Nuisance Ordinance Slanted by News and Abuser

submitted by Maugan on Friday, December 1 2000 at 9:08 AM

Today a story in the News and Abuser (as my Poli Sci proffessor likes to call it) ran a story in which they describe the dire situation that we students live in today.

One bit of bad news, it looks like city council wont consider repealing the act unless its not being applied "city-wide" (which may be the case, I don't know)

posted by CrazyJ on Friday, December 1 2000 at 9:53 AM

One of the problems I have with this ordinance is the fact that it was drawn up and championed by a council member that lives on Brent Road. If he doesn't like the college atmosphere on Brent Road, he should move out. NOT use his power as a councilman to draft an ordinance that shuts down college parties. That seems kind of unethical to me. He should have known that Brent Road is a college neighborhood when he moved there. That's just being a dumbass.

Quote:

"He said he helped draft the law based on feedback from students themselves."

I don't know what kind of students he was getting feedback from, but I think he twisted whatever they said to fit his needs. It's blindingly obvious that the vast majority of students hate everything about the ordinance.

Quote:

"The whole purpose of the ordinance is it's supposed to be preventative, not punitive. It is not to be used to say nobody can have a party. But there are limits."

Ok-I have a lot of problems with this statement:
-If it is supposed to be PREVENTATIVE not PUNITIVE, then WHY ON EARTH do they not give WARNINGS???!!? Me and my roommates were not given warnings for our citations, nor were the recipients of citations mentioned in the article. If they aren't trying to punish students for having parties and just control the parties, than it's obvious that they would be warning people before writing citations.
-He says it is not to be used to say nobody can have a party...well this is from the text of the ordinance:

Definitions. A nuisance party is a party or other social gathering
conducted in the city and which, by reason of the conduct of those persons
in attendance, results in any one or more of the following conditions of
occurrences: public drinking or drunkenness; public urination or
defecation; the unlawful sale, furnishing, or consumption of alcoholic
beverages; the unlawful deposit of trash or little on public or private
property; the destruction of public or private property; the generation of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic which obstructs the free flow of
residential traffic or interferes with the ability to provide emergency
services; excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise which disturbs the
repose of the neighborhood public disturbances, brawls, fights or quarrels;
or any other activity resulting in conditions that annoy, injure or
endanger the safety, health, comfort or repose of the neighboring
residents, or results in any obscene conduct, or results in any immoral
exhibition or indecent exposure by persons at the gathering. 

12/1/2000 11:19:51 AM

Maugan you beat me to that one.

Good call JOe, at least you all didnt get arrested!

hey the Abbey made the paper

12/1/2000 1:14:20 PM

we can elect a replacement, but only if most of the students transfer their voter registration to Raleigh

12/1/2000 1:19:44 PM

You've got to FIGHT.........for your RIGHT..........to parrrrrrrrty!

12/1/2000 3:52:43 PM

Nuisance and Disturber

12/2/2000 12:55:11 AM

That was the goal with the petition. I worked with one of my friends and John Borwick from stud. govt. to organize the petition and organize the second brent road party. we had voter registration cards so that people could either register to vote, or transfer their registration to wake county. We had enough signatures that if everyone who signed voted, Benson Kirkman would be out of office. The bottom line is, that regadless of what they do, they cannot keep the brent road party down. Why didn't the police bust up the second brent road party? Simply because they did not have the manpower to do so, as well as not knowing about it in time to make plans. They spent three months and ridiculous amounts of money planning for the first one and that is why they kept the party down. The reality is that they can't and won't arrest everyone, and as it is, Brent Road will live on.

12/5/2000 2:40:41 PM

News & Distorter

12/5/2000 4:38:33 PM

The article printed in the News & _________ (insert favorite N&O pet name here) didn't do much to bring to light the continuing efforts to derail this stupid nuisance ordinance. So let me give you all the inside scoop:

1. Benson Kirkman has made promise after promise to set up times to come meet with some SG officials at State, who have been protesting the ordinance since it all got started, but he has never come through. It wasn't until the article ran that we finally got a call back from his office--a mere coincidence, I'm sure

2. I spoke at the City Council meeting on Nov. 7 and I wish that I could describe the look on Benson Kirkman's face when I told him that SG had registered 2,000 student voters...many of them in his district. He was afraid--that's the only thing that scares these people...ticking off voters. If students vote in a block next Nov., we could EASILY unseat Kirkman.

3. The ordinance is up for review next month...I will keep everyone posted on what comes of the efforts.

12/6/2000 12:00:59 AM

I wasn't even born when this shit went into effect

4/30/2014 10:34:18 PM

Was mead drank at these parties?

4/30/2014 11:47:48 PM

thanks, Obama Bill Clinton

5/1/2014 7:39:46 AM