Proposed Modifications to the Noise Ordinance

[Lorraine Pozzi]

We have a Noise Ordinance.  The following proposal seems by
its timing and language to be designed to put a chill on the
many anti-WTO protesters expected in Seattle.

No warning.
Large fines.

Even the Raging Grannies could rack up over a thousand dollars
in fines if the police did not like their lyrics.  

* IF * this change to the Noise Ordinance is approved -- and I
would hope that it fails -- its use as an intimidating device
would last long beyond the WTO meeting.  Any group that is
traditionally viewed with suspicion by the police -- people of
color, Real Change vendors, human rights protesters -- would
feel that chill as well.

It would be nice if organized labor stood up for basic principles
rather than just how this would affect their precious few -- but
that apparently is not the case.

I hope that the rest of us do stand up for freedom of speech.

Lorraine Pozzi
femme2 at scn.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:29:25 -0700
|From: Newell Aldrich <Newell.Aldrich at ci.seattle.wa.us>
To: femme2 at scn.org
Subject: Re: URBAN POLITICS # 72 - BUDGET PRIORITIES

Lorraine,

Nick Licata asked me to respond to your email, so you can pass it on to the list.

There are currently revisions of the City of Seattle's Noise Ordinance up for a vote scheduled on Monday, October 11.

The two biggest current issues are:

1) the removal of the requirement that Police officers first warn noisemakers; currently, officers must warn people making noise. They can only cite them if they then fail to stop making noise. The revision would allow officers to cite for first offense, in the way police can ticket motorists for speeding. Police would not be required to give tickets for first offense, same as with motorists.

2) the addition of "plainly audible" as a standard in the public disturbance noise section. If a noise is "plainly audible" from 50 feet in a residential area, or 75 feet in a nonresidential area, that would be a violation. The previous standard was "loud and raucous"; this is retained.

The third big issue was brought up by organized labor. The King County Labor Council wanted protection from the ordinance, so that their right to protest or picket would be ensured, i.e. so that the noise ordinance revisions would not be used to stop protests or pickets. The additional language they wanted was 

"This ordinance does not apply to persons engaged in lawful picketing or in marches, parades, rallies, or special events for the purpose of providing the public with information."

This language was voted into the ordinance in committee in September by a 2-1 vote, and offers solid protection for protests. The other vote was for a version that included time, place, and manner restrictions:

"Sounds created by the unamplified human voice by a person or persons engaged in lawful picketing, marches, rallies or parades in nonresidential districts between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm on weekdays and 9 am and 9 pm on weekends are exempt from provisions of this ordinance."

This means protestors would need a to be within the time frame, and outside residential districts, to be exempt from the Noise Ordinance. Amplified voices would not be exempt. A key issue for labor was the ability to maintain picket lines in work areas with 24-hour production, so that one shift isn't played off against another, a common management technique according the KC Labor Council.  It would be possible to gain a variance to be exempt from this provision; however, that would require an advance permit request from the City (this is separate from permits needed to use a park or street), which is impossible to do on weekends; the fee is, I believe, $100.

It is very likely that there will be an amendment on Monday's vote to put the time, place, and manner restrictions in the ordinance. A legal memo has been circulated to all councilmembers, and the Chief of Police sent a letter to councilmembers supporting this as well. A pro-noise control group is lobbying councilmembers as well, fearing that the language voted in would make the ordinance too hard to enforce (they all argue that anyone could claim to be a protest or rally, e.g. drunks on Frat Row at 3 a.m., or nightclubs).

It would be good to get some support to Councilmembers for keeping the current language protecting the right to protest. Although we've been told by City officials that the Noise Ordinance won't be used against protestors for the WTO, if the language here is changed, it could be.

The message page for the Seattle City Council is http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/council/contact.htm, if you'd like to contact Councilmembers.

Newell Aldrich
Aide to Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata


>>> Lorraine Pozzi <femme2 at scn.org> 10/03 3:06 PM >>>

Nick --

There have been some messages floating on the anti-WTO list
about severe limitations on free speech, and very broad
discretionary powers for police to impose huge fines without
so much as a verbal warning.  This is not a "noise" ordinance
(which we already have).

The way it is presented, this would be unconstitutional --
very chilling for any kind of public assembly or free speech.

I assume that the warnings and the call to protest may be 
somewhat overblown -- can your staff post a clarification
to the wto and/or fair-trade lists?  

Thanks for your attention.

Lorraine Pozzi
femme2 at scn.org 




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *