For years now college students and others have taken it as a inalienable right that they can pull old couches onto front porches to provide a comfortable perch to pass the time.

Now, City Council member Robin Eschliman wants to change that comfortable college-town tradition with a proposed ban that threatens fines and possibly jail time for anyone who violates its provisions.

Hoo boy. This is overkill.

If government officials want to intrude on personal liberties and property rights they ought to have a compelling reason.

Eschliman’s proposal, supported by a coterie of neighborhood advocates, landlords and Realtors, would ban indoor chairs, couches and mattresses from porches, balconies, decks, patios, roofs, yards, driveways, walkways, etc.

Few would disagree with parts of that ordinance. Ban mattresses from rooftops?

Well, sure.

But to ban a couch from its sheltered spot on an old-fashioned front porch, where it provides a comfy spot to read a textbook, talk to friends and watch the world go by?

That seems a bit much.

Especially when the proposed ordinance calls for a $200 fine for a first offense, $250 for a second and $300 for a third with a maximum penalty for $500 and six months in jail.

Interestingly, just last week Public Defender Dennis Keefe explained that City Hall’s propensity for ordinances that call for jail time for minor offenses is draining public resources. Keefe pointed out that city ordinances already threaten jail time for loud stereos and spitting on the sidewalk. Hard to say how big a factor this new ordinance would be, but the penalty for a third violation seems to fit the pattern.

There’s also the question of why landlords think they need this ordinance. Wouldn’t landlords already be within their rights to ban couches on front porches?

And if couches are safety hazards, repositories for vermin and germs, aren’t there already ordinances on the books? And outdoor furniture can be just as shabby and grimy as indoor. Is that really an improvement?

There’s no doubt that the proposed ordinance is well-intentioned. But before the council embarks on another expansion of government authority, city officials and landlords should concentrate on using the power they already have at their disposal.

City government has enough to worry about without this new expansion of authority into the realm of aesthetic sensibility. This proposal should be scaled back.