendment, proposed by Fourth Ward Councilman Jim Loveless, aimed to take away prison time as a possible punishment. The amendment that passed was to change the date the ordinance will go into effect. The date changed from July 1 to Aug. 1.
The debate resulted in a unanimous vote despite agreement that many things still needed to be worked out. Questions regarding enforcement and ambiguity of ordinance definitions lingered after the vote had been cast.
"We have an imperfect ordinance, but this is a darn good place to start," Loveless said.
Hoppe suggested that statistics be kept on enforcement of the ordinance over a one-year period so the ordinance could be revisited.
Columbia resident Mike Martin said he was upset with the way the ordinance was debated and passed.
"The council has the power to make the decisions for the city," Martin said. "But the task force had too much influence in the decision.