Re: Apology and Where do we go from here?

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

Mr. Guyer
Thank you for your post and providing us with your rationale for supporting
the ordinance.  In reading over what you have stated, I have come to the
conclusion that you made a few erroneous assumptions and then acted
accordingly.  You stated that it was random topless encounters that "greatly
agitated the community."  I do not recall any random topless encounters, and
I walk the streets of Moscow every day. Nor do I recall there being any
agitation over this issue until the ordinance was proposed.   I feel that
you fell victim to a few agitated individuals who gave you erroneous
information and wrongly concluded that they represented most of Moscow.  You
also stated that the "delicate balance was upset by a small group of
people."  I agree if you mean that small group of people to be the city
council.  It was the council that upset the balance by passing the
ordinance.
Repeal the ordinance, and put together a representative group to address the
needs of the community over this issue.

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Apology and Where do we go from here?


> 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
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>