Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 10 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Council to read proposed social host ordinance
Published Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Albert Lea City Council will have the first reading Monday of a proposed ordinance that would prohibit and establish penalties for any person hosting a gathering where alcohol is knowingly consumed by underage people.
The ordinance, which is being called a social host ordinance, was compiled by the Albert Lea Police Department after 3rd Ward Councilor George Marin requested it earlier this spring.
The proposed ordinance states that it “intends to discourage underage possession and consumption of alcohol, even if done within the confines of a private residence, and intends to hold persons criminally responsible who host events or gatherings where persons under 21 years of age possess or consume alcohol regardless of whether the person hosting the event or gathering supplied the alcohol.”
It also outlines the findings related to underage drinking, the authority to enact an ordinance under Minnesota statutes, as well as exceptions that would apply to the ordinance.
During the council’s Thursday meeting during which councilors asked questions of Albert Lea Police Chief Dwaine Winkels and Lt. J.D. Carlson, some of the councilors expressed the concerns they’ve heard about the ordinance from their constituents.
J.D. Carlson
Marin asked Albert Lea Police Lt. J.D. Carlson whether this was the missing piece that would help officers when it comes to prosecuting and reducing underage drinking.
Carlson said he thinks it would definitely complement the current laws in place and that it would be a good tool for officers to use.
Other councilors asked about what would happen if this were to happen in the case of an Iraq War veteran under 21 who had just come home from war.
Ultimately Carlson said: “They know what the laws are too … and they’re obligated to stay within the laws as well.”
Others asked about whether this would apply at social functions such as wedding dances.
Councilor Larry Baker asked whether the ordinance was absolutely imperative to have.
Dwaine Winkels
“Imperative, probably not,” Winkels said. “But it’s another step in reducing underage drinking.”
The ordinance seemed to be one that divided the council.
If the council chooses to do so, a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance would be called for Dec. 8 to receive input from the public about the proposed ordinance.
During the Monday meeting, the council will also:
Vote on whether to accept sewage from several septic haulers in the county.
City Manager Victoria Simonsen said currently the city accepts septage from one hauler only during certain times of the year.
Larry Baker
She said after checking with surrounding communities and reviewing benefits and drawbacks, city engineering staff are recommending that the city accept waste from Freeborn County residents only. It would be for residential sludge only.
The engineering department also gave several other recommendations, including having the hauler provide insurance and document where the load came from, and how to notify the city when they are ready to dump and what the charges for it will be, Simonsen said.
Have a public hearing on the proposed zoning change for property south of Home Depot from an R-1 single family district to an interstate development district. The change in zoning would make the land consistent with adjacent Flying J and Hartman properties, which are also interstate development districts.
Vote on whether to accept tentative agreements reached with Teamsters Local 320 representing the local 911 dispatchers, police officers and detectives for the 2009 year.
George Marin
The city and Teamsters agreed on one-year contracts that include a 2 percent cost of living adjustment effective Jan. 1.
Call a public hearing for Nov. 24 on the proposed 2009 fee schedule.
Vote on a request by city staff to hold a winter carnival from 1 to 4 p.m. on Feb. 21 at Academy Park. For the carnival, city staff are requesting that Frank Hall Drive from Third Street to Fourth Street be blocked off. There would be skating activities and sledding.
Hear an update about the Shell Rock River Watershed District by Administrator Brett Behnke.
Hear a request from Deacon Mike Ellis at St. Theodore Catholic Church to hold a processional on Dec. 12 at 5:30 p.m. to celebrate the Feast of Our Lady Guadalupe. This is the fourth year for the procession in Albert Lea.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by the_truth (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“intends to discourage underage possession and consumption of alcohol, even if done within the confines of a private residence, and intends to hold persons criminally responsible who host events or gatherings where persons under 21 years of age possess or consume alcohol regardless of whether the person hosting the event or gathering supplied the alcohol.”
While I understand the simple logic behind this, I must say this idea is completely stupid. Obviously every church in town would be in violation. But I suppose if George Marin is involved, he will make sure that churches are exempt, even though they are in clear violation of this proposed ordinance. Also, in the privacy of one's own residence, it is the parents discression as to what is acceptable behaviour of their children. Would you rather your children drive out to the countryside to do some binge drinking, and then drive back, or would you rather it took place at a safe environment under responsible eyes? I know many familys that allow a glass of champagine during holidays for their minor children. It's part of being in the family unit for some. What about people who are away on vacation and their children have a party at the house? Will they then be held responsible as well? People need to also be aware that kids can and do sneak alcohol from the parents during parental social events. What is to happen when a minor sneaks alcohol on someone's premisis during a BBQ? Can you really expect to convict someone if no knowledge of an offense occured, in all fairness?
If you ask me, this "big brother" needs to butt out of our personal lives a bit. This ordinance is too intrusive to our home unit and should not be allowed. Our home is the LAST private thing we have, and we need to protect that privacy. There are too many variables that can ilicit a violation of this ordinance, without the host's knowledge of the offense even taking place. How can our city's government be so nieve when it comes to underage drinking in the first place? Most of them consumed as minors themselves. It's very easy to obtain, fun to do, and punishing adults around them for it is just insane! WAKE UP ALBERT LEA! Minors will not be swayed by this in any way. It will only hurt the innocent and well intentioned.
Posted by the_truth (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I should probably add that while the ordinance proposed should include the phrase "where alcohol is knowingly consumed by underage people," let's be real here a moment. Clearly this judgement will be left to the officer at the scene, and who is to make sure they don't include in the report something to the effect of the host knowing consumption was taking place, when the host didn't have any idea? It's all too easy for a report to be falsified. Anyone having ever dealt with the ALPD surely KNOWS this would never happen!
Posted by inobmaz (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that this law could cause more harm than good. Individuals under the age of 21 will continue to drink, as they have for years. Stop trying to beat a dead horse. The individuals that want to drink will and find places to do it. If they have to go out of the city limits they will. They will flock to smaller towns or farm houses or trespass on abandon land to find a place to party. This practice has been going on for years and the law in just the city of albert lea is not the answer. Also the harder you make it for someone to do something, you just drive the act further underground and then it is even harder to regulate. Also when it is underground there is less responable supervision and the likelyhood of unfavorable situation will occur
Posted by mrthunder (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
my uncle would be in jail. at 16 we would bail hay. man was it hot and he would give me a beer. man it tasted good on that hot day.
and i guess are war veterans. who hot to kill to stay alive. man hate for them to have a beer.. ( war hero in jail for having a beer)
that would make a great headline. to me they should be working on more important issues
Posted by scurvydog (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not every church would be in violation of this ordinance. In fact, any church I've ever been in during communion served grape juice instead of actual wine.
That technicality aside, I disagree with this ordinance, because I remember being young. 99 percent of any party I ever knew about was held while the parents were away - without their knowledge, and without their approval.
Posted by movedon (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I cannot believe the council would even consider this! Talk about to much government. In Wisc. a parent can take there underage children into a tavern were they can be served. In Albert Lea minors are suspects without probable cause. Now let's give the boys in blue permission to do door to door house searches looking for offenders, just because young people have gathered together at someones home. Then give some unknowing property owner a fine and of course there name in the paper.
Posted by OldTrojan (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Golly, is the Albert Lea city council and police department bored? Is there not anything to work on that is more important? So far this year, 2008 only, 35 soldiers between the ages of 18 and 20 have given their lives in service to our country in the Iraq war. Would Lt. J.D. Carlson really arrest a young person who is leaving to or returning from service in an overseas war for having a beer or glass of wine in a private home? If so, it is a sad day for our country. The priorities appear to be very out-of-touch among the city council and police department in Albert Lea. Hopefully the new mayor will get all on task and to focus on what matters most.
Posted by metisman (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scurvydog nailed it!
Posted by nesaajr (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blame CHASKA. Yes, you can put part of the blame on Chaska, they started this in Minnesota.
See link:
http://www.chaskamn.com/Social%20Host%20...
I don't like it and just another way for the Police to harass Citizen's. Kids will find one way or another to get alcohol and no City Ordinance or State Law will stop it. Will any parent say or tell the Police after the kids get caught that they let them or knew about the party or alcohol comsumption? Just another way to bring us into a Socialist State and take away more of our Freedom's.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone has made great points but the city will not listen to their citzens. We live in a time and place where the government feels it is their right to strip us of our rights. So far this year the city and the police have made news by taking away people's rights, writting parking tickets, and yelling at people who mowed their lawns and some clippings went into the street.
Wow I wonder why no one whats to live here.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)