Thursday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Party fines: deterring or discriminatory?
GUEST COMMENTARIES
On Monday, Nov. 13, the Eugene City Council is scheduled to vote on the Eugene Police Department’s proposed
response fee for multiple “out-of-control” parties at the same residence. Today, the Emerald presents two guest
commentaries about the issue, and we urge students to make their opinions heard at the City Council meeting.
: v ‘V > - ^. '''ox::::-:-.'
The question is not whether the
new ordinance proposed to
the Eugene City Council is just
or necessary, for it is indeed
both. Rather, the true question is
whether we as a University community
live in a vacuum or in a larger commu
nity with other individuals and other
needs that stretch beyond our petty,
self-centered compulsions and habits.
College students are notoriously
greedy and are infamous for failing to
look beyond the snot at the end of their
collective nose, and this controversy is
could conceivably hold a loud and ob
noxious party every 31 days—once
every month — and still avoid any cita
tion under the law. In my mind that is
in essence uncivilized and at the very
least rude behavior, and yet a few
would say that this is still unaccept
able. Well, why not? I mean, ought we
not be allowed to annoy our neighbors
and act like three-year-olds once a
week? And people wonder why college
students receive such a terrible reputa
tion. It’s our own fault, really.
It comes down to a basic question of
hardly an exception to
the rule. Instead of ask
ing why the communi
ty as a whole and re
spective leaders therein
find the issue of “party
PRO
equity and considera
tion. In a state and era
where dollars are few
and resources limited
for government at the
local and state level, we
ing so troubling, stu
dent government leaders seem bent on
whining and complaining about the
“oppression” of those “mean-spirited”
bullies in city government. OK, so I’ll
be the one to beg the question: Why the
concern?
To answer the question, let us exam
ine the problem as it really stands. Uni
versity students love to drink and par
ty, and very seldom do they take into
ought to be utilizing our resources re
sponsibly. Covering the inconsiderate,
irresponsible actions of a few drunk
college students simply is not acting in
such a manner.
Scott Austin is a member of Future Lawyers of
America and a student at the University.
A proposed city ordi
nance unfairly tar
geting students will
soon be voted on by
Eugene City Council. This ordi
nance, written by members of
the Eugene Police Department,
would impose new fees in ad
dition to already existing fines
for party-related penalties in
certain instances.
These fees are unlike fines
one would receive for a minor
in-possession or a noise viola
tion; they are intended to “re
cover costs involving criminal
violations requiring frequent
and significant police re
sponse. ” Rather than being
paid back to the City of Eugene,
the new fees would be given di
rectly to EPD. The word “fre
quent” in the above quote is
misleading. As the ordinance is
written, a group of 10 people
could be fined forgathering on
the same premises twice in a
90-day period.
If this ordinance passes, a
resident would
be required to pay the costs of
breaking up their own party —
including from $35 to $45 per
hour for police officers’ wages
and any equipment used. The
city manager determines what
equipment, but it can include
gas for police cars, tear gas and
batteries for flashlights. This is
in addition to what the resident
is required to pay for a noise vi
olation, MIP, etc.
This ordinance is not a
proactive approach to the
CON
problem, and the deterrent ef
fect that the police are hoping
for will only deepen the
wounded relations between
students and police. In the
multiple meetings members of
the ASUO have had with
police, never once was safety
mentioned as a motive for
writing the ordinance; it
zero tolerance policy. New
tactics being used by the party
patrol are putting students in
danger.
Officers have recently re
fused to let women call for
rides and threatened to issue
“Interfering with a Peace Offi
cer” citations if people are
“caught” waiting for a friend
to walk home with after a par
ty has been broken up.
Yes, students party and
sometimes consume alcohol
in large quantities, but using
reactive, destructive tactics
such as this ordinance, as it is
currently written by the EPD,
will not produce anything
beneficial for this community.
The ASUO has written and
presented an alternative ordi
nance to the City Council,
which is drastically different
from the EPD version. Student
leaders have met individually
with city councilors to discuss
the ordinance and possible
changes that could be made.
consideration the schedules and needs
of their working, non-student neigh
bors. For that matter, they seldom take
into consideration the manifest needs
of their working student neighbors
either, and in both cases noise
violations — which, oddly
enough, take place statis
tically in this city when
loud and obnoxious
parties are held —
often lead to po
lice officers be
ing called to
the scene.
This costs
the commu
nity money,
in many
cases mon
ey that real
ly ought to
be used for
other purpos
es. Ought the
entire commu
nity pay the cost
for the irresponsi
bility of a few, or
ought the irresponsi
ble themselves pay that
cost? *
Consider for a moment the
implications of this statute in prag
matic application. One apartment
seems only to be an issue ot
monetary compen
sation for
their
. C £ M. U, u k) | *r Q
*PAV*nV.,.».S«*^i
Bryan Dixon Emerald
However, we need students’
help.
The City Council will vote
on the ordinance Nov. 13, and
we need people to come and
voice their concerns. If you
don’t know anything about
the ordinance, the ASUO
is having an informa
tional meeting and
open discussion on
the ordinance to
day at 5 p.m. in
Room 123 Pa
cific. I would
encourage
all con
cerned stu
dents to at
tend this
meeting,
whether or
not they ap
prove of stu
dent party
ing, because
this ordinance
will affect all of
us.
Christa Shively is the
ASUO community out
reach directorand Mike
Barnhill isan ASUO
intern.
Letters to the editor
Lifestyles of the
Geographically Challenged
I find it quite ironic that in Mon
day’s column by Eric Pfeiffer, he
criticizes “Heaton Seeker,” who
sent him an anonymous death
threat. Isn’t Pfeiffer the same per
son who wrote a column (“Hey
Jay: Activism doesn’t stop with
WRC,” ODE, Oct. 10) criticizing
the ASUO and how it is run when
he was on the other side of the
country?
Writing an anonymous death
threat is the act of a coward, but so
too is one who mocks a communi
ty in which he isn’t currently in
volved. It’s fine if you want to tell
us all about the inner politics of
Washington, D.C., because you
may have experienced it first
hand, but it is absurd for you to
judge the current politics here at
the University. You say that Bres
iow’s leadership methods on this
campus are flawed, but you are not
even here to see these methods.
You continue by stating, “Anyone
who even remotely follows the
ASUO knows this is the truth.’’
How can you logistically iollow
the ASUO from Washington, D.C.,
though? Breslow has led the
ASUO Executive staff and other
students to unthinkable goals this
fall highlighted by an amazing vot
er registration drive. Yes, you
could read about the voter registra
tion drive on the Internet, but the
ASUO has done so much more on
this campus that you. Mr. Pfeiffer,
simply cannot see.
If you ask me, Pfeiffer, you and
•Seeker are both cowards.
Jeff Oliver
political science & journalism
ASUO housing advocate
Editor’s note: Eric Pfeiffer was
on campus, not in Washington,
D.C., during the WRCprotests and
the campaign and election of Jay
Breslow and Holly Magner. Pfeif
fer’s column, available in our on
line archives at www.dailyemer
ald.com, focused on those early
aspects of Breslow’s rise to power.