Unruly rulings shelved again for more work

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 | 7:14 a.m.

Amid complaints that a proposal to crack down on unruly gatherings is unenforceable and probably unconstitutional, a Las Vegas City Council committee Tuesday tabled the controversial plan - for now.

The ordinance was first introduced in September by Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian, but was shelved it because she said it needed to be fine-tuned.

The new draft presented at Tuesday's Recommending Committee meeting closely resembled its predecessor, which last year drew strong opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union and community leaders.

When ACLU officials and Charleston Neighborhood Preservation member Juanita Clark renewed those objections Tuesday, Tarkanian requested another delay so the measure could be overhauled.

"It has the same problems that it had before . It's very vague," said Allen Lichtenstein, an attorney for the ACLU of Nevada.

"It has due process problems, First Amendment problems. It doesn't require anything other than a complaint (for enforcement) , and the Constitution just doesn't work that way."

Unruly gatherings, as defined in the proposal, include "neighborhood parties and other gatherings in residential areas that cause a disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property."

One of its goals is to reduce the costs of providing police or emergency services necessitated by such events by instituting civil penalties to recover expenses. The parties that could be held accountable could include landlords, owners, tenants, resident managers or event organizers.

Under the proposal, as few as two people could cause an unruly gathering, and violations could include excessive noise, traffic or littering.

Clark agrees with the ACLU that the bill is rife with flaws.

"We see nothing redeemable in this thing and don't see any way it could be made functional," Clark said.

Clark also worries that the measure would not be uniformly enforced, saying the type of gathering and where it occurs would influence enforcement.

"Reading this bill, it gave me chills to think that something like this could happen in this country," she said.

ACLU officials emphasize that many of the violations listed in the ordinance are covered by existing laws.

But Councilman Gary Reese, who co-sponsored the ordinance, said it is necessary because existing laws aren't working.

"Those laws require someone to file a complaint and some of the people affected are afraid to do that," Reese said.

Tarkanian acknowledged the bill is geared toward "party houses," where police repeatedly have to respond to noise complaints.

In addition to the potential for random enforcement, opponents also question a provision that would give some powers of enforcement to the city's Neighborhood Services Department.

City Attorney Brad Jerbic defended the proposal, which he said was modeled after ordinances in other cities.

Tarkanian tabled the issue indefinitely and encouraged those with concerns to use the additional time to offer input. She made clear, however, that she believes the ordinance is necessary and that she intends to bring it back at some point.

"This is to protect residents and it was done at the urging of residents," Tarkanian said. "They are scared."