proposal would limit size of gatherings

[F3SS]

The easy explanation to that is in the link above your post. This affected someones 'mansion'

Yep it's knee jerk and very much in line with what I said in my first post.

[Rafterman]

Ah.... So basically this is just a "DO SOMETHING!!" kind of law. It will not actually prevent anything, but it makes it look like the politicians care and want to help.

Agreed. I don't see why any of this wouldn't be covered under already existing noise and community standards ordinances.

[Beany]

Meh.

If I had 50 or 60 people showing up at my neighbour's once a week lining the street with parked cars, I'd be P.O.'ed.

Wouldn't you?

This happens every weekend in the college town near me, so the city passed some zoning ordnances to control the drunken partying. The city council also banned the annual Mardi Gras parade for the same reason and limited the annual open house activities, as well. Is there any city that doesn't have a zoning ordnance? I'm not getting the outrage to a pretty common zoning ordnance issue. The fact is, if we aren't courteous to our neighbors and insist on exercising our "rights" at their expense or discomfort, there's going to be some blow back. And this doesn't sound like a left wing plot to deprive anyone of their freedom.

[Beany]

Ah.... So basically this is just a "DO SOMETHING!!" kind of law. It will not actually prevent anything, but it makes it look like the politicians care and want to help.

It's not extreme, a lot of cities have this kind of ordnance, and from my personal experience, it does prevent a lot of parties from spiraling completely out of control, which has happened where I live: students injured, molested, or dead, trips to the ER, cops called, beer cans & bottles thrown at cops, kids going to jail, suspended from school, trashing neighbors lawns, throwing objects at passing cars, etc; Since the ordnances have been in place there's a lot less of that happening. And the whole town is better off because of it.

[+DieChecker]

It's not extreme, a lot of cities have this kind of ordnance, and from my personal experience, it does prevent a lot of parties from spiraling completely out of control, which has happened where I live: students injured, molested, or dead, trips to the ER, cops called, beer cans & bottles thrown at cops, kids going to jail, suspended from school, trashing neighbors lawns, throwing objects at passing cars, etc; Since the ordnances have been in place there's a lot less of that happening. And the whole town is better off because of it.

I agree. I just think it is overkill to have 2 or 3 laws that basically cover the same situation.

If there is no such law in that town, then fine, but if there already is a law that covers all the situations that resulted in the young girl's death, then will adding another law matter?

Edited May 7, 2014 by DieChecker

[Beany]

I'd love to know how they could possibly enforce it. Would you have to notify the Law if you were planning on having a Gathering, and how many would be expected? If they get reports of a Gathering, would they send a squad car to watch outside and keep count? All sorts of interesting opportunities present themselves. :-/

Our students to have give notification of a party, and they are responsible for any alcohol violations, such as serving minors. The city PD & campus PD make frequent drive by's, and do break up the party if it starts spinning out of control. We want to keep our students safe, and condoning alcohol-soaked events is not a way to do that. We've had students die of alcohol poisoning at some of these events in the past, with these ordnances in place students & everyone around them will be safer.

[Space Commander Travis]

This happens every weekend in the college town near me, so the city passed some zoning ordnances to control the drunken partying. The city council also banned the annual Mardi Gras parade for the same reason and limited the annual open house activities, as well. Is there any city that doesn't have a zoning ordnance? I'm not getting the outrage to a pretty common zoning ordnance issue. The fact is, if we aren't courteous to our neighbors and insist on exercising our "rights" at their expense or discomfort, there's going to be some blow back. And this doesn't sound like a left wing plot to deprive anyone of their freedom.

Our students to have give notification of a party, and they are responsible for any alcohol violations, such as serving minors. The city PD & campus PD make frequent drive by's, and do break up the party if it starts spinning out of control. We want to keep our students safe, and condoning alcohol-soaked events is not a way to do that. We've had students die of alcohol poisoning at some of these events in the past, with these ordnances in place students & everyone around them will be safer.

What a dreary bunch of killjoys. Where is this? Pyongyang?

Edited May 7, 2014 by Admiral Rhubarb

[Beany]

What a dreary bunch of killjoys. Where is this? Pyongyang?

Hey, that's exactly what the students think. They don't think there should be any limits to their behavior, nor do they recognize any of their neighbors rights. And there's been no alcohol related deaths this years. Pyongyang? Really? Sometimes ordnances are a solution to a problem

Edited May 7, 2014 by Beany

[+OverSword]

Hey, that's exactly what the students think. They don't think there should be any limits to their behavior, nor do they recognize any of their neighbors rights. And there's been no alcohol related deaths this years. Pyongyang? Really? Sometimes ordnances are a solution to a problem

I think that since this proposal was state wide it's a little different don't you? To make make regulations and pass ordinances to keep rowdy college kids in check is one thing but to tell tax paying property owning adults they can't have more than 40 people over for a celebration or what have you is overreaching.

[Gromdor]

County-wide proposal. And you don't see a problem with giving tax paying property owners more rights than college students?

I live in a college town and we have had a more stringent form of this ordinance on the book for decades now. When I was in college they were busting every party we had. One day we decided to do a tux and wine themed party. The cops came, looked around, and left without saying a word. Somehow I think this double standard will apply in Freemont if they pass this ordinance as well.

[spartan max2]

Glad around OSU we don't have to give notifications of a party. Its pretty much all fair game as long as you do not go out in to the street.

[Bama13]

Hey, that's exactly what the students think. They don't think there should be any limits to their behavior, nor do they recognize any of their neighbors rights. And there's been no alcohol related deaths this years. Pyongyang? Really? Sometimes ordnances are a solution to a problem

So lets punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Are we kindergarteners? One kid does something stupid so we punish the whole class.

[+and-then]

They would probably enforce it by using one of those armored military vehicles that local police departments are buying up en masse. You've got to find some sort of 'practical use' to parade those things around and demonstrate a show of force, right? I mean surely, if there is a large group of people gathered in someone's home...that has GOT to be a red flag for some kind of domestic terrorism don't you think?

(*sarcasm*)

*gasp* it might even be a gosh durned group of them Christian Ziernists!!

[Beany]

So lets punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Are we kindergarteners? One kid does something stupid so we punish the whole class.

So you think that this demographic group should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want, even if they're in an alcoholic stupor, jeopardize their lives and lives of others, and damage other people's property? And that the neighbors and community should have no recourse to property damage, strange cars parked in their driveways, or students passed out on their front lawn? So one group should have their freedom protected, but the other group shouldn't. This might answer your question.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Beany

[Bama13]

Who said it was one kid besides you? And who says asking kids to be

The one kid was in reference to when we were in kindergarten and one kid misbehaved and if no one ratted him out the teacher would punish the whole class. So in your case a few kids are misbehaving and so everyone in the city/county/state should be punished?

[Space Commander Travis]

And to think people in the US see the UK as being an authoritarian nanny state.

[Yamato]

What a dreary bunch of killjoys. Where is this? Pyongyang?

And to think people in the US see the UK as being an authoritarian nanny state.

At Oxford U, they've got wine cellars down in the basements for the students and faculty, even "credit" cards for grad students to get free alcohol all semester long until their points are used up. And then the booze points get refreshed again. And the pictures of students drinking alcohol on their website didn't seem quite so ridiculous anymore...

Over here, we're way more intolerant than Pyongyang, it would never be allowed to come to that.

[Beany]

The one kid was in reference to when we were in kindergarten and one kid misbehaved and if no one ratted him out the teacher would punish the whole class. So in your case a few kids are misbehaving and so everyone in the city/county/state should be punished?

Why do you see expecting kids to behave with common courtesy to their neighbors a punishment? By the way, it's a city municipality.

[spartan max2]

Hey, that's exactly what the students think. They don't think there should be any limits to their behavior, nor do they recognize any of their neighbors rights. And there's been no alcohol related deaths this years. Pyongyang? Really? Sometimes ordnances are a solution to a problem

My issue is that they are limiting the amount of people to 49. and limiting the amount of times a week.

Stopping people from noise violations I get because that effects other people. Parking I can understand but you could also just make an ordinance stopping too many cars from parking to solve that.

But why go after the number of people? That is infringing on the right to assembly, specially when whoever these politicians are want to limit the number of people in your own home. It should be no one else business who you invite to visit your home.

If they have noise or parking or other issues then solve those but we should not be targeting the number of people allowed, there are better ways.

Edited May 8, 2014 by spartan max2

[Stellar]

Our students to have give notification of a party, and they are responsible for any alcohol violations, such as serving minors. The city PD & campus PD make frequent drive by's, and do break up the party if it starts spinning out of control. We want to keep our students safe, and condoning alcohol-soaked events is not a way to do that. We've had students die of alcohol poisoning at some of these events in the past, with these ordnances in place students & everyone around them will be safer.

You know what would be even safer? Just banning parties altogether. Infact, you can also make it safer by requiring all students remain in their residence at all times except the time necessary to go to class and come back. If you designate the specific route that they must take to get to class, you can also make them safer. And require them to have their groceries delivered, that way they don't spend any unnecessary time outside.

Thats ridiculous, right? Yes... but thats the exact same argument as yours. You can make people safer by controlling them, but is it really right to control them? Sometimes having freedom means people will do things that get them killed. You can't avoid that without slowly taking away that freedom.

[No Censorship]

nothing from any non-biased news source

That went the way of the dinosaur. "Unbiased media" is like "representative government" now. You're more likely to find Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Most news providers, from FNC to MSNBC, have personal agendas.

[No Censorship]

So lets punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Are we kindergarteners? One kid does something stupid so we punish the whole class.

That's why we have to show ID to buy Advil. That's why grannies and toddlers are fondled and groped at airports. That's why they pass needless laws each day. It's as predictable as the sun setting in the west.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

You know how you deal with rowdy groups of people?

You ring the coppers.

It's happening a lot?

RING THE COPPERS A LOT.

Or give a five year old a metal pot, a wooden spoon and freedom at 6am. That's how you say "we really enjoyed your party at 2am" here in Oz.

[Frank Merton]

All laws should expire in ten years automatically unless extended by the legislature or the law itself provides for an earlier expiration.

[Bama13]

Why do you see expecting kids to behave with common courtesy to their neighbors a punishment? By the way, it's a city municipality.

Sorry but I just do not agree with punishing everyone for the actions of some. Punish the offenders not everyone.

Why do you want to punish people that are behaving with common courtesy for the misbehavior of others?