[Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance

[Kai Eiselein, editor]

And how exactly is noise coming from a a bunch of besotten 20-somethings at 
3 a.m. on a Tuesday night "free speech"?
No rights have been infringed upon, one can say whatever one wants, you just 
can't do it at the top of your lungs to the annoyance of your neighbors.

Heck, I love the sound of straight pipes on a car, but I can't have them 
because of the noise. Maybe I should sue?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance


> Moscow has a new Noise Ordinance (NO):(
>
> After 4 months and many meetings, the city passed the
> original proposed version, minus a few fairly
> insignificant word changes.
>
> To remind you of what our new NO says:
>
> Police can now issue a citation at anytime for any
> "noise" an officer deems offensive, even if no one
> complains about the "noise."  You won't necessarily be
> given a warning when you receive your misdemeanor
> ($159 to $359) if you are cited.
>
> At the 1/22/08 City Council Meeting, Bill Lambert
> moved to pass "Version A" and John Weber seconded it.
> Randy Fife then told everybody that he gave them the
> wrong Version A.  The Version A in their council
> packet was Version C.  So after some confusing
> clarification by Randy, the council voted to pass
> Version A.  Tom Lamar was the only one to vote against
> it (thank you, Tom) and said he supported Version C
> because it had time constraints and decibel limits
> (officers would only issue citations without any
> complaints between 10 pm and 7 am and if the noise
> exceeds 55 decibels.)
>
> The city posted both versions on their webesite last
> Friday, and from what I can tell, that Version A is
> different from the one the council received and the
> one they voted on.  Here is the suspect text in the
> website Version A:
>
> "Sec 11-9 C.
> Peace officer citation.  At night time (10:00 P.M. to
> 7:00 A.M. local time), any City peace officer is
> authorized to issue a citation upon his or her own
> observation of a violation without the necessity of a
> citizen complaint.  During daytime (7:00 A.M. to 10:00
> P.M. local time) a City peace officer is authorized to
> issue a citation upon his or her own
> observation of a violation without the necessity of a
> citizen complaint only where such peace officer
> confirms that the noise made in violation of the
> provisions of this Chapter exceeds sixty-five (65)
> dBA.  By signing a citation, the officer is certifying
> that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that
> the person cited committed the offense."
>
> This text was removed from the version the city
> passed.
>
> To me, that text sounds more reasonable then the
> version that is now law, and I almost didn't go to
> tonight's meeting because I thought that at least it
> has decibel limits.  But I wanted to testify and
> witness the meeting, so I ventured into the cold...
>
> During the meeting, I asked Mayor Nancy Chaney if she
> would allow public comment (she had promised to let
> the public comment, and now I had even more questions
> for the city)  She said that she would not take public
> comment because there was a motion on the floor and
> that they have heard enough from people at other
> meetings.
>
> The least she could have done was kept her word and
> allowed people to speak about this controversial law,
> especially after Randy's confusing explanation about
> Version A.  I think anybody who listens to the
> recording of the council meeting available on their
> website will also be confused.
> http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/cityclerk/2007minutesalt.asp
>
> I met with our Chief of Police Dan Weaver a couple
> weeks ago and asked him if he would recommend what
> would become Version C.  He thought it was reasonable
> and presented it to the Admin meeting, where Tom, and
> I thought Dan Carscallen, supported it, too.  It
> looked like reason was going to triumph, but somehow,
> we now have the same law we've wasted our time trying
> to change.  Where is our city?
>
> As someone who has been very involved in this process,
> I have been learning about other noise ordinances, and
> have seen how the city has dealt with this issue.
> Tonight was not the first sign of unprofessional city
> officials trying to pass a law that apparently is an
> anomaly, as I have not seen any other noise ordinance
> with such broad language and an excessive fine.  And
> remember, landlords can be cited if their tenants are
> cited. Don't we have a new city council all concerned
> about property rights?  Apparently, those rights are
> regarded the same as our First Amendment right.  You
> may have to fight for them in court.
>
> We pay our officials do their job, and if they are
> providing misinformation and not letting the public
> question them at their meeting, then they are not
> being held accountable and are more then likely to
> going make some bad decisions.  What's wrong with
> giving the public the opportunity to comment before
> they vote on a law?
>
> The solution?
>
> If someone is cited under our new noise ordinance
> outside of a party house situation, I believe you have
> a strong argument to challenge it in court.
>
> The city initially advertised that they needed to
> modify the NO because of repeat offenders and party
> houses, but in the process passed a law that is
> unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.  Idaho's
> Appellate Court has ruled in other noise ordinance
> challenges that cities cannot pass "unconstitutionally
> overbroad and vague" laws.
>
> Since our NO says that any "noise" can be citable
> without anyone complaining, if you get a ticket
> without any neighbor complaint outside of a party
> house situation, then your argument is that you have
> been subject to a law that is overbroad in it's means
> of stopping party houses, the stated problem they were
> trying to solve with the law.
>
> Our First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no law
> abridging the freedom of speech."
>
> Well, our city just passed an unconstitutional law
> that now potentially can violate our free speech
> rights, and they did it in a way that was confusing,
> misleading and so far, mostly unaccountable.
>
> If someone challenges this law and the city defends it
> and loses, I think those who voted to pass this law
> should pay the bill.  But, more then likely, it is us
> taxpayers, who have subsidized a process that has
> taken up a lot of city time, who will be the ones
> paying those legal fees if in the end, the law is
> overturned by the courts.
>
> For Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance
> Modification my visit:
>
> http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html
>
> Here you will find all kinds of interesting email
> exchanges between city officials and citizens, and the
> proposals the city has been presenting.  I believe
> there is evidence lurking in there that could be used
> in a trial.  Perhaps a judge will be able to see how
> the city is in the wrong in this case.
>
> I know if I am ticketed unreasonably under this law,
> that will be my argument and defense, any ways.
>
> Thanks for your interest.  At least I won't be ranting
> about this any more, more then likely, for now...
>
> Take care,
>
> 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
> =======================================================
>
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle