Nuisance law before Council
Published Sept. 19, 2006
The Columbia City Council received a report Monday night suggesting modifications to the nuisance party and property laws.
One part of the report compiled by the Nuisance Party and Property Tax Force was a proposed ordinance to define a "nuisance party" and regulate penalties for landowners whose properties host them. According to the proposed ordinance, a "nuisance party" would be a gathering of 10 or more people where certain illegal activities occur, including underage drinking, drug use, prostitution and noise violations.
"I know a lot of people who have had problems with nuisance parties and parties until 3 a.m. with hundreds of people in front of their house," said Barbara Hoppe, the Sixth Ward City Council representative whose district includes the East Campus area. "The students in East Campus have neighbors with kids. But this isn't just an East Campus issue; it's all over town. Students are spread all over, not just in East Campus like they used to be."
The task force did not unanimously adopt the report. Phil Nickerson, a member of the task force and representative of the Columbia Apartment Association, said he was opposed to certain parts of the proposed law.
"There was a lot of discussion and a lot of give and take among the members," he said. "A couple of the points that we felt very strongly about, I had made attempts to change during the task force. That did not happen, so I advised them at the final meeting that we would oppose the ordinance in its present form."
The task force report details the penalties for holding a nuisance party. The Columbia Police Department, under the proposed ordinance, would be required to notify a landowner and the tenants responsible for the nuisance party violation within 10 days of the party. The first offense carries a fine between $500 and $2,000. After the first offense, the fine grows to between $1,000 and $4,000.
If a second nuisance party occurs within 12 months of the first offense, a "compliance meeting" between police, landowners and tenants responsible for the violations would be held to place restrictions on social gatherings held on the property. A third violation could bring prosecution for the landowner.
"The task force worked for over a year to come up with a proposal that allows people to enjoy themselves without bothering others," Hoppe said. "Overall, it's a good proposal, but there are some parts that still need fine-tuning."
A second proposed ordinance would also define "chronic nuisance properties," where three nuisance parties occur within a 60-day period. The owner of a chronic nuisance property would face the same monetary penalties for the nuisance properties but would also face closure of the property for up to a year, physically securing the property and stopping utilities to the property during closure.
Nickerson said in his own report to the council, because Missouri law regards a lease as a temporary ownership by a tenant, that punishing a landlord for a tenant's behavior is not necessarily fair.
"While modern residential leases generally reserve some rights for the landlord and require tenants to obey the law, it is highly likely that most current leases in Columbia will need to be revised in at least two respects to deal with the nuisance party ordinance if it is adopted," he stated in the report.
One suggested revision would make a nuisance party a violation of a lease, and the other would allow landlords to evict a tenant but hold them to their financial obligations on the property until the lease is up. Another problem Nickerson cited was the nuisance party time frames span more time than the typical lease of a tenant. Nickerson's report stated that landowners could be unfairly punished for the actions of multiple tenants. Nickerson also cited as a concern the fact that a building is not distinguished from the units within it in the proposed law.
"I'm open to talking to interested parties on both sides," Hoppe said. "This is just a draft proposal. It's just a beginning, a working document. Neither the task force nor the council expects it to pass as is."