Resident makes moves against nuisance bylaw
By Scott Merzbach
Staff Writer
Published on June 27, 2008
A nuisance house bylaw approved at this spring's annual Town Meeting, which can levy fines against partygoers and force landlords to begin eviction proceedings against tenants who violate the statute, is facing criticism from an Amherst resident.
David Abrami, of North Pleasant Street, has put together an informational Web site detailing the more than 20-year history of the town's noise bylaw, and this week unsuccessfully attempted to collect enough signatures from registered voters to bring the new bylaw to a ballot vote.
Abrami was collecting signatures last week outside Jones Library along with people he recruited who had earlier been arrested for noise bylaw violations.
Abrami said the signature collection effort was an attempt to raise awareness that the bylaw, which passed Town Meeting by a 127 to 34 vote, might go too far in assessing penalties and could end up being used by Amherst police as another means of arresting people. "I was trying to force a public discussion," Abrami said.
Formally known as the Social Host and Party House Nuisance bylaw, the measure was developed through more than a year of research by the Campus and Community Coalition to Reduce High-Risk Drinking, a partnership between officials at the University of Massachusetts and surrounding towns. It provides for fines, as well as a way to seek administrative and response costs associated with enforcement by police.
In addition, landlords can be held liable for violations at their properties if evictions are not sought.
According to an information sheet that Coalition co-chairwomen Martha Nelson Patrick and Sally Linowski provided at Town Meeting, "Large, disorderly parties can cause traffic problems, neighborhood disturbances, overburden local police, create an unsafe environment for those attending, and lead to property damage and violent behavior,"
Abrami said he is concerned because Amherst police can already fine people for violations of the existing noise bylaw, yet most of these infractions now turn into arrests.
His Web site, with documents related to the noise bylaw and videos of Town Meeting sessions, is available at amherstnoise.weebly.com.
Town Clerk Sandra Burgess said Abrami needed to obtain about 530 signatures within five days of the Town Meeting dissolving, but only gathered a little over 200. Those that were collected and turned in were not certified by the Board of Registrars.
Abrami said the new bylaw may allow potential for criminal liability of anyone attending a party at a home that is declared a nuisance. He said he's not sure the intent of Town Meeting was entirely clear.
While he understands the impact of college parties, and wholeheartedly supports the spirit and intent of the bylaw, he's not sure Town Meeting asked the right questions and that students may not have been involved enough in crafting the bylaw. "What I'm concerned about is that the intent be very clear," Abrami said.
Had he obtained the necessary number of signatures, the Select Board would have been required to set a special election as soon as possible and practical.
But in Amherst it can be a challenge to overturn a bylaw passed by Town Meeting.
Under the Town Government Act, even if Abrami had obtained enough signatures, he would have needed to have the measure defeated at the ballot box with at least 18 percent of active voters turning out to vote on it.
