<DIV>Garrett,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I believe people have the right to be as loud as they want, just as long as I don't have to listen to it. : )</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">To clarify this a bit, police Chief Randy Weaver wrote<BR>it with city attorney Randy Fife, from what I have<BR>been told by the city.<BR><BR>The last email I sent had a good template for what our<BR>NO should look like. I made a big sacrifice by<BR>specifying what "noise" is. In that case, "loud<BR>amplification devices." Included in that list is my<BR>acoustic guitar, which would be citable by a police<BR>officer and no complaint if between the hours of 10 pm<BR>and 7 am.<BR><BR>What other sacrifices do people want to make on this,<BR>that insures our First
Amendment is not eroded?<BR><BR><BR>gclev<BR><BR><BR>--- Donovan Arnold <DONOVANJARNOLD2005@YAHOO.COM><BR>wrote:<BR><BR>> "This stated intent of the noise ordinance<BR>> amendment,<BR>> according the the police who wrote it, is to target<BR>> repeat offenders,"--GC<BR>> <BR>> As grateful as I am for Moscow's wonderful police<BR>> force, I am extremely uncomfortable with police<BR>> writing legislation that involves them. I think all<BR>> legislation should be forwarded by private citizens<BR>> and their elected representatives. That is not to<BR>> say that we should not seek the wisdom and advice of<BR>> the police for what works and what doesn't and what<BR>> we can do to make their objectives safer. <BR>> <BR>> When the executors of the law become the writers<BR>> of the law, we have conflict of interest, we have a<BR>> separation of powers concern. <BR>> <BR>> Again, I think you Garrett for your interest
and<BR>> hard work on this NO and looking out for the rights<BR>> of Moscow residents. <BR>> <BR>> Best,<BR>> <BR>> Donovan<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Garrett Clevenger <GARRETTMC@VERIZON.NET>wrote:<BR>> Donovan,<BR>> <BR>> This stated intent of the noise ordinance amendment,<BR>> according the the police who wrote it, is to target<BR>> repeat offenders, what they call "party houses"<BR>> which<BR>> comprise 17% of all noise complaints.<BR>> <BR>> That being the case, I am proposing language that<BR>> specfies what those offenses are: loud music during<BR>> the night. (yelling and the like are covered by our<BR>> current NO)<BR>> <BR>> Living around other people, I don't think it is<BR>> realistic to expect no "noise" at all times. But if<BR>> you are bothered, you still have the right to<BR>> complain<BR>> and those people face being cited.<BR>> <BR>> I am a light sleeper and have
discovered "white<BR>> noise"<BR>> is an incredible sleep aid. I use a fan and it<BR>> blocks<BR>> out much random noise that otherwise would wake me.<BR>> <BR>> If the noise ordinance I provided a link to works<BR>> for<BR>> Boise, our state capital, it seems like it is a good<BR>> model to use. The text I provided can either<BR>> suplement our current NO, or be a framework to build<BR>> around.<BR>> <BR>> Many of the other noise issues you brought up are<BR>> covered by our current NO, so I did not address<BR>> them. <BR>> Barking dogs is covered in another section.<BR>> <BR>> For those who want to see our current NO, it is<BR>> here:<BR>> <BR>><BR>http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/citycode/TITLE10/chapter11.pdf<BR>> <BR>> --- Donovan Arnold <BR>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Garrett,<BR>> > <BR>> > One of the reasons I dislike the time frame is<BR>> > that it seems to be saying it is OK
to disrupt the<BR>> > sleep of those that work graveyard, but not OK to<BR>> > disrupt the 9-5 ers. Having worked graveyard<BR>> before,<BR>> > I don't like this wording. <BR>> > <BR>> > This ordinance also doesn't address lawnmowers,<BR>> > barking dogs, crying babies, noisy children, loud<BR>> > singing, and automobiles, all of which can be very<BR>> > disturbing. <BR>> > <BR>> > Boise does also have a provision regarding the<BR>> > behavior of barking dogs. <BR>> > <BR>> > Best,<BR>> > <BR>> > Donovan<BR>> > <BR>> > Garrett Clevenger wrote:<BR>> > No new NOers,<BR>> > <BR>> > I received an informative email from Linda Pall<BR>> and<BR>> > we<BR>> > may be on our way to finding reasonable language.<BR>> > She<BR>> > spoke with Judge Hamlett, who pointed her towards<BR>> > Boise's Noise Ordinace:<BR>> > <BR>>
><BR>><BR>http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/City_Clerk/PDF/CityCode/Title6/0620.pdf<BR>> > <BR>> > Basically, it make's this illegal:<BR>> > <BR>> > LOUD AMPLIFICATION DEVICE: <BR>> > Any equipment designed or used for sound<BR>> production,<BR>> > reproduction, or amplification, including, but not<BR>> > limited to any radio, television, phonograph,<BR>> > musical<BR>> > instrument, stereo, tape player, compact disc<BR>> > player,<BR>> > loud speaker, public address (P.A.) system, sound <BR>> > amplifier, or comparable sound broadcasting<BR>> device. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > if this occurs:<BR>> > <BR>> > A. is plainly audible within any place of<BR>> residence<BR>> > not the source of the sound, or, <BR>> > <BR>> > B. is plainly audible upon a public right-of-way<BR>> or<BR>> > street at a distance of one hundred (100) feet
or<BR>> > more<BR>> > from the source of such sound. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I could live with similar language of this<BR>> > ordinance.<BR>> > For our NO, I'd like to add:<BR>> > <BR>> > 1 month warning period<BR>> > Police can issue ticket without complaint between<BR>> > hours of 10pm and 7am <BR>> > Neighbors have to complain outside of the above<BR>> time<BR>> > frame<BR>> > <BR>> > I've added >>> BOLDED TEXT <<< to the Boise code<BR>> to<BR>> > clear this up:<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Section 6-20-04 ENFORCEMENT <BR>> > <BR>> > A. Peace officer citation. >>> DURING HOURS<BR>> BETWEEN<BR>> > 10 P.M. AND 7 A.M. <<< Any >>>MOSCOW<<< City peace<BR>> > officer or person empowered to enforce this<BR>> > provision<BR>> > of the >>>MOSCOW<<< City
Code is authorized to<BR>> issue<BR>> > a<BR>> > uniform citation upon his own observation of a<BR>> > violation without the necessity of a citizen<BR>> > complainant's signature on said citation >>AFTER<BR>> > FIRST<BR>> > ISSUING 1 WARNING TO OFFENDER AND OFFENDER REPEATS<BR>> > VIOLATION WITHIN 1 MONTH PERIOD <<<. By signing<BR>> the<BR>> > citation officer or person is certifying that he<BR>> has<BR>> > reasonable grounds to believe that the person<BR>> cited <BR>> > committed the offense contrary to law. <BR>> > <BR>> > B. Citizen citation. A uniform citation may also<BR>> be<BR>> > signed <BR>> > by any citizen or person in whose presence an<BR>> > alleged <BR>> > violation of this Ordinance occurred and be<BR>> > witnessed<BR>> > by a <BR>> > >>>MOSCOW<<< City peace officer or person<BR>>
empowered<BR>> > to<BR>> > enforce <BR>> > this provision of the >>>MOSCOW<<< City Code whose<BR>> > name shall be <BR>> > endorsed on the citation >>AFTER FIRST ISSUING 1<BR>> > WARNING TO OFFENDER AND OFFENDER REPEATS VIOLATION<BR>> > WITHIN 1 MONTH PERIOD <<<<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > That seems reasonable to me. What do you think?<BR>> > <BR>> ><BR>><BR>=======================================================<BR>> > List services made available by First Step<BR>> Internet,<BR>> <BR>=== message truncated ===<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com