The recent debate (if it can be called as such) in the College Park City Council on fines issued for noise violations seems to have been an interesting one. As reported in this paper, it provides a fascinating view of the operation of the city council.
In the status quo, it is conceivable that a College Park resident who is charged with a noise violation could be made to pay a fine twice as high for the simple reason that the previous tenants also received a noise violation. The bill in question would lengthen the time during which the increased fine can be issued from six months to 12 months. In the midst of this morass of technicalities is the fundamental fact that this is a nonsensical policy. The idea that such a situation might arise is clearly not correct; no one would defend placing the burden of past offenses on current residents.
Understandably, the consensus of student voice has been against the proposed increase. Student Government Association President Andrew Friedson reportedly delivered 900 letters from students expressing their positions to the council. Why is it that these fines could not simply be attributed to the individuals responsible, rather than to the properties on which they occur?
While it seems like a simple problem to correct, the ensuing discussion seems to have accomplished next to nothing. It became muddled in the language of the law and the inconsistencies involved in noise enforcement. No one who was present seemed able to make sense of the situation. Ultimately, the decision was taken to postpone the vote on the legislation.
And thus we have a classic case study on modern governmental inefficiency, as well as an illustration of the political dynamics that take place in the city council. Of course, the council is always particularly amenable to arguments from residents about the horrors of living in a college town. Therefore, they instinctually sympathize with residents who complain about noise from parties. While those complaints are real, and serious noise offenders should be punished, this does not mean that the sort of obvious unfairness that is on the books now should be tolerated. Even in the face of 900 voices of student concern, a simple vote could not be conducted. It should come as no surprise to those who follow the politics of College Park. The new class of SGA leaders is going to have to learn to navigate them.
POLICY: The signed letters, column and cartoon represent only the opinions of the authors. The staff editorial represents the opinion of The Diamondback’s editorial board and is the responsibility of the editor in chief
