HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2015 Item 14, WhitneyTo: Johnson, Derek
Subject: RE: Business Item 14
' "(A LCIl IVEETUNIG �z-- c3l —Zcatj
1,� I_ M N, 0 1 `t
From: Sharon Whitney
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 10:07 AM
To: Council, SloCity <SCouncil@slocity.org>
Cc: Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.o >; Codron, Michael <mcodron @slocity.org >; Carpenter, Dan
<dcarpenter@slocity.org >; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org >; Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick @slocity.ore >; Marx, Jan
<imarx @slocity.org >; Ashbaugh, John <ishbaugh @slocity.or >; Johnson, Derek <d"tohnson @slocity.org >; Lichtig, Katie
<klichtig@slocity.org>
Subject: Business Item 14
Please include this email i as correspondence n support of RQN letter:
After reviewing the Civility Report, the staff's report, and RQN's letter, etc., I have the
following comments:
1. I think staff can do a better job explaining WHY a ride -along program with SNAP is not
advisable /feasible. They merely assert this without explaining it.
2. I concur with RQN statements about Objective 1, point 2. Furthermore, I believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about the City requiring a permit under Municipal Code 5.80 of social
party hosts if the social host anticipates a "parade" of students and an "assembly" of students
in the public right -away (city streets). It is absolutely true that it is the NOISE (and other
nuisance ordinance violations that occur) that is the real source of harm, but the "assembly" and
"parade" elements associated with social host gatherings are definitely inducements to those
violations. Requiring a permit by the social host if the host anticipates such parades and
assemblies, I think, is not outside of the question. In other words, if nuisance NOISE, etc
occurs as a result of the "assembly /parade" AND the social host failed to get a city - permit
under Ch. 5.8, that would be another violation of code.
I concur with all other RQN points.
Sharon Whitney
We are all teachers and students for each other.
i