[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

[Patrick Nooney]

Honestly, Steve, this is simply a feel-good exercise.  The evidence shows
that repeat offenders are NOT deterred by threats (or reality) of fines,
loss of license or confiscation of vehicles.  The only thing that deters DUI
and repeat DUI (or DWI) offenders is personal responsibility.  In absence of
personal motivation to be responsible, social embarrassment and social
castration become the next tools in line.  After that, the only thing that
can keep the rest of us safe is simply lock up every offender, show no mercy
and eat the cost.  

 

If people want to be, and are not embarrassed by being, drunk and stoned,
nothing is going to deter them.  The question becomes how do we individuals
protect ourselves with them on the loose.

 

----- Patrick

 

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Steve Adler
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:25 AM
To: David Strohmaier; Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

 

Like many,  I believe that drunk driving is a universal "bad" and should be
clamped down on.  The trouble I have with an automatic fine is that it
assumes guilt - on the spot - before innocence.  The good part of the
breathalyzer, itself, is that it's whole intent is to help determine guilt
or innocence.  That makes sense to me.  You get pulled over, you get tested.
And it seems that there are plenty of other legalities requiring a driver to
take the breathalyzer test.  

 

To me, a fine is no stronger a deterrent than losing your license.  If
adding a fine proves to be a really effective deterrent, I will certainly
stand corrected.  If it is not, it just adds insult.

 

I've spoken to several folks who have their hackles up about this and who
have said they would refuse the breathalyzer, just on principle, even when
stone cold sober.  I don't think this is the type of relationship the
citizenry wants to have with law enforcement.  In my conversations, the
elephant in the room seems to be revenue.  Under the impression that a fine
- on top of losing a license - is redundant, folks are pretty free about
making assumptions.  But does anyone know if this would be a revenue
generator? Or will it cost the City more to deal with the fall-out than any
fines will cover?   If it's perceived as "just" a revenue generator, is that
what we want our law enforcement spending their time and effort on?   If it
costs the city more to implement, without proof of effectiveness, is that
what we want our law enforcement spending their time and effort on?  Any
evidence on effectiveness one way or another?  What is the experience or
inclination of our law enforcement agencies?

 

Steve Adler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: David <mailto:dstrohmaier at msn.com>  Strohmaier 

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:57 AM

To: Bob Jaffe <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>  ; missoulagov at cmslists.com 

Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

 

One point of clarification--as near as I can tell after reviewing the
recently passed Darby ordinance, it is identical to the Missoula ordinance
(with the exception to "Darby" having been inserted where our proposed
ordinance says "Missoula"). Unless there is some other bit of text that they
inserted into our ordinance that I missed, to the extent that it is
identical, there is no provision that someone must first be convicted of a
DUI before being fined.
 
Dave

Dave Strohmaier



 

  _____  

From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:43:16 -0600
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

Greetings,

This morning at 8:30 the whole block out front from council chambers was
already closed off for the Sean Kelley's St. Patrick's Day beer garden.
There was some irony in this as we were starting the day with our DUI
discussion.  I'm still not settled on how I feel about this one. The
ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to refuse a breathalyzer test.
According to the Ordinance the purpose is to "deter persons from engaging in
this [DUI] dangerous activity."

Some new thoughts from today:

We don't have local data yet but a national study shows that refusing a test
does not reduce conviction rates.

We were told that this may be true but it takes more money and resources to
obtain those convictions.

According to Montana Statute, by driving on a public road you automatically
give consent to a test.

Miranda rights apply to testimony, not physical evidence. A sobriety test is
considered physical evidence.

If you give your consent to a breath test, and pass, you can be required to
take a blood test.

The new Darby ordinance penalizes a person for refusing a test only if they
are subsequently convicted of DUI.

One of the motivations for the ordinance is to encourage the legislature to
strengthen state laws.

 

The public hearing is set for March 22nd.

 

Next was conservation where we learned about two new open space purchases.
The first is a section of land in Marshal Canyon on the back of Mt. Jumbo.
It is currently held by the nature conservancy and there are existing public
road easements across the parcel. Ultimately this land will need to be sold
by the nature conservancy and it is desirable as a home site. So this is a
good choice for transfer to city open space. It is 216 acres for $216,000.
Purchasing this piece secures the trail connection between the rattlesnake
and East Missoula.

The other parcel is 304 acres in the North Hills above the land fill. At
some point Allied Waste purchased this land along with another large parcel
to the west of the landfill. Their intention is to save the parcel to the
west for future expansion in about 20 years.  The parcel higher up the hill
they purchased with the intent of setting up a conservation easement. The
appraised value of the easement is $2,205,000. We are paying them $445,000
from the open space fund and $50,000 from Five Valleys Land Trust. The
$1,710,000 balance is being donated by Allied Waste.  This is another
important connecting piece for the elk range.

  

In PAZ we had an uneventful discussion about updates to the growth policy
regarding sand and gravel resources and the wild land urban interface.

 

In A&F we learned about an effort to set up a new farmers market on Sundays
over by the Carousel. Everyone was supportive of the idea. It should start
in mid-May. We also approved another one of those Economic Development Grant
applications that the city has to sign on to. This one was for WGM group to
get something like $22,000 to help set up a program to hire a few engineers
from Smurfit Stone. Dick Haines was the only vote against the item. This
broke our three week streak of all unanimous votes. Dick insisted the item
be placed on committee reports on Monday night but refused to offer any
comment or reason for his negative vote. I'm always baffled by this. If he's
got a problem with the thing why not say what it is so the rest of us can
consider his point. This would also give staff the opportunity to respond
and possibly settle his objection. By forcing it to committee reports it
also forces staff to come to the meeting on Monday. I imagine each time he
does this it must cost the tax payers at least $100. I'm hoping he has
something meaningful to offer on Monday.

 

In Public Works we got an update on all the construction projects that are
coming up. There are a ton of them this year all over the valley. We have
the big roundabout up in Miller Creek; the North Higgins reconstruction
downtown; A ton of sidewalk installations all over ward 6; Brooks between
Higgins and Mount will be rebuilt; Greenough Drive from Spruce to the north
hills trail is getting curbs and sidewalk. There will also be the pedestrian
bridge replacement up in greenough park and a bunch of new park equipment
installations. Through some other recovery money we will be installing some
fire hydrants in the franklin to the fort neighborhood and repairing the
decking on the northside pedestrian bridge. 

 

Some details on the Brooks street project are that the road will be widened
about three feet on either side. There will be parking on both sides, bike
lanes, and one driving lane each way. This section does not currently have
curbs so most of the intrusion into the boulevard is already worn and parked
on.  Most of the trees on this stretch are very old and nearing the end of
their lives. There are a few that may need to be taken out as part of the
project. 

 

Remember to rake your leaves out this week!!

 

Thanks for your interest,

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward Three

1225 South 2nd West

Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 880-2052

 

Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to
City business may be considered public or private records depending on the
message content. The City is often required by law to provide public records
to individuals requesting them. The City is also required by law to protect
private, confidential information. This message is intended for the use of
the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient
of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not forward
the message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you

  _____  

_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20100320/2be5f966/attachment.htm>