Police Chief Seeks End to Public Urination

An amendment to prohibit public urination and defecation will be up for consideration at next Tuesday’s University Park City Council meeting. Apparently, the issue has increased in the last few years, according to Chief of Police Gary Adams.

Should the new amendment pass, UP police will have the authority to issue a citation or arrest anyone caught urinating in public. Unsurprisingly, the staff recommends approval.

If you’re shocked that this is not already illegal, you are not alone. The agenda memo states that UP “may be the only city in the state not to have such an ordinance.”

By Sarah Bennett Jan. 11, 2013 | 4:32 pm | 9 Comments | Comments RSS
9 comments to "Police Chief Seeks End to Public Urination "
  1. TB @ January 11, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    It’s a shame we had to go there. I read an article recently lamenting the fact that the last congress had been so disfunctional that they only managed to pass about 200 laws, whereas the one before that had been able to pass over 1000. To me that’s a 80% reduction in bureaucratic red tape for which congress should be applauded! I say let’s send our most stridently partisan hacks up there to undermine each other as often as they can while in session, then send them all on paid vacations. The price would be a drop in the bucket to what it costs everytime they pass another law.

  2. Dan Koller @ January 11, 2013 at 5:04 pm
    My favorite aspect of this is that the item is on the main agenda and not the consent agenda. Is the city staff expecting the council to debate the merits of the proposal? “Now, hold on, Chief. Our citizens have the inalienable right to pee in public.”

  3. bm @ January 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    Its called disorderly conduct- urinating in public.

  4. bm @ January 11, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    Dan you can poop in public just not pee!

  5. CW @ January 11, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    Is this really a problem? Can’t wait to see upcoming issues of ‘Skulduggery”.

  6. Bibliomaniac @ January 11, 2013 at 10:08 pm
    Speaking of “seeks to end,” why is SMU seeking to end its Law School Dean’s tenure?

  7. XT @ January 11, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    @TB,

    Somehow you turned this into a political discussion? Wow. I guess it begs the question, what WOULDN’T you turn into a political discussion?

  8. TB @ January 12, 2013 at 9:48 am
    XT-Who proposed this law? The bureaucrats. Who will decide to pass it or not? The politicians. It’s on the main agenda instead of the consent agenda, which means the politicians will have a political discussion about this law before they decide to pass it or not. Passage of any law is an inherently political process. Except, of course, when it is done by reconciliation or executive order. But who makes decisions without political discourse? Oh yeah, I forgot. Nevermind.

  9. peter griffin @ January 12, 2013 at 2:31 pm
    for pete’s sake, has no
    one heard of “marking your
    territory?”.
    if you want to make sure
    your property isn’t robbed
    or vandalized, discretely
    “mark” its perimeter.
    preferably late at night.
    its better than an alarm
    system.
    and cheaper too.

Leave a Reply