Two Sides of City’s Alcohol Policy Bill

Pending City Measures Are More Popular Than Students May Think—They Have Only Their Sleep to Gain

As busy students on the UC Berkeley campus, it’s often easy to forget that anything exists outside the borders of Bancroft Way, Shattuck, Hearst and Piedmont avenues. Travel a couple of blocks west, though, and you’ll encounter a building that we visit all too rarely for the impact it can have on our lives as students. I’m referring to the Berkeley City Council chambers on Martin Luther King Jr. Way, where the result of several meetings held during the past month may significantly change the city’s policy toward open parties and alcohol citations.

This being the case, City Council chambers had more than its usual share of students at Tuesday night’s meeting. At the previous meeting, held on Jan. 30, the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Advocacy Coalition had first readings on two recommendations to the council. The two items present on the consent calendar for Tuesday’s meeting were mandatory Responsible Beverage Service training; implementing a Social Host Ordinance, (where hosts of a party can be fined if a police response is required and underage drinking found on the premises) and a proposal by city staff to strengthen the Second Response Ordinance (where parties requiring a second response from the police can be subject to a fine).

Mandatory beverage service training passed unanimously at Tuesday’s meeting. However, the proposed Social Host Ordinance has created quite a stir in Berkeley, effectively pitting students who like to party against neighbors who have jobs instead of webcasted lectures and, therefore, are more in need their sleep.

Well, not quite. In fact, we at Students for a Safer Southside have come together with this very issue in mind. Students for a Safer Southside is a State Incentive Grant-sponsored student group that came together in 2005 to target social and public health problems

associated with binge drinking on college campuses and elsewhere.

We’re not against partying—we’re not even against drinking—but we do believe that measures like Social Host can better control these parties and keep them safer, for both students and the surrounding community. According to a survey of about 500 UC Berkeley students administered during the spring semester of 2006, 45.8 percent of UC Berkeley females and 47.4 percent of UC Berkeley males agreed with us. From the same survey, we found that 70 percent of UC Berkeley students have been drunk less than six times in the past year, and of that percentage, 65 percent self-report not having been drunk at all, showing that opposition to Social Host is probably much more isolated than it would seem.

Contrary to concerns that the bill will not discourage irresponsible behavior, but may in fact increase it, the results of similar policies in other California counties like San Diego and Ventura show that Social Host Ordinances do work. In Rohnert Park, for example, there was a 12.5 percent reduction in house party calls for service within just a year of implementation.

While some opponents of the proposal contend that this reduction is merely a result of people covering up their parties to avoid the fine, there has been no evidence to support this claim. Instead, it is probably the case that party hosts eager to avoid the penalty have taken relatively simple preventative measures, such as having a guest list or just keeping an eye on the door, that have contributed to the increase in public safety. How can anyone argue against that kind of common sense?

Moreover, Mayor Bates and the city council are considering an addendum to the proposed ordinance that would eliminate the need to cover up a party that has gotten out of control: In the case of sincere self-reporting, party hosts may be eligible for a reduced fine or altogether exempt. Also, if the attending police officer deems the offense an infraction, there may be an option of reducing the first-time offense fine from $250 to $100.

Finally, in case anyone forgot, underage drinking is illegal. In many ways, Social Host is nothing more than a proposed model of enforcement for a law that is clearly broken often enough not to be taken seriously. As one community member said at Tuesday’s meeting, a society creates its norms by what it allows. UC Berkeley may be all about individual freedom, but do we really want to show ourselves as the city where you can get away with anything, legal or illegal? Probably not.

For more information, please e-mail us at safersouthside@gmail.com.

by Nima Golzy and Nalini Padmanabhan

Nima Golzy and Nalini Padmanabhan are members of Students for a Safer Southside. Send comments to opinion@dailycal.org.

City Council Measures Are Far From Perfect and Could Create Even More Problems for Students and the City

Public safety has been the biggest concern for students and residents of the city of Berkeley. Recently policies have been created in order to make sure this city is safe for everyone. However, even though these policies may be well intentioned for the city, it will in fact have backlashes. In order to make sure that this city’s safety level rises, we must make sure everyone is involved in the policy making. Some ordinances however, have created policies without the consideration of students.

The Social Host ordinance that is going through the city is one of these examples. This ordinance was created with the idea of increasing public safety within the city. And while I agree that public safety needs to increase, this ordinance actually does quite the opposite.

The purpose of this ordinance is to discourage underage drinking and irresponsible behavior. The truth is that it actually takes away the responsibility of the underage drinker and focuses on the “host” of the party. This is a huge problem because it is ridiculous to think that a host of a party can determine the alcohol consumption of everyone in the room, especially if they are underage drinkers. Many people can either drink before or they take their own alcoholic beverages to a party. These acts have nothing to do with the host of the party, yet under this ordinance, it would be the host who would be penalized.

Also, in case of any emergency that occurs at a party, the host will feel discouraged to call for the police, fire department or medical attention because they will surely get in trouble. This will result in a lack of trust with authorities. No one should hesitate in calling for help in an alcohol or non-alcohol related incident.

This ordinance raises the issue of community as well. Many of houses, apartments, co-ops or other living

situations have residents because the people feel comfortable within that living space. Being part of a co-op myself, we thrive in community involvement and unity for the betterment of the co-op. Individuals who move into these living spaces become part of a community by meeting new people that are in their same living situation. If this ordinance passes, the sense of community is threatened.

Under the ordinance, if a host receives a second response, he or she will not be allowed to have any type of social gathering for 180 days. Throughout the time that I have been a student, I have realized that in order to deal with feelings of isolation and loneliness from either moving away, school work, or just the rush of people that take part on this campus, people join organizations to feel a sense of belonging. Whether it is a social, political, professional or any type of organization, being part of something on campus definitely has an impact on the comfort and confidence level of being part of this institution. This is a huge issue to student organizations because recruitment is very vital every semester.

Parties are going to happen regardless of what policies pass through the city. If social hosts are forced to abide by these policies, they will find ways to go around them and if they do, the only people that are affected are the neighbors and the residents of the party. A host might have the mentality of throw a really big “finale”-style party, which increases public nuisances because the host will completely disregard neighbors and authorities, which is not public safety at all.

Does this ordinance discourage people from having parties? Yes. Does it stop parties from happening? Not a chance.

If the social host ordinance passes, you can be assured that I will be scared to throw any type of social gathering at my residence. If the creators of this ordinance are looking to scare away people from throwing parties, they will achieve it. But they will also achieve more strain on police and residents of the city of Berkeley because there is more incentive to go around the regulations rather than through them.

Fear and rebelliousness are not the ways to achieve public safety.

I am asking all students and community members to stand and make their voices be heard. We as students of a prestigious university and residents of a progressive city need to make sure we have input on policies that affect all of us. We need to make ordinances that work for everyone. Students from Interfraternity Council, ASUC, Access, Panhellenic and other areas on campus are coming together against this issue. I urge all of you to come to city council meetings and voice your opinion on this ordinance. Make your voice heard.

Daniel Montes

Daniel Montes is a Raza campus

facilitator and a UC Berkeley student. Send comments to opinion@dailycal.org.

Tags: