Chapman students and residents of Orange discuss potential effects of the proposed party ordinance. Photos by ALLIE CAMP

Infuriated Chapman students rose from their seats and left the Orange City Council chambers March 8 after the council unanimously voted on a first reading to strengthen the current party ordinance.

The second reading of the ordinance will occur April 12, during the Council’s next general meeting. If approved, the ordinance would go into effect May 12, 30 days after the vote takes place.

In contrast to the sparse student representation at a Feb. 9 City Council meeting when ordinance amendments were discussed, nearly a dozen students addressed the Council with prepared speeches at Tuesday’s meeting.

Student Government President Josh Nudelman was in attendance after coming under criticism for his absence from the Feb. 9 meeting.

“Student relations with the city is something I feel deeply and personally about,” Nudelman said when he addressed the council members. “I care about this university and I want it grow, and I want the Orange community to support us and grow with us.”

However, despite these proposed changes to the ordinance, some residents remain in firm opposition to the current manner in which the university is planning to expand.

“This is not a matter of if Chapman is going to expand, but it is a matter of how,” said Adam Duberstein, an Orange resident, when he addressed the Council.

What will change?

The proposed ordinance states that everyone attending a party can be fined if a noise compliant is filed. Under the current ordinance, the host of the party could get fined, but not the guests.

The proposed ordinance also makes it easier for students to become repeat offenders. The current ordinance considers second offenses to be within 10 days of the first offense. The proposed ordinance resets the window every June 30, so students can be repeat offenders if they receive more than one noise complaint in a one-year timespan.

In addition, neighbors’ attorney fees will be reimbursed if they choose to file a civil nuisance suit for “loud” and “unruly” behavior under the proposed ordinance.

Student reaction

Despite the Council’s insistence that the ordinance was not directed toward Chapman students, many felt personally attacked.

“Now that this has come to a head, this issue cannot be one that punishes students for being students,” said Jason Mehta, a ’15 political science alumnus. “Students want a place where they can learn, thrive, be youthful, have parties – without disrupting (Orange residents).”

Cynthia Papp, a freshman peace studies major, agreed with Mehta in her address to the City Council.

“It is vital that we begin to accept each other, because truth be told, neither of us are going anywhere,” Papp said.

Despite the semblance of cordiality that both residents and students strove to uphold during the meeting, some Orange residents and members of the audience audibly chuckled and shook their heads while students addressed the Council.

Some students felt that the amendments to the ordinance were not only excessively punitive but also divisive.

“This will only further divide our community and create angst between both parties,” said Adam Mann, a senior television and broadcast journalism major. “Over time, I’ve seen a lot of local residents come up and express their concerns about Chapman students and Chapman’s expansion.”

Malvica Sawhney, a freshman English major, expressed her concern for student safety when she addressed the City Council, defending the current ordinance. If Orange encumbers upon students’ ability to socialize in Orange, they will seek parties elsewhere, Sawhney said.

“Since the students at Chapman are as much residents of Orange as permanent ones, their safety is a matter of concern as much as anyone else’s,” Sawhney said.

The Council’s response 

Immediately following the time for public comment, members of the Council were quick to defend the proposed ordinance.

“Something was implied (to make people think) that the ordinance only pertains to Chapman students,” said Teresa Smith, mayor of Orange. “This is an ordinance that applies to the City of Orange for people of all ages.”

Councilwoman Kim Nichols addressed the room, expressing her frustration at the tangible lack of communication between students and residents.

“You don’t need us to communicate, you don’t need us to talk to each other,” Nichols said.

Nichols was also protective of the ordinance.

“I have a child in college – I understand it,” she said. “I don’t think anyone’s trying to stop this dynamic, but there’s a serious problem that has just kind of gone over the edge.”

Nichols said that the City Council had found itself in a position where it needed to intensify the punitive aspect of the ordinance.

“There’s just minor language that has been added, and (we’ve had to) step up the punishment and the responsibility aspect of it,” Nichols said.

Councilman Mike Alvarez expressed his disappointment in the fact that out-of-control parties had caused the Council to change its attitude toward Chapman.

“It was the first time in my 12 years (on the City Council) that I voted against the university,” Alvarez said, referring to the university’s May 2015 expansion proposal.

“When Chapman was a college, it fit in the neighborhood quite well, but when it became a university, things changed,” Alvarez said. “I’ve been on plenty of police ride-alongs, and I’m in awe of how students can find their way around the existing laws.”

Despite emphasizing that the ordinance amendments were not directly related to the behavior of students, council members referred to Chapman social gatherings when giving their reasons for supporting them.

“The university needs to step up and create areas within the university property where you can go and unwind and have a drink with your friends on campus,” said Mark Murphy, mayor pro tem.

Murphy expressed his support for the residents’ perspectives.

“The neighbors are going out of their way to try to get along,” Murphy said. “This is a final straw situation.”