Though people are discouraged from hosting parties of any kind during a pandemic, this hasn’t delayed the complete overhaul of the Alcohol Offenses and Loud Parties Ordinance of Chapter 9.48 by the City Council of Rohnert Park. It redefines how many people constitute a party from 10 people to 2 people or more in a group and would increase the civil penalty to $500/$1000/$1000 along with additional cost incurred by an officer’s response, and also harsher penalties for those found drinking or using drugs and are under the age of 21. However, it’s in the process of being approved by the city council.
The Vice President of External Affairs Emily Ann Miller states that, “[The Rohnert Park City Council] has done nothing to communicate with or even respect me. During the meeting they mentioned they worked with the Sonoma State Associated Students to produce these changes, when in reality, they did not make any efforts besides inviting me to watch as they maliciously voted this into law.” She continues with, “This new law is aggressive towards students who are facing so many obstacles already. These fines are way too large and unreasonable for students to even attempt to pay, and it feels like residents want to drive all young adults out of the city.”
Miller also argues that they don’t recognize students as being a part of the Rohnert Park community. She expected a better relationship with city leaders and is shocked by how they could be so “divisive and ageist.” Miller views it as “hypocritical for the City Council members to take away the students’ opportunity to have social gatherings of any size when they themselves lived it up at schools like Oregon State and Chico.”
The change in group size was made so the responding officer doesn’t have to focus on counting group size but on the conduct and behavior of the group. Also, posting of the property would be at the discretion of the officer and would change from 120 days to a full year. Enforcement of the new ordinance would be reactive through filing a complaint to the city and applying the ordinance to the situation.
In response to the repealment of the ordinance, Miller stated that this has already discouraged students from living in Rohnert Park and that “Sonoma State students will also have an even more difficult time finding housing off campus as landlords will not want to risk their house getting attention from the police.” She also argues that every time this item came on the agenda, it was during periods where students weren’t able to be present. “During the meeting they mentioned they worked with the Sonoma State Associated Students to produce these changes, when in reality, they only came to our Student Senate meeting at our request.”
Yeymi Nohemi Perez, the senator for community affairs, shares the same sentiment that the complete change in the ordinance would make it harder for students to find housing off campus and that SSU students play a big role in the community.
According to Senior Code Compliance Officer Louis Kirk, the repeal and change in the code wouldn’t have an impact on students. If students want to have a party and “be respectful of neighbors and not jump off the roof into the swimming pool at 3 a.m, you won’t hear from the city” but it’s “designed for the small percentage of cases where people are not socially responsible.” According to him, the most important thing for students to do is communicate with each other and their neighbors.
In the last council meeting on Aug. 25, Kirk stated that part of the reason for the overhaul is so that municipal codes are consistent with each other and “enable productive pursuit of response costs and associated restitution.” Kirk also argued that in the last city council meeting, on Jan. 28, the Director of Public Safety brought up the occurrence that when officers would respond to a noise complaint they would “encounter a scattering of individuals quickly leaving a scene of a group of less than 10 people would less likely constitute a violation under the existing code.” As a result, there was a change in how many people constitute a party; from 10 people to 2 or more and that an officer would be free to focus on conduct and behavior rather than how many people are present.
Kirk does recognize that if the posting period is increased to one year it would carry into an academic year and would deter renters because the home has already been posted. Not only would it create a financial strain for an absentee property owner, but it would also prompt property owners to be proactive and prevent another posting from occurring.
This remodeled ordinance will be discussed at the next council meeting on Sept 8, and if approved, will be put into effect 30 days after its passed.
