[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance:Decibels In Lewiston City Code

Sat Nov 17 20:26:28 PST 2007

Well, as far as I can tell, there is no distinction,
or specific reference to, the situation you are asking
about.  

The NO is very vague.  After looking at NO's from
other cities, I believe ours is rather primitive and I
won't argue there shouldn't be changes to it.

It's obvious, though, that there is a lot of confusion
and misinformation about this, and there are probably
things I have said that may have been misleading. 
That is why I have been hoping the city officials who
seem to support the NOM would answer my questions,
such as below.

>From what I can tell, though, if they pass a NOM that
has means broader than necessary to solve the
advertised problem (party houses), if you get cited
outside of those bounds because of the new police
powers, you may have a good chance to fight it in
court.

These question, and more, may now be moot, but they
might need to be answered by everyone who will cast a
vote on this, enforce it and even write it if the
rewording is insufficient:

What is your position on this issue?  {and why?}

According to the police department, 17% of noise
violations are repeat offenders (party houses?)  Why
should everybody in Moscow be subject to this
Draconian law?

The 17% who apparently are unruly would be better
dealt with under a more reasonable law. Why put the
pressure on police to be the deciding factor on what
noise is acceptable?  

Why should we expect the police to do what perhaps the
city council should be doing: working with the
university, the Greek system, community groups, the
police and others interested in developing dialog
amongst problem areas?

I play in a band {you enter your sacrifice here...}
and we practice at my house and though nobody
complains and the neighbors want us to open the
window, now I have to fear my freedom of expression
because of some repeat offenders?

An 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? 

Is the intent of the law to create a chilling effect
on civilians, or is the law sincerely written to
address specific problem areas?

Why do you have to swing {the law} all the way to the
extreme?

Can we agree to my suggestions?

Perhaps I ask too many questions and everybody is
annoyed with me.  The chances of me actually being
cited under the NOM are close to nothing.  I feel
confident the police will cite reasonably.

All that really matters is insuring we don't pass
irresponsible laws, whether they are unconstitutional
or just too extreme.  If people are going to vote yes
on that kind of change, I want them to answer my
questions, especially after pleaing with them to
respond.

Considering the consequence of having taxdollars
wasted defending an unconstitutional law, it is only
reasonable to make sure people take their job
seriously.

The bottom line: these folk are being paid with our
taxdollars.  To know we are paying people to pass bad
laws while they do not have enough respect to answer
why they are so determined to see that law passed I
hope for all of us is alarming it will start attending
city council meetings.  If they have reasonable
answers, I will shush, not for fear of being cited,
but because I can be reasoned with!)

Garrett Clevenger

--- Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Garrett et. al.
> 
> I understand your concern, assuming your
> interpretation of the broad and
> perhaps arbitrary discretion the proposed NO might
> grant police for
> ticketing noise offenders, with no warning period.
> 
> And then given Dave's objection that decibel meters
> can be used to give
> misleading readings, or are just inherently
> difficult to work with, even
> with the best intentions and knowledge of their use,
> mandating strict
> decibel standards for noise investigations by law
> enforcement, backed by a
> decibel meter reading, creates other problems. 
> However, I think a high
> quality decibel meter that is correctly calibrated
> and used properly can
> offer reliable readings for law enforcement
> investigations into noise
> complaints, though this approach may not cover all
> relevant cases.
> 
> What about multi-apartment complexes where the noise
> is not heard loudly
> from the outside, but through walls?  To test for
> noise levels the police
> would have to enter the apartment from where the
> noise complaint was issued.
> 
> I have not studied the NO city code, or the proposed
> changes, in detail.
> But given Garrett has, perhaps he can explain how
> noise complaints
> from within the closed walls of an apartment complex
> are addressed?
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/16/07, Garrett Clevenger
> <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ted and folks,
> >
> > Our current NO says this:
> >
> > Residential and Office Zoning Districts:
> Sixty-five
> > (65) dBA during the daytime (7:00 A.M. to 10:00
> P.M.)
> > and fifty-five (55) dBA at nighttime (10:00 P.M.
> to
> > 7:00 A.M.) as measured at the property line of the
> > source.
> >
> > The only problem, it also says this:
> >
> > "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"
> >
> > Which basically means the above dB's are not
> > necessarily the max dB on your property.
> >
> > That, combined with removing neighbor complaints
> and a
> > warning period leads to this if the council votes
> to
> > approve the current NOM:
> >
> > The police will have the right to give a ticket to
> > anybody in Moscow at anytime for any "noise" an
> > officer deems offensive, even if no one complains.
> >
> > That is a significantly broader than necessary
> means
> > of solving the party house problem and I hope the
> > expected modifications to the amendment will
> address
> > this concern.
> >
> > gclev
> >
> > My Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance
> > Modification of 2007:
> >
> > http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html
> >
> >
>
=======================================================
> > 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
> >
>
=======================================================
> >
> 