The Jordan City Council should follow the lead of the Scott County Board and the cities of Chaska and Prior Lake, among others, and adopt a social host ordinance.

The county board approved the ordinance June 2. Chaska and Prior Lake adopted similar ordinances earlier.

The ordinance, which makes it illegal for residents to knowingly host or allow underage drinking, is controversial, to be sure, and opposition has scared off some local governments, such as the Carver County Board. Opposition appears heaviest in rural areas.
We can understand the concerns of those who are unfamiliar with the details of the ordinance. Many think it gives law enforcement new legal powers and that parents will be charged whenever their children are caught hosting a party with drinking.

But that’s not the case. What it does do is close some legal loopholes that have thwarted police attempts to curb underage drinking and eliminate havens for drinking parties. The only adults who should be concerned about the ordinance are those at whom the ordinance is aimed: People who know about and allow alcohol consumption on their property. Sadly, there are too many adults, including parents, who see nothing wrong with helping teens have a party by supplying the alcohol or site, or both.

The measure has strong support among area police chiefs. The main proponents of the ordinance in Scott County are Scott County Sheriff Kevin Studnicka and County Attorney Pat Ciliberto.

Jordan has already passed the first reading of the proposed ordinance. The vote was 5-1. Councilmember Jeremy Goebel cast a vote against the proposal, and Councilmember David E. Hanson was absent from the meeting. After a public hearing in front of the city council, and an approval of the second reading of the ordinance, the council could enact the law.

Under the county ordinance, people could be charged with a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

The county attorney said the ordinance wouldn’t be used against unsuspecting parents or landlords.

“You have to know — or reasonably” should have known underage drinking was occurring to be charged, Ciliberto said.

For example, parents away on vacation who didn’t know their children were throwing a party at the home wouldn’t be charged, he said.

Most people who have been charged under the ordinance in the 20-some Minnesota municipalities that have it on the books are young adults, Ciliberto said.

The county ordinance excludes religiously exempted observances and parents who allow their own children to drink in their home, which is not against the law.

Studnicka said the ordinance is needed because law enforcement personnel have difficulty proving who provides alcohol for alleged underage parties. He said the ordinance gives law enforcement an additional tool and sends the message that these gatherings will not be tolerated.

The ordinance and its application will not affect how police patrol for parties. But it will close a legal loophole to ensure that adults who knowingly allow or otherwise promote a party with alleged underage drinking will get what they deserve.

Anyone who is law abiding should not fear such an ordinance.