When the Columbus City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to adopt a new ordinance to address public safety issues at privately-held events in the city, no one could argue with the motives.
But it was obvious almost immediately that the new ordinance was overly-broad and unnecessarily burdensome. Within two days of that vote, the mayor and city council moved to amend the measure.
In its original version, anyone who owned a building leased out for events where at least 100 people were expected to attend and alcohol would have been sold would have been required to submit an application for a permit, provide security and obtain $250,000 in liability insurance.
Such a measure, had it not been amended, is certain to have created a wave of unintended consequences. Did the city really want to apply these conditions to such things as retirement parties, wedding receptions or Christmas parties? Obviously, it was an ordinance that was overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive.
Thursday, Mayor Robert Smith outlined the changes he expects to be made to the ordinance.
“If you haven’t had any acts of violence, breaches of the peace, public disturbance fights, injury or death at your place in several years preceding the effective date of this new ordinance, you’ll be exempt from the requirements of it,” Smith said. “But the first time you have (such an incident) you’ll have to comply with it for two years and remain continuously without any sort of (disturbance) and if you go two years without the event you may have your exempt status back.”
In retrospect, the original language of the ordinance appears to have addressed a specific problem with a general solution. It was as if the council was reluctant to directly address one or two venues that have proven to be prone to violent incidents.
This is particularly true of the Columbus Fairgrounds, which has seen at least four violent incidents in the past four years. In March 2010, a 16-year-old girl was shot in the arm and another teen grazed by a bullet during an event at the Fairgrounds. In November of the same year, a man was charged with a felony for smashing the window of a police officer’s cruiser after being stopped for questioning on the Fairgrounds property. In February 2012, police responded to the report of a gunshot victim at Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle. The man told police he had sustained those injuries during an altercation at the Fairgrounds. This May, one man was killed and another injured in another shooting at the Fairgrounds.
Given that history, it was wise for the city council to enact an ordinance that will address these issues. It is a matter of public safety.
It is clear, however, that the original ordinance was too broad. The council and mayor acted wisely to take the appropriate steps to address the problem where it has been known to exist rather than apply it to those for whom it would be an unnecessary and unwarranted restriction.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.