[Vision2020] New NO info...

[KRFP]

I wonder why it is that the city thinks only people with Windows 
machines should participate in the government.  Is being a slave to Bill 
Gates a prerequisite?

Dave


Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>
>