<DIV>"This stated intent of the noise ordinance amendment,<BR>according the the police who wrote it, is to target<BR>repeat offenders,"--GC</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As grateful as I am for Moscow's wonderful police force, I am extremely uncomfortable with police writing legislation that involves them. I think all legislation should be forwarded by private citizens and their elected representatives. That is not to say that we should not seek the wisdom and advice of the police for what works and what doesn't and what we can do to make their objectives safer. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When the executors of the law become the writers of the law, we have conflict of interest, we have a separation of powers concern. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, I think you Garrett for your interest and hard work on this NO and looking out for the rights of Moscow residents. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><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">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" 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 complain<BR>and those people face being cited.<BR><BR>I am a light sleeper and have discovered "white noise"<BR>is an incredible sleep aid. I use a fan and it blocks<BR>out much random noise that otherwise would wake me.<BR><BR>If
the noise ordinance I provided a link to works 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 them. <BR>Barking dogs is covered in another section.<BR><BR>For those who want to see our current NO, it is here:<BR><BR>http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/citycode/TITLE10/chapter11.pdf<BR><BR>--- Donovan Arnold <DONOVANJARNOLD2005@YAHOO.COM><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 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 <GARRETTMC@VERIZON.NET>wrote:<BR>> No new NOers,<BR>> <BR>> I received an informative email from Linda Pall 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>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 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 device. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> if this occurs:<BR>> <BR>> A. is plainly audible within any place of residence<BR>> not the source of the sound, or, <BR>> <BR>> B. is plainly audible upon a public right-of-way 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 time<BR>> frame<BR>> <BR>> I've added >>> BOLDED TEXT <<< to the Boise code to<BR>> clear this up:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Section 6-20-04 ENFORCEMENT
<BR>> <BR>> A. Peace officer citation. >>> DURING HOURS 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 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 the<BR>> citation officer or person is certifying that he has<BR>> reasonable grounds to believe that the person cited <BR>> committed the offense contrary to law. <BR>> <BR>> B. Citizen citation. A uniform citation may also 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 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>> 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>> Do You Yahoo!?<BR>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has
the best spam<BR>> protection around <BR>> http://mail.yahoo.com <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