COUNCIL SHOULD HOLD OFF ON HOTEL RULES

Let's get this on the record first: We don't endorse illegal narcotics
trafficking, prostitution or physical violence. But we also don't
believe law enforcement officials have done an adequate job of proving
why these problems are so prevalent in our community that they warrant
a new city ordinance that interferes with private businesses and
invades individuals' privacy.

The City Council tonight is expected to hear the second reading of an
ordinance that adds a list of rules to the guidelines hotel and motel
operators must follow. The new list includes collecting accurate
identification from all guests, renting rooms for full days instead of
in hourly blocks and prohibiting minors from renting rooms. After the
second reading, the council might approve the ordinance.

It shouldn't, at least until law enforcement does a better job of
proving its case.

Police want the City Council and the community to believe hotels that
rent by the hour and don't ask for identification are havens for drug
deals, prostitution and all their accompanying ills. By requiring
identification and renting rooms for full days, police say, hotels
will be helping police do their job better by thwarting illegal
activities or having the right ID on hand when cops are trying to
track down criminals.

Ignoring the obvious one -- that it's not the responsibility of
business owners to help track down lawbreakers -- several red flags
pop up when considering the police's wishes: * Not to be naive, but
when did the hotel drug dealing/prostitution crime wave hit Glendale.
If this has become the kind of epidemic that requires a rewrite to
city law, shouldn't police be engaged in such a full-scale war on
these vices that there's a story a day in the newspaper and on TV, a
full-blown public education campaign and radio and TV ads.

* Where's the hue and cry from hotel/motel operators about this
alleged epidemic. Though a couple of chain hotel operators spoke in
favor of the ordinance last week, they -- and dozens of their brethren
who were curiously silent on the issue -- weren't the ones who asked
for the ordinance.

* Where does the government's reach end. Police want the city to pass
these rules to safeguard against the possibility of something illegal
happening, not because of an outright violation of the law,
necessarily. So now we'll have the police sticking their heads into
motel bedrooms because something illegal might be happening.

* Finally, if you want to check into a hotel for reasons of your own
that have nothing to do with illegal activity, shouldn't you be able
to do that without the world knowing your whereabouts. "There are
obvious reasons why people don't want their real name known when they
check into a hotel, and people don't have a need to know about those
things. That's a private issue," said Elizabeth Schroeder, assistant
director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

We don't live in a fantasy world. Prostitution and drug dealing happen
in Glendale, and they happen in hotels and motels. But police have not
proved that 1) The problems are on such a scale that new laws need to
be written, or 2) Such laws will end or even curb the problems.

Police will point to "statistics" like this one to buttress their
argument: One motel, on Pioneer Drive, had 400 police calls in one
year. But police didn't say what the calls were for, if they all were
legitimate, how many arrests -- and for what -- resulted from them, or
if the new rules would have prevented any of this activity.

Unless and until more solid evidence is presented, the City Council
should hold off on this latest attempt to invade individuals' privacy
while telling businesses how they should operate.