Politics & Government

Proposal Intended to Limited Prostitution, Drug Use at Hotels/Motels Killed

Ordinance to require proof of ID at local hotels/motels in an effort to curb illegal activity dies after spirited debate at last Ordinance Committee meeting.

Stratford Town Council member Jason Santi, D-4, has a pro-active legislative style as evidenced by several proposed town ordinances he has put forth. 

While other Council members such as Chairman Thomas Malloy, R-9, are more conservative in their approach, Santi has attempted to solve several problems he believes are important via ordinance. 

At its last meeting of the Ordinance Committee, one of Santi’s proposals fell by the wayside after a spirited debate involving an effort to curb illegal activities in and around town hotel/motels, including prostitution and drug use. 

Find out what's happening in Stratfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

It is no secret that certain unwanted behaviors can occur at overnight establishments, Santi argued. Of course the activity is not restricted to these businesses, which operate within the law and are generally seen as good community businesses. On the other hand, the police blotter contains items every month involving drug sale and use, and prostitution, some of which occurs at these businesses, he argued. 

Therefore, Santi, seeing an opportunity to limit the opportunity for these activities, proposed the investigation of an ordinance that could, among other options, restrict the hourly rental of hotel/motel units within the town, requiring clients provide proof of identification among other possible restrictions. 

Find out what's happening in Stratfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“There are a lot of issues with hourly rates for hotels, especially in my district,” Santi told fellow Ordinance Committee members, citing “prostitution deaths and all sorts of illicit activity.” 

He defended the town ordinance approach. “It doesn’t go after one hotel …” but rather is a general motion in an effort to regulate this activity. 

Santi had worked on the issue with Town Attorney Tim Bishop, adding that they came up with four possible approaches. Attorney Bishop noted that during his review of possible options, he “didn’t see anything in the state of Connecticut.” However, there was an ordinance on the books in Jefferson Parish in Louisiana that concerned itself with “the occupancy period of time. 

Attorney Bishop added, “We looked at a number of different ways to address the situation,” cautioning that “when you’re hunting for one thing, you have to make sure you’re not opening up other issues unintentionally.” 

Bishop noted that members had to consider “How much do want to get into the business of overseeing and managing these kinds of businesses? ... and what role the police may take in enforcing them?”

Santi noted that of the four options researched, “option four seems the most reasonable.” He explained that option four would require patrons of overnight establishments have legitimate identification at the time of renting a room, which “could discourage someone going for prostitution,” for example. 

“Our police do an excellent job,” Santi said, “but we can give them additional tools ...  So I would like to look at option four from my point of view.” 

Unfortunately for Santi, that marked the high point of the ordinance proposal. 

Council David Fuller, D-6, commented that it seemed to him like this “is a law enforcement issue rather than an ordinance. Since prostitution is illegal and drug use is illegal, then why do we need an ordinance?”

Santi agreed that the “cliental will always exist. But we’re empowering the police department to say to someone, ‘show your ID.’” It’s an effort to give the police and business owners the ability to confirm that “you are who you say you are.” 

Ordinance Committee Chair Stephanie Philips, D-2, however, was uncomfortable with the “broadness” of the proposal. She cited a softball association she belongs to. What if the organization wanted to rent a suite for two or three hours to do a presentation or to have a gathering with food for a limited time?

“How would this be interpreted?” she asked. 

Attorney Bishop chimed in. “Certainly there are legitimate uses for less than sleeping hours.” He noted that the ordinance just acknowledges that “there’s a heightened risk of danger and unwelcome conduct” and so patrons “would need to provide a little more information.” 

Council member Malloy then asked about timeshares, like at Disney, and supported the position taken by Philips. “The chair talked about sports team meetings,” he said, where there’s less than a full day’s rental. Malloy cited the case of out-of-towners attending a funeral where patrons might just want a temporary place to “freshen up.” 

“There are circumstances where less than a full day’s rental does serve a purpose,” Malloy said. “Again, what we’re trying to do is regulate behavior through legislation,” a policy that he cautioned against. “It boils down to do we wish to have faith in general behavior” without necessarily trying to impose it via legislation? 

Malloy credited Santi’s desire to legislate as “well intended, but it’s not what I think we should be doing as a Council.”

Santi responded, “I appreciate the arguments,” adding that it is not intended to regulate timeshares. However, “we have two hotels that have an infamous cliental … I won’t mention them in public session … but it does have a purpose. 

“The police are called 3-4 times a week,” he noted, and this type of ordinance would regulate to a certain extent but result in less prostitution “that seemingly have cultivated in certain hotels.” 

Fuller responded, if we pass an ordinance, then “are we defining what a hotel stay is?” He posited that the ordinance may just change the location of the undesirable activity. 

Santi answered, “We would just be setting up an ID system,” similar to what patrons of airline travel have to do when boarding a plane. “It just mandates you have to show ID. 

“Criminal elements are attracted to these two places … we have to responsibly try to limit this behavior.” 

Council member Paul Hoydick asked Santi if he had discussed this with police? 

“No,” the proposal is up for discussion right now and “a work in progress, he said. 

“Mr. Bishop can check with the police … But in my opinion, we should shut down some places,” Santi said, citing a crack dealer arrested recently on the site of one local establishment. “We should regulate to try to limit this.” 

Council member Matthew Catalano, R-3, then spoke up. “I understand you’re trying to limit crime. But my concern is this seems to be a limitation on business … who are we to dictate” how a business conducts itself, especially in a poor economy? 

“It’s not our job to legislate how they conduct their business,” Catalano said. 

Philips added, “An ordinance used to target one or two properties is inappropriate … I’m not sure” about the ID aspect “… and the police scenario of checking IDs I’m not comfortable with … If there’s an enforcement issue, then the police should be doing that.” 

Santi answered, “These two [businesses] have been an issue for years,” saying he based his concern “on public record. 

“I disagree that it’s being discriminatory,” he continued. The fact that this kind of behavior persists at these two places tells him that town government should give police the additional power to ask clients to prove who they say they are. 

“Law-abiding clients “should have no problem producing ID to innkeeper … I highly disagree” with the assertion that it is inappropriate for town government to regulate in this manner, Santi said. 

At that point, however, Fuller motioned to strike the item from the agenda, which if passed, would kill the ordinance at this time. Malloy seconded it and the full committee then voted 7-1 to strike, with Santi the lone opposed.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here