The Eugene City Council will vote Nov. 13 — after postponing a decision that was supposed to be made at tonight’s meeting — on the new police response fee, which would fine renters $1,000 if police deal with a disorderly party at the same address twice in a 90-day period. We agree that punishing serious party offenders is necessary, but the response fee action is too broad. When added to the current “party patrol,” the Eugene Police Department threatens to use students for revenue generation and to worsen community relations.
Students will party. Some people have big parties, and a few might host shindigs that genuinely get out of control. But every party with more than 10 people is not “disorderly,” and students won’t stop partying, no matter what strict measures EPD adopts.
So why does EPD have the party patrol, and why do they want the response fee? Purportedly, the party patrol exists to stop situations such as the 1998 Halloween riots. And no one wants hundreds of drunk students in the streets throwing bottles.
Preemptive keg checks and weekly visits from police, however, don’t necessarily correspond to “disorderly” parties. Police check on parties with registered kegs early in the evening, to see if the keg is prematurely flowing. This isn’t responsible patrolling. EPD shouldn’t assume that a party might get out of control, or that students might not be able to enjoy themselves responsibly.
With EPD using the party patrol as an excuse to continuously knock on students’ doors, why wouldn’t we think the response fee is just an excuse to continuously collect money? That’s the potential of the response fee, and that’s why it needs to be revamped.
First, there should have to be an actual complaint called in from neighbors before the EPD can bust parties and fine students. That’s not always the case. A loud party with, say, 20 people isn’t necessarily a “disorderly” party. Without a complaint, the police shouldn’t be knocking on the door.
Second, 90 days is too long to be holding addresses responsible in a campus area. This period needs to be shortened or applied to the names of the people in the house. No one should be fined $1,000 because a prior tenant had a raucous party.
Lastly, we all share the cost of police services, and in a college town, some services are going to be responding to parties. College students pump a lot of money into Eugene’s economy, and they shouldn’t be the only ones paying for services we’re all supposed to provide. Certainly, serious offenders shouldn’t be draining police funds. Adjusting the response fee to fine third- or fourth-time offenders would be more appropriate.
Students do need to understand that it’s not acceptable to endanger themselves or infringe on neighbors’ rights by allowing parties to get out of control. Living in society means respecting each other. But until EPD uses its tools more appropriately, we’re not inclined to give them more. How about more preventative interaction between the ASUO and EPD? Why not walk the beat to talk to partiers, rather than bust them for tapping their keg 30 minutes early?
There are things students can do, as well. Talk to the ASUO about the response fee. Call ASUO Legal Services to discuss party citations. Contact the Independent Police Review Project at 343-5128 to work against inappropriate police conduct. Call CopWatch at 343-8548 for help filing complaints against the police. And at 7:30 p.m. Monday, go to the City Council meeting, sign up to speak during the public forum and give the council input on police action in the campus area. Student voices are needed to stop the response fee from being used inappropriately.
Penalties are appropriate for partiers who regularly cause problems. But the response fee, as it is, coupled with the party patrol, sounds more like a means to collect money than a punishment for genuine troublemakers. It needs to be fixed or scrapped.