vision2020
Re: Public Nudity - Our Community
Mark Rounds wrote
> If its because there was a traffic issue, we should have been looking at
> ordinances to deal with attractive nuisances.
The press would have loved an ordinance declaring our topless carwashers an
'attractive nuisance'
Troy Merrill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rounds" <ltrwritr@moscow.com>
To: "John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Public Nudity - Our Community
> Mr. Guyer
>
> There are ways to defuse this if you truly want to. What I nor anyone
else
> wants to see in this town is a protest march with a bunch of shirtless
> people. This has already been proposed. I also don't want to go through
a
> referendum process. I will support this if I have to but there are also
> ways around this if we work together and not draw lines in the sand.
>
> I'll be blunt, I and others who think this is a grand waste of time didn't
> attend the City Council Meeting because we thought that an ordinance could
> be enacted to deal with the problem. It seems to me that the problem was
> not ever defined and we didn't demand that it be so we all pay for it. I
> should have come but I trusted you and the others on the Council.
>
> So let's start the basic question. Exactly what problem does this
ordinance
> try to remedy?
>
> If its because they young ladies who kicked this off were making a buck by
> exposing themselves then the answer IMHO should have been a specific
> ordinance against public sex oriented businesses.
>
> If its because there was a traffic issue, we should have been looking at
> ordinances to deal with attractive nuisances.
>
> Both of these are much easier to prosecute than what has been put up as
law
> here in Moscow.
>
> What problem was this aimed at and help educate me to understand how it
> solves it? I promise to listen.
>
> Now its true that other municipalities have laws on the books that are
> similar but they come under fire each time they try to prosecute. All it
> will take will be a law student at the U of I with delusions of grandure
and
> we will spend great amounts of tax money defending an ordinance that win,
> lose or draw that could have been more intelligently handled with another
> ordinance.
>
> Leaving it up to the policeman on the street is an abidication of your
> responsibility in my view. When I was younger, I mentored a young man
> through some tough times at home. I am now very proud to say that he is a
> Highway Patrolman. When we discussed this issue, it was his opinion that
> Moscow enacted an ordinance that will probably never be enforced because
any
> cop worth his salt will figure out another way to address problems like
> this. The prosecution will be difficult to make stick and unless it is
> handled ever so gently my the City and the prosecutor, it will turn into a
> circus.
>
> Now I am not going shirtless to prove this point nor is my wife or teenage
> daughter. I am hoping that with a little dialog and an application of
some
> common sense we can either define the problem this ordinance was trying to
> solve and convince people that it really is a problem or amend or rescind
> the ordinance.
>
> I would suggest that perhaps you and a couple of the cooler heads on the
> other side of the fence debate this publically or in a mutually agreeable
> forum. Yes, I know there was a comment period but it is obvious that a
lot
> of people that should have been ther also thought this would have been
> handled in a reasonable manner. Give them a chance to be heard and
discuss
> this with them openly.
>
> This can can definitely devide folks in this town but only if we allow it.
> I am asking you to reach out a bit and look at this again. I would also
ask
> the folks who disagree with this to reach out a bit. We can still solve
> this rationally if we work together.
>
> Mark Rounds
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 7/18/02 -0700, John Guyer wrote:
> >Greetings,
> >
> >Pam Palmer Wrote:
> >"It does not refer to pubescent, except when referring to female breasts
> >(see below). So far, I have not seen any "cleft of the buttocks" and
> >"genitals" exemptions for prepubescent people, so infants & toddlers
> >seem to be fair game for committing misdemeanors according to the
> >Council's new ordinance."
> >---
> >Pam is correct in one sense. There are no specific exemptions for the
> >prepubescent in exposing genitals. This is not new. This section of
> >the code was not amended. I do not have the history in front of me, but
> >it has been on the books for a very long time (even while Pam herself
> >was on the council). Neither is it unprecedented to not specifically
> >include the exemption. The language here is lifted straight from the
> >Idaho Code, which I understand would pre-empt our code, even if we did
> >provide it (http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180410016.K).
> >
> >I would like to use this opportunity to draw your attention to that fact
> >that we have NOT had local nor state police rounding up parents changing
> >diapers, nor our young when they "violate" the ordinance or statute in
> >this regard. I, for one, do not expect that to change. We do have
> >common sense peace officers.
> >
> >I understand that there is a group of people upset by this amendment. I
> >regret that some find it troubling. While I believe an ordinance is the
> >right thing for our community I find that the current threads on V2020
> >are not helping. When several people testified that we, as a council,
> >have more important things to deal with, I completely agreed. However, I
> >also recognize that we have an obligation to spend the time to handle
> >the issues that divide the community. This one is dividing us.
> >
> >Putting the community through the referendum process is not going to
> >bring us together. Rehashing this will continue to divide us. Did you
> >not believe your own testimony? While I am not directly discouraging
> >you from pursuing your rights, I would ask you to please consider, as
> >did we as a council, what impact your actions will have. Will the
> >campaign on both sides of the issue bring us together? Will the
> >community ever be the same after the heated campaign?
> >
> >In either case, I would encourage each of you, whether you like this
> >ordinance or not to do a little research on municipal and state codes.
> >You may be surprised to find that while ours is unique (in that it
> >allows for center cleavage), it is not unprecedented. Indeed, it is
> >very common. One young lady (to remain nameless here) came to us and
> >testified that she had taken her shirt off all over this country.
> >Moscow was the first place where she found it legal.
> >
> >In summary, I would ask you to please consider a helpful phrase that I
> >use regularly in my own life: Just because you can, doesn't mean you
> >should.
> >
> >John B. Guyer
> >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >johnguy@moscow.com
> >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Back to TOC