[Vision2020] New NO info...

[Garrett Clevenger]

Sunil and others,

It was not Linda who you heard speek such.  It was Kit
Craine.  I will paste my last email exchange with Kit
at the end.

I encourage everybody to listen to the archives of the
meetings around this issue.  Hopefully it will work on
your computer, because I can't get it to work on mine.
 It's a shame, though, that there is no public
testimony at the City Council meetings.

http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/cityclerk/2007minutesalt.asp


Kit Crane had emailed.  This is her and my response
mixed together:
Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:24:12 -0800

Hello Kit,

Thank you for replying.  I appreciate your feedback. 
It's important for conversion about this to happen.  I
wish Bill and John would reply, but they have never
responded to any of the emails I've sent.

I will reply to your comments:

"Garrett,
I appreciate your involvement in the noise ordinance
issue. Let me assure you that it will not violate
anyone's
constitutional rights and it will not allow police to
issue tickets without
just cause. I believe it will make great strides
towards keeping the
peace."

I wish I could have faith this will not violate
anyone's CRs, but the way the law is written, I would
like you to explain how our 1st Amendment is not
infringed:

Congress shall make no law ...  abridging the freedom
of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble ...

>From my interpretation of the law, if I were speaking
too loud, I could be cited:

Sec. 11-2. Public Nuisance Noises 
Prohibited. 
 It shall be unlawful and a nuisance for any person to
make, continue, or cause to be made any loud,
unnecessary or unusual noise, vibration, or any noise
which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers
the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of
another person within the City.  The following acts,
among others, are declared to be unlawful nuisance
noises in violation of this Code Section, but said
enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive; these
acts may constitute a violation even when the noises
created are within the limits contained elsewhere
herein: 

C. Yelling, Shouting, Etc.  Yelling, shouting,
hooting, whistling, or singing on the public streets,
particularly between
the hours of ten (10:00) o'clock P.M. and seven (7:00)
o'clock A.M. or
at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the
quiet, comfort, or repose of any person in the
vicinity.

In essence, this law makes it a misdemeanor when
speaking a certain way.  That is unconstitutional.


"The ordinance falls under the Principal of the
Swinging Fist, which says my constitutional right to
swing my fist ends
when it hits someone's chin--at that point my
protected speech
becomes an unlawful assault. In this sense, an
"assault" doesn't have to be physical. It can be
caused by things such as lights, sounds, and smells.
In those situations, the location of the "chin" is
defined by
community standards. Those are based on whether most
reasonable people would think an activity goes too
far."

You'll have to point out where in the constitution it
says you can "swing your fist".  I have also never
heard of the Amendment that says speech can be an
"unlawful assault" on someone.

Most reasonable people who understand what it says
think you have gone too far.  You cannot pass laws
that infringe on our Constitutional rights.  That is
illegal, and thus why many laws get overturned when
they are challenged.  But instead of taking that risk,
most reasonable people think the law should be
modified so that your "fist" of surrendering your
constitutional rights stops at my "chin."  In other
words, until our First Amendment is overturned, you
can take your law and modify it so that it stops at
my "chin."



"Most reasonable people would be outraged if the
police could not intervene in a beating because no one
had complained
or it was happening outside stated hours or a warning
had to be
issued or the beating was happening just past the time
a warning
expired. They would be equally outraged if the police
arrested
people for engaging in a wrestling or tag-boxing
match. Most reasonable
people would expect that the police are well enough
trained to know
the difference between the two and well enough
supervised to stay
within their boundaries. If the police cross their
line, most
reasonable people expect their heads to roll."

Agreed. And most reasonable people would not confuse
violence with free speech.  But if you want to tackle
the violence issue, then you should start with the 2nd
Amendment, the right to bear arms.  Then again, you'd
probably start an even bigger fight!


"The same is true when noise is the source of an
"assault." If your band is practicing in your house,
the windows are
closed, you're keeping the volume down, but some
sounds leak into the
public space,you are NOT going to have a police
officer banging
down your door and slapping you with a ticket. That's
because most reasonable people would think the
complainer--be it your next door
neighbor, a passerby or a police officer--is out of
line. A little noise is
OK."

Again, not all "noise" is an assault.  You need to
specify what "noise you are talking about.

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 sacrifices do you want others to submit to?  I
would like to see your list.



"If on the other hand, you were in the back yard with
the volume cranked to the max, most reasonable people
would say
it's disturbing the peace. A passing police officer
should be able to
deal with that situation on the spot without having to
wait for
someone to become so annoyed they complain."

I'm sure there would be more then one complaint
against me, and if it were between the "curfew" hours,
then I am citable without complaint if I don't turn it
down.

I don't know how often a situation like you describe
happens, but I'm sure it's minimal and not worth
sacrificing our 1st Amendment over.


"It has been my observation in my half-century-plus
time on earth that most people don't like to complain,
even to the person
who is bothering them. They prefer to settle things
with a
round-about conversation or polite suggestion. If
things get to
the point where one deals with an aggravating
situation directly,
there is an angry confrontation. If it results in a
call to the police,
the neighbors are enemies from then on. If the
noisemaker is
childish enough, he/ she may retaliate by doing
something like slashing the
complainer's  tires."

Community is about engaging with people.  Not
everything is peachy keen.  But at least Moscow is
relatively risk free.  I understand there are mean
people out there, but I don't believe in preemptive
policy when the issues at stake are our Constitutional
rights.  If there are issues outside of the noise
ordinance that pop up, then the police should
intervene.  I am all for cracking down on violence.


"Those serious disturbances of the peace can be
avoided simply by letting the police do their job:
when they encounter a
situation where someone is too loud for the time of
day, they
deal with it. In Moscow, the preferred approach is  to
ask the
noisemaker  to turn it down. If they do, that's the
end of the matter. If
they don't, then the police should be able to issue a
ticket on the
spot."

How is this any different than a member of the Taliban
telling it's subjects that they can't play music?  The
principle is the same: repression of freedom of
expression.

This is America, the land of the free, given a great
gift called the Constitution.  Our land is made up of
laws that back it up, not chip it away.  We don't need
the wording as proposed to you to solve the problem
you describe.

Why can't you be reasonable and let us modify it?  You
do mention "time of day"   so I'm glad you say we need
to have restrictive hours of "noise" rather than
something effective all day long.



"If an officer is showing bad judgment or abusing
his/her authority, we deal with that as having a bad
cop. We should not
take away the rights of the general population for
peaceful, quiet
enjoyment of their property on the off chance an
officer may get
out of line."

I agree, only there is no Constitutional right for a
"peaceful, quiet enjoyment of property".  But why are
you taking away our rights by passing this law on the
"off chance" that a new version of this law won't
work?



"I'm sure you are considerate enough that if a
neighbor asked you to turn your music down or tone
down some other noise,
you would--at the time and in the future. However, the
world is full of rude, obnoxious jerks who would just
flip the neighbor off. I think this code is a  good
tool for addressing those problem people."

Thank you.  I try to be considerate.  I hope you will
be considerate of the fact that what I'm saying makes
sense: we can reword the law to satisfy the situation.
 Then it will be a better tool because of all our hard
work put in to making sure democracy works.


"Of course, any law that addresses boorish behavior
impacts people who are behaving responsibly and
considerately. It is unfortunate, but  
that is the way it works."

That is only the way it works if you let it. 
Especially if you want to suspend the council rules
and vote to pass it without taking adequate time to
consider how the laws you are passing are effecting
the people you are supposed to serve.  

I especially think that considering you were appointed
to your post, and therefore should be treading
lightly.  

Our council has taken a huge turn with the recent
elections.  Now is the time to realize how important
it is to let the process unfold as it should, with
people learning about what you are doing and taking
time to add input and insure the laws you are passing
are responsible.

I hope this has been a learning experience for all of
us.  I realize you are new to serving the public, but
if this is what you want to do, you are going to have
to deal with people like me.  We shouldn't be stifled
in a healthy democracy, which is the most important
thing.

You probably can tell this process has frustrated me. 
I'd rather be playing with my kid, believe me.  So
you'll have to excuse any personal feelings I may hurt
in expressing myself towards you, but since you are in
a position of power, I will be frank in speaking truth
to power.

Thanks for your time and I hope you will reconsider
your support of this amendment.

Garrett



Sat Nov 10 13:32:27 PST 2007
Garrett,

I favor a fixed standard so that what constitutes
excessive noise will not 
be left to the officers' discretion.  If we do the
latter, application of 
the law will vary wildly.  I don't have a suggestion
as to what the limit 
should be, at least not now.  As I said before,
Lewiston does use this 
approach.

I listened to part of the last city council meeting
this morning on KRFP, 
and I was shocked to hear a council member, who may
have been Linda Pall, 
say she did not want to restrict the officers . She
said she trusted them, 
and did not want the law to restrict them based on the
conduct of the worst 
officers.  She said the actions of those officers
could be handled 
administratively.

I could not disagree more.  The Bill of Rights in our
constitution does not 
say that we will trust the agents of the state and
give them the discretion 
to restrict our freedoms.  No, it defends our freedoms
first.  It says the 
state shall have to prove it has a valid reason to
meddle in our affairs.  
It doesn't simply hand over our freedoms to the state.
 And I hope it was 
not Linda who made that statement; if it was, I hope
she will reconsider.

Because she knows that when state agents act
improperly, the first thing the 
state agency does is to try to limit its own
liability.  It's no different 
than when a driver gets in a wreck and is sued; the
insurance company tries 
to limit its exposure.  So to simply hand over
unfettered power to the 
police, and expect to administratively handle its
subsequent abuse is folly.

I find it interesting that the council is ready to
subject all of us to an 
ordinance because of the activities of just a few
people, and yet unwilling 
to circumscribe state power.

Sunil

>From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] New NO info...
>Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 23:40:35 -0800 (PST)
>
>Sunil,
>
>Do you want a fixed decible limit for trial purposes?
>Is it because you need firm evidence that someone
>broke the law, rather than subjective levels?
>
>Do you have a max level in mind?
>
>Thanks,
>
>gclev
>
>
>
>Fine, establish a maximum noise level and have the
>responding cop measure it
>with a decible meter.  If it exceeds the limit, write
>the ticket.
>
>Sunil