Queen of the Court
by Dale Tyler

It seems our nanny government Mayor Trish Kelly is at it again. She has been pushing two measures that, while they claim to try and solve serious problems of loud parties and teenage drinking, they are really just an attempt to expand government further into our lives and homes. Neither of these proposed ordinances is needed, as there are plenty of laws on the books to handle these matters as well as the possibility of civil lawsuits for truly difficult neighbors. They do, however, increase the role of the City Council and let council members pass judgment over individual taxpayers by creating a kangaroo court.

The first measure, REGARDING MULTIPLE RESPONSES TO LOUD OR DISRUPTIVE PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR EVENTS (see text of proposed law), tries to make people holding events responsible for the costs of sending a police officer to an event that someone designates as “too loud” or “disruptive.” There are no objective standards in the proposal, so a neighbor who calls the police repeatedly to “get even” with another neighbor could trigger this law. Once triggered, the persons holding the event would be held responsible for all costs incurred by the police in their response, including any crashes the police get into coming to or leaving the event (Section 11.23.10 (2) and (3). If you don't feel the charges are fair, you must appeal to the City Manager, whose decision is final, according to the law. Where is the due process? The city will get the money, so how can the City Manager be considered a neutral party in this proceeding? Finally, the measure only applies to gatherings of five or more, so the neighbor and his brother who get loud and drunk won't even be covered (nor should they).

The Multiple Responses measure is completely unnecessary. Today, if someone is causing a nuisance, a neighbor is free to have a friendly chat with them and ask them to be a little quieter. If this fails or the neighbor is unwilling to confront the problem directly, the police can be called and a report made. If anyone is breaking any one of a number of existing laws, such as public intoxication, assault or the noise ordinances of the city, then that person can be cited or arrested. All the police need to do is enforce existing laws. No new laws are needed. There is also a right to “quiet enjoyment” that can be enforced in civil courts. In California, a public nuisance is one that affects an entire community or neighborhood at the same time (although the harm may be spread out unequally). A person may pursue an action for public nuisance if it is sufficiently injurious to her. No new laws are needed.

The second measure, SOCIAL HOST UNDERAGE DRINKING AND CONSUMPTION ACCOUNTABILITY (see text of proposed law), attempts to make parents and others responsible for what happens in their home. On the surface, it sounds pretty good. However, it places the city in the role of deciding what happens on private property, even if it is just a quiet gathering of family members. For example, it would be illegal for a father and grandfather to have a beer with their 20-year-old son before he goes off to fight for his country (Sec. 11.22.20). The father could be thrown in jail for six months under this law. A Christmas or New Year's party where the older teenagers are given a few drops of wine to toast the family would also be illegal. One might say “The city would never poke its nose into these private parties,” but that is exactly what this law demands. One wonders if we are going to see the Sheriff's deputies going door to on New Year's Eve to check the identification of all partygoers.

Social Host laws are just more overbearing nanny government. Claims that we should “think of the children” aside, there are plenty of existing ways this problem can be handled. If there is a problem with a large party with a number of underage drinkers, there are existing laws to handle the matter nicely. In addition to the public intoxication laws, there are special laws covering underage drinkers that will cause them to lose their driver’s license, a very stiff punishment for a teenager. All the police need to do is enforce existing laws. No new laws are needed. Further, this will do nothing to curb underage drinking. The parties will simply become more covert or move to other cities, from which the teenagers will have to drive back home, possibly increasing drunk driving. We also see the same foolish attempt to “recover” the costs of police responding to the event, similar to the Multiple Responses measure, with the same set of problems and more (see below).

Then there is the issue of due process and legal proof. In the text of both of these proposed laws (Sec. 11.22.40 and 11.23.40), the City Manager has to pass on the merits of these so-called offenses. Dennis Wilberg may be very wise, but he is not a judge, familiar with the niceties of the Evidence Code and other legal procedural matters. I cannot imagine Dennis wanting to be judge and jury for these trials. There is also the matter of forcing a trial within 15 days. It seems unlikely that such a speedy trial would allow for much discovery of the true facts in such a case.

I have saved the best part for last. In her capacity as mayor, Trish Kelley would now get to preside over trials of persons who feel that the City Manager's judgment of their guilt is unfair. The City Council (Sec 11.22.70) will become a judicial body to pass on the guilt of any who come before it. Talk about a “power trip.” I wonder if Kelley will have the taxpayers buy custom-made black robes for these solemn occasions. There are the questions of judicial training and due process here as well. I bet if any council member or political contributor threw a party and a teenager had a beer, they would be found innocent of all charges, while political opponents would go to jail for six months.

I urge you to call (949) 470-3050 and email cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org to let the City Council know what you think. We also need to remember who proposed and voted for this law when we vote for City Council elections in the fall. All of the council members claim to be conservative Republicans who believe in limited government, but proposals like this make it clear who are nanny state liberals and who really believe in the principles of limited government.