Antioch council votes 4-0 to finally pass sideshow ordinance targeting organizers, advertisers and spectators
Can face up to 6 months in jail, $1,000 fine
Torres-Walker absent
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council on a 4-0 vote passed an ordinance banning organizers and advertisers of and spectators at sideshows. The matter was finally dealt with after discussing the matter since last fall and holding two previous votes, one which adopted an ordinance without targeting spectators and the follow up vote, for which none of the three council members present supported it. (See related articles here, here, here and here)
Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the agenda item were opposed to including a ban on spectators citing possible constitutional issues and profiling by police, and concerns that those stuck in their cars could be cited.
Before hearing from residents during the public hearing, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The city attorney would have acted as the proponent” but was absent from the meeting. The mayor then asked who would be the opponent, resident Alexander Broom volunteered and was given 10 minutes to speak.
“There are some large concerns I have with Attachment A which goes after the spectators,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a crime that I could be a witness to and be guilty of a crime. I think there are some constitutional issues there.”
“Anyone who is found to be within 200 feet witnessing or observing a sideshow,” he pointed out as one example.
“There are multiple instances that I would go to part of car culture, then you have people who show up and ruin the event,” he stated. “Me just being present doesn’t mean I’m a participant. This ordinance…is far too broad. I would encourage you to not include the spectator portion.”
“I had one of my friends come out to one of these events and a car show broke out. He was profiled,” he stated. “I could face up to six months in jail for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
“There are so many other routes you can go after spectators for this disturbance,” he said. “I think this opens up the city to more lawsuits…to more civil rights violations.”
“I’m open to compromise. I’d rather see the second ordinance go forward that doesn’t include spectators,” he concluded. “This is far too broad.”
Ralph Hernandez said, “These car culture violators should figure out how to lawfully and peacefully cruise. You should keep option 1 to include spectators.”
These are not really spectators. They’re encouraging bad conduct In law, that’s aiding and abetting,” he continued. “I think the police are smart enough…to make differentiation who is a spectator. How do those people claim they’re merely parked there?” he asked. “Come on you have to sell that to someone else.”
“The 200-feet limit, it’s appropriate because these sideshows take up a lot of space,” Hernandez continued. “Is that car culture? They’re violators of the law…by those actively participating, drivers, blockers. If they don’t want to be considered a violator they should not go there.”
“Their cell phones should also be confiscated,” he added. “It’s dangerous. It’s not a football game.”
Teshina Garrett, ACCE Antioch asked, “Who or what is considered a spectator?” and then spoke of her experience being stuck due to a sideshow. “We took photos…of people doing stupid stuff in the middle of the street. Does that make us a spectator?”
“Use these drones, Take their license plates, confiscate their vehicles,” she added.
Resident Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch, spoke next about her own experience of getting stuck in traffic due to a sideshow. “Therefore, I don’t understand how you can tell a spectator and someone who is stuck. I just encourage you to consider the definition of a spectator if that’s the route the council is going.”
Andrew Becker also shared about “a sideshow that popped up. Within two minutes there were 200 people there. They were jumping on my car. I understand there’s a subjective component there. I also understand you have to have these tools. It’s the individuals…who are driving these things. I’m wondering if…an individual who is cited, they can have it reviewed by the Oversight committee. I think that would be monumental. It might alleviate some of the concerns here.”
Gavin Payton asked, “Some of the sideshows are actually dangerous for cars and for pets, the next day because they’re throwing bottles and the glass is breaking on the curbs and the bushes. Is there going to be some kind of action for that, as well?”
A resident named Devin said, “We really need to determine what a spectator is. We all know that the definition that some will use is not fair to everyone. People can determine who’s participating in these things, who’s taking videos and advertising these things. This is a problematic issue we are having in this city. But the language…people being accused of being a spectator, but they weren’t. Two hundred feet…that’s not fair.”
A woman named Laura said, “I am not an expert on car culture but I’m an excellent driver…and I am a parent. I think it’s dangerous to include spectators …because…systemic racism is a thing. So, I don’t think spectators should be included in this.”
Louise Green spoke last saying, “Using the simple word spectator is scary to everyone. I think this is more targeted to spectator participants. It’s a game they play. They were throwing T-shirts over their license plates. They’re actually throwing their bodies into the cars. You’ll have to put the spectator clause in there. Unless you can get real specific on the language, they are spectators, but a participant spectator. They have racing guns that they signal when the police are coming. There were maybe five people on the sidewalk. But the 200 were spectator participants. They get out of their vehicles. If I’m trapped in my car, they’re going to know, they’re not part of it. We do have to include them because they’re part of the problem.”
Council Discussion
Barbanica spoke first saying, “We’re talking, here about active participants. Not someone sitting in their cars. There’s also a big difference with someone videoing, when an officer rolls up. They say, officer, ‘here’s my phone.’”
“They leapfrog ahead to the next sideshow. It’s very detrimental to the community,” he stated. “This has terrorized the community long enough.”
“These are roving sideshows that are very organized. We have to go after people who are active participants,”
“These sideshows are getting more and more frequent and they’re roving around the city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would ask the city attorney’s office if we can increase the penalties not just $1,000.”
“A San Joaquin Sheriff would not release the cars from a sideshow until the participants’ court dates,” she shared. “These cars are part of evidence.”
“I think we should also look at reimbursement for the use of our resources,” Ogorchock continued. “As we as community members, these are our dollars. These people, the majority of them are coming from outside the community.”
“This is a quality-of-life issue,” she stated. “If we can’t add these to the ordinance toight
Wilson said, “I’m going to steal the term spectator participant. These spectator participants…they’re filming and livestreaming it to let their friends know where they are. We need to hold those participants accountable along with the organizers and advertisers.’
“I betcha there are people from inside our community,” she added.
“We need to start talking about why is this happening. What’s the root cause?” Wilson asked. “We definitely need to include something about the spectators.”
Hernandez-Thorpe spoke last saying, “this doesn’t necessarily stop sideshows. These are tools that once sideshows are happening they can be used. These aren’t preventative. What actually prevents sideshows is determining who is starting them. But unfortunately, our traffic division has been decimated.”
“I’m all for all of them, spectators, organizers and those who advertise,” he stated. “If we pass something tonight it will come back late July and will go into effect 30 days later, at the end of the summer months. If we need to make changes, we do it in the fall.”
“The technology in the police department in my opinion allows them to differentiate between a spectator,” the mayor shared. “Let’s pass something now, tonight and build on it and not let perfection be the enemy of progress.”
Ogorchock then made a motion saying, “I’m going to add” then read the ordinance that included banning spectators, “including not releasing vehicles until court dates and reimburse costs of resource.”
The Assistant City Attorney said, “I think there are some concerns…that we can’t address tonight” in response to a question from Barbanica.
No one seconded the motion.
Barbanica then moved approval of the ordinance including spectators as written. It passed 4-0.
Ogorchock then asked, “that we come back with the two proposals.” But both Barbanica and Wilson had already left the dais, so the mayor said, “Uh, no. There’s no consensus. Everybody left.” They then took a two-minute recess.
She tried again following the break but none of the other council members supported her proposals.
Ordinance Details
The ordinance adopted includes the following:
City Council introduced the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 4 to Title 4 (Public Safety) to the Antioch Municipal Code, which prohibits organizing, advertising, and being a spectator at street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving exhibitions;
Organizing or Advertising Street Races, Sideshows, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly organize a street race, sideshow, reckless driving exhibition, or exhibition of speed conducted within the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
B. It is unlawful for any person to advertise, within the City, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
C. It is unlawful for any person to advertise online, including on social media, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
Spectators at Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited
It is unlawful for any individual who to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.
B. It is unlawful for any individual to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.
C. Local law enforcement shall have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this Chapter with an administrative citation.
D. An individual is present at the illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition if that individual is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the event, or within two hundred (200) feet of the location where preparations are being made for the event.
Enforcement
A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a maximum of six (6) months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both, unless at the discretion of the district attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction, the violation is reduced to an infraction.
Read complete Antioch Sideshow Ordinance.
The ordinance requires a second reading which will occur at the July 23rd meeting and if passed, will go into effect 30 days later.
the attachments to this post:
Sideshow ban including spectators 06-25-24
