STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT — The fashion police were sent packing Monday night in Stratford when the Town Council rejected a proposal to fine people who wear their pants so low they expose their underwear or buttocks.
Opponents urged the committee to reject the literal belt tightening proposal before it made the town even more of the butt of jokes around the state than it has already.
The proposed ordinance by Town Council Minority Leader Alvin O’Neal, D-2, would have made it “unlawful for people to wear pants which fall below the buttocks to expose their undergarments,” with a penalty of $250.
But Stratford resident Margo Paquette walked into Town Council chambers Monday night wearing blue jeans just low enough below her hips to expose pink and white undergarments.
Paquette said the undergarment was a bathing suit that under the proposed ordinance would put her at risk of arrest and a $250 fine.
The proposal, rejected in a 6-2 vote, gained criticism from opponents at the hearing who claimed it would violate the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights of the poor, make it easier to target minorities and encourage racial profiling.
Others said it would be impossible for the police to enforce.
“Here’s the absurdity — the way I’m wearing my pants I would be breaking the law under this ordinance,” Paquette said. “But if I were to take my pants off, these undergarments are just a bathing suit and I would not be in violation.”
Paquette said she attended the public hearing to make a “fashion statement” to show “how completely ridiculous this proposal is.”
Most of the council, acting in its capacity as the Ordinance Committee, seemed to agree.
“Mr. O’Neal, you continue to amaze,” said Councilman John Miranda, R-6, laughing. “I don’t believe it is our job to be setting a dress code for the public.”
Then, Miranda quipped, “at least if we approved this ordinance it would be difficult for the perpetrators to get away they would already have their pants down around their knees.”
Council Majority Leader Michael Henrick, R-10, said while he favored the “spirit of what Mr. O’Neal is trying to accomplish, I don’t believe we have the authority to impose such an ordinance.
“Where do you draw the line, what’s next?” asked Henrick. “Do you ban tank tops and bikinis on the beach or fine people who show their toes? Do you fine plumbers when they bend over and some of their skin shows?”
Opponents lined up to blast the idea.
“I can’t fathom with all the serious concerns we have in our urban areas, such as illegal guns, gangs, drugs and violent crime, that Mr. O’Neal is proposing an ordinance to fine people for the way they dress,” said Clyde Nichelson, president of Citizens Rights in Bridgeport.
But O’Neal said about 40 senior citizens in his district contacted him because they “are sick and tired of going to the supermarket, or walking down the street and seeing people’s underwear and buttocks,” O’Neal said. “A similar ordinance was approved earlier this year in Delcambre, Louisiana and is under consideration in Atlanta.”
