[Vision2020] Oppose Noise Ordinance Modifications

Wed Oct 3 18:52:29 PDT 2007

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. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071003/024dea55/attachment-0001.html 