[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance rewrite

[Garrett Clevenger]

Thanks for answering J, g.

I'll take a moment to answer her question about why I
am fighting this so hard, with the expectation she
will answer my questions.

Yes, this started out for me as a fight against
feeling that this law was repressive on my freedom of
expression.  I try to be considerate playing music and
don't want to disturb people.  My neighbors are great
and the folks next door want me to leave the window
open when we play.  I keep it closed because I realize
not everyone may want to hear us.  We do not play
after 10 pm, and don't actually play all that much. 
We don't play that loud and we definitely don't shake
walls.  I have never had a complaint, as far as I
know, and I hope we don't disturb people.

The point is there should be set limits on what noise
is, but since there isn't, a considerate person like
myself is just as subject to being cited a person who
shakes your walls.  That is not right.

I may have actually stopped my fight against this law
had I had an opportunity to vent at the first city
council meeting.  Instead, I learned more about the
law and was unable to express myself at that meeting. 
So, I took that energy and have been trying to alert
people about this law and why we should be concerned
about it.

I wouldn't be wasting my time on this if I did not
think it was extremely important to be concerned
about.

Where I am at now on this, after learning more about
the law and seeing how some of our elected officials
don't seem to take their job seriously by not
answering legitimate questions, is that this has
become more about alerting my fellow Muscovites that
there is a lack of accountability and respect in these
elected officials and we all need to have more
scrutiny on their actions.

Our First Amendment right deserves more respect then
what seems to be shown.  If my analyses of the law is
correct, the city will pay a price not only in terms
of having a law that creates a chilling effect on
everybody without specifically addressing the party
house problem, but also in terms of money spent
defending a law that more then likely would be
challenged and potentially overturned.

I have no problem with a responsible noise ordinance,
but I am not going to sacrifice my rights unreasonably
because our city officials did not think through the
repurcusions of passing this law while not answering
my questions.

If I would have received reasonable answers, and none
of the antagonism from the city, I may have not felt
the way I do now.  However, considering how they have
been treating my concerns, I can only conclude that my
reasoning about the law is correct since they are
unwilling to tell me I am wrong.

You don't have to agree with me, but you should be
aware that my questions have gone unanswered
repeatedly and the city now knows that if they pass
this law, it wasn't because they didn't know what they
were doing.  Those who vote for this law either don't
take our Constitutional rights seriously, or they are
too lazy to come up with a better alternative.

Either scenario is unacceptable to me, and I hope the
people who have been following this realize that the
people who are supposed to be representing them are
not doing a good job.

That is a brief answer to your legitimate question.

So my questions to J:  

What about our First Amendment right, that Congress
shall make no law ...  abridging the freedom of speech
... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
... don't you understand or think we should heed?

Why do you find it acceptable that we may have a law
that is indeed an infringement on our rights?

Why are you not open to compromise and come up with a
better law?

Why are you so opposed to any of my concerns?

Why are you so willing to attack me personally without
answering my questions?

I did say I wouldn't respond to you until you answer
"YES" that you have read the noise ordinance and
amendment.  I compromised that and ask again, "Have
you read them?"

Thanks,

Garrett


"Ford" explains:

"if it is a disturbance to someone, no matter the time
of day, you are subject to being issued a citation."

Since when do we live in a world where an individual
being disturbed is reason to inflict sweeping
regulation on everyone else? If the ordinance were
worded in such a way as to create at least some kind
of boundary, walls shaking for instance, I might agree
but simply being put out because one might have to
hear "music that they do not appreciate" is insane.
Taken to the extreme what if I don't like the noise
your air conditioner makes? How about the racket
created by the breeze causing the leaves in the tree
you planted to rustle? Laws based on what any
individual, no matter how unhinged, may or may not
like is extremely bad law.

g



I still think you are not getting it...if it is a
disturbance to someone, no matter the time of day, you
are subject to being issued a citation.  If it is
compounded by the "10pm curfew", you definitely are
subject to and most likely will get one.

Why are you fighting this so hard?  If you play an
instrument that can be heard outside the purview of
your home, either get headphones or turn it down.

Simple.  

Not everyone likes listening to noise that is enough
to shake the walls of THEIR home, disturb their peace
or just simply is not the kind of music they
appreciate, at such a volume as to be a disturbance to
their peace.  Why should we be subject to your noise
when we may not want to be?  And why is that so hard
for you to accept?

J  :]


> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:18:58 -0800
> From: garrettmc at verizon.net
> To: lpall at moscow.com; aaronament at moscow.com;
tlamar at moscow.com; jweber at moscow.com; blambert
at ci.moscow.id.us; kcraine at ci.moscow.id.us;
nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us; dweaver at
ci.moscow.id.us; rfife at ci.moscow.id.us; dduke at
ci.moscow.id.us; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow Noise Ordinance rewrite
> 
> Hello Randy,
> 
> I just reviewed Moscow's rewritten noise ordinance
> amendment.  It doesn't seem like it was changed very
> significantly from the previous draft.  It doesn't
> seem like it addresses the party house problem and
> still maintains an undue burden on citizens.   None
of
> my suggestions were used that would have narrowed
the
> scope of this law. I would like to get your opinion
on
> the language, if you don't mind, so that we are
clear
> about this.
> 
> This is a quote from the NO, with the addition [in
> brackets]:
> 
> Sec. 11-2 (the last line)
> 
> "these acts may constitute a violation even when the
> noises created are within the [decibel] limits
> contained elsewhere herein" 
> 
> What does this mean in legal terms?  Does that mean
> there is no set maximum decibel level and that any
> volume can be a violation?
> 
> If so, how is that not "unconstitutionally overbroad
> and vague?" 
> 
> >From the way I read it, any sound can be citable,
> since the language is pretty subjective.  This seems
> like a violation of our First Amendment right.  Am I
> overreacting in feeling that this is an infringement
> and thus an illegal law?  If someone were cited
under
> this, would they have good grounds to challenge?
> 
> Since this is our current NO, if what I am saying is
> correct, then hasn't this law been pushing the limit
> on restricting our right to free speech since it was
> passed?
> 
> 
> The previous version of the amendment included
> allowing "police officers" to make the complaint. 
> This one removed that reference, but you said at one
> of the meetings that adding "police" in the previous
> amendment was just to clarify that police can be the
> complainant, and that the way you interpreted things
> was that police can be the complainant in our
current
> ordinance. The new amendment suggests that police
can
> still be a complainant.   Can police be a
complainant
> under this new amendment and cite someone without a
> civilian complaint?  Is that what "persons" mean in
> reference to whose peace is disturbed in Sec 11-2?
> 
> 
> If so, my conclusion, therefore, is that we can
still
> say that this law will allow a police officer to
issue
> a citation at any time for any noise an officers
deems
> offensive, without anyone complaining.
> 
> Is my summary correct?
> 
> 
> Since the ID Supreme Court has said, "so long as the
> means chosen are not substantially broader than
> necessary to achieve the government's interest, a
> regulation will not be invalid simply because a
court
> concludes that the government's interest could be
> adequately served by some less speech-restrictive
> alternative."
> 
> Based on my reasonable interpretation, it seems if
> this law passes then the city has chosen a
> "substantially broader than necessary" means to
solve
> the party house problem. 
> 
> If someone were cited under the new law in a
situation
> outside of the party house scenario, would that be a
> good grounds to challenge as well?
> 
> If the city loses a court fight, does the city have
to
> pay money?
> 
> Where does the money come from?
> 
> Are city officials who knowingly risked passing this
> law liable for any monetary damages from a lawsuit
the
> city may fight but end up losing?
> 
> I realize I have asked you a lot of questions, but I
> believe the citizens of Moscow deserve to know what
> this law says and the repercussions that may occur
if
> it is passed.
> 
> I have cc'd our City Council an Mayor and Vision
2020
> so that we can clear things up.  I do not want to be
> misleading people based on my interpretation, so if
> you would please answer my questions, we would be
most
> grateful, and hopefully this will be resolved
> reasonably.  Otherwise, I will ask these same
> questions at the Admin meeting.
> 
> Thanks for your time and for giving your feedback!
> 
> Garrett Clevenger
> 
> For my Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance
> Modification:
> 
> http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMlanguage.pdf
>