When the college students arrived back in town at the end of August, the police citations for urinating in public started appearing in our daily report column more frequently.
When we read other newspapers, we don’t see the amount of citations that Emporia has, and we wonder why we have this problem. Are we lacking enough bathrooms to meet our community needs? It certainly doesn’t reflect well on our community.
Last year we wrote about this issue, and we encouraged the city commissioners to increase the fine to an amount that might actually make people think twice before using our downtown as their toilet.
Unfortunately city commissioners decided to do nothing with our suggestion, so we are back to the same situation as last year.
There has been community discussion questioning whether the police are hiding in bushes to catch people or whether the police should not be writing tickets for this offense.
We doubt that police are hiding in bushes, and the police officers are only doing their jobs by enforcing the laws.
The penalty should be significant enough to deter the behavior. Clearly the $40 fine has not been much of a deterrent for offenders.
As another school year begins, city commissioners have another opportunity to address this issue in an effort to help clean up our community.
Chris Walker
Editor & Publisher
Dido1969 (anonymous) says...
Check out some of the comments under the "Let's Get This Done" story...Chris, it all ties together...it is time for a little less talk and a lot more action.
September 16, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ATP (anonymous) says...
I'm not sure what the breakdown was (court costs, fine, admin cost, etc...) but a friend got one of these last weekend and the total he paid was $110. It was his first offense. IMO $110 is a significant amount to a college student. What's the point of raising the cost? If they can't afford $110... can they afford $250 or $500 easier? There is no deterrent for stupidity.
September 16, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well, Chris you are right again, (I hate to admit that).
EPD knows where the problems are, and I'm sure they are "handling" it.
Maybe if the fines were higher and mom and dad got a phone call to send extra cash "cause I got caught peeing in public " would help.
Even though this isn't a felony, once a persons name is entered into a computer it's there forever, and these students need to know they will be applying for a job one day.
Urinating in public would get a second look from an HR person.
September 16, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnDoe (anonymous) says...
Is this really a big issue? Last time I checked, we're not quite hosting Mardi Gras down on Commercial street. I would much rather see our police patrolling the streets to deter/arrest DUIs than trying to cut down on the number of college kids peeing on the bushes in a dark alley. Perhaps we find something to complain about that doesn't wash away in the rain?
September 16, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Second hand urine is a serious problem.
R.
September 16, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
"When we read other newspapers, we don’t see the amount of citations that Emporia has, and we wonder why we have this problem."
That's because ESU gets all the country hicks who are used to peeing in the woods. When you look at other towns, their college students generally come from other cities, so it's not a habit for them to relieve themselves outdoors.
September 17, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
I should add that there's nothing wrong with being a "hick". I've done my share of relieving myself in the woods.
'enry
September 17, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I don't believe it's because ESU gets all the "country hicks" (of which I can proudly say I grew up as). When I went to ESU I noticed no difference whatsoever in the number of "city boys" vs "country hicks" who were relieving themselves in alleys, parking lots, etc. It had more to do with the level of inebriation, lines at the urinal, or maybe even whether they were on a sports team at ESU (and had an inflated ego because of that) and thought they could thus get away with anything they wanted, etc.......... (not implying all athletes have that attitude - but there are some) - never saw any correlation whatsoever between those doing that and whether their background was rural or urban.
September 17, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I think it's because of the booze and the fact that it impairs judgment.
September 17, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reality (anonymous) says...
I agree with JohnDoe, this is not a big enough issue to warrant much police attention. If you can't understand that, then quite frankly you are not too bright. Let them focus on real problems
September 17, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
okjayhawk (anonymous) says...
i'm sure that this is a problem in any community which has a college/university. also take into account the number of drinking establishments that are in Emporia. as an out-of-town parent with a student at ESU i will tell you that increasing the fine might help but when you gotta go, you gotta go. Mr. Corbin, i work in HR and we run background checks on all prospective employees. seeing a citation for urinating in public while in college would not prevent us from hiring a well-qualified applicant, we've seen much, much worse.
September 17, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
I think the bigger point to be made here is that the city could sure use this as a source of revenue if the fines were increased. This would go for other frequent violations as well, such as speeding in school zones.
Let's also look at that particular violation while we are at it though. Those urinating in public are essentially exposing themselves in public. Something most people do not want to see. Since they are also very likely inebriated, they may not realize how exposed they are.
Furthermore, does any one remember the "Don't spit on the sidewalk" campaign? Yes, it was a long time ago, but it wasn't because it was just a disgusting habit. It was to help prevent tuburculosis from spreading. (You see people would spit on the sidewalk, other people would step on it, go home take off their shoes spreading it to their hands, and essentially, contracting tuburculosis.)
I don't know what diseases you can get from urine, but I would certainly hate to find out. Walking by some of those places, you can also sometimes get a hint of that in the air...
September 17, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
okjayhawk,
I have to agree with Mr. Corbin. Although I'm not in HR, I've often been requested to assist in the selection process. If I were to come across 2 equally qualified applicants and one of them had something like this in their record, guess who I'm going to recommend. College students are a "dime-a-dozen" and the job market is shrinking, college students need to be thinking ahead and taking that into account (they should be thinking, "how can I make sure I have an edge over the next guy when I start looking for employment"). It's activities such as this that "raise a red flag" in my business, and raises concerns that this applicant may be a risk, no matter how qualified he/she is.
Dave R.
September 17, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
roger (anonymous) says...
A few public toilets would be nice, especially for those of us suffering from TB,(tiny bladder).
September 17, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Saw this on a travel show awhile back about bizarre bathrooms.
http://www.urilift.com/
Pretty cool, but I doubt it'd prevent drunks from exposing themselves if that is the main concern. (probably only encourage it)
September 17, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
okjayhawk (anonymous) says...
Dave R., i understand if you have 2 to chose from and they are equally qualified, it's kind of a no-brainer to pick the one that didn't pee in public. all i'm saying is that if you are looking to hire someone who is qualified, a ticket for urinating in public when they were 20 years old may not stop them from being hired. some municipalities throw in an indecent exposure charge. now, that might get someone's attention.
September 17, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
you are correct; when you gotta go, you gotta go.
whoops, gotta ,oh never mind
September 17, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lancemountain (anonymous) says...
One time after drinking a 12 pack of Natty lite and a fifth of ole crow I got stuck in traffic and had to wizz so bad that I'd a easily paid a $40 fine to do so. I ended up peeing my pants. It's fun to pee outside but maybe the city outta put a johnny on the spot at the corner of mainstreet. That'll class things up real nice.
September 24, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )