Social host ordinance – this ordinance needs to be thrown out, or at least typed up correctly and resubmitted to the full public

4 Mar

I been busy with my own business lately – and I know how EVERYBODY would love me to pay more attention to that. Unfortunately, city business becomes my business when the ordinances they pass Downtown affect my livelihood. That’s why me and a gaggle of other landlords, small and large,  came down to the last Internal Affairs committee meeting to  have a conversation over this new “Social Host Ordinance.” 

The city attorney had written a clause into the ordinance that said the police chief could decide to assess a property owner/landlord for “response time” of cops and fire where underage drinkers were present. In other words, hold landlords responsible for the actions of their tenants.

When we hashed this all out over the Disorderly Events ordinance, they dropped the landlord clause because it was found that they could not possibly notice a landlord quickly enough to prevent a second incident, and how could the landlord be responsible for a second or even third incident if they were unaware there’d been a first incident? But now, they want to use proof of mailer, which just means, they sent a notice, to somebody. They expect to use the assessor’s roles to get the contact info. According to Butte County Assessor candidate Al Petersen, the rolls are full of mistakes – some 10,000, last year alone. Those mistakes include contact information, and I’ve had that problem – they got the wrong address for my prop tax bill, and it took me almost two years to get it corrected. At one point, it was so screwed up, they let my neighbor’s mortgage holder pay my taxes, and sent my check back, even thought the other check was in the wrong amount. So, we’re supposed to trust these idiots to get us a notice that the cops have been called to our rental? 

The angry crowd that showed up at the Internal Affairs meeting had already had a private meeting with the city attorney that I was not made aware of. City attorney Roger Wilson said after meeting with those folks, who included the management for Webb apartments and other big dick swingers, he recommended dropping the “landlord responsibility clause”. Don’t you get sick of the special favors Downtown? I mean, I wanted that dropped, but I don’t like any of the ordinance. These fuckers sold out because it suited their bottom line. Thanks Randy, you egg sucker! 

And speaking of errors, get a load of this draft ordinance I had to get from Debbie Presson, because she hadn’t loaded the agenda properly, and it wouldn’t cut and paste. There are so many typos in this thing – like I’ve said before, get off your dildo Debbie, and do your job. I’ve seen items pulled from agendas for less mistakes than this:


A. The fees set forth herein shall be used to calculate the costs to be recovered by the City in connection with the following incidents:

l. The apprehension and arrest or citation of persons convicted of an offense involving the driving of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug;

2. Response to accidents caused by persons who are convicted of an otTense involving the driving of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug; ef

3. LiabilityJor the City’s emergency resoonse cost~ under Jhe Social Host Ordinan~~ (Chico Municipal Code Chailter 9.31Lor

‘L Participation in a second response to a loud or unruly event as defined in Section

9.70.030 of the Chico Municipal Code.

B. Payment is due and payable at the City’s Finance Office within thirty days of the date the bill is mailed or payment shall be considered delinquent and subject to the collection

measures set forth in Administrative Procedure and Policy No. 15-14.


A. Police and Fire Department fees as set forth below shall have a one-half hour (30 minute) minimum fee.

B. Fees shall be based on the amount of time spent by each police officer and/or fire suppression personnel responding to the incident, plus administrative processing costs,

and shall be calculated using the following fees:

Minimum Fee For Each Administrative

(for first y, hour) Additional Minute Processing Fee

Police Depmiment $46.50 per officer $!.55/minute/officer $34.50 per incident   (this line does not make sense, what do they mean – $46.50 per officer $!.55/minute/officer $34.50 per incident?  That doesn’t make sense even without the typo)

Fire Department $22.00 per fire fighter $0.73/minute/fire fighter $34.50 per incident (again, this line does not make sense)


The City Manager is authorized to annually adjust the fees set forth above to reflect personnel compensation adjustments previously authorized and approved by the City Council without further City Council action (BP E.5.).

While the typos make it difficult to read, I think most people would see plenty to be alarmed about here. First of all, it’s up to the police chief and the city manager to decide when there’s been an offense, and how much to assess, and then turn around and put it right in their own pocket. That’s completely inappropriate conflict of interest. And second, there you see the “AUTHORIZATION TO ANNUALLY ADJUST FEES,” administratively, with no public oversight. 

Wow, look at that, I just spelled administratively, twice!  I wonder if they could use somebody who can spell and type down at the City of Chico? 

2 Responses to “Social host ordinance – this ordinance needs to be thrown out, or at least typed up correctly and resubmitted to the full public”

  1. Alan Petersen March 4, 2014 at 9:25 am #

    Juanita, It’s amazing what you uncover.

    I am always interested in what you have to say but I am uncomfortable when you add such crude terms. Your choice, but my response is to cringe. You have plenty of impact in your investigations without it.

    Re the statement, I Know your point is to show dependency on the roll is uncertain for complete accuracy.

    To clarify, for future: roll corrections do not correlate with “mistakes” by the office necessarily. They may be due to late filing by the taxpayer, audit results, or discovery of an unassessed building. Yes, also errors by the office, late work, or post office, title companies, taxpayers, clerk, or many other factors which require “roll correction”.

    Stay feisty! Al

    • Juanita Sumner March 4, 2014 at 11:46 am #

      Thanks Al – it was not my intention to blame the mistakes on staff – in my case, it was the title officer. It’s the assessor’s duty to check it out, and make sure these are corrected. I know, that’s like rolling a boulder up hill.

      My main point being, they can’t depend on the rolls to notify us when we have tenant problems, they can’t really guarantee we’ll be noticed, and therefore, can’t assess a fine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: