Monday, August 08, 2011

NevCity Loitering ordinance coming up Wed., says Stephen Greenberg

I talked to Stephen Greenberg (an attorney, as y'all presumably know) about the resurrected anti-loitering ordinance effort this weekend (as did Jeff Pelline on or before last Friday; his post & comments has links to relevant resources, e.g. the agenda packet), and Stephen filled me in on a few additional points:

Note: this is from recollection, & I haven't verified any of it since my focus is elsewhere. If anyone sees errors please feel free to point them out, in comments or email.
  • This is basically the same effort as was made in the late 1990s.

  • After that ordinance was struck down, a committee - made up of (only?) Nevada City business owners, some quite conservative - studied the issue and put out a ~30-page report, the gist of which was that the solution already existed, in the form of existing laws. (Stephen's letter in the agenda packet quotes extensively from that report, and reproduces its recommendations verbatim.)

  • So why is the issue coming up again? Several things are different now. The problem area has shifted - was previously N.Pine&Spring, now it's Commercial St. (where there's greater density of businesses - Ed.). The bad economy means stores are hurting. Plus the loiterers are mostly not our community's kids anymore, it's more homeless people.

  • Enforcement would presumably be selective, aimed at perceived undesirables. (Perceptions can be deceiving, as any Hospitality House volunteer can tell you. - Ed.)
On Facebook, see We don't need no stinkin' anti-loitering law in Nevada City
(if you can; not sure what its access permissions are)
at

3 comments:

  1. Anna Haynes8/08/2011 8:15 PM

    Former Mayor Steve Cottrell - who was on the Chamber committee that studied the issue back in 1999 - has weighed in (link), incl. saying the problem was a lot worse then than now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anna Haynes8/09/2011 7:39 AM

    Stephen Greenberg has weighed in also (link)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anna Haynes8/14/2011 3:24 PM

    Update: Stephen Greenberg said it did pass, with 1 holdout (Bergman).

    ReplyDelete

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.