A new ordinance under discussion by the State College Borough Council could have some students reconsidering holding or attending rowdy parties.What defines this type of party or, as the ordinance states, a “nuisance gathering?” Apparently, all it takes is three or more people in one location and some loud music, and you may have to pay up to $1,000 or spend up to 90 days in jail, penalties purposely designed to have forceful impact on students.

Any party to which police are called would fall under the ordinance, which states that on the first offense, any hosts of a party of three or more people can be fined $300 to $600. On the second offense, the hosts could be charged $500 to $1,000 and spend up to 90 days in jail.

A nuisance gathering includes any party with, among other things, underage drinking, loud music, fights, public drunkenness or unlawful deposit of trash.

Further, the ordinance’s definition of a “host” is similarly broad. A host can be anyone who “aids, organizes, participates or has some overt role in the party,” Chief of Police Tom King said.

This, it appears, could mean bartending, being in charge of music or otherwise contributing to the party.

While the general idea of the ordinance, aiming to cut down on dangerous or out-of-control parties, is noble, the language is disconcerting and will likely let authorities take advantage of unfair or broad definitions.

We don’t believe that a three-person gathering can be considered the kind of out-of-control party that this ordinance would target. In fact, most off-campus apartments and houses are home to three or more students to begin with – add some music, and you might have yourself a fine to pay.

If the ordinance is truly aiming to target large and dangerous parties, then why a three-person minimum?

That is much too low. If the fine is going to the host of the party, then it is not fair to target any person who “participates” in the party.

The ordinance also leaves a great deal of room for abuse. Some borough residents may be easily angered by loud music or by a few pieces of trash on the ground outside their neighbors’ homes.

Will a party’s “hosts” be at the mercy of their neighbors and consequently forced to face the ordinance’s new and elevated level of punishment?

The general idea to cut back on dangerous parties is commendable, but this ordinance targets students unfairly, and its language is unclear and affords conjunctions of neighbors and police sweeping authority to levy elevated penalties for loosely defined reasoning.

Author