By a 3-2 vote, Santa Clara County supervisors adopted an
underage drinking ordinance for unincorporated parts of the county
at their Tuesday meeting.
Justin Pittman
San Jose
By a 3-2 vote, Santa Clara County supervisors adopted an underage drinking ordinance for unincorporated parts of the county at their Tuesday meeting.
The new ordinance imposes fines on property owners and tenants and makes them responsible for response costs when authorities are called to disturbances involving underage drinking on their property. Following an initial verbal warning, fines will escalate for repeat offenders and could eventually result in penalties of up to $1,000. The law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Supervisors Don Gage, Pete McHugh and Ken Yeager voted in favor of the ordinance and supervisors Liz Kniss and Blanca Alvarado voted against it.
“I am glad that the county has established a new tool to raise awareness and prevent underage drinking,” said supervisor Yeager. “We will continue to work with the community and law enforcement agencies to find effective strategies for protecting the lives of young people.”
The ordinance exempts Stanford University as it had opposed the measure since it conflicts with its own underage drinking programs, and landlords will not be held responsible for their tenants’ underage drinking.
Supervisor Kniss cited a lack of “public outcry” and budget concerns for her “no” vote.
“I’m not doing this with any sense of rancor at all, but I just do not see the need for this,” said Kniss.
Gage, who represents South County, championed the ordinance, claiming that existing municipal social host ordinances have simply driven underage drinkers to properties in the unincorporated areas of the county. Eight cities in Santa Clara County, including Morgan Hill, have their own “social host” ordinances.
“I see the cities just pushing this (underage drinking) out to the county,” Gage explained before voting for the ordinance.
Gage had also originally hoped that the ordinance would make landlords liable for underage drinking that occurs on their property as well.
“The drug issue stopped in these rentals when the person who owned the properties said this will stop, or you will not be allowed to live here. This has been very effective in Gilroy and Morgan Hill,” said Gage. “If you just leave it up to the parent, and the parent doesn’t care than you get no effect.”
To bolster support for the ordinance, Gage later endorsed the motions to exempt landlords from responsibility for their tenants’ underage drinking.
“I feel so strongly about this that I’m willing to accept deferring for one year having the ordinance apply to Stanford and landlords,” said Gage. “We have to take action to curtail underage drinking, because it might mean saving a life.”
The county plans to evaluate the effect of the ordinance as well as Stanford’s underage drinking programs one year after the law is imposed. It will then decide whether or not the exemptions for Stanford and landlords should remain in the ordinance.
The 2005-2006 California Healthy Kids Survey for Santa Clara County found that 36 percent of county middle and high school students reported having a drink in their lifetime, and 21 percent claimed having had a drink in the last 30 days of when the survey was conducted.
