<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance
Modifications</title></head><body>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 3:44 PM -0700 10/4/07, J Ford wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
J :]<br>
<br>
<br>
> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:16:34 -0700<br>
> From: garrettmc@verizon.net<br>
> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>
> CC: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<br>
> Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance Modifications<br>
><br>
> I was under the impression, from City Council members,<br>
> that they would listen to the public at the meeting.<br>
><br>
> The amendment could have been made law if Linda didn't<br>
> stop that. And that happened because she got a flurry<br>
> of emails at the last minute. From what I can tell,<br>
> the City Council members voted on this amendment<br>
> without inviting to hear from the people it<br>
> represents.<br>
><br>
> I don't know what's more frustrating, the fact that<br>
> everyone voted on this law, and from what I remember,<br>
> without thinking it was going to be modified at the<br>
> admin meeting, or that they voted on it without<br>
> hearing from the public's perspective.<br>
><br>
> I think as a City Council they should be open enough<br>
> to take input BEFORE voting on an issue. How can they<br>
> say they were fair and balanced by voting without even<br>
> inviting the public to speak at the meeting?<br>
><br>
> I believe the boarding house amendment meetings had<br>
> public testimony. Why should they change they way<br>
> they vote on issues?<br>
><br>
> I admit I am still learning how they operate, so I<br>
> appreciate your comments. If you can explain to me<br>
> that the way the council handled this issue was<br>
> correct, then let me know. Kudos to Linda, of course.<br>
><br>
> I felt frustrated and let down and if nothing else<br>
> that is not how a person should feel watching<br>
> democracy in action.<br>
><br>
> I agree with Bruce and Donovan's suggestion of one<br>
> month as the interval between complaints. That is<br>
> what I was thinking, too. One warning and then a<br>
> ticket. At the very least, I think it should be tried<br>
> as a way to reduce party houses.<br>
><br>
> I don't think it should be up to the police to decide<br>
> what noise is acceptable, except if it is<br>
> exceptionally loud. If someone is revving an engine<br>
> at 3 am very loudly, the police should intervene. So<br>
> I suppose some decibel limit as Donovan suggests, but<br>
> within a certain time frame, say 10 pm to 5 am.<br>
><br>
> If one neighbor is annoyed by a chronic noise maker,<br>
> it seems there are others who would be bothered, too,<br>
> and one person should not bear the responsibility of<br>
> solving the problem. Isn't it better for the long<br>
> term health of Moscow that we resolve these things<br>
> without relying on the police to be the Big Brother?<br>
><br>
> If the issue of safety is concerned, I believe that<br>
> charges could be brought against the aggressor if<br>
> someone feels threatened after complaining.<br>
><br>
> Bev, we do live in a college town. There are inherent<br>
> characteristics to this that are both positive and<br>
> negative. Obviously we want to reduce the negative.<br>
> The law should target these repeat offenders.<br>
><br>
> Idaho state law, apparently, prevents police officers<br>
> from being the complainee. I don't see how a city<br>
> council law will over ride that. Also, the<br>
> Constitution guarantees the right of a defendant to<br>
> face their accuser in a court of law.<br>
><br>
> These are basic civil rights that should not be<br>
> overturned.<br>
><br>
> Don't think I'm being flippant about calling Moscow
a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> college town. I in no way am
encouraging<br>
> irresponsible behavior. In fact, just the opposite.<br>
><br>
> I want a responsible City Council to listen to the<br>
> public before voting on laws. I want responsible laws<br>
> that respect our Constitution and I want a responsible<br>
> community who isn't going to let fear of a noisy<br>
> neighbor shut them off from American ideals.<br>
><br>
> I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's cliche saying<br>
> "Those who give up their liberty for security deserve<br>
> neither."<br>
><br>
> Garrett<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Garrett and Bev,<br>
> ><br>
> > I think the law should be designed to prevent<br>
> > abuses from all sides while still doing what the law<br>
> > is intended to do, protect people from excessive<br>
> > noise makers that disrupt others from enjoying and<br>
> > living in their own households.<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't think giving police unlimited discretion<br>
> > in citing people for noise is a good idea. There is<br>
> > a potential for a cop out there that will write<br>
> > citations just because he/she believes they must<br>
> > enforce the law even though nobody is out right<br>
> > being bothered or complaining. On the other hand,<br>
> > like Bev said, there are those that don't wish to<br>
> > create tension with their neighbors. So I would<br>
> > suggest that police only be able to cite loud noise<br>
> > makers if either; A) the decibel level is twice the<br>
> > legal level, or B) If it is over the legal level and<br>
> > a complaint is made.<br>
> ><br>
> > We also have to consider the rights of those that<br>
> > are making the noise, in that there are people that<br>
> > complain excessively about every little noise. There<br>
> > are people that expect everyone to be very quiet all<br>
> > the time. I once had a neighbor in an apartment<br>
> > complex that would complain that I was cooking too<br>
> > loud. I don't know how cooking can be loud, but she<br>
> > always found something to complain about, my toilet<br>
> > flushed to loud another day, and another day she<br>
> > complained my TV was too loud, and I wasn't even<br>
> > home that day, so I know it wasn't, the TV was off.<br>
> > The property manager told me she did this with the<br>
> > previous tenants as well, and to just ignore her.<br>
> > Requiring people to sign complains when they are not<br>
> > really excessive just to mess with a neighbor you<br>
> > don't like, keeps the irresponsible and petty<br>
> > complains to a minimum.<br>
> ><br>
> > I would also get rid of the 48 hours rule and<br>
> > change it to three separate complaints in any 30 day<br>
> > period. That would take care of your weekend<br>
> > disrupts but protect the homeowner with the<br>
> > occasional social party.<br>
> ><br>
> > Best,<br>
> ><br>
> > Donovan<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Bev Bafus <bevbafus@verizon.net> wrote:<br>
> > Garrett, I was at the meeting the other night.<br>
> > The proper term is "suspension of the rules<br>
> > requiring three readings of the ordinance."<br>
> ><br>
> > So as it stands now, there are two more readings<br>
> > before it becomes an ordinance. They didn't ask for<br>
> > public input, because it was not a public hearing.<br>
> ><br>
> > There were three changes to the noise ordinance<br>
> > suggested, and the first is the one you are<br>
> > opposing. The reasoning behind this was to give the<br>
> > police officers the ability to cite someone without<br>
> > a citizen complaint. As the law reads now, a<br>
> > citizen would have to SIGN a complaint, not just<br>
> > call 911 for a citation to be issued. This causes<br>
> > problems in areas where people are already less than<br>
> > neighborly. They find out who COMPLAINED, and<br>
> > harassment can ensue.<br>
> ><br>
> > If you listened to Assistant Chief David Duke, he<br>
> > stated that the officers would still be responding<br>
> > to complaints, but that the complaint could be<br>
> > anonymous. The officers still would have the<br>
> > discretion to only warn an individual. Believe me,<br>
> > they know where the problems in town are.<br>
> ><br>
> > With our current police administration and staff,<br>
> > I do not feel that this law would be abused.<br>
> > However, I agree with Aaron Ament that in five<br>
> > years, ten years - or more, we could have a<br>
> > different slate of individuals who might abuse it.<br>
> ><br>
> > Am I right in assuming that you do not have a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> > problem with the change of the
48-hour rule? As the<br>
> > law reads now, if a warning is issued, a citation<br>
> > cannot be issued unless an additional complaint is<br>
> > received within 48 hours. This completely ties the<br>
> > hands of the police when the complaint is every<br>
> > Friday night. By the time another Friday rolls<br>
> > around, its been more than 48 hours.<br>
> ><br>
> > Do you have any suggestions on how individuals can<br>
> > protect the peace and quiet of their homes without<br>
> > this ordinance? I don't have a problem myself with<br>
> > stating my name if I have a viable complaint. But<br>
> > if I lived next to a party house, I would certainly<br>
> > want the police to do something about curbing<br>
> > constant noise and extremely impolite behavior.<br>
> ><br>
> > And please, don't tell me it's a college town, and<br>
> > we just have to live with it. College students are<br>
> > capable of learning how to live in society.<br>
> ><br>
> > thanks<br>
> > Bev<br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com<br>
> > [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]On Behalf Of<br>
> > Garrett Clevenger<br>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:08 PM<br>
> > To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance<br>
> > Modifications<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Hello,<br>
> > I am asking you to take a moment and contact<br>
> > Moscow's City Council. Emails are below...<br>
> > On October 1, Moscow's City Council unanimously<br>
> > voted yes to modify Moscow's Noise Ordinance to<br>
> > allow police officers to issue citations without<br>
> > warning and without civilian complaint. There isn't<br>
> > even a set decibel limit. It is up to the<br>
> > discretion of the police.<br>
> ><br>
> > In other words, if you are making any noise the<br>
> > police deem inappropriate, they can now fine you on<br>
> > the spot on public and private property.<br>
> ><br>
> > They also did not ask the public for input at the<br>
> > meeting.<br>
> ><br>
> > The only reason it is not now law is because Linda<br>
> > Pall blocked Bill Lambert from suspending the rules<br>
> > of 3 votes.<br>
> ><br>
> > According to our city attorney Randy Fife, our<br>
> > district judge Bill Hamlett has ruled that Idaho law<br>
> > states police officers cannot represent themselves<br>
> > as citizens since their job is to represent all<br>
> > citizens. It is illegal for them to have the power<br>
> > this proposal gives them. Therefore, this new<br>
> > proposal seems like it would be struck down if<br>
> > challenged.<br>
> ><br>
> > We certainly don't have the power to have our<br>
> > voices heard at the federal level, where civil<br>
> > liberties are on the attack. Take a moment to have<br>
> > your voice heard by your local representatives.<br>
> > They are just doing there job trying to solve a<br>
> > problem and need guidance to insure they are not<br>
> > mimicking the erosions on the national level.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Aaron Ament aaronament@moscow.com<br>
> > Bill Lambert blambert@ci.moscow.id.us<br>
> > Linda Pall lpall@moscow.com;<br>
> > John Weber jweber@moscow.com<br>
> > Tom Lamar tlamar@moscow.com<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Unfortunately, the city website has not yet posted<br>
> > the new council woman Kit Crane's email. Perhaps<br>
> > her phone number is in the phonebook?<br>
> ><br>
> > Thank you!<br>
> ><br>
> > Garrett Clevenger<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> =======================================================<br>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> ><br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > http://www.fsr.net<br>
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
> ><br>
> =======================================================<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ---------------------------------<br>
> > Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a<br>
> > reality with Yahoo! Autos.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> =======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> http://www.fsr.net<br>
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
> =======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<hr></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so
much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! <a
href=
"http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews"><span
></span>Try now!</a></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>