[Vision2020] New NO info...

[bbonte at moscow.com]

Go to flip4mac.com and download a free program which converts .wmv to
quicktime for quick and easy viewing on the mac. Evidently the 11/5/07
meeting is not ready to be viewed.  All other files I tried worked.

Bill Bonte


> 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
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
> 




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/