Facts First
To The Editor:
I disagree with Ryan Knapp and his letter last week. The Legislative Council actually did its Due Diligence by listening to the voters, not pursuing an answer without a problem or an ordinance that would apply to no Main Street town property.
Facts first:
1. Any such proposed ordinance would be an unconstitutional taking of Main Street owners’ property rights. Main Street sidewalks are not Town property, it’s the Borough’s. The property between the Main Street sidewalks and road is the property of the property owners, not the Town (the State has a right of way to expand the road). And, Main Street is owned by the State, not the Town.
In essence, except for the old police station and Edmond Town Hall there is no Town property for the Town to regulate. This was made clear to the LC. To require Main Street property owners secure a permit for more than 25 people on their property and pay for police is offensive. We have Labor Day parties, 4th of July parties, Halloween, etc. In short, it’s a waste of LC time to pursue such an ordinance, which if effectuated would have no practical effect and result in the Town paying extensive legal and litigation fees that would far surpass police overtime. The “model” ordinance of Danbury is clearly unconstitutional.
It’s so overly broad and overbearing that it would make a 1st year law student laugh. More than 20 reasons for denial and the same for required questions to be answered under oath that no organizer of an Assembly could possibly know. Knapp cites Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781 (1989). This case has nothing to do with the Assembly ordinance. This case had to do with New York City regulating the sound volume of concerts in one of its parks. It required city sound technicians control the mixing board at concerts to assure that all people in the park could hear the music, as well as to prevent sound amplification to deafening residents outside the park.
In fact, the Court clarified that “in regulations of the time, manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government’s legitimate content-neutral interests…” No matter how narrowly tailored, the ordinance would have no application on Main Street, unless unlawfully pressed upon those properties not controlled by the Town.
2. Knapp omits the fact that business owners’ concerns have been addressed by organizers and the NPD. Instead, he ignores the rights of resident property owners suggesting business owners’ rights are more important than resident property owners. One is not greater than the other, and based on the most recent rally at the flagpole there was a respectful balance for everyone.
3. The ordinance (if the Town actually owned the property) suppresses 1st Amendment speech. Not even the Police Chief wants anything to do with it. My friend, First Selectman Jeff Capeci owns this one.
My personal views.
Jim Gaston
Newtown
How dare you present actual facts Jim….those darn pesky facts. 🙂
The consummate litigator, when Jim starts using his “facts first” trope you know you’re entering the spin zone.
All during budget season we heard how strained the Police Department is with respect to staffing. Mr. Gaston knows this is a burden on the Newtown Police Department as the Borough has no PD, and Newtown taxpayers foot the bill. So unless he is volunteering The Borough reimburse The Town for the expense, his point changes nothing.
If Danbury’s Ordiance is unconstitutional as he claims, why does Attorney Gaston not help the residents of Danbury sue to restore their civil rights? He could do this work pro bono to show that the free speech rights matter in less affluent neighborhoods just as for those in The Borough. Rock this Democracy could protest Mayor Alves until they repeal this “unconstitutional” ordinance that disproportionality restricts the free speech rights of people of color (“good trouble”), or challenge the fines. There’s your test case. Will they do it, or are they being insincere?
If, as Mr. Gaston states, the property between Main Street sidewalks and the road belongs to the private property owners, then let me ask this: Would I, as a property owner, be within my rights to post “No Trespassing” signs and have any protesting group arrested for trespassing on that strip of land?
If the answer is yes, then these protests are occurring on private property without permission, and the conversation shifts from free speech to property rights enforcement. If the answer is no, then there’s clearly some form of public right-of-way or easement that permits public use, which contradicts the argument that this land is entirely private. Either way, this issue seems far less clear-cut than Mr. Gaston suggests.
It’s pretty clear that David completely missed the point. The comment about building a stadium—just like the tongue-in-cheek suggestion of suing Newtowners for “being stupid”—was obviously satire. If Dave took the stadium idea literally, maybe the “stupid” comments struck a little closer to home than he’s willing to admit. Sometimes satire isn’t meant to be taken at face value—but then again, if you have to explain the joke, maybe that’s part of the problem.