Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Party-Poopers on Parade: Council Defears"Unruly Assembly" Reform; More on 101.1 FM Tonight
The Coonerty-Mathews City Council voted down 6-1 any lowering of the $800+ fines for a first offense on the "Unruly Assemblies" law, originally championed by Mike Rotkin back in 2005. No police stats was made of enforcement costs, fines levied, or warnings issued by police shmoozemeister Zach Friend. Nor was any showing made that the City was any safer with folks diverted to bars downtown. The law's minor changes will return for a second and final vote the second Tuesday in April, but Coonerty slammed the coffin shut, abandoning his own law to side with conservative residents and cops. I'll be discussing the issue on-air later today 6-8 PM, possibly with student advocates, and perhaps again on Sunday 9:30 AM.
BRIEFLY
Conservative residents, the police, and two women from "Project Curb" praised the existing law, whose fines are 3 1/4 times what the stated amount ($125) is--a fact ignored by Rotkin in his early backing for the law. Even the defeated Rotkin-Coonerty amendments would only have reduced the civil fines by 1/2.
Student activists hustled to and from the microphone, frequently cut off by the "get moving" 2 minute time limit on speech. This was another Coonerty slap in the face of the public, considering that the ordinance changes were the only item on the evening agenda (other than the shortened Oral Communications at 20 minutes).
None of the organizations were offered more time (4 minutes, reduced from the previously standard 5 minutes for groups) to speak as organizations (which--keep it in mind for the future--they can get by informing the Mayor before the meeting).
KEY ISSUE
The key issue--raised 2 1/2 years ago (http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17931/index.php) was the vastly increased power given the police by adding the phrase "quiet enjoyment of residential property" to the prior standard "a threat to public health, safety, or general welfare."
Police noted they'd given out under 20 actual fine-citations but more than 450 tickets (presumably for other noise offenses) and 4 times as many "warnings" (though policepublicist Zack Friend was vague about that). There was no indication of how many parties they'd shut down with threats on the cranky sayso of a NIMBY neighbor.
Student leaders also complained that attempts to meet with residents, find meetings with the illusive Santa Cruz Neighbors, and engage in constructive dialogue had been ignored.
CURRENT LAWS
The current laws give more than enough leeway to police to threaten and/or cite. They also provide no requirement of a particular decibel level.
9.36.010 CURFEW - OFFENSIVE NOISE.
(a)No person shall between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any offensive noise (1) which is made within one hundred feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes, or (2) which disturbs, or would tend to disturb, any person within hearing distance of such noise.
(b)"Offensive noise" means any noise which is loud, boisterous, irritating, penetrating, or unusual, or that is unreasonably distracting in any other manner, such that it is likely to disturb people in the vicinity of such noise, and includes, but is not limited to, noise made by barking or howling dogs, by an individual alone or by a group of people engaged in any business meeting, gathering, game, dance, or amusement, or by any appliance, contrivance, device, structure, construction, ride, machine, implement, or instrument.
9.36.020 UNREASONABLY DISTURBING NOISES.
No person shall make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any noises or sounds (a) which are unreasonably disturbing or physically annoying to people of ordinary sensitiveness or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause physical discomfort to any person, and (b) which are not necessary in connection with an activity which is otherwise lawfully conducted. As used in this section, "lawfully conducted activities" shall include, but not be limited to, any and all activities conducted by the city for public health, safety or welfare purposes.
9.36.030 SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS.
Any person who violates any section of this chapter and is cited for such a violation, and who within forty-eight hours after receiving such a citation again violates the same section, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person is cited for a violation when he or she is issued and signs an infraction or misdemeanor citation, or when he or she is arrested and booked, or when a complaint is filed and the person is notified of the filing of such a complaint.
(Ord. 80-29 § 1, 1980).
9.36.040 ENFORCEMENT.
The provisions of this chapter are enforceable without reference to the regulations concerning noise set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the fact that the city officer issuing a citation has not obtained a scientific noise measurement prior to issuing the citation shall not constitute a defense.
The definition of "loud or unruly gathering" currently:
9.37.010 (c)"Loud or unruly gathering" shall mean a gathering of two or more persons on private property or a permitted gathering of two or more persons on public property whose loud or unruly conduct constitutes a threat to public health, safety, quiet enjoyment of residential property or general welfare, including violations of Chapter 9.36. This term excludes incidents of domestic violence. A loud or unruly gathering shall constitute a public nuisance.
REILLY'S WAR ON TERROR
Emily Reilly, perhaps preparing for her congressional run, went on about threats to "public health and safety", but of course, earlier law dealt with all that. What this was all about was giving police and Santa Cruz Neighbors (the Robinson-Coonerty- Mathews election machine) a balnk check to shut down partying when and where they pleased.
TUNE IN TONIGHT
Tune in to Free Radio Santa Cruz at 101.1 FM (also http://www.freakradio.org) 6-8 PM tonight for more discussion of this. Call-in number 427-3772. I may follow-up with more on this Sunday morning if there's enough interest. Jesse Wilson of Against Santa Cruz Party Ordinance, which boasts 1,600 members and Students for a Sensible Party Ordinance has been invited to be on the show.
Conservative residents, the police, and two women from "Project Curb" praised the existing law, whose fines are 3 1/4 times what the stated amount ($125) is--a fact ignored by Rotkin in his early backing for the law. Even the defeated Rotkin-Coonerty amendments would only have reduced the civil fines by 1/2.
Student activists hustled to and from the microphone, frequently cut off by the "get moving" 2 minute time limit on speech. This was another Coonerty slap in the face of the public, considering that the ordinance changes were the only item on the evening agenda (other than the shortened Oral Communications at 20 minutes).
None of the organizations were offered more time (4 minutes, reduced from the previously standard 5 minutes for groups) to speak as organizations (which--keep it in mind for the future--they can get by informing the Mayor before the meeting).
KEY ISSUE
The key issue--raised 2 1/2 years ago (http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17931/index.php) was the vastly increased power given the police by adding the phrase "quiet enjoyment of residential property" to the prior standard "a threat to public health, safety, or general welfare."
Police noted they'd given out under 20 actual fine-citations but more than 450 tickets (presumably for other noise offenses) and 4 times as many "warnings" (though policepublicist Zack Friend was vague about that). There was no indication of how many parties they'd shut down with threats on the cranky sayso of a NIMBY neighbor.
Student leaders also complained that attempts to meet with residents, find meetings with the illusive Santa Cruz Neighbors, and engage in constructive dialogue had been ignored.
CURRENT LAWS
The current laws give more than enough leeway to police to threaten and/or cite. They also provide no requirement of a particular decibel level.
9.36.010 CURFEW - OFFENSIVE NOISE.
(a)No person shall between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any offensive noise (1) which is made within one hundred feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes, or (2) which disturbs, or would tend to disturb, any person within hearing distance of such noise.
(b)"Offensive noise" means any noise which is loud, boisterous, irritating, penetrating, or unusual, or that is unreasonably distracting in any other manner, such that it is likely to disturb people in the vicinity of such noise, and includes, but is not limited to, noise made by barking or howling dogs, by an individual alone or by a group of people engaged in any business meeting, gathering, game, dance, or amusement, or by any appliance, contrivance, device, structure, construction, ride, machine, implement, or instrument.
9.36.020 UNREASONABLY DISTURBING NOISES.
No person shall make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any noises or sounds (a) which are unreasonably disturbing or physically annoying to people of ordinary sensitiveness or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause physical discomfort to any person, and (b) which are not necessary in connection with an activity which is otherwise lawfully conducted. As used in this section, "lawfully conducted activities" shall include, but not be limited to, any and all activities conducted by the city for public health, safety or welfare purposes.
9.36.030 SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS.
Any person who violates any section of this chapter and is cited for such a violation, and who within forty-eight hours after receiving such a citation again violates the same section, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person is cited for a violation when he or she is issued and signs an infraction or misdemeanor citation, or when he or she is arrested and booked, or when a complaint is filed and the person is notified of the filing of such a complaint.
(Ord. 80-29 § 1, 1980).
9.36.040 ENFORCEMENT.
The provisions of this chapter are enforceable without reference to the regulations concerning noise set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the fact that the city officer issuing a citation has not obtained a scientific noise measurement prior to issuing the citation shall not constitute a defense.
The definition of "loud or unruly gathering" currently:
9.37.010 (c)"Loud or unruly gathering" shall mean a gathering of two or more persons on private property or a permitted gathering of two or more persons on public property whose loud or unruly conduct constitutes a threat to public health, safety, quiet enjoyment of residential property or general welfare, including violations of Chapter 9.36. This term excludes incidents of domestic violence. A loud or unruly gathering shall constitute a public nuisance.
REILLY'S WAR ON TERROR
Emily Reilly, perhaps preparing for her congressional run, went on about threats to "public health and safety", but of course, earlier law dealt with all that. What this was all about was giving police and Santa Cruz Neighbors (the Robinson-Coonerty- Mathews election machine) a balnk check to shut down partying when and where they pleased.
TUNE IN TONIGHT
Tune in to Free Radio Santa Cruz at 101.1 FM (also http://www.freakradio.org) 6-8 PM tonight for more discussion of this. Call-in number 427-3772. I may follow-up with more on this Sunday morning if there's enough interest. Jesse Wilson of Against Santa Cruz Party Ordinance, which boasts 1,600 members and Students for a Sensible Party Ordinance has been invited to be on the show.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
We can hear the screams and noises of the boardwalk on summer evenings from a quarter mile away. It doesn't bother us, but neither does the occasional party in the neighborhood.
What kind of f*cked up place is this becoming?
Hello, Brave New World!
What kind of f*cked up place is this becoming?
Hello, Brave New World!
The ordinance stands! The public came and spoke. Both sides came and presented their sides. The issue was weighed and measured by our elected officials, and it was voted 6 to 1.
The police rarely issue citations with this section (ratio of citations issued to party calls), and they obviously don’t need to because the amount that has been issued seems to be having the desired effect (peace and quite).
Apparently this hasn’t sat well with you. Which is surprising, because you are a home owner. You live in area where I am sure you wouldn’t appreciate vandalism, loud noises, litter, and urine in or around the area you live. Especially if the people came to your neighborhood trashed it and left. Wait a minute…. You don’t live in the city of Santa Cruz, but you come into town and trash it with your rhetoric and personal attacks, then leave and go home.
I get it know! Your actions are similar to the loud and unruly parties that occur in the city of Santa Cruz.
I can’t wait to hear about your radio show, and the 1600 student activists that will be at your disposal.
What a Knob
The police rarely issue citations with this section (ratio of citations issued to party calls), and they obviously don’t need to because the amount that has been issued seems to be having the desired effect (peace and quite).
Apparently this hasn’t sat well with you. Which is surprising, because you are a home owner. You live in area where I am sure you wouldn’t appreciate vandalism, loud noises, litter, and urine in or around the area you live. Especially if the people came to your neighborhood trashed it and left. Wait a minute…. You don’t live in the city of Santa Cruz, but you come into town and trash it with your rhetoric and personal attacks, then leave and go home.
I get it know! Your actions are similar to the loud and unruly parties that occur in the city of Santa Cruz.
I can’t wait to hear about your radio show, and the 1600 student activists that will be at your disposal.
What a Knob
The discussion last night at the city council meeting regarding this subject went very well. Both sides of the community were able to present their case in a clear and respectful manner, for the most part. The stories and concerns of neighbors were listened to. The concerns about safety and the police, from those that like to hold parties, were listened to. And most importantly pretty much everyones questions and or comments were addressed. The part of the discussion regarding lowering the fines was handled well. Quite honestly, those that have parties and said that the fines were too high for a student to pay did not really make their case. That is what a fine is for. Making it easy for someone to pay rather defeats the purpose of a fine. I don't think Ed Porter's comments were made in the most delicate of ways, but that's Ed. Even councilman Madrigal, who often supports students and their concerns, voted to keep the fines where they were.
Unfortunately not everyone is going to get what they want. But the dialogue was open. It looks like both sides of this issue did a good job.
Unfortunately not everyone is going to get what they want. But the dialogue was open. It looks like both sides of this issue did a good job.
I find it very interesting and noteworthy that when people do something the way Robert Norse wants he refers to them as progressive. When those same people don't do what he wants, or voice an opinion counter to his own, they are suddenly conservatives.
"Student activists hustled to and from the microphone, frequently cut off by the "get moving" 2 minute time limit on speech." Robert Norse
Please explain who hustled them back and forth. There was an orderly line and everyone had their chance. Some people finished before the time was up. Some people were told their time was up and they were allowed to finish making their point quickly. I even remember one young man making his point under the alloted time, and was asked by the city council to remain up there so they could ask questions about something he said. Something that they were concerned about regarding how he had been handled by the police. And their questions to him sounded like they were surprised to hear what he had to say and were going to look into it.
Please, tell us how many young adults were cut off.
Also, were there not "student activists" that went up and said that they felt the issue for them was the amount of the fines and not the ordinance itself? They were not asking that the ordinance itself be changed.
Even Tony Madrigal, ever so eager to back possible young UCSC constituant "activists", rather oafishly stated that the case had been made to keep the fines the same.
Please explain who hustled them back and forth. There was an orderly line and everyone had their chance. Some people finished before the time was up. Some people were told their time was up and they were allowed to finish making their point quickly. I even remember one young man making his point under the alloted time, and was asked by the city council to remain up there so they could ask questions about something he said. Something that they were concerned about regarding how he had been handled by the police. And their questions to him sounded like they were surprised to hear what he had to say and were going to look into it.
Please, tell us how many young adults were cut off.
Also, were there not "student activists" that went up and said that they felt the issue for them was the amount of the fines and not the ordinance itself? They were not asking that the ordinance itself be changed.
Even Tony Madrigal, ever so eager to back possible young UCSC constituant "activists", rather oafishly stated that the case had been made to keep the fines the same.
You chided Indy for slanting the message and agenda when they announced a "victory" regarding the judges ruling on the tree sitters. You said that by giving such a biased report, they risked invalidating the integrity of their message.
...you appear close to that same risk on this post.
...you appear close to that same risk on this post.
The actual changes sought by Jesse Wilson and his Students for A Sensible Party Ordinance were not presented by Coonerty and Rotkin, according to Wilson and his associate Brian English.
These changes would have abolishing the oppressive "cop decides what is unruly" law and the added "quiet enjoyment of property" as well as a number of other concerns, which they discussed on my radio show Thursday night (archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb080313.mp3).
Coonerty's 2-minute limit on public comment shut everyone down and showed his disinterest in public comment. Since it was the only item on the evening agenda (except for the shortened Oral Communications), there was no reason not to allow what has been a traditional 3 minutes. Then again, since Coonerty and the Council generally harkens repressive residents and cops, why bother?
English and Wilson are considering an initiative, court challenges, more direct community organizing, alternate means of address neighbor concerns, and attendance at Santa Cruz Neighbors and other opposition meetings.
They noted on the air that the citation they got from Officer Auldridge did not involve a visible complainant. When they attempted to videotape to document that their party was not unruly and that the officers were being heavyhanded, Auldridge reportedly threatened to confiscate their camera. It would be helpful to document police actions at "unruly" parties.
I hope Wilson and English post their bizarre experiences in Referee Baskett's courtroom (the basement court that usually hears infractions--unless you disqualify her with a CCP 170.6 motion, which I heartily recommend). Baskett reportedly ignored testimony from all the neighbors that the party was not unruly and relied instead on Auldridge's unsupported testiimony. I wasn't there, but that's what Wilson claimed in the radio show.
Wilson can be reached at jessewilsonbusiness [at] gmail.com . If you'd like to help him with a Copwatch, let him know.
These changes would have abolishing the oppressive "cop decides what is unruly" law and the added "quiet enjoyment of property" as well as a number of other concerns, which they discussed on my radio show Thursday night (archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb080313.mp3).
Coonerty's 2-minute limit on public comment shut everyone down and showed his disinterest in public comment. Since it was the only item on the evening agenda (except for the shortened Oral Communications), there was no reason not to allow what has been a traditional 3 minutes. Then again, since Coonerty and the Council generally harkens repressive residents and cops, why bother?
English and Wilson are considering an initiative, court challenges, more direct community organizing, alternate means of address neighbor concerns, and attendance at Santa Cruz Neighbors and other opposition meetings.
They noted on the air that the citation they got from Officer Auldridge did not involve a visible complainant. When they attempted to videotape to document that their party was not unruly and that the officers were being heavyhanded, Auldridge reportedly threatened to confiscate their camera. It would be helpful to document police actions at "unruly" parties.
I hope Wilson and English post their bizarre experiences in Referee Baskett's courtroom (the basement court that usually hears infractions--unless you disqualify her with a CCP 170.6 motion, which I heartily recommend). Baskett reportedly ignored testimony from all the neighbors that the party was not unruly and relied instead on Auldridge's unsupported testiimony. I wasn't there, but that's what Wilson claimed in the radio show.
Wilson can be reached at jessewilsonbusiness [at] gmail.com . If you'd like to help him with a Copwatch, let him know.
Our crazy neighbor on Woodrow street repeatedly calls the police on people she just doesn't like. She doesn't like anyone parking adjacent to her house, for one, and she has called on my neighbor who holds barbecues on a lawn area that can be seen from the front rather than the back of the house. It's really outrageous. I can't hear them at all, and he will be sitting out front with his granddaughter in the evening enjoying the fire, and then a police cruiser pulls up on the street. It turns out that the officer was staying there 15 minutes to listen to the noise level because he got a complaint from this person who thinks gatherings in a front or side yard are 'unclassy'.
for more background, go to:
"Unruly Party" Ordinance coming up for amendment Tuesday evening at City Council
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/10/18484822.php
"Unruly Party" Ordinance coming up for amendment Tuesday evening at City Council
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/10/18484822.php
Mayor Ryan Coonerty's support of the added provision "quiet enjoyment of residential property" as part of this criminal law is invalid. While many leases between landlords and tenants offer this benefit, it is a civil matter, not a criminal one. If the tenant does not enjoy "quiet" he/she may sue the landlord.
Our "Constitutional scholar" Mayor apparently doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. He stated at a council meeting that this was a well-known and understood concept in law and therefore reasonably included in the anti-partying ordinance. Coonerty should go back to law school. Apparently he missed some classes.
Our "Constitutional scholar" Mayor apparently doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. He stated at a council meeting that this was a well-known and understood concept in law and therefore reasonably included in the anti-partying ordinance. Coonerty should go back to law school. Apparently he missed some classes.
Aren't loud noise violations a misdemeanor?
Yes, Greg, they are!! And the standard for unreasonable noise prior to 10PM is a pretty high one. After 10PM the standard changes. So a citation for unreasonable noise has to be pretty unreasonable. The anti-party law bypasses this law and makes the standard whatever the officer at the scene wants it to be. Not very reasonable, is it?
Jesse Wilson wrote on Mar 13, 2008.
The City Council finally proposed a resolution to the Party Ordinance on 3/11/08 because of our advocacy group’s continued pressure. It took us years to get that far but we did it. We turned out with 50 representatives and our opponents could only pull about 10. However they have a very strong influence on the Council and we have very little. They spoke of what a joy it is to live in Santa Cruz now that there are no house parties (since the ordinance passed in 2005). They described house parties as wild kids breaking bottles and peeing in neighbors’ yards, and they even likened it to being in a car crash.
Four items were proposed as amendments to the ordinance, the most important being a reduction in fines. Unfortunately the Council voted down the reduction in fines, after admitting that they are well aware that the fine structure is $885, $1735, $3500. The good news is that a written first-warning is now required before the charge may be imposed, and that there is a hearing officer to help a defendant contest a wrongful charge (sort of). Thanks to our membership we have made a positive change in the community, but obviously we’re not done so please continue to support our group, support party hosts for putting so much at stake, and support Mike Rotkin for being the only Councilmember to support the reduction in fines.
I think everyone who was there to witness the closing statements by the Councilmembers would agree that Mayor Ryan Coonerty is a two-faced lying bastard and I deeply regret believing that he cared about our situation. The worst 3 Councilmembers are Emily Reilly (by far), Cynthia Matthews, and Lynn Robinson. Tony Madrigal is on our side but unfortunately felt that he had to vote against us for political reasons. It’s hard to support Mike Rotkin considering that he’s the one who wrote the ordinance and presented it to the council, but at least he has the balls to vote against the other members when he believes in a change.
The City Council finally proposed a resolution to the Party Ordinance on 3/11/08 because of our advocacy group’s continued pressure. It took us years to get that far but we did it. We turned out with 50 representatives and our opponents could only pull about 10. However they have a very strong influence on the Council and we have very little. They spoke of what a joy it is to live in Santa Cruz now that there are no house parties (since the ordinance passed in 2005). They described house parties as wild kids breaking bottles and peeing in neighbors’ yards, and they even likened it to being in a car crash.
Four items were proposed as amendments to the ordinance, the most important being a reduction in fines. Unfortunately the Council voted down the reduction in fines, after admitting that they are well aware that the fine structure is $885, $1735, $3500. The good news is that a written first-warning is now required before the charge may be imposed, and that there is a hearing officer to help a defendant contest a wrongful charge (sort of). Thanks to our membership we have made a positive change in the community, but obviously we’re not done so please continue to support our group, support party hosts for putting so much at stake, and support Mike Rotkin for being the only Councilmember to support the reduction in fines.
I think everyone who was there to witness the closing statements by the Councilmembers would agree that Mayor Ryan Coonerty is a two-faced lying bastard and I deeply regret believing that he cared about our situation. The worst 3 Councilmembers are Emily Reilly (by far), Cynthia Matthews, and Lynn Robinson. Tony Madrigal is on our side but unfortunately felt that he had to vote against us for political reasons. It’s hard to support Mike Rotkin considering that he’s the one who wrote the ordinance and presented it to the council, but at least he has the balls to vote against the other members when he believes in a change.
5/19/06 - Dropped $495 on the bar, collected $455 at the door, Kevin DJed, kick-ass party....
$885 "first warning" ticket!
$885 "first warning" ticket!
In this photo: John Barison, City Attorney, Emily Reilly, Jesse Wilson, Lynn Robinson, Mayor Ryan Coonerty, Vice Mayor, Cynthia Matthews, Tony Madrigal, Mike Rotkin
reposte writes "Tony Madrigal is on our side but unfortunately felt that he had to vote against us for political reasons."
Are you kidding? Tony Madrigal is one of the first people to stand up and support students. He knows that the students are a big voting block. Tony usually thinks with his voting block, not his head. This time he used his head.
Are you kidding? Tony Madrigal is one of the first people to stand up and support students. He knows that the students are a big voting block. Tony usually thinks with his voting block, not his head. This time he used his head.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network