Princeton Borough's public safety committee is scheduled to meet Friday to discuss a proposed ordinance that would allow police enforcement of underage drinking laws on private property
Under the ordinance, unsupervised minors found drinking alcohol on private property could be arrested by Borough Police and subjected to fines as well as other forms of punishment.
Though supporters of the ordinance claim it does not target the eating clubs on Prospect Avenue, its passage has picked up speed in response to alcohol-related incidents that occurred on the 'Street' since November, many of which involved students under 21 years of age.
Councilman David Goldfarb, who requested in January that the public safety committee reevaluate the proposal at the end of March, believes that the eating club incidents illustrate a need for the community to take over and "try something else" to eliminate further alcohol-related problems.
"What happens on campus is the school's responsibility, but what happens on Prospect Avenue is more ours," he said.
Goldfarb said that recent precautions taken by the eating clubs to discourage underage drinking would not necessarily influence the opinions of the council. He said he believes that in the past, the clubs' short-term changes and promises have had "very little lasting effect."
University crime prevention specialist Barry Weiser said that the 'Street' is outside the University's control.
"We do meet with the officers of the clubs and remind them of the law — but the 'Street' isn't under our jurisdiction," he said. "We would never undermine the local enforcement."
"Anything we can do to curtail underage drinking is a benefit. If these ordinances actually do work, then they're well worth it," he said.
However, many members of both the University community and Princeton Borough believe that the alcohol ordinance does not correctly address the problem.
Lance Liverman, co-chair of the Borough's human services commission, strongly rejects the idea that the proposed ordinance will curb underage drinking in a fair and effective manner.
In response to the public safety committee's request for input on the topic, the members of the human services commission took a vote and determined that they "are totally against it for many reasons," according to Liverman.

Liverman explained that the human services commission objected to the ordinance's lack of provision for "after-care" in the program. Once an underage offender is fined or otherwise punished, the ordinance does not require counseling or any other form of follow-up rehabilitation.
Another defect that was found in the proposed ordinance was a lack of equality in the punishment of student offenders, Liverman said. "Some students won't be able to afford the [$250-350] fine, but for others, it'll be like a joke," he said.
Also, Liverman explained that a more serious consequence of the ordinance may be that students will be less likely to seek medical attention for alcohol-related problems for fear that they will be heavily penalized under the ordinance.
"They won't want to open a whole can of worms," he said.
Liverman recalled that when the University's Alcohol and Drug Alliance presented to the Borough Council several reasons to oppose the proposed ordinance, "[the human services commission] agreed with all of them."
The public safety committee meeting is scheduled for Friday morning at 8:30 in the West Conference Room of Borough Hall. University officials, the human services commission and the chief of police were all notified of the meeting, according to committee chair Mildred Trotman. The meeting will be open to the public.
"The only thing I have planned for the agenda is the alcohol ordinance. As for how it will turn out, I have no idea," Trotman said. " We'll have to wait and see."