The city of College Park, Maryland, has approved an ordinance that cracks down hard on “unruly social gatherings” around the city.
The unanimous vote capped off a hearing Tuesday night that dragged on for hours as longtime residents squared off with students and landlords who were opposed to the law.
Residents like Julie Forker, who has lived in College Park for the last 45 years, complained that the “new normal” during the school year included “public urination and defecation, underage drinking and open alcohol consumption on our streets and private residences.”
Forker said the parties bring with them street-blocking traffic, public drunkenness, vandalism and open use of controlled substances, she testified.
Another man told the city council that his property has been urinated and vomited on, and in one instance, a drunken college student tried to break into his home. The woman tried to climb through the back window and woke up his 2-year-old daughter. The woman ended up knocking over a trash can, too.
He recalled one of his neighbors had a similar encounter in which a drunken person threatened physical harm.
Numerous students from the University of Maryland spoke out in opposition to the ordinance, saying it was unfair and too broad, and pleaded with the city to work with the school to mitigate any problems.
Opposition was especially strong from landlords in the city and a group that represents them. While the first infraction will lead to a $500 fine to the residents of the home where something happens, subsequent violations will hit both the residents and their landlord. Three infractions over a 24-month period would see landlords lose their rental licenses.
“It imposes a draconian penalty on me for behavior which I can in no way, shape, or form reasonably be expected to control under many circumstances,” said Tom Gray, who was born and raised in College Park and became a rental property owner there two years ago.
“Two more parties and I lose my rental license? This is a financially disastrous and draconian consequence for all of us.”
He also warned that the new ordinance will reverse years of progress that had culminated from an improved relationship between the city and the university community, which had led to what he called a better college town that everyone wanted and enjoyed.
“This ordinance is more conflict. It’s conflict with property owners. It’s conflict with students,” said Gray. “And we can find a harmonious way to solve this problem.”
Other property owners warned that the new ordinance was sure to spark legal battles, not just against the city, but against owners themselves.
“These students as [tenants] can now sue me for harassment if I enforce what you all have on the table,” said Robert Davis, a property owner who cited county laws that protect renters. “They have a right to convene.”
“The city has not given us homeowners, us property managers, anything we can take to the state level, anything we can take to the county level and enforce,” he said. “But yet you want to charge me and you want me to charge my tenant.”
Many who argued against the new ordinance said its details were too broad and subjective and also questioned whether it was unconstitutional, since some argue it violates students’ rights to freely assemble. City leaders had said earlier this month that this new ordinance, modeled after similar laws in Towson and in other college towns around the country, was intentionally broad and vague in order to be able to aggressively crack down on students who are creating the problems even in groups as small as four or five people.
“This will be an embarrassment to the city … due to the way it is written,” warned David Dorsch, who was speaking as a member of the Prince George’s County Property Owners Association. “This is designated to particularly discriminate against students. Those same students the city has said ‘ … We don’t want to see or hear them, just want their money.'”
The conclusion of his testimony generated a long, thunderous applause that led the council to threaten to eject people from the meeting.
Hours later the council voted unanimously to pass the ordinance anyway.
