[Vision2020] New NO info...

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Garrett,

Thanks for the correction.

Linda, I apologize for incorrectly attributing the statements to you.

Sunil


>From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] New NO info...
>Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:22:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>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
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================