Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-16 Municipal Operations Committee MinutesMUNICIPAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 16, 1996 Councilors in attendance: Jim Tyler, David Leen,'Timothy Woodcock, Pat Blanchette, Christopher Popper Staff in attendance: Edward Barrett, Erik Stumpfel, Kathi Murray, Arthur Stockus, Aaron Larsen, Robert Farrar, Gail Campbell, Sim Ring Others in attendance: Nancy Garland (BDN), members of the City Nursing Facility Advisory Board, numerous members of the public, representatives from Baker, Newman i Noyes Committee Chair opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Arthur Stockus discussed the lighting situation at Bangor Gardens.Councilors received a map of the area showing lights in existence and their illuminated areas. Stockus explained that if lights were added to every pole without one, the annual electric power cost would increase $2,853. Installation Would be $6,600. He said that electric costs would go up $100,000 annually, an 808 increase, if a light were placed on every pole in the city where there currently is none. Stuckus's recommendation was to remove certain lights, saying that after a night-time inspection, the area was found to be adequately, and in some areas, excellently, lighted. Ed Barrett recommended that the Police Department work closely with the neighborhood to resolve specific concerns, establish a neighborhood watch, etc. He also expressed support to retain the additional street lights for security reasons where there are problems and recommended delaying removal of excess lights until the neighborhood watch system is in place. Voted to accept all recommendations. 2. City Nursing Facility Kathi Murray spoke about the consulting study does by Baker, Newman and Reyes on comparative coats analysis and reimbursement analysis. Representatives from Baker, Newman and Noyes, said the-- facilities he -facilities that were compared to CNF ranged in size from 40-80 beds. Ms. Murray said she planned to utilise all the recommendations and that some had already been implemented. Voted to accept the report as submitted. Councilor Leen asked Terrance Hughes if he had any photographs he would like submitted to the meeting. He indicated that he did, but also said that he wanted the same privilege that was previously extended to Ur. Harris --the ability to show his exhibits to all at that meeting. Councilor Leen then asked the City Solicitor to update everyone an the status of the proposed ordinances. Erik Stumpfel said that on June 28 there were two draft ordinances, dividing the current parade ordinance Into two separate ordinances. The new parade ordinance would require that a parade permit be obtained for point-to-point parades, and would also require a parade permit for any public as sembly (-any meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally orgathering of more than 25 persons for a common purpose...") that might interfere with the normal flaw of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or that interferes with the access of any person to public or private premises. He said that complaints Here received stating the City was being excessive in requiring parade permits for a small number of people engaging in non-residential area picketing. The new, ordinance would increase the number of persons to 25. Stumpfel suggested that the committee discuss whether to keep that number. The second ordinance would be a new ordinance directed specifically at the activity of targeted residential pickets. Legislative findings have provided definitions of 'picket or picketer", "residence', "dwelling", "sidewalk", etc. The basis of this ordinance is that a targeted residential picket within 100 feet of the exterior property line of a targeted residence would be prohibited and would cover any number of Persons, even just one, engaged in that activity. Stumpfel also provided the definition of "targeted" as stated in the new ordinance. He said he thought a focus of the committee's discussion should be that definition, as well as the related definition of 'picket"; and to discuss whether to accept the prohibition in general, and if so, to define the area or sone where pickets would be prohibited. Councilor Leen asked for comments from the public. Phil Worden, of the Bangor CURBS project and a member of the Mabel Wadsworth Home's Health Center, said he sees the issue as consisting of two components: (1) whether the ordinance will be effective at stopping targeted residential picketing; (2) whether anything "goes too far", unduly restricting First Amendment Bights of legitimate free speech. He pleaded for an effective ordinance to stop residential picketing. He asked that various memoranda and correspondence be entered into the record so that judges deciding the issue later could see that the City had not been "overzealous^ in protecting or promoting abortion rights issues and "squashing" the rights of abortion protesters. Warden said that the people he represents had decided that a 100 -foot buffer zone would, in fact, be effective; previously, his group had asked for a 300 -foot zone. However, if a 100 -foot zone proves to be inadequate to protect residential privacy, he asked for the opportunity to document that and return to the committee to request possible changes in the ordinance. He also addressed what he felt was the intent of the picketers and commented that their actions were "personal harassment', not First Amendment rights. Councilor Woodcock painted out that even though picketers might be outside a 100 -foot zone, the reason they would be there is because the residence is located nearby. He said the City is trying to accommodate an ^intent" to engage in targeted residential picketing while accommodating the concerns of residents regarding privacy and peace of mind from "overly intrusive speech.^ He felt it wasn't legally possible to "chase demonstrators out of all neighborhoods". He thought it possible to come up with an ordinance that accommodates the strong interest that society has in free speech and, at the same time, accommodates what he feels are real interests in privacy and peace of mind. Mr. Warden said some doctors had asked him why it wasn't possible to ban targeted picketing entirely. He thought that setting up a "bubble" around targeted homes was necessary to effectively protect privacy. Councilor Woodcock said that what he felt happened last year and now is an undertaking by the City Council to limit "unreasonable, unfairly intrusive' targeted residential picketing. Mr. Warden concluded by saying his group wanted to see a buffer around the targeted homes, but that it shouldn't be any bigger than 'it has to be.,, Pam Correll, of Poplar Street, said that she lives at a 100 -foot zone of a targeted neighbor. She said she would not be satisfied with this 100 -foot zone and would feel the same if it were a black neighbor being targeted by the Ku Klux Klan. She felt that the issue of targeted picketing constituted 'harassment" and said she, her neighbor and her family are looking to the Council to e up with a means of protecting them from harassmnt. She aie d she came home one day to find people marching and carrying photographs of dismembered fetuses. She said she was thankful that her children, ages S and 5, were not home because she didn't know, has she would explain the situation to them. She said she feels that she's a victim as well as her targeted neighbor --that there wasn't a line thexe--and that she would still feel like a victim if she was 300 feet from 'this magical buffer zone." She said she was present to implore the group to find a way to look at targeted residential picketing as what it iss ^harassment of targeted groups of people whatever their activities or their beliefs.' She pointed out that when picketers are on Harlow Street, she can take another mote if she doesn't want her children to see the information that she isn't ready to discuss with them at their ages; however, she can't do that if the picketers are on her street. She thanked the Council for listening. Hartin O'Connell, a neighbor of Bra. Correll, is concerned that children playing an the street will be harmed by what they see, be misled by what they hear when someone describes a person who is engaged in a legal business as amurderer." The children come home concerned that someone like a "murderer° would be living in their neighborhood. He referred to the word -targeted- as implying a bullseye and requested that the Council be more restrictive, rather than leas restrictive, when framing the ordinance. George Singal, who described himself as a lifelong Bangor resident, wanted to talk about the type of City of Bangor should be and what it's like to be a home owner in Bangor. He pointed out that Bangor is not the most prosperous city in the state; but that one of the attractions in Bangor is its neighborhoods and its sense of well-being in terms of home ownership. He described Bangor as a "town of small home owners.' He thought it one of the pluses that one didn't need to be wealthy to own a home here. Another plus is that once a person is in his home, there is a sense of security and privacy. In Mine, people leave others alone in their home, that it is a place of refuge. He said people agree that they have a right to be irritated at such things as a neighbor's barking dog, yet present circumstances seem to indicate that one doesn't have the right to be irritated at other things going on outside their homes. He said he wanted to "force" the Council to think very clearly about the image they ant to project of Bangor --is it a place where people can work and then come home at the end of the day, shut the door, release concerns and focus on the family and not be forced to confront a "intrusion' into the home? Cr is it a "potential battle sone" where there is no place to relax and release the cares of the day? He said it is a basic policy issue that confronts the City Council. He suggested that the Councilors ask the question of all the Bangor home owners. He said the ordinance is not an issue of pro -abortion or anti -abortion' it is very simply, 'What do you want the City to be like? what type of neighborhoods do you want to have?" He said that the decision to newer the question is long overdue. He felt most people wonder why it has taken so long to legislate something that most people take for granted and urged the Council to pass an ordinance that would give people their peace and refuge from their workday. Councilor Woodcock asked Mr. Sinal if he felt the proposed ordinance satisfied Mr. Siegal's objective. Mr. Singal said he didn't feel the proposed ordinance was broad enough to satisfy him inclination, giving as an example the 100 -foot limit. He said he thought the 100 -foot limit made targeted picketing close enough to be "enticing.^ He said he was speaking, not as a lawyer or Constitutional expert, but as a homeowner and taxpayer of the City of Bangor. He thought targeted picketing has few benefits, and doesn't provide much information or a legitimate debate. Mr. Singal says he supports targeted picketing only to the minimum that it has to be tolerated for Constitutional issues. He mentioned again that he wants the Council to consider what type of image the City wishes to provide its hosmownere. Councilor Leen asked Mr. Singal to remember that the Council would have to keep In mind the Constitutional issues. He pointed out that even if the ordinance allowed a 350 -foot buffer, people, such as Mrs. Correll might have a problem with the message being addressed. Councilor Leen wondered if an ordinance could be passed that provides what mr. Singal is looking for. mr. Singal thought that there is a qualitative difference between picketing in front of one's home and picketing down the street, saying that the purpose of targeting picketing is to "give no peace --that it's to intimidate." Winn Stevens said he wished to comment on Mr. Singal's remarks about the City's image. He said that in the meetings he had attended, he bad not heard anyone speaking in opposition to the ordinance identify themselves as a resident of Bangor; they have all been non-residents. He asked the Council to listen to the as of the people who live in the city about what image should be projected. He thought the 100 -foot buffer doesn't "do the trick." He said he must drive past an area where targeted picketing takes place in order to get to his own home, and that when that happens, an intrusion into his guaranteed right of happiness takes place. He thought a 300 -foot buffer is significantly different" and would be enough to discourage people from "bothering to waste their time iHe said some of the photos he has seen would, if they were in am , probably cause the movie to be rated "8" or "R" --no children allowed. He said It "boggles' his mind that someone has the right to expose children in neighborhoods to these photos, when they wouldn't be able to go to a movie and see them. Deanna Partridge, of Bangor CURBS Project, said that whether the buffer Is 100 feet or 300 feet, it doesn't accomplish what her group wishes, privacy and security in homes.She said she thought the Council owes a responsibility to the people of the targeted neighborhoods. She pointed out that the previous ordinance provided for a notification to neighbors so they could decide whether to expose themselves to the picketing. In the current draft, there is no notification process. She discussed the issue of the width of the residential sidewalks saying that, hypothetically, if three picketers were on the sidewalk, she wouldn't be able to walk past. She asked the Council to keep in mind, as they review the definitions, that if they were to require a minimum of three people to constitute a parade, thereby requiring a permit, notification could be made to neighbors. She said that if targeted picketing couldn't be banned outright, at least the Council should provide options to neighbors and residents. - Julie Grover, Activities Director at Bangor Convalescent Center, stated she thought the Council has a tough job ahead of them. She said she thought the 100 -foot limit i not sufficient" and asked that it be extended to 300 feet. She said in all the talk about Constitutional rights, people aren't thinking about children and families and residents of places such as the Bangor Convalescent Center. She said residents of her facility are refusing to go into the fenced -in garden area "at any time' because of the possibility that picketers might appear. She said she agrees that the photos being displayed would be rated if in a movie, yet homeowners and residents of the facility do not have a choice of not looking at them.She mentioned the criticism of an article covered by a tv newscast which showed a person's body trapped under i saying the information could be conveyed without being so graphic, and compared that to what the protesters show. The protesters could inform the public without infringing on the rights of the 74 residents of the facility. She pointed out that her residents could not pack up and leave, s neighbors of targeted residences might, when picketing was to occur. She hoped that a decision could be reached that protected Constitutional rights and rights of people living in the neighborhoods. She said that, since the last municipal Operations Committee meeting (at which she spoke), she has received daily telephone calls from the "groups" telling her to 'back off", to not push the issue. She reiterated her previous testimony that she isn't taking a stand an abortion, or any other pretested issue, that she only wants to inform the Council about the situation happening at Bangor Convalescent Center. She said she is being harassed in her home for only wanting to protect the rights of her residents. She said that picketers have repeatedly marched past doctors' residences, in violation of the existing ordinance. She has had to call the Police Department for problems with protesters' vehicles being parked on the facility's property. She said a picketer said she should go inside and tell the residents to call their representatives to "stop the killings." She felt there was n"reasoning' with the protesters. She asked the Councilors to come to some kind of compromise that will protect everyone's rights. Steve Crichton lives 100 feet from a targeted residence. He said he thought the whole issue is "crazy." He wondered how people could be allowed to walk around with signs that depict the images they do. He said children are very confused by the signs. He asked the Council to have the"courage^ to disallow signs that refer to murderers, and allow only signs that refer to "abortion.' He doesn't understand how someone can be allowed to harass people in neighborhoods when businesses aren't allowed in neighborhoods and when there are zoning laws. He said the literature is "outrageous" and wondered how an educated society could say that is a good thing to do to the children and the harassed neighbors. He suggested a public soap box be installed at Bass Park where people could speak publicly, and said he wanted no marching in neighborhoods. He said he 'can't believe" that the signage can't be controlled and asked the Councilors to look at the signs that are displayed. Councilor Leen spoke to Terrance Hughes about showing the photos, saying he did not want to personally see them at this time and asking him to submit them for the record. Terrance Hughes said he needed to clear up s "lies" that had been told. He said the protesters had picketed only one time this a, that they obey police orders and arenot too noisy. He compared what he called the unpopular stance of the local anti -abortionists to the struggles of George Washington and Thomas Paine. He felt that picketing doctors' homes was less of an intrusion than national news media depictions of wars. He stated that any intrusion people felt could be "turned off-', just like the television. He commented that he hadn't heard any compassion for the victims of abortion --only complaints from people who don't want to see the photographs. Councilor Woodcock pointed out that the Council was attempting to separate the issues of parades ardi targeted residential picketing. He asked the City Solicitor to explain the background of determining the minimum numbers required for permits and for the buffer zone. Erik Stumpfel said the original model, prior to June 1995, was prepared by an asociation of municipal law officers and that the current draft for parades still reflects that model. To be Constitutionally correct, the ordinance must "serve a significant governmental interest", "must be rationally related to achieving that interest^ and leave alternatives for expression of speech. A court might determine that a number is too small to be •'rationally related" to a parade permit requirement. The number would likely be determined by each case before the court. Regarding the buffer zone, Stumpfel said residential pickets and parades can not be totally banned, even if they are targeted. He stated that some strict ordinances have been overturned as being civil rights violations. He said the 100 -foot zone was based on One of Bangor's zoning regulations that requires notice be given to neighbors within 100 feet of someone who is applying for rezoning. By that definition, it can be concluded that activities occurring within that a or nearby, have an impact on a particular residence. MothernWaine statute prohibits electioneering within 250 feet of any polling place. He said it is a question of "reasonableness- that the Council must decide, and that there is a case law which upholds a zone of 300 feet. Ed Barrett said some polling had been done of other municipalities regarding requirements for rezoning, and that the more was 300 feet. This recognizes that rezoning can have significant impacts well beyond 100 feet. The City is reviewing its ordinances to reflect this. Councilor Blanchette said that, not being a lawyer, she might be naive about the impact of banning targeted residential picketing. She said she grew up to believe that the courts are in place to serve the people and the only time a law gets changed is when someone has "the nerve and the backbone" to stand up and say, This is wrong. We need to protect our residential neighborhoods.- She said the City must take that mentality. She said current rules are allowing an infringement of rights on the residential neighborhoods, infringing on rights of privacy as a homeowner. She said there should be some sanctuary from having people picket in front of one's home due to act liking the resident's political beliefs. She said that targeted residential picketing, regardless of the subject, should not be allowed. She said she was tired of people infringing on her personal rights and felt if it has to go to the Supreme Court, that's fine. She said she could not support any ordinance that Would allow picketing in any neighborhood. Councilor Popper expressed his support for Councilor Blanchette's views and those of several residents who spoke earlier and said he would vote to ban targeted residential picketing to the largest extent the Constitution would allow. He said he found it offensive that someone would suggest he take his children indoors or into the backyard if he didn't want them to see picketers' materials. He said he would not tolerate someone harassing himself, his family and his neighbors and said he would vote against an ordinance that allows it, saying the courts could battle it out. He wants to do what is legally possible to ban "legalised harassment." Councilor Woodcock said he agreed that the issue should go to the full Council. He felt the ordinance is deficient in that it doesn't sufficiently accent that targeted residential picketing is not "simply a tug of war" between the person whose house i being targeted and the picketer. it has profound impact on the neighbors. Because of the neighborhood concern, he said the ordinance should be as restrictive as legally possible. He said he -venerates the right to free speech" and felt the Constitution makes the country what it is today. As a municipal official, he said he would 'shrink from trying to regulate the content of free speech.- He pointed out that some municipalities have bad their ordinances overturned and were found to be, not only Constitutionally wrong, but legally liable for money damages. He said whatever ordinance the City ensure should be effective for the purpose and within the confines of the law. It moat be `content neutral,, and must fit all issues at all times. He moved that both ordinances be forwarded to the full Council for consideration. Seconded by Councilor Leen. Gail Campbell advised the committee of two openings: one on the Planning Board and one on the Housing Authority (tenant position). She said the Planning Board position had been advertised once and the Housing Authority twice. She has received four applications for Housing and one, plus an associate member applying for regular, for the Planning Board. Councilor Blanchette said it had been past practice to move the associate member to regular status and than advertise for an opening to associate status. She moved that an order be drafted appointing Carol Woodcock from associate to regular status on the Planning Board. 5. Appointnents to MMA's L It w ved and seconded to recommend to the full Council that Councilors Sullivan and Popper be reappointed. 6. MTXff Broad Jim Ring, City engineer, asked that this item be tabled until he has reviewed a petition that had been submitted regarding the placement of a traffic light. Discussion centered on whether the areas of interest of the Recycling Advisory Committee should be expanded to include other forme of solid municipal waste. Councilor Popper spoke about the Impact of price reductions for paper on the recycling division of Public Works. He advocated continuance of the committee, stating he feels their work is important. Councilor Blanchette expressed concern that an advisory committee has become involved in policy making issues. Ed Barrett said the committee's jurisdiction in recycling keeps it focused on that issue. He said it would be possible to expand jurisdiction at a later time. Councilor Tyler said, that if the committee was purely advisory, there might not be a need for three appointed Council members. mr. Barrett pointed out that the City gets credit under the State laws just for having such a committee. Councilor Blanchette agreed with Councilor Tyler, saying she wondered if it was necessary to "tie up" three Councilors to be onan advisory committee. Sim Ring said it does help the City's recycling efforts to have the committee. Mr. Barrett recommended doubling the number of members from the public, with staggered terms of two years. Councilor Blanchette moved to recommend that option to the Council. Passed. Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 10