HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PSPRC 013 09/07/2005 2004-2006 RF;PORT OF TIiF.
(Y)MMI"I°I'F;F ON PI~BIJC tiAFFTY AND PARKti AND RF.CRF.ATION
D~~~I'1~: September 7. 2005 Re: Comm. No. 417/Bill Nu. Ids
PI :1C1~: Council Chcimbers
1~1~11~:: K: 30 a.m.
Council Chair and Members
I lawai'i Counh Council
I lilu, I lawai'i X,720
ti'our CununiUcc on Public Salcty and Parks and Recreation. to which was rclcrrcd Bill No. I-)5
rrporis as lulluws:
Bill No. IJ>. ~ransmiucd h~ Council Mcmhcr Pctc Hoflinann, via Communication No. d17.
daicd :August 25. 2005. amends Chapter 24. nrticle 2 Section 24-2d9 of the I Iawai'i County.
Code I'>R> ~ 21105 lidilion), h, prohibit soliciting of votes on or in proximity to a roadway.
~I he impdus fur Bill I-15 arose from concerns of Council Mcanbcr Pcle I Ioffinann of District 9.
rcgardim~ the safely of those campaigning as well as drivers and passengers utilizing County and
State madwacs. Council Mcmhcr I Ioffmann~s position on roadside campaigning is based on the
fullo~aing points:
I~hc volume of U~aflic in I lawai'i County is increasing faster than the rate of inli'asu~ucturc
adjushnents and improvements thus creating more hazardous roadways. Adding the
dislrnclion of roadside campaigning can only exacerbate these dangerous conditions.
• ly9anc jurisdictions within the 1 Iniled States ah'eady prohibit this ibrm of campaigning.
Personal accounts of seeing very "dose calls" during his own experiences of roadside
campaigning, where drivers paid more attention to campaigning eftbrts than the road in front
of them.
• ~I~hc lime of day people tend to campaign has the highest volume oftraflic. increasing rich of
accidcn~s.
• I~hcrc arc nuu» other methods of campaigning that do not have the potential tier serious rill.
and injury.
• It would lake onh~ one accident to cause irreparable damage to a campaign as well as the
po~enlial rill. of liability Ibr any injury ur damage that occurs.
While four Committee linmd the intent of Bill No. 145 to create safer road conditions, to he
prudent and worthy of consideration. several concerns arose during discussion.
~I~hc lirsl concern discussed in committee explored the potential ramilications Bill No. Ids would
hocc regarding constitutionally guaranteed rights of fi'ec speech. f)eputy Corporation Counsel
Lcithcad-~fodd explained that streets and sidewalks arc traditional public ibrums afforded the
hi,~hrst Ic~cl ul~lirst amendment protection. Case ecidcnce was cited to illustrate how previous
attempts to control roadside speech that appeared to endanger the public had been defeated in
court. II was also slated That court rulings had determined that the mere potential for a h~affic
disturbance was not suflicicnt to inhibit free speech and that speech cannot he limited or
restricted based on the reaction of those who hear it.
PSPRC RI?POR~I~ NO. 13
Ms. Lcithcad- fudd further explained that limitations and parameters could be placed on roadside
campaigning, but an outright ban would not pass constitutional muster.
A related concern discussed by Your Committee was the idea that a potential ban on roadside
canyriigning would Icad to hans on other Ibrms of free speech including protesting and
fundraising. the undcrking notion is that if it is unsafe and therefore unlawful to solicit eotcs
~ i,i roudside campaigning. then it would soon Ibllow that other lorms of roadside speech would
hr harmed following that logic and letter of the law.
A separate issue raised resolved around socioeconomic concerns. it was discussed by Your
('onunittec That some potential candidates may not have the resources to compete if roadside
campaigning is eliminated. Alternative methods ofcampaigning: i.e. large functions/parties.
newspaper. radio and tclceision achcrtising and flyer/inlorma~ion packet production may he cosh
prohihiii~c for a potential candidate. This would ultimately create an unfair playing field where
those w ith more resources have a distinct advantage over all other potential candidates.
Considering these issues, it was then suggested the committee could first research what the
current restrictions arc and then ensure these restrictions arc cnlorccd. Secondly it was suggested
that certain areas known to be of high risk could he designated as such oflicially and then
roadside campaigning would be banned in those areas only. third suggestion was to postpone
Bill No. I-l~ and then consider uhering the language to address tree speech issues and to also
consult Police ollicials and others in order to discover the best methods to create a sale
em ironmcnl for roadsidr li'cc speech.
Ultimatcl~_ your commi~tcc decided to call the question and vote on Bill No. 145 in its current
form.
As reileclyd by ~hr vote below, Your Committee on Public Safety and Parks and Kecrcatiun is
not in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No.145 and forwards it to ('ouncil with a
nc~~,iticc rcamnncndalion.
jdh
~~r,~ wra wr. r~ Respec~fullysubmitled
\K.1 h:\hl _ ~ _
nu:.\ I x _ ('OMMII"Il?I? ON PUBLIC SAPE?l Y'
nurrni v~N x nNU PnRKS AND RI?CR~~:A"I~ION
n~~iscm n x
ih~:u,\ x
isi;ei.~. x -
.iu~unso~N 1- x GAR SA ~ARIK. CHAIR
rii,:u:o ~ X - PSPR(' N[~;POKI NO. 13
svrva..: i x , nDOrn~:~~: _SEP_ 2 1 ZQQS