Pittsfield Council Passes Open Container Law
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The City Council has approved a "more enforceable" open container law with amendments to protect civil liberties.
Last week, councilors voted to replace City Code Section 14-7.1, "Same-Drinking alcoholic beverages upon public ways, etc." with Section 14-7.1, "Same-Possession of open container or consumption of alcohol on public property."
It passed with amendments to define an "open container" and some tweaked language proposed by Ward 2 Councilor Brittany Noto.
"All I can think of is the stated purpose of this ordinance is to increase enforcement authority. Anytime I hear that my ears go up, and I want to protect the liberty interests of the public," she said.
Noto supported the amended ordinance "with a lot of trepidation," understanding that the goal is to address behaviors that affect the city"s quality of life.
"Just keep in mind, as a body, anytime we give more authority to law enforcement, that's being subtracted from the personal liberty of our residents," she said. "So even though I'm going to support it, I'm not doing it lightly, and I'm taking this very seriously, because it's a personal property issue, in my opinion."
The ordinance makes it illegal for a person to have an open container of alcohol on a "way, sidewalk, common, park, conservation area, recreation area or beach or upon any city-owned property." It gives the Pittsfield Police Department more enforcement authority because the former ordinance required them to observe public drinking before taking enforcement action.
"Public substance misuse is a problem, a health problem," community advocate Ephraim Schwartz said during open microphone.
"This measure is like putting a gun to a person who needs medicine, but more than that, measures like this fail to utilize our community's strengths. It is understandably frustrated response to a frustrating problem, the kind of words that come out in the heat of a year-long argument. As a speaker last Monday pointed out, none of us make our best decisions angry."
At the beginning of the discussion, Noto said, "As this proposed ordinance is currently drafted, I cannot support it." She suggested adding a definition for "open container," referencing Massachusetts General Law chapter 90, section 24(I).
"I reached out to you. Thank you very much for being open to feedback on this," she said to
City Solicitor Devon Grierson.
"I know that you did send over a proposed amendment based on what we had discussed, but for purposes of the public and talking about what the initial issues were, the first thing is, there's no definition in this proposed ordinance of what an open container is, what that means. And I, for one, can think of so many times that I've walked from a friend's house, or a private function, or a party, or a restaurant, and perhaps to be a good neighbor, I brought a bottle of something and I didn't finish it, and the host was gracious, and let me take it back home. And under this ordinance, as it's currently written, if I was walking on a public roadway with a half-consumed bottle of whatever alcohol, I"d be in violation. I don't think that's fair."
MGL defines "open container" as a "bottle, can or other receptacle used to contain a liquid that has been opened or has a broken seal or the contents of which have been partially removed or consumed," and gives a provision that the resealed bottle is not an open container for pedestrians.
"My position is, if a bottle is resealed and stored out of plain sight, it should not be up for debate whether or not it's considered an open container," Noto said.
"I think it's not, but to the point of the public today who showed up to speak, I can't help but think of our homeless community, and any person, whether or not they have a house or not, has the right to purchase alcohol and own alcohol if they're of age."
She also asked that the ordinance be amended from "It shall be unlawful for any person to possess an open container," to "It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or consume an open container."
"This is designed so that if there are open containers of alcoholic beverages, and this is anywhere in the city, they don't have to wait for someone to take a sip right away," she said.
"When I read that, to me, that was a red flag, because I don't like increasing enforcement authority. I'm not a fan of that."
Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren suggested a motion to table, as Councilor at Large Alisa Costa, Ward 3 Councilor Matthew Wrinn, Councilor at Large Earl Persip III, Ward 6 Councilor Dina Lampiasi, and Ward 4 Councilor James Conant were absent.
"I would think the wise thing would be to allow our colleagues to participate in this," he said.
Noto unsuccessfully motioned to table as amended. It was then passed unanimously amongst the present members.
"I think these amendments have tightened this up a bit, but it doesn't change the dynamics of what we're doing here," Councilor at Large Kathy Amuso said.
"That's why I think it's fine for us to go forward, and I'm going to go forward."
After hours of public comment across several meetings, the council filed a request to add a "Camping on Public Property" section to the city code.
Earlier this month, the Ordinance and Rules subcommittee tabled it after adopting amendments to remove criminalization language and the three-day ban limit for camping on private property.
"Pittsfield created one of the best breweries in the country, not by criminalizing being late on rent or drunk in public, but by offering $20,000 business grants that have brought in diverse businesses like [Hot Plate Brewery]. When we give people a chance, our community thrives. We see these chances paid back within a relatively short time, and we reap pure benefit for years to come," Schwartz said.
"Mayor Marchetti mentioned safe injection sites on "One Pittsfield" recently, a prudent solution that saves lives and reduces recidivism. Our most visible substance users are often struggling with multiple addictions. There are solutions that don't involve amputating our community."
