Apology and Where do we go from here?

["John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com>]

Greetings,

The first order of business is an apology to Mark Rounds who has asked a
very good question regarding the Public Nudity amendment, and is
deserving of a (hopefully) very good answer.  Many people are tired of
this discussion, so please feel free to delete here.  If you care about
this issue, please read the entire post before you respond.

Mark asked what the purpose of the ordinance was.  I need to begin by
stating that I can only answer for myself as a single council member in
responding to this question.  My objective was to address the problem of
random topless encounters.  The carwash may have gained media attention,
but it was the random encounters that greatly agitated the community.
This was not about traffic.  It was not about an SOB.  It was about
people (lots of people) not feeling like they could safely conduct their
lives without a great deal of alarm.  

My responsibility as a representative is to provide a climate where
people feel safe (however one may define it), and people can conduct
their lives in peace (whatever that may entail).  It is a difficult
balance to maintain the rights of the individual as they are exercised
within the rights of the community.  We must maintain that balance while
avoiding the extremes of single mindedly thinking of one or the other.

This delicate balance was upset by a small group of people.  It is
unfortunate, that so much time, money and rhetoric can be wasted by a
small group of people.  However, as a community representative, I felt
it was our responsibility to restore this balance.  I supported the
ordinance because it does that.  I would vote the same today as I did
then.

It is not appropriate for me, as a community representative, to discuss
the merits or shortcomings of public decisions on a list serve, or at a
rally.  It must stand on its own in that regard.

The question we should be asking (and some thankfully are) is, "Now
what?"

We have addressed the issue that disturbed the balance with an ordinance
that appears to pass muster on several counts 1) Constitutionality, 2)
Effectiveness, 3) Unwarranted side effects, 4) Enforcement.  I grant
quite readily that some on this list, and in the community, find the
ordinance wanting, or offensive, or both on all, or some of the counts
stated previously.  Again I will not debate those here.  I can only
offer the following:

1) For those that feel women should be able to display their breasts in
public because men do - I can only say that we disagree on this point.
I do desire that common sense, and community charity ruled the day, and
this, or any type of law addressing this, would be unnecessary.
However, I do not think we can continue to have a community if this is
permitted.  We will have people living together in ire.  That is not
community.

2) For those that feel this ordinance is lacking for a different reason
- I can say, as I have stated already, this is not cast in stone. I am
willing to invest whatever time I can, to arrive at an ordinance that
is, to the best of our ability to determine 1) Constitutional, 2)
Effective, 3) Does not have unwarranted side effects, 4) Is Enforceable,
and 5) Is offensive to as few people as possible.

Regards,

John B. Guyer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
johnguy@moscow.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .