BIDDEFORD — A controversial ordinance that would make business owners responsible for the nuisance behavior of their patrons and others will be brought before the policy committee on Monday.
On Nov. 6, city council voted unanimously in favor of the measure at the first reading.
But when it was brought up for a second reading on Nov. 19, owners of local businesses spoke against the measure and the council voted to table it.
When the issue was tabled it was the last meeting of the former council.
“I just think the last council didn’t want to deal with it,” and that they bowed to public pressure, said Councilor Bob Mills, who is chairman of the policy committee.
He said he still favors the ordinance because “some folks living downtown are always disturbed by excessive noise in some establishments.”
The proposed nuisance property ordinance would be similar to the disorderly housing ordinance except it could deal with businesses.
“The success of the disorderly housing ordinance has been so great we need to expand it to include other properties,” said Beaupre when he discussed the proposal before the policy committee in October.
The nuisance property proposal would grant city officials the legal tools and procedures to discourage, abate and punish nuisance behavior at a residential, public or commercial property.
Some of these behaviors would include unreasonably disturbing or interfering with nearby businesses or residents. Repeated incidents of disorderly conduct, vandalism, disturbing the peace and other illegal activity could also be considered.
Businesses would be responsible for nuisance behavior committed by their tenants, guests, patrons or employees.
Repeated nuisance behavior could cause a business or other property to be labeled a nuisance property. A business and/or property owner would be required to meet with police and enter a written agreement on how to resolve the issue(s). If the issues aren’t resolved, the city could fine or take legal action against the offending property or business.
Resident Tammy Ackerman is one of those who favors the bill. Addressing the policy committee in October, she said that it was difficult to sleep at her Franklin Street apartment because of shouting and other disturbances from the patrons of a nearby bar.
Larry Burke, who along with his wife owns the Franklin Street bar Coasters, was one of those who objected to the proposal during the Nov. 19 council meeting. Burke said he shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of his customers or others who shout or create other nuisance behavior outside of his establishment.
“This ordinance supposedly blames us for whatever (those in the parking lot) do,” he said. “How can we tell people in the parking lot what to do?”
One of Burke’s employees said if people are yelling and screaming outside of the bar, “go after the wrong-doer,” said Mike, who didn’t give his last name. “It’s ludicrous to make people responsible for (what is) other people’s fault,” he said.
Depending on what takes place at the policy committee meeting, the council could vote on the issue again.
— Staff Writer Dina Mendros can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 324 or dmendros@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less