Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 32 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Proposed ordinance threatens parties
Published Saturday, November 8, 2008
A new ordinance discussed by the Fergus Falls city council Monday threatens organizers of underage drinking parties with misdemeanors.
Known as a social host ordinance, the measure is part of an effort by local law enforcement to crack down on underage drinking. A state law already makes it illegal for adults to provide alcohol to people under 21. A social host ordinance goes a step further in holding adults responsible for gatherings where they know underage drinking is taking place, even if those adults didn’t provide the alcohol.
The ordinance received its first reading at Monday’s meeting, where Chief of Public Safety Tim Brennan said the ordinance is directed at people who knowingly permit or supervise underage consumption on their property. A number of other Minnesota cities have similar ordinances, he said, and the Fergus Falls version is modeled after an ordinance in South St. Paul.
“My concern in this is how this is going to be interpreted,” said Ben Schierer, echoing the concern of some aldermen that parents could be held responsible for parties they knew nothing about.
Randy Synstelien said he’s concerned about unintended consequences of the ordinance that may not have arisen yet in other communities.
Whether or not the ordinance has been broken will need to be considered on a case by case basis, said City Attorney Rolf Nycklemoe. Allowing teenagers on property where alcohol is being served to people age 21 or over isn’t a violation of the ordinance, Brennan said. Knowingly making alcohol available to underage consumers is a different story.
A second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for Nov. 17. It is expected to go into effect in mid-December unless aldermen express objections beforehand.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by username (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I guess this holiday season, only family members 21 and older will be coming. With 20+ guests to cook for, along with kids, teenagers and noise, I just won't have time to go around checking glasses and carding people. This ordinance is ridiculous. I understand and support the council's concern about underage drinking, but I think they can have a little faith in the citizens of Fergus Falls to apply good judgement, and not try to 'take the law into their own hands.' I watched the council meeting, and it appeared to me that the council members who were concerned with this ordinance were somewhat shrugged off, and seemed a bit bullied into moving it forward. I agree with Synstellin. The reason we may not have 'had any trouble so far' with this ordinanace, (as Nyckelmoe sort of smugly added), is likely because nobody has been CHARGED with it yet. And assuring us that it will be taken on a 'case by case' basis just isn't secure enough in my book.
Please, don't let this ordinance pass. It will only end up giving a bad name to good people. Let parents continue to use their judgement, and leave busting parties to the police.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dumb idea. Enough with the Police State, already. Mom and dad want to pour a glass a wine for their 20 year old kids in their own homes at Thanksgiving or Xmas shouldn't be against any law. Especially since 18 years olds are asked to fight wars for their country.
Posted by Sumwun (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you were familiar with the law you would know that it is perfectly legal for mom and dad to pour a glass of wine for THIER 20 yr old in THIER own home, just not 25 of his or her college buddies.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
it's already against the law to provide minors with a location to drink at even if the adult didn't supply the alcohol also.
this law is redundant and just allows police to essentially criminalize the innocent or really frame up anyone they feel like.
they influence kids already to attempt to buy beer at eateries, how long before they try to get a kid to sneak booze in to a friend or relatives gathering?
the fact that they are already saying they won't enforce this law equally on people should in itself nullify it!
Posted by username (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My kids have friends that are home from college come over every year during the holidays. Some of these friends are kids I don't know, but welocme them in our home. Now, I would have to hide the wine just in case this new kid decides to steal it while I'm serving the pie, or follow him around like some paranoid lunatic. Don't say I'm stretching it, either. The 'liquor cabinet' scenario was brought up at the council meeting. Check it out for yourselves. Also, just look up social host law and read about them. Again, this is NOT a necessary ordinance, and I urge the council members not to pass it.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess maybe what we should really be asking is, who would this ordinance benefit?
let's see?
the police would have more control over the outcome of a person charged as they would add redundant charges so that in the plea process eventually they would get you for something.
guilty or not.
just more red tape and powers that should be reserved for Judges into the hands of those who are only here to protect and serve.
Posted by grandma66 (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, this ordinance makes it a little tough for the holiday social drinkers, but let me give you another scenario. There is a 21 year old person living in an apartment hosting parties that have up to 20 or more young people between the ages of 13 and 20 drinking inside this apartment, with the majority of them between 13 and 15. There are no parents at this party unless you consider the teen age parents that show up at these parties. The "adults" organizing and hosting the party should be held accountable, shouldn't they? Some of the parents of these kids don't have a clue to what their kids are up to.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and again what you are talking about is already illegal and can and those laws can and should apply!
there's like 3 laws being broke already in that scenario as well as multiple counts!
Posted by Sumwun (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...I guess the whole 193 votes wasn't a big enough hint that people aren't really on the same page as you.
Posted by FergusFamily (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is dangerous. My kids are still in elementary school. But IF they are going to drink, wouldn't it be best to be in the safety of a home? Not that we'd condone it, or supply it or even know about it. But this only encourages kids to drive out to some corn field, get drunk and drive home again. We have to have a safe place for kids to screw up before they go off to college and have no security blanket.
Posted by Mr_Lincoln (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Misdemeanors is this what you think will stop minors from drinking.
Posted by Mr_Lincoln (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any action by an adult that allows or encourages illegal behavior by a person under the age of 18, or that places children in situations that expose them to illegal behavior. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor can be as simple as keeping a child home from school and thus, making the child a truant. It also can manifest itself in more serious behavior. For example, an adult who commits a crime in the presence of a child can be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as can an adult who serves alcoholic beverages to anyone under the legal drinking age. Still more egregious is sexual exploitation, which could include having sexual relations with minors or engaging in the production or trafficking of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Posted by Mr_Lincoln (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You buy 3 18 year olds beer.They get drunk and crash car.You get call from police.One of them is dead and other two say you bought beer.You are on camera at ff liqour store buying booze.Have fun u might be charged with murder.
Posted by username (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am in no way condoning teenage drinking. I do, however, have a problem with a few members of the city council telling me I am required to have my wine locked up in a vault if I plan to have visitors in my home under the age of 21. I agree, (and I can't believe I'm saying this), with Jamie that there are ALREADY laws in place prohibiting adults providing a location or alcohol at 'social gatherings.' My large family at Thanksgiving with all their cars outside will give 'probable cause' of a 'social gathering' and then what? They come in with a search warrant and a breathalizer?
I realize Law Enforcement needs help. I will do my part by not hosting booze parties for my kids, nor will I allow my kids to host them at my home. My kids are not criminals, nor are their friends, (that I know of). I guess we can't give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. There will be too much at stake.
Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you know this will pass no matter how stupid it is. i hope the new council members will actually stand up for something.
Posted by FFHSStudent08 (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 3:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
y do we have to be so lame around here, i cant stress enough how boring this town already is. dont make it any worse, we need so much more to do around here! i only say dont pass it because this will make our town the lamest town in my book, i will have no reason to live here if it gets anymore lame, and i can say i wont come back. DONT DO IT, IT IS SUICIDE TO WHAT IS LEFT OF THIS NO FUN TOWN
Posted by username (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Call or email the council rep in your ward and ask them to vote NO on this ordinance.
Posted by bohica15 (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How ironic is it that Rolf, is now enforcing laws that prohibit others from growing up the way he did. Case by case evaluations, sounds like more income for the already over paid city attorneys office.
I feel there are enough laws in place already that this really isn’t needed.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
metasonics: You keep telling us the social hosting ordinance is redundant -- that there's already a law on the books that makes such activity illegal. State statutes are numbered for reference purposes, and can be found online. Please prove your point by telling us the exact number of the statute that prohibits hosting of underage drinkers.
I would assume that the City Attorney knows more about what's legal and what's illegal than we do.
Posted by cueball66 (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
at the very least the council needs to reconsider sec 3 of the definations section of the ordinance. by passing the ordinance the city is saying that alcohol is addictive drug therefore putting the city in the bad position of being a entity that sells and licenses business's that provide the outlet for the addictive drug. does that mean the city also becomes liable by passing this ordiance? also i don't understand the part of leaving the descretion up to the police does this leave the police liable for a poor decision. I think this ordinace needs to have some serious reconsideration
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ANonnyMoose,
FURNISHING TO MINORS MN statute 340A.503.2 1
CONT. TO DEL. OF MINORS MN statute 260.315
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CHAPTER 139-S.F.No. 184
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MN statute 260.315 was repealed for new language with CHAPTER 139-S.F.No. 184
in 1999.
it's still against the law to provide a minor with alcohol.
"I would assume that the City Attorney knows more about what's legal and what's illegal than we do." - ANonnyMoose
why make such assumptions?
the citizenry should stop placing blind faith in their public servants.
we've seen where that leads far too many times.
Jamie Cooper
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Metasonics: You're blatantly ignoring the language of the proposed ordinance. You cited one current statute, and it only deals with PROVIDING ALCOHOL. The proposed city ordinance does NOT deal with that; rather, it only addresses HOSTING, or providing the OCCASION for underage consumption of alcohol, not the alcohol itself. There IS a difference. It's NOT redundant.
I make assumptions about the city attorney's expertise based on his education, his professional experience, his working knowledge of law, etc. etc. etc. I think that's a pretty sound rationale for that level of trust. When he tells the Council there's a need for an ordinance that's not covered by state law, I'm certainly more willing to take his word for it than yours.
Posted by username (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AMoose, but the OCCASION could be Christmas, Thanksgiving, Graduation, a wedding, etc...These occasions would now be lumped into the same category as throwing a kegger for underage drinkers. They would carry the same liability. And again, the fact that each would be looked at on a 'case by case' basis seems leaves me uneasy. Who will be the first to 'have an example made' of them? I still stand strong that while this ordinance may appear to have good intentions, it will end up giving good people a criminal record. Unless they have friends in local law enforcement/courts, as they can review their 'case.' A law is a law, and unless it is applied equally to everyone, it is not a good law to pass. My 2 cents.
Posted by bluebird (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"the citizenry should stop placing blind faith in their public servants." ...says the man who just ran for public office. Thank goodness only 193 votes were cast for putting "blind faith" in metasonics and his inability/refusal to differentiate between what's already on the books on what's being proposed.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not asking you to take my word for anything!
I never have, there is no need to.
the facts are right there in black and white from two state statutes.
one that addresses providing a location for minors to consume alcohol and the other addressing providing alcohol to minors.
it's already illegal.
as I said before this ordinance does one thing different than previous laws because it will criminalize innocent people.
the long term affects of this law will be families leaving this community.
loosen up just a little Fergus! for gods sake at least acknowledge reality.
Posted by TKay (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you remember an article (or look at link below) previously written in the Journal, the ordinance appears to be tied to additional monies through a grant.
http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2...
A number of other MN Cities are moving forward with this with some considering it while others having already accepted it which include Red Wing, Mankato, Willmar, Chaska, Apple Valley and Albert Lea to name a few.
This is not specific to Fergus Falls or even Minnesota if you google social host ordinances there is a lot of information out there regarding this across various parts of the USA with interesting discussions going on.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stat...
Information given at that site shows that it’s perfectly legal to serve alcohol to your kids in your home. We don’t need to worry about going to jail for serving wine to our kids on Easter Sunday. The proposed city ordinance doesn’t mess with that in any sense. If, however, we’re going to let them throw a kegger and invite their buddies, that’s another matter, and that appears to be what the proposed ordinance is meant to address. It’s pretty simple.
Metasonics – I don’t understand how you can believe that innocent people will be criminals under the proposed ordinance. Please explain your thinking. Since you'd have to be knowingly committing the act to be charged, it follows that you can't be guilty if you literally have no knowledge of the party. What's the problem?
Posted by timetotalk (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Username, as usual, I must agree with you whole heartedly. I have many fond memories of going to my friend's house after high school on a Friday and my friend's parents having their wine, which came directly from the coat closet where we hung our coats. Granted.. they SHOULD have hid it a bit better. However, we were not dumb enough to get into the wine because there would be punishment for it.
The cops didn't have to come and tell the parents that kids should not be drinking in their house.. THEY told us we should not be drinking in their house, and guess what?? We LISTENED! Why? Because there were rules in place that we either followed "or else".
There is no reason that a family or friends should not be able to get together and have a few drinks. If there are people under 21 there, they simply should not be drinking. Let them do that at their own house with their own parents as is legal in Minnesota. If the kid sneeks into the booze and is there with their family or friend give them the "what for" and when they get home and give them some consequences.
What kid didn't sneek into the booze as a teenager? I grew up in a house that did not have any liquor except really, really bad wine at Christmas or when friends of my parents came over and brought their own. Guess what? They would leave their liquor when then left.. then guess what?? I got into it! Yes, I did! My parents did NOT furnish it to me.. someone else did by leaving at my house. Do you think I got into when my parents were home? Where does the fault lay? I would say on ME! I snuck it, I drank it I am at fault. It does not take a law enforcement officer to tell me or my parents that.
Posted by username (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly my point, timetotalk. If law enforcement were envolved, your poor mom could have had some splainin' to do!
Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on November 14, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey city council stop debating some ridiculous ordinance, another large, long term employer in Fergus is going to leave, schucks missed that I guess. Oh well, only blue collar. Not like we didn't get ACS, no jobs have been from journal archives been generated by it or how about 2 new banks in Fergus in the middle of an economic depress...oops I mean downturn. Who needs blue collar jobs. Banks and tech jobs. Plenty of work at minimum wage for those at Banner employees with what I'm sure will be severance packages equally at least to 1/10000th of there CEO's annual salary, or bonus, or stock options.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)