Solar/Wind City Ordinance

[Zoidberg]

Would anyone else be good enough to post a copy of the solar/wind city limit bill, or better yet a link to it?

There's a strong possibility that it could violate state law.

[Neil]

Are you kidding… link to online city ordinances. I have requested this from Dave Kunko, City Clerk, many times but it hasn’t and probably won’t happen any time soon. So in the mean time, contact Dave Kunko, 575-637-6216 and request a PDF version of the ordinance now that it has been approved by CC.

I will PM you with his personal email address also. Got in big trouble last time a posted a government employee personal email address. The city should be giving all government employees a city sponsored email address for public use.

Not completely true.

http://www.roswell-usa.com/city/ordinances/

[kralspaces]

Good fine Neil. However, this link is only the zoning ordinances and it is not up to date. The city clerk was not even aware of it and is verifying it with the City Planner who had it posted by the City IT guy.

The City's operations are based on city ordinances and there are hundreds of them. Unfornutately, not all of the ordinances have been PDF'ized. The city clerk is currently working on this. When that project is completed, a link will be added to the 'new' city web site so that people like me will have access to all the ordinance online.

[Daisy]

Well, our city is now considering a ban on cell phone use while driving. Another useless (in my opinion) ordinance our already short staffed Police Dept. will have to try and enforce.

I was wondering how the policemen feel about it - yay or nay?

When the city tries to ban nose picking while driving, I'm really gonna be ticked off! :naughty:

[John M. Cleary]

I've always seen laws, like this cell phone ban and mandatory seat belts as just a "legal weapon" , to get around probable cause.

" Your honor I initially pulled the suspect over because I could not see his seat belt and I thought maybe he had a cell phone to his ear. Then I discovered...."

I'm not saying that will happen here but I know for a fact that in Indianapolis, In., they waste a lot of real law enforcement time on seat belt check points, 10 to 12 officers peeking in windows at a intersection...it really is sort of a media stunt.

I would hate for a already over extended Roswell Police Force, have to stage the same type of event or be required to use a cell phone ordinance and its enforcement as a media stunt to say they are on the job.

In fact if someone is driving erratically, they can be pulled over and charged with reckless driving, a new ordinance is not really needed.

[Daisy]

Interesting - I've never looked at it as an attempt to get around probable cause.

There are many people who drive perfectly well while eating, talking on a phone, jamming down to music, etc. Then there are those who can't drive well just talking to the person next to them, or even when they are alone and concentrating. And yes, it's smarter to wear a seat belt, but it should NOT be a law. You can't get rid of irresponsibility and stupidity, no matter how many intrusive laws you make.

I see it more as having another useless ordinance to garner more money from stupid tickets. I heard on the news today than Santa Fe is wanting to raise a lot of their 'useless ordinance' fines - some up to $100. What our local governments need to realize is that they will NEVER stop accidents from happening and heaping on the useless ordinances only makes people angry and makes more unnecessary work for law enforcement. I think we should leave our policemen and women free to tackle the real criminals, not those who don't wear seat belts or talk on cell phones. Sheesh, it seems like a no brainer............:pinch:

[RPD COP]

We already have an ordinace that would cover the cell phone. You cannot have: A person in you lap, animal in your lap, arm around another, or anything else that interfers with driving such as cell phone in ear, ear phones for stereo etc.

Its only seldomly enforced for those that really need it. If I see a person on a cell phone driving eratic, running stop signs then I pull them over. If I see someone on a cell phone driving normal I leave them alone. Same with a dog. If I see you with a poodle on you lap and you driving fine I leave you alone. If your great dane is on your lap interfering with your driving I stop you.

Most people use common sense and know what will interfer with their driving. I dont really think we need a cell phone law. But that just me.

[Daisy]

It seems to me that you use good old common sense when enforcing laws - I think that's all that's necessary. Not more useless ordinances.

City government can't control all aspects of people's lives, nor should they try too. :no3:

[RPD COP]

There is a smoking ban. I dont agree with it. Im not a smoker so I have no hidden agenda. There are laws for a reason, but I think it goes to far to restrict a business to be all non-smoking. Same with a cell phone ban. I drive all the time while talking. I call my fellow officers, detectives, dispatchers. Its how we handle business sometimes. But for the city to restrict when I can and cant use my phone?? As I said before we already have a ordinance in place for this if they would just look and read the ordinance that would cover use of cell phone while driving.

[Daisy]

....if they would just look and read the ordinance that would cover use of cell phone while driving.

Maybe someone should point that out to the committee. How does the public get the ordinances to read for themselves and which ordinance in particular are you talking about? If there is already one to cover cell phone use, we sure as hell don't need another!! You should only be pulled over if you are driving recklessly - whatever the reason.

My husband works out in the oil and gas fields and also does business over his truck phone. Are they gonna try to ban those, too, I wonder??

[RPD COP]

Here it is:

city ordinance 12-6-12.18

Prohibited Activities While Driving.

No person shall:

1. Drive a vehicle while engaged in any activity which interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle;
2. Drive while having in his lap any person, adult or minor, or any animal
3. Drive while seated in the lap of another person while the vehicle is in motion
4. Drive a vehicle while having either arm around another person; or operate a motor vehicles equipment, including but not limited to the vehicle horn or lights, in such manner as to distract other motorists on the public way or in such a manner as to disturb the peace.


I think talking on a cell phone would be covered under number 1??


My ordinace book is kind of thick but if you want a copy of this ordinance or any others let me know Daisy.

[Daisy]

Thank you so much for the ordinance, RPD COP, and the offer of others I may want! I think I feel a letter to the editor coming on. :rolleyes:

[Swadlo]

You would think that if the council is going to draft and pass dumb laws/ordinances they would at least hire enough policemen to enforce these new ordinances. Kinda looks like the council is creating an oxymoron.

Swadlo

[saw]

The police committee members are Art Sandoval, chairman, home phone 625-1968-- e-mail coyotes@yahoo.com, Lee Rogers business phone 622-6221, home 625-0571, fax 624-2883 e-mail lrogers@atwoodmalone.com, and Elena Velasquez Offic/home 623-2160 E-mail elena@adanscollsioncenter.com .

Call them, e-mail them and tell them we have a city ordinance 12-6-12.18 that prohibits certain activities while driving. This ordinance will cover the usage of a cell phone if it interfers with the safe operation of a vehical.

We don't need any more ordinances !!!

I am going to call them and make it clear that we don't need any more ordinances.

[Daisy]

Thanks for the contact info, saw. I'll email each of them. All of you who don't like the possibility of a cell phone ordinance need to call or write, too. It's not enough to just complain about the way things are done - action needs to be taken if we want things to change.

[Daisy]

Uh oh, my emails to Sandoval and Velasquez came back as undeliverable. Maybe those are old ones??

[saw]

I will find out in the AM and post ASAP new E-mail addresses.

[Daisy]

Well, an article in today's paper stated that now the Police committee is only looking at a ban on texting while driving. I received a reply from councilman Rogers saying the same thing. I emailed him back saying that's not a necessary ban, either; citing Prohibited Activities While Driving #1 in the city ordinance.

1. Drive a vehicle while engaged in any activity which interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle.

That pretty much covers it ALL, in my opinion. NO MORE UNECESSARY ORDINANCES, dang it!! :no3:

[John M. Cleary]

Another law on the books to taut at election time.......I'd love to see some one on any level run to repeal unnecessary laws, for a change.

[Daisy]

I would love to see that, too. Maybe we should start looking for those people to run for city council and mayor. I hate to use the phrase, but it's time for change here in Roswell.

[Billy Wood]

Another law on the books to taut at election time.......I'd love to see some one on any level run to repeal unnecessary laws, for a change.
John you may want to read this,

Wanting to possibly reduce "the red tape to make it easier for companies to relocate to Roswell," Wood said he would like to revisit some old laws. "There are undoubtedly a number of outdated ordinances on the books, and if they don't address current issues, they need to be gleaned," he said...
read more (http://roswell-record.com/main.asp?SectionID=97&SubSectionID=265&ArticleID=21089&TM=61987)

Here is my flyer from when I ran in 2008 if you want to look at it.
Front (http://www.sprhost.com/flyer/flyerfront.pdf) and Back (http://www.sprhost.com/flyer/flyerback.pdf)

[Daisy]

Very cool, 'Roswell'! I hadn't seen your flyer before - thanks for posting it. I would have voted for you had you been in my ward. My only choice was Mr. Maples - didn't vote for him, either. :no3:

You're right, John, we need people in city gov't. who will get rid of these unnecessary city ordinances!

[Swadlo]

Way to go Billy. We need 4 more candidates

Any takers. I would run but am physically unable to as I am fighting Lung Cancer. Got it in Nam and didn't even know it. Agent Orange
But I will help all I can.
Swadlo

[John M. Cleary]

Billy, if they annex me you have my vote.....either way you'll have my support.

Thank you

[saw]

An update from City Hall indicates that Elena Velasquez does not show an E-mail address but they show Art Sandoval still good at coyoteas@yahoo.com.

[Daisy]

Okay, that's a different address than you posted the first time for Sandoval. It has an 'a' in it. Maybe he changed it up a little.

[saw]

Nope, I made a mistake, sorry:ohwell: Did you note Officer Holly's comments In RDR. It sounded like, oh well you might as well add another ordinance that we can't enforce.

[Daisy]

Yeah, in the reply I got from Mr. Rogers, he stated that Chief Smith doesn't think this cell phone/texting ordinance will be any burden to our officers. I was thinking maybe the committee should ask the officers and not the Chief.

Mr. Rogers did answer my email, though, and was very nice. I don't always get replies from our elected officials (the mayor). I will send an email to Mr. Sandoval, too, because city ordinance 12-6-12.18 already says it all! We don't need a new ordinance just cuz the big boys in Albuquerque and Santa Fe have it!

Repeat after me...............No more useless ordinances!!! :no3:

[Scott]

Yeah, in the reply I got from Mr. Rogers, he stated that Chief Smith doesn't think this cell phone/texting ordinance will be any burden to our officers. I was thinking maybe the committee should ask the officers and not the Chief.

Mr. Rogers did answer my email, though, and was very nice. I don't always get replies from our elected officials (the mayor). I will send an email to Mr. Sandoval, too, because city ordinance 12-6-12.18 already says it all! We don't need a new ordinance just cuz the big boys in Albuquerque and Santa Fe have it!

Repeat after me...............No more useless ordinances!!! :no3:

I have to agree with Daisy on theis one. if you cause an accident while on the phone you can be cited for prohibited activities while driving. Just the same as if you have your dog in your lap, are putting on makeup, playing with the radio or GPS, etc. Why would we need a specific ordinance for this? Because it is the popular thing to do right now?

[saw]

Reply to the author of the editorial in Sunday's RDR.

You have stated that you think that this texting ordinance might stop some people from texting because it is the law. I agree with you and think that we need to add some more things to it that are distractions while driving like, eating a chili dog , drinking a coke (one of those big cups can block your vision), drinking hot coffee, steering with one leg while adding catsup to french fries, thinking about the fight you had with your better half, spilling coffee in your lap, plucking ones eyebrows, putting on make-up, combing your hair, admiring yourself in the mirrow, singing along with rap music, screaming kids in the backseat, watching girls in short-short shorts walking down the sidewalk, talking to people in the back seat, five people in the front seat, thinking about your income tax return, looking at movies on your cell phone, reading the RDR, looking up phone numbers in the phone book, digging in your purse for your cell phone, trying to clean the mustard off of your dress that just leaked out of your cheeseburger, swatting at flies, bees,and spiders, eating top heavy dripping ice cream cones, eating a sundae while steering with one leg, rocking out to rap music, your dog throwing up in the seat, looking at a new dress in the show window, having sex, and I could go on to name a lot more.

If we are going to add a texting ordinance we should include all of the distractions that we can think of and make them illegal or maybe just use the ordinance that is already on the books that covers all of the above including texting.

PS; loved Keith Bell's cartoon!!!!

[jsatterfield]

Saw, let in could pickin your nose, that just drives me crazy watching people with half their finger shoved up their nose setting at a traffic light. :puke:

[Daisy]

Excellent reply, saw! You pretty much covered it all - except the nose picking and j got that one.

Having sex? Really? Do people DO that while driving?? :fear2:

Never received a reply from Sandoval, chairman of the Police Committee. I may not get one at all if the editor prints my letter about the city leaders meeting with the "Alliance for Peace and Justice". That article ticked me off so much that I wrote a rather nasty letter calling that meeting the garbage that it was. I'm really tired of the city councilors and the mayor throwing the Police Dept. under every bus that comes along and said so in the letter. Where's the frickin' support they're supposed to have for our law enforcers???

Alliance for Peace and Justice - what a crock - yeah, I'm still pissy about it! :mad:

[jsatterfield]

Come on, who hasn't had sex while driving down the road, expressly between Roswell and Vaughn. :naughty:Is that not what all them gravel roads and rest stops are for along the highway? If this truck is rockin don't brother knockin. ROFLMAO

[Daisy]

Come on, who hasn't had sex while driving down the road, expressly between Roswell and Vaughn.

A lady never tells that sort of thing.

Hee, hee - I'm not really a lady, I just play one on the forum.

I have the right to remain silent - so I'm gonna.......... :hypocrite:

[Russell Ross]

We already have enough ordinances to cover all traffic violations.To enforce such an ordinance an officer would have to testify the driver was texting and not just looking up a phone number in the address list or using the phone as a calculator. Careless Driving or Prohibited Activites While Driving would certainly cover any cellular phone use.

[Daisy]

Excellent points, Mr. Ross - I agree totally............:)

By the way, the CHAIRMAN of the Police Committee NEVER answered my letter about the useless ordinance. This is the same guy ( Art Sandoval) who didn't show up for the RPOA/Citizens meeting. Hmmm, maybe he'll show up at the meeting on APRIL 28th........:rolleyes:

[zbratkat]

...I see you with a poodle on you lap and you driving fine I leave you alone...

Most people use common sense and know what will interfer with their driving. I dont really think we need a cell phone law. But that just me.

LOL...I passed a cop the other day with my poodle on my lap. Was that you. *grin*

Reading the ordinance already on the books concering driving made me think of my poodle riding on my lap. I never knew it was against the law. So, of course I'll abide by it now that I know.

What it sounds like you're saying here is that if you are on a cell phone and not driving eratically, then it's an OK thing to do.

So the current law is not any good, especially if the law already specifies something and it is ignored by police officers.

I suppose those against the cell phone ordinance are right. Another useless law.

Shame...more police officers needed to uphold the laws already on our books.

[RPD COP]

We do uphold all laws on the books, but so far we still have discretion, and common sense we rely on. Was your poodle making you drive eratic? Im sure you have common sense to know when its ok for it to be on your lap, and I have discretion and common sense to uphold the law, and know when to uphold the law. If I upheld every law or stopped every person violating the law thats all I would be doing. Some minor violations get overlooked so we can still respond to major calls for service, and still show a police presence around town instead of just traffic stop after traffic stop.

Maybe Im wrong. Im on the inside looking outward, and most others are on the outside looking in at the police dept.

[zbratkat]

We do uphold all laws on the books, but so far we still have discretion, and common sense we rely on. Was your poodle making you drive eratic? Im sure you have common sense to know when its ok for it to be on your lap, and I have discretion and common sense to uphold the law, and know when to uphold the law. If I upheld every law or stopped every person violating the law thats all I would be doing. Some minor violations get overlooked so we can still respond to major calls for service, and still show a police presence around town instead of just traffic stop after traffic stop.

Maybe Im wrong. Im on the inside looking outward, and most others are on the outside looking in at the police dept.


I understand exactly what you are saying and I truly wasn't trying to direct my comment to you, merely make a point about laws.

I apologize if you felt like I was attacking you for not upholding the law and doing your job. As I said, I never even knew it was against the law to have her on my lap until this thread.

99% of the time, she does not pose a problem, nor would any small animal. But there is that 1% of the time, which is why there is a law concerning animals, I assume.

Cell phones are the same way. There have been occasions where I came close to hitting something or someone or weaving off the road, eratic driving I guess. Which ultimatley means I have no business on a cell phone while driving, nor does anyone else have any business on a cell phone while driving.

IF they passed a new ordinance about cell phone usage, would you uphold the law or use common sense when seeing someone and only pull then if driving eratically when you see them?

[Daisy]

but so far we still have discretion, and common sense we rely on.

And I commend you for that. We need more common sense, not more laws. You can't outlaw "stupid" no matter how hard you try.

99% of the time, she does not pose a problem, nor would any small animal. But there is that 1% of the time, which is why there is a law concerning animals, I assume.

In my opinion, there shouldn't BE a law about a 1 or 2% chance of something.

[RPD COP]

Depends, if its a total ban on cell phone usage I would uphold it. When possible I would stop persons I see using holding a phone to their ear and obviously talking. It its a texting ban I would try to uphold it.

The problem I see, and have spoke to Judge Loy at Municipal court is that if I, the officer cannot clearly state or testify to him in trial that the person was talking, not just holding the cell phone up to ear, which again common sense who holds a cell phone to their ear without talking. The texting is even harder. I have to testify that they were texting. What if they were just looking up a number, or opening the phone up or looking at the screen to see who is calling. I can't make them show me their phone and check to see if they were texting without a search warrant or I just violated their constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

It can get hard to enforce these laws.

[zbratkat]

Depends, if its a total ban on cell phone usage I would uphold it. When possible I would stop persons I see using holding a phone to their ear and obviously talking. It its a texting ban I would try to uphold it.

The problem I see, and have spoke to Judge Loy at Municipal court is that if I, the officer cannot clearly state or testify to him in trial that the person was talking, not just holding the cell phone up to ear, which again common sense who holds a cell phone to their ear without talking. The texting is even harder. I have to testify that they were texting. What if they were just looking up a number, or opening the phone up or looking at the screen to see who is calling. I can't make them show me their phone and check to see if they were texting without a search warrant or I just violated their constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

It can get hard to enforce these laws.


Seems that this type of court BS keeps you from doing your job adequately. They are tying your hands behind your back. It's a shame. You can't win for losing. I admire you for the job you do. I know I couldn't do it.

[Daisy]

Depends, if its a total ban on cell phone usage I would uphold it. When possible I would stop persons I see using holding a phone to their ear and obviously talking. It its a texting ban I would try to uphold it.

Yep, cuz you don't have anything more important to do, huh??? Like stopping REAL criminals. It's a shame that so many USELESS laws take y'all away from the important stuff. What's wrong with this picture????? :fever:

[zbratkat]

Yep, cuz you don't have anything more important to do, huh??? Like stopping REAL criminals. It's a shame that so many USELESS laws take y'all away from the important stuff. What's wrong with this picture????? :fever:

What is your definition of a useless law, daisy?

[Daisy]

My definition of a useless law is one where there is no victim and no criminal. Not using a seatbelt doesn't make one a criminal. Smoking in a public place does not make one a criminal. Talking on a cell phone while driving doesn't make one a criminal. Here's a shocker - hiring a prostitute does not make one a criminal. Ooops, I mean it shouldn't - that's the biggest victimless crime of all in my book. Gov't has no right to go there. There are also no victims to these so called 'crimes'.

Useless laws are imposed on the public by governments who want to control way too much of our private lives.

YOU CAN'T OUTLAW STUPID AND A GOVERNMENT THAT TRIES TO DO SO IS INFRINGING UPON OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS OF A FREE COUNTRY.

That's my opinion, anyway.............:smk3:

[zbratkat]

Here's a shocker - hiring a prostitute does not make one a criminal. Ooops, I mean it shouldn't - that's the biggest victimless crime of all in my book.

I can definitely agree with you there. But when oral sex is still illegal between husband and wife in some states, one can only imagine the outrage in some people's minds about a private thing between consenting adults.

Kinda' like the gay marriage issue. Amazing how many people want something in the constitution 'outlawing' something between two people. Amazing that, as Miss California stated, traditional marriage needs to be protected. From what exactly? My marriage could never be in jeapardy because two gay people desided they wanted the same rights and benefits afforded to me in my marriage between them and their chosen life partner.

Givernment IS ridiculous on some issues. But so are we. But then again, we ARE the goverment. We ARE the people.

[Daisy]

But then again, we ARE the goverment. We ARE the people.

Correction - We SHOULD be the government. It hasn't been that way for quite awhile now and in many states, people are trying to get back to it. There are some of us who want to get back to it here in Roswell, too.

We will be starting a citizen's group soon for people who think our city leaders should be working for us and not their own private interests.

I realize that was off topic, but I couldn't resist. :devil2:

Now, back to city ordinances...........

[zbratkat]

We will be starting a citizen's group soon for people who think our city leaders should be working for us and not their own private interests.


I'd very much enjoy knowing what plans are in the works to make a change.

[Daisy]

Stay tuned - we will be posting it once we get it together.

City ordinances will be something we can discuss in our citizens group, too.

[zbratkat]

Stay tuned - we will be posting it once we get it together.

City ordinances will be something we can discuss in our citizens group, too.


Now if I can just learn how to act like an adult and not stomp my feet and say nasty things to others when someone doesn't agree with me on something. :nasty:

[saw]

City ordinances should NEVER be passed unless they can be enforced.

For instance the smoking ordinance, A law enforcement agent must witness the person with a lite cigarette in his hand or mouth or a citizen can file a complaint and show up in court to make their claim.

[zbratkat]

City ordinances should NEVER be passed unless they can be enforced.

For instance the smoking ordinance, A law enforcement agent must witness the person with a lite cigarette in his hand or mouth or a citizen can file a complaint and show up in court to make their claim.

In some cases, I can see, understand and accept your valid point, saw.

However, a police officer must witness the person speeding as well.

[saw]

A speeding car is a lot more noticable and much more dangerous than a lite cigarett.

[Daisy]

I'm hoping this silly cell phone/texting ordinance will just go away, but knowing how our city councilors are, I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of it.

Remember, send your letters to the councilors and the mayor and the paper to voice your opinions on these useless ordinances. We can make a difference if we band together and let our concerns be known.

[zbratkat]

A speeding car is a lot more noticable and much more dangerous than a lite cigarett.

That is your opinion based on flawed information, my friend.

[saw]

How many people die of lung cancer each year?

How many people die from auto accidents?

[Daisy]

Time to get back on topic, here...........that would be city ordinances. :smk2:

[zbratkat]

How many people die of lung cancer each year?

How many people die from auto accidents?


I apologize, saw. I guess we can't post anything slightly off-topic, lest we raise the ire of moderators. lol

[Daisy]

Zoidberg opened a thread for y'all to finish this discussion.

Smoking vs. Auto Accidents, etc.,et al (http://www.talkroswell.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1015)

Thanks, Zoidberg!!

[zbratkat]

Zoidberg opened a thread for y'all to finish this discussion.

Smoking vs. Auto Accidents, etc.,et al (http://www.talkroswell.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1015)

Thanks, Zoidberg!!


Just so I get this straight and don't break any rules around here, stray off topic, interupt a thought, disagree with the wrong person on the wrong topic, you know, anything along those lines...

This thread is about city ordinances. So what exactly is ON topic concerning city ordinances if discussing specific issues concerning city ordinances is against the rules?

[saw]

A woman ran over a motorcycle and the man was killed. She was painting here fingernails while she was driving. Maybe Sandoval should add this to his texting ordinance. (This was in California, I think)

[jsatterfield]

Yes damn it we have to make a law for it, How else will people know not to paint your fingernails while driving. law number 1,000,000,005 section z paragraph 10.5002.900.6 things not to do while driving.:pinch: