[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance compromise

[Paul Rumelhart]

Garrett,

I was talking about the following from your email:

"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."

I see now that the word "offensive" was just in the summary of the law, 
not the actual ordinance. My bad for not reading it in context.

Paul

Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> 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 ===
>
>
>