[Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance Modifications
Mark Solomon
msolomon at moscow.com
Thu Oct 4 15:52:34 PDT 2007
J you are way out of line. Garrett is as far from being a CC member
as it is possible to get. Apologies are due.
m.
At 3:44 PM -0700 10/4/07, J Ford wrote:
>First of all, kirker, I am sure you know bloody well that ONLY
>during PUBLIC HEARINGS does the COUNCIL have to listen to public
>input regarding an issue. Get on their site and READ something else
>besides Dougie's trash and you'd know that. During monthly
>meetings, their are one or two 15-minute Public Comment periods when
>the Mayor opens the podium up for public comment on items NOT on the
>agenda.
>
>You are attempting to create an issue where there is none only
>because it soots your constitution at this time. Get over yourself
>and learn something outside of what Dougie puts out there as truth.
>
>J :]
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:16:34 -0700
>> From: garrettmc at verizon.net
>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> CC: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
>> Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance Modifications
>>
>> I was under the impression, from City Council members,
>> that they would listen to the public at the meeting.
>>
>> The amendment could have been made law if Linda didn't
>> stop that. And that happened because she got a flurry
>> of emails at the last minute. From what I can tell,
>> the City Council members voted on this amendment
>> without inviting to hear from the people it
>> represents.
>>
>> I don't know what's more frustrating, the fact that
>> everyone voted on this law, and from what I remember,
>> without thinking it was going to be modified at the
>> admin meeting, or that they voted on it without
>> hearing from the public's perspective.
>>
>> I think as a City Council they should be open enough
>> to take input BEFORE voting on an issue. How can they
>> say they were fair and balanced by voting without even
>> inviting the public to speak at the meeting?
>>
>> I believe the boarding house amendment meetings had
>> public testimony. Why should they change they way
>> they vote on issues?
>>
>> I admit I am still learning how they operate, so I
>> appreciate your comments. If you can explain to me
>> that the way the council handled this issue was
>> correct, then let me know. Kudos to Linda, of course.
>>
>> I felt frustrated and let down and if nothing else
>> that is not how a person should feel watching
>> democracy in action.
>>
>> I agree with Bruce and Donovan's suggestion of one
>> month as the interval between complaints. That is
>> what I was thinking, too. One warning and then a
>> ticket. At the very least, I think it should be tried
>> as a way to reduce party houses.
>>
>> I don't think it should be up to the police to decide
>> what noise is acceptable, except if it is
>> exceptionally loud. If someone is revving an engine
>> at 3 am very loudly, the police should intervene. So
>> I suppose some decibel limit as Donovan suggests, but
>> within a certain time frame, say 10 pm to 5 am.
>>
>> If one neighbor is annoyed by a chronic noise maker,
>> it seems there are others who would be bothered, too,
>> and one person should not bear the responsibility of
>> solving the problem. Isn't it better for the long
>> term health of Moscow that we resolve these things
>> without relying on the police to be the Big Brother?
>>
>> If the issue of safety is concerned, I believe that
>> charges could be brought against the aggressor if
>> someone feels threatened after complaining.
>>
>> Bev, we do live in a college town. There are inherent
>> characteristics to this that are both positive and
>> negative. Obviously we want to reduce the negative.
>> The law should target these repeat offenders.
>>
>> Idaho state law, apparently, prevents police officers
>> from being the complainee. I don't see how a city
>> council law will over ride that. Also, the
>> Constitution guarantees the right of a defendant to
>> face their accuser in a court of law.
>>
>> These are basic civil rights that should not be
>> overturned.
>>
>> Don't think I'm being flippant about calling Moscow a
> > college town. I in no way am encouraging
>> irresponsible behavior. In fact, just the opposite.
>>
>> I want a responsible City Council to listen to the
>> public before voting on laws. I want responsible laws
>> that respect our Constitution and I want a responsible
>> community who isn't going to let fear of a noisy
>> neighbor shut them off from American ideals.
>>
>> I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's cliche saying
>> "Those who give up their liberty for security deserve
>> neither."
>>
>> Garrett
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Garrett and Bev,
>> >
>> > I think the law should be designed to prevent
>> > abuses from all sides while still doing what the law
>> > is intended to do, protect people from excessive
>> > noise makers that disrupt others from enjoying and
>> > living in their own households.
>> >
>> > I don't think giving police unlimited discretion
>> > in citing people for noise is a good idea. There is
>> > a potential for a cop out there that will write
>> > citations just because he/she believes they must
>> > enforce the law even though nobody is out right
>> > being bothered or complaining. On the other hand,
>> > like Bev said, there are those that don't wish to
>> > create tension with their neighbors. So I would
>> > suggest that police only be able to cite loud noise
>> > makers if either; A) the decibel level is twice the
>> > legal level, or B) If it is over the legal level and
>> > a complaint is made.
>> >
>> > We also have to consider the rights of those that
>> > are making the noise, in that there are people that
>> > complain excessively about every little noise. There
>> > are people that expect everyone to be very quiet all
>> > the time. I once had a neighbor in an apartment
>> > complex that would complain that I was cooking too
>> > loud. I don't know how cooking can be loud, but she
>> > always found something to complain about, my toilet
>> > flushed to loud another day, and another day she
>> > complained my TV was too loud, and I wasn't even
>> > home that day, so I know it wasn't, the TV was off.
>> > The property manager told me she did this with the
>> > previous tenants as well, and to just ignore her.
>> > Requiring people to sign complains when they are not
>> > really excessive just to mess with a neighbor you
>> > don't like, keeps the irresponsible and petty
>> > complains to a minimum.
>> >
>> > I would also get rid of the 48 hours rule and
>> > change it to three separate complaints in any 30 day
>> > period. That would take care of your weekend
>> > disrupts but protect the homeowner with the
>> > occasional social party.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Donovan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bev Bafus <bevbafus at verizon.net> wrote:
>> > Garrett, I was at the meeting the other night.
>> > The proper term is "suspension of the rules
>> > requiring three readings of the ordinance."
>> >
>> > So as it stands now, there are two more readings
>> > before it becomes an ordinance. They didn't ask for
>> > public input, because it was not a public hearing.
>> >
>> > There were three changes to the noise ordinance
>> > suggested, and the first is the one you are
>> > opposing. The reasoning behind this was to give the
>> > police officers the ability to cite someone without
>> > a citizen complaint. As the law reads now, a
>> > citizen would have to SIGN a complaint, not just
>> > call 911 for a citation to be issued. This causes
>> > problems in areas where people are already less than
>> > neighborly. They find out who COMPLAINED, and
>> > harassment can ensue.
>> >
>> > If you listened to Assistant Chief David Duke, he
>> > stated that the officers would still be responding
>> > to complaints, but that the complaint could be
>> > anonymous. The officers still would have the
>> > discretion to only warn an individual. Believe me,
>> > they know where the problems in town are.
>> >
>> > With our current police administration and staff,
>> > I do not feel that this law would be abused.
>> > However, I agree with Aaron Ament that in five
>> > years, ten years - or more, we could have a
>> > different slate of individuals who might abuse it.
>> >
>> > Am I right in assuming that you do not have a
> > > problem with the change of the 48-hour rule? As the
>> > law reads now, if a warning is issued, a citation
>> > cannot be issued unless an additional complaint is
>> > received within 48 hours. This completely ties the
>> > hands of the police when the complaint is every
>> > Friday night. By the time another Friday rolls
>> > around, its been more than 48 hours.
>> >
>> > Do you have any suggestions on how individuals can
>> > protect the peace and quiet of their homes without
>> > this ordinance? I don't have a problem myself with
>> > stating my name if I have a viable complaint. But
>> > if I lived next to a party house, I would certainly
>> > want the police to do something about curbing
>> > constant noise and extremely impolite behavior.
>> >
>> > And please, don't tell me it's a college town, and
>> > we just have to live with it. College students are
>> > capable of learning how to live in society.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > Bev
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>> > [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of
>> > Garrett Clevenger
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:08 PM
>> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance
>> > Modifications
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > I am asking you to take a moment and contact
>> > Moscow's City Council. Emails are below...
>> > On October 1, Moscow's City Council unanimously
>> > voted yes to modify Moscow's Noise Ordinance to
>> > allow police officers to issue citations without
>> > warning and without civilian complaint. There isn't
>> > even a set decibel limit. It is up to the
>> > discretion of the police.
>> >
>> > In other words, if you are making any noise the
>> > police deem inappropriate, they can now fine you on
>> > the spot on public and private property.
>> >
>> > They also did not ask the public for input at the
>> > meeting.
>> >
>> > The only reason it is not now law is because Linda
>> > Pall blocked Bill Lambert from suspending the rules
>> > of 3 votes.
>> >
>> > According to our city attorney Randy Fife, our
>> > district judge Bill Hamlett has ruled that Idaho law
>> > states police officers cannot represent themselves
>> > as citizens since their job is to represent all
>> > citizens. It is illegal for them to have the power
>> > this proposal gives them. Therefore, this new
>> > proposal seems like it would be struck down if
>> > challenged.
>> >
>> > We certainly don't have the power to have our
>> > voices heard at the federal level, where civil
>> > liberties are on the attack. Take a moment to have
>> > your voice heard by your local representatives.
>> > They are just doing there job trying to solve a
>> > problem and need guidance to insure they are not
>> > mimicking the erosions on the national level.
>> >
>> >
>> > Aaron Ament aaronament at moscow.com
>> > Bill Lambert blambert at ci.moscow.id.us
>> > Linda Pall lpall at moscow.com;
>> > John Weber jweber at moscow.com
>> > Tom Lamar tlamar at moscow.com
>> >
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, the city website has not yet posted
>> > the new council woman Kit Crane's email. Perhaps
>> > her phone number is in the phonebook?
>> >
>> > Thank you!
>> >
>> > Garrett Clevenger
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> =======================================================
>> > 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
>> >
>> =======================================================
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a
>> > reality with Yahoo! Autos.
>> >
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>
>
>Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live
>OneCare!
><http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews>Try
>now!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071004/0b42f6ff/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list