vision2020
Re: Apology and Where do we go from here?
Hi Folks
First off, I say Here Here! to Kenton Bird's suggestion that we limit
ourselves to one post a day. I follow this from now on and hope others do
too. I would also suggest that we all take a hour or a day or what ever it
takes for each individual to calm down and not answer in the heat of the
moment. I suspect a lot of posts will fall by the wayside for that reason too.
To those who wondered about the rather lengthy post I sent in about American
History in the revolution, my intent was to provide the historical context
for the quotes that were going back and forth. Many times people take
quotes out of their historical context to attempt to prove something
unrelated. It was my sole goal to provide that context so the debate would
either go away or become more responsible.
To those of you who have said this is a silly debate and pass time, I
couldn't agree with you more. However, I think there has been an error made
in this case and part of my responsibilty as a voter and a citizen is to be
vocal and speak my mind. This issue in and of itself isn't enough to tear
down the walls or anything but I would hope that it would act as a lesson to
the City Council or indeed any legislative body as to what the voters really
want. This isn't meant in anger nor am I pointing fingers and saying folks
are bad, I am hoping it is just part of the good communication that has to
take place for governance to work.
The rest of this I would normally send in a private e-mail to John Guyer but
I think he deserves some credit. Unlike some of his collegues on the city
council who have chosen not to enter into this debate, he has responded with
careful thought and reason. I may disagree with his appraisals of the
ordinance in question, but I have come to respect his sincerity and honesty.
The rest of this post concerns those issues so please feel free to delete if
that be your choice. I intend to keep this brief.
There were several issues that concerned me. First of all, Mr. Guyer said
that a "lot of people" said that they were afraid of a random encounter with
a naked breast and that this was his motivation for the ordinance. Well,
ok, but I have lived here for 9 plus years and it has never happened to me.
I am not a closeted geek either, we do get out. We take kids to sporting
events, church youth groups and their various and sundry activities. I sing
in choir that reherses in the evenings, my wife and I attend the theatre
often, I like a glass of wine or a dessert an Bucer's and every once in a
while, we get a sitter and pretend we are adults and go out. As far as I
know, there were two incidents in that time that I missed. There was a
protest against a similar ordinance a few years back and the topless
carwash. I do think we need a tool that the police can use to shut down
things like that topless carwash but the current ordinance is much too
aggressive a stance.
Mr. Guyer said that a lot of people can to him with this concern. I would
ask how many? 10, 50, 100, .... ? I would postulate that at least that
many and probably more have signed the petition to put this ordiance up to a
referendum. I think these are the two extremes we need to navigate. Quite
frankly, if the City had passed the ordinance as was proposed by Ms.
Hamlett, it would have been a non-issue. I think this represents a fair and
reasonable middle ground. it doesn't single out women, it treats everyone
fairly, and it would keep businesses like the topless carwash in check which
is what threw the spanner in the works in the first place.
Mr. Guyer gave four criteria that I think are a reasonable measure of what
we need to do with this type of ordinance. They were 1) Constitutionality,
2) Effectiveness, 3) Unwarranted side effects, 4) Enforcement.
My reasons for opposing this ordiance fall into to exactly those categories
so I will briefly touch on those.
1. Constitutionality. I have spoken with two attourney's that I trust,
one of whom is female. Their opinion was that the wording here is not
solid. Whether or not a challenge based on the 14th Amendment would work in
this case would depend on the judge and where it was heard. Because it is
iffy and because the subject matter is controversial, someone will challenge
it and it will be my tax dollars that go to fight the battle. Lets see if
we can avoid this shall we?
2. Effectiveness, for the reason above and the others I am about to
list, I feel that law enforcement officers would be reluctant to write the
citation and prosecutors would be reluctant to prosecute.
3. Unwanted side effects. I am not going to wind up here except to say
that the rally, protests and controversy that surrounds this issue are
certainly unwanted side effects and could have been avoided.
4. Enforcement. You have all heard me on this before so I will be
brief here as well. The ordiance is written in such a way that many modes
of dress that are currently in fashion and seen hourly on the streets of our
city have been made illegal. 250 citations a hour could be written on any
sunny Farmer's Market and lets not even tally the pool. The point was made
that the city would employ selective enforcement. This will open another
can of worms for any competent attourney and we have a goodly number in this
town. If a citation ever gets written for anything but full frontal nudity,
I can see photos in court proceedings of women in similar of even more low
cut outfits being photographed standing next to policeman or spotlighted
during football games. Then the challenge will start and again my tax
dollars will be called on to defend this.
I am not an attourney and the folks I chatted with didn't give this more
than an hour's hard thought. Imagine what an attourney with a burr under
his saddle could do? We know that is possible and even likely given the
controversy around this issue. Let's not let it get to that stage. Don't
dump the concept of the ordiance because the police do need a tool but do
give them a tool that the city can actually use and that will not cost us an
arm and a leg or maybe a school bond levy to defend.
I have sent this to the City Coucil because I am tired of beating around the
bush. It is best if we are all upfront and I'd like to start that tradition
right here on this issue.
Mark Rounds
At 11:53 PM 7/29/2002 -0700, John Guyer wrote:
>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
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>
>
Back to TOC