[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance compromise

[Garrett Clevenger]

The word "offensive" in the context of my summary is
to describe the subjective nature of the definition of
"noise" and lack of decibel limit present in our noise
ordinance, thus an officer, or neighbor who may
complain, potentially could find many "noises"
offensive.  The city is refining what "noise" is, and
at present, it is better then before, but still
outside of the context of what most people thought the
law was supposed to address: party houses.

Now we find out that party houses are not the reason
for the change, even though that was how the city
promoted it.

I am interested in having the law focus on party house
problem, because the current noise ordinance works for
other situations.

Take care.

gcleve

--- Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.”
> 
=== message truncated ===