Deconstructing a faulty ordinance

By Scott T. Holland
Associate Editor

September 20, 2006 11:40 am

— Every so often I find myself embroiled in the midst of a semi-public e-mail debate with a local elected official.
This happens for two reasons. One, I’m naturally opinionated and paid to infuse those opinions into the newspaper. And two, elected officials almost always stand firmly behind action they have taken or votes they have cast. When I stand behind what I write and an official stands behind his policy, conflict is natural.
So far as I can remember, I don’t initiate the contact. Typically what happens is a city councilman objects to an editorial and fires off an e-mail to anyone and everyone. In the case we’re exploring today, it was a debate carried out with Ward 4 Clinton City Councilman Rodger Holm at the end of August. It also involved the city attorney and administrator, police chief, mayor, a few councilmen and a local radio station, but that was not my choice.
Anyhow, the debate ended when I did not respond to an Aug. 27 e-mail, specifically this passage:
“I would like to talk to you to find out why you dislike the noise ordinance. Basically the city attorney brought an outdated ordinance up to speed to current time. It is not the boombox that causes trouble, it is the use of it. I think that you would have to agree that when the use of boomboxes or vehicles (etc.) negatively affects other people’s pursuit of happiness and liberty, then it is a nuisance.”
Rodger then asked me to outline my reasons for disliking the ordinance, although the editorial board did a fine job of that a few weeks earlier (while Mr. Holm was out of town, to be fair). He also said he was not defending the ordinance but merely seeking my opinion. So here it is.
The noise ordinance — at least the copy I obtained from City Hall a few weeks ago — is utterly useless because so much of it is completely subjective. For example, the main clause addresses TV and music devices that “unreasonably” disturb the “peace, quiet and comfort of neighbors and passersby.”
Well, who determines what is unreasonable? Is it me? My neighbor? The police officer? I live less than a first down from my neighbors to the north, and I can hear their phone every time it rings if our windows are open. I don’t consider that unreasonable. But could they consider it unreasonable when my 2-year-old climbs up a stepstool, turns on the CD player in our kitchen and blasts Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” at jet-engine decibel levels? You betcha.
But that’s not the only trouble. Let’s say Jack’s Wagner fixation upsets the neighbors. They call the cops to complain. I, being sensible yet unaware of the report being made, shut off the CD player. So when (if) the police officer arrives, what is he going to find? Silence. Then what?
I get along great with my neighbors, and don’t foresee this being a problem. But what if they move? What if I move? What about the thousands of homes in this town built less than 50 feet from a neighboring building, or less than 50 feet from a public way?
Beyond that, what about those motorcycles or cars that roar down Seventh and Eight avenues south so loudly that I can’t hear my TV? Am I supposed to call the police and tell them what I think I heard and what direction I thought it was headed?
What about the sentence that talks about destroying the peace of the neighborhood? If my expectation for a peaceful neighborhood includes no lawn mowers after 7:30 p.m., but someone else is weed-whacking until 9, who’s right?
The council, upon passing the law, said it wanted police officers to use discretion in enforcing the ordinance, and yet no such language is spelled out. By my count, only one person has been ticketed for violating the law since it was adopted Aug. 8.
So either I’m right in thinking the ordinance borders on impossible to enforce because it’s so fuzzy; or I’m right in thinking this is just another law — just like the large vehicle parking ordinance — passed in light of a perceived problem with no real intention to follow up as a means to actually address the issue.
Rodger presumably understands this concept, as his e-mail contains the phrase “Our current ordinances that are on the books are ample. We do not need any more and more importantly we need to be able to enforce them.”
This noise ordinance is a perfect example of what we don’t need, yet it passed unanimously.
I’m not trying to single out Rodger. He went out on a limb, and I respect his desire to seek out a conversation on the topic. But I have only scratched the surface of the flaws in this ordinance, and I would think at least a few of the people we elected to serve would be able to do so as well.
I can only hope, for the city’s sake, that the police department does not decide to focus heavily on the noise ordinance for a few days and issue 60 tickets to people who are carrying on no different than they were since the day the law passed. Heaven forbid we have another mess in which the council has to forgive a couple thousand dollars in fines because it adopted a ridiculous ordinance and allowed it to fester.
Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. I love to say I told you so and will, if given the chance. I will not, however, do so in a way that unreasonably disturbs the peace... whatever that means.
Scott T. Holland’s column appears every Wednesday in the Clinton Herald. His e-mail address is scottholland@clintonherald.com.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.