Re: City Council

["Linda Pall" <lpall@moscow.com>]

Dear All,

I was surprised to hear that the City officials failed to issue a ticket to
the topless washers on the grounds of nuisance or similar ordinance
provisions. The city's posture on ordinances is exactly the same as that of
Latah COunty and indeed, most of Idaho. Where was Moscow's finest, when we
HAVE legal tools to deal with the issue?

Please take some time before the City COuncil adopts another ordinance...
allow all members of the council to be present for the discussion. I would
be interested in sample ordinances that have withstood challenges from other
Idaho communities or other communities, period, before advocating a
particular legislative route.

And, while you're at it, explain why the City of Moscow's ordinances are not
up to it when we are in the same boat as most of the rest of Idaho.

All the best,
Linda Pall
former City Council member


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Palmer" <ppalmer@moscow.com>
To: "John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com>; "'Vision2020'"
<vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: City Council


> Visionaries-
>
> It is my understanding, and perhaps Councilman Guyer can confirm this,
that
> the Moscow City Council will discuss several proposed nudity ordinances on
> July 1st, at their next Monday night council meeting.  Peg Hamlett, the
only
> councilmember likely to speak against such an ordinance, will not be in
town
> for the July 1st meeting (the Council had advance notification of her
> attendance at an annual conference).  In addition, both Mayor Marshall
> Comstock and City Supervisor Gary Riedner are out of town this week (at
the
> Association of Idaho Cities conference), which makes it difficult for
> citizens to have conversations with either of them about this issue.
>
> I understand that three versions of an ordinance are being prepared for
the
> City Council to consider.  I do not know the specific language in each
> version, but a rough summary follows:
>
> #1 It would be unlawful for women to expose their nipples and areolas,
> except for breastfeeding mothers.
>
> #2 The same as the first version, except that it would also be unlawful to
> show the contours of the nipples and areolas.  (This means the "pasties"
> used to cover the areolas would have to be made out of a stiffer
material.)
>
> #3 It would be unlawful for women to expose their nipples, areolas or the
> "southern hemisphere" of the breast, again except for breastfeeding
mothers.
>
> As a former City Council member who spent way too much time discussing
such
> an ordinance the first time around, I implore City Council not to jump
into
> a knee-jerk ordinance, but rather to step back and consider the longer
term
> picture of Moscow life.
>
> We've already dealt with the nudity ordinance.  It hasn't presented a
> problem until the convertible carwash opened up.  If the current issue is
> that a business is profiting from sexual exploitation of female bodies,
why
> not look at model ordinances around the country that focus on "Sexually
> Oriented Businesses" (otherwise known as SOB ordinances).  It seems that
> this is an area that would make more sense for the future of Moscow.
>
> Pam Palmer
>