[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance compromise

[Garrett Clevenger]

Thanks, Paul.  This process has been draining, but
since I think I was the one who sent out the first
email that prevented the council from voting for it on
the spot at the first meeting, I'm committed to seeing
it through, hoping for the best.

I was looking for the term "offensive" in the
ordinance and couldn't find it.  Did you see it in the
rewrite or the current noise ordinance?

I, too, don't like that term.  All the terms seem
subjective.  What is "loud" to a "reasonable person?"

I agree, a set decibel limit is a good place to start.

Take care,

Garrett

--- Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Garrett,
> 
> I'm glad you're following this so closely and taking
> the time and effort 
> to help bring about a fairer noise ordinance. I'd
> like to add to your 
> objections to this noise ordinance my fears over the
> wording of the term 
> "offensive" when describing a noise for a noise
> complaint. This leads me 
> to believe that a noise that is not too loud, or
> bothersome to anyone, 
> may be cited simply because the source of the noise
> is offensive to the 
> officer. There is no way of knowing what noises
> might be considered 
> "offensive", and to leave this up to the officer's
> discretion may lead 
> to problems. It's probably best to leave the idea of
> offensiveness out 
> of this and describe noises as being simply too loud
> if there is a 
> problem. Like Sunil has mentioned, this is also
> something that can be 
> measured somewhat objectively using a decibel meter.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> > I attended the Admin meeting on 11/26 for the
> noise
> > ordinance, and this one seemed the most
> productive,
> > yet still did not resolve the issue, and will be
> back
> > to the council too close to the break to be
> > responsible for the out-going council to vote on.
> >
> > Randy Fife said at this meeting the amendment was
> not
> > to target party houses, but intended to cover
> > everybody, which is contrary to what the city
> brought
> > to the first Admin meeting where Aaron and Tom
> voted
> > on it.  It was sold as a solution to party houses
> and
> > I believe Aaron and Tom would have blocked the
> first
> > version if they knew all the repercussions that I
> > point out in my testimony.  Thus, it seems that
> there
> > was misinformation at play, which means this needs
> > more time to settle then we are presented with for
> the
> > current council.  Though, as you'll note in my
> reply,
> > there is always compromise.
> >
> > I am curious to know any of the new council
> members
> > thoughts.
> >
> > I am attaching my testimony and the reply to the
> city
> > after Randy Fife replied to my email I cc'd to
> v2020
> > last week, which is also attached.  
> >
> >
> > Moscow Noise Ordinance Modification, 2007
> >
> > What the law says:
> >
> > Allows police to issue a ticket in the range of
> > $159-$359 to anyone at any time for any “noise”
> that
> > an officer deems offensive without any neighbor
> > complaint.
> >
> > No set definition or limit to what that “noise”
> may
> > be:  Sec. 11-2 (the last line):
> > "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
> decibel
> > limits contained elsewhere herein"
> >
> > There may not even be anybody bothered by the
> “noise.”
> >
> > Noise ordinance violators are not necessarily
> warned
> > of violation before citation.
> >
> > Landlords are subject to citation if they don't
> > prevent violations from renters:  Sec 11-9
> > "Failure or refusal to perform such duty after
> > knowledge of the violation(s) shall constitute a
> > violation of this Chapter. 
> >
> > Violates First Amendment: "Congress shall make no
> law
> > ... abridging the freedom of speech."
> >
> > 17% of noise violations are repeat offenders
> (party
> > houses), the advertised target of this amendment,
> yet
> > everyone is subject to this infringement.
> >
> > City could choose to limit scope of law, but
> refuses.
> >
> > Questions to be answered:
> >
> > Is the intent of the law to create a chilling
> effect
> > on everybody, or is the law sincerely written to
> > address party houses?
> >
> > Why should everybody sacrifice freedom of
> expression
> > because of 17% of noise violators?
> >
> > Why doesn't the law address the 17% (party houses)
> by
> > limiting scope of law to certain hours and
> > circumstances?  i.e. 10 pm to 7 am, "party house"
> type
> > noises above specified decibel limits
> >
> > Why put pressure on police to be the deciding
> factor
> > on what "noise" is acceptable at all times?  limit
> > police-initiated citations to party house
> situations
> >
> > How is this overbroad and vague law not
> > unconstitutional?
> >
> > Who will pay if the city loses a challenge in
> court
> > based on Constitutional violations? taxpayers
> >
> > Why won't the city be reasonable with this law?
> >
> >
> > Hello Cityfolk,
> >
> > Thanks for replying, Randy, and everybody else who
> is
> > willing to engage with me on this.  I appreciate
> your
> > feedback.  I am sorry if my persistence is
> frustrating
> > for you, but please keep in mind that our concerns
> are
> > legitimate and there is a better alternative to
> this
> > dilemma.
> >
> > Randy said at the Admin meeting this Monday that
> the
> > amendment was not specifically to address "party
> > houses."  According to the agenda the first time
> it
> > came to the Admin meeting on 9/10/07, I am
> wondering
> > why there is a discrepancy:
> >
> > "The proposed changes will assist the Police
> > Department in addressing repeat offenders outside
> the
> > current 48 hour warning period... The changes will
> > directly impact  boarding houses where large
> groups of
> > people assemble or known party houses with a
> history
> > of public 
> > nuisance complaints."
> >
> > I believe that the testimony from Dan Weaver at
> that
> > meeting was focused on party houses, and thus he
> > garnered support from Aaron and Tom.  This to me
> > implies that the the noise ordinance was being
> > modified to address repeat offenders, not
> everybody
> > else.  I believe most people have the impression
> that
> > this is for "party houses" and would be surprised
> that
> > now this is not about party houses.
> >
> 
=== message truncated ===