[Vision2020] New NO info...

[Garrett Clevenger]

Yes, you are correct.  My apologies and thanks for
setting this straight.

gclev


--- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> To clarify this a bit further, our police chief is
> named Dan Weaver. Randy 
> is the guy who was set up by the BATF and had his
> family murdered by the FBI 
> at Ruby Ridge on August 21, 1992.
> 
> g
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] New NO info...
> 
> 
> > To clarify this a bit, police Chief Randy Weaver
> wrote
> > it with city attorney Randy Fife, from what I have
> > been told by the city.
> >
> > The last email I sent had a good template for what
> our
> > NO should look like.  I made a big sacrifice by
> > specifying what "noise" is.  In that case, "loud
> > amplification devices."  Included in that list is
> my
> > acoustic guitar, which would be citable by a
> police
> > officer and no complaint if between the hours of
> 10 pm
> > and 7 am.
> >
> > What other sacrifices do people want to make on
> this,
> > that insures our First Amendment is not eroded?
> >
> >
> > gclev
> >
> >
> > --- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "This stated intent of the noise ordinance
> >> amendment,
> >> according the the police who wrote it, is to
> target
> >> repeat offenders,"--GC
> >>
> >>   As grateful as I am for Moscow's wonderful
> police
> >> force, I am extremely uncomfortable with police
> >> writing legislation that involves them. I think
> all
> >> legislation should be forwarded by private
> citizens
> >> and their elected representatives. That is not to
> >> say that we should not seek the wisdom and advice
> of
> >> the police for what works and what doesn't and
> what
> >> we can do to make their objectives safer.
> >>
> >>   When the executors of the law become the
> writers
> >> of the law, we have conflict of interest, we have
> a
> >> separation of powers concern.
> >>
> >>   Again, I think you Garrett for your interest
> and
> >> hard work on this NO and looking out for the
> rights
> >> of Moscow residents.
> >>
> >>   Best,
> >>
> >>   Donovan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
> >>   Donovan,
> >>
> >> This stated intent of the noise ordinance
> amendment,
> >> according the the police who wrote it, is to
> target
> >> repeat offenders, what they call "party houses"
> >> which
> >> comprise 17% of all noise complaints.
> >>
> >> That being the case, I am proposing language that
> >> specfies what those offenses are: loud music
> during
> >> the night. (yelling and the like are covered by
> our
> >> current NO)
> >>
> >> Living around other people, I don't think it is
> >> realistic to expect no "noise" at all times. But
> if
> >> you are bothered, you still have the right to
> >> complain
> >> and those people face being cited.
> >>
> >> I am a light sleeper and have discovered "white
> >> noise"
> >> is an incredible sleep aid. I use a fan and it
> >> blocks
> >> out much random noise that otherwise would wake
> me.
> >>
> >> If the noise ordinance I provided a link to works
> >> for
> >> Boise, our state capital, it seems like it is a
> good
> >> model to use. The text I provided can either
> >> suplement our current NO, or be a framework to
> build
> >> around.
> >>
> >> Many of the other noise issues you brought up are
> >> covered by our current NO, so I did not address
> >> them.
> >> Barking dogs is covered in another section.
> >>
> >> For those who want to see our current NO, it is
> >> here:
> >>
> >>
> >
>
http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/citycode/TITLE10/chapter11.pdf
> >>
> >> --- Donovan Arnold
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Garrett,
> >> >
> >> > One of the reasons I dislike the time frame is
> >> > that it seems to be saying it is OK to disrupt
> the
> >> > sleep of those that work graveyard, but not OK
> to
> >> > disrupt the 9-5 ers. Having worked graveyard
> >> before,
> >> > I don't like this wording.
> >> >
> >> > This ordinance also doesn't address lawnmowers,
> >> > barking dogs, crying babies, noisy children,
> loud
> >> > singing, and automobiles, all of which can be
> very
> >> > disturbing.
> >> >
> >> > Boise does also have a provision regarding the
> >> > behavior of barking dogs.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> >
> >> > Donovan
> >> >
> >> > Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> >> > No new NOers,
> >> >
> >> > I received an informative email from Linda Pall
> >> and
> >> > we
> >> > may be on our way to finding reasonable
> language.
> >> > She
> >> > spoke with Judge Hamlett, who pointed her
> towards
> >> > Boise's Noise Ordinace:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/City_Clerk/PDF/CityCode/Title6/0620.pdf
> >> >
> >> > Basically, it make's this illegal:
> >> >
> >> > LOUD AMPLIFICATION DEVICE:
> >> > Any equipment designed or used for sound
> >> production,
> >> > reproduction, or amplification, including, but
> not
> >> > limited to any radio, television, phonograph,
> >> > musical
> >> > instrument, stereo, tape player, compact disc
> >> > player,
> >> > loud speaker, public address (P.A.) system,
> sound
> >> > amplifier, or comparable sound broadcasting
> >> device.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > if this occurs:
> >> >
> >> > A. is plainly audible within any place of
> >> residence
> 
=== message truncated ===