Fairfax Zoning Proposal Would Limit Assemblies in Private Dwellings (HOA, house)

[dkf747]

If they parked remotely and use a bus or van to shuttle them, would that be a solution to the parking problem?

[achaios]

It would be good enough for me, as long as they don't make loud noise into the night.

[HokieFan]

Coming off a weekend where my next door neighbor had a party on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights; loud, thumping music into the wee hours of each morning; children running wild in the parking lot (instead of the nice, grass covered common area behind the houses); kicking soccer balls into the side of vehicles; losing their skateboard under my husband's car and not telling anyone (it was quite startling when he ran it over) - at this very moment, I would not be opposed to such an ordinance.

I have never been so glad to see the end of a weekend.

Although, they had less than 50 people attend so they wouldn't be breaking it anyway.

[Carlingtonian]

Re. the Constitutional argument, the Constitution does not specifically list freedom to assemble. However, the Court later ruled that it's implied in the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. (See below.) That said, it's hard to see how loud parties are exercise of the freedom to petition the Government.

As to open houses, those would not be affected one bit. Very few open houses (none that I have attended) would have more than 49 people present at once.

I'm all about the freedom to be left alone as long as you're not hurting others. But when your neighbor is having a loud, late-night party every weekend with 50-plus guests each time, your right to the pursuit of happiness is infringed, in my opinion.

From Wikipedia:

The right of assembly was originally distinguished from the right to petition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875),[223] the Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances."[224] Justice Morrison Waite's opinion for the Court carefully distinguished the right to peaceably assemble as a secondary right, while the right to petition was labeled to be a primary right. Later cases, however, paid less attention to these distinctions.[219]

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Re. the Constitutional argument, the Constitution does not specifically list freedom to assemble.

Not sure what Constitution you were taught, but the exact, original verbiage is:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


If the right to assemble was directly tied to the right to petition (only assemble with the point of petitioning), there wouldn't be the comma separating the two.



Bill of Rights Transcript Text


We are granted the express right to peaceably assemble.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

I'm all about the freedom to be left alone as long as you're not hurting others. But when your neighbor is having a loud, late-night party every weekend with 50-plus guests each time, your right to the pursuit of happiness is infringed, in my opinion.

We already have laws limiting the sound level. Just because they are not being enforced does not mean we should pass additional laws taking away freedoms. Enforce noise violations , parking violations, and enforce fire code violations!

Do not enact new laws that take away our freedoms purely because we are inconvenienced.


I am against this law entirely, in principle. But I am also against it because it is arbitrary and nebulous. Why 50 people? Why three times in a 40 day period? If I owned a 10K SF home in Great Falls on 8 acres and space to park 60 cars; who would be bothered if I had 75 people over every single night? What logical reason is there for that be be illegal?

Conversely, what if I owned a two bedroom condo on the 3rd floor in Annandale and brought 45 people into my condo every single night? Let's assume there were no other violations (noise, parking) broken. One can assume that the general congregate of the people would (presumably) exhaust all available guest parking and certainly annoy the heck out of the people in the condo below, as well as others. But this situation would be perfectly legal under the law.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by spencgr

Not sure what Constitution you were taught, but the exact, original verbiage is:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


If the right to assemble was directly tied to the right to petition (only assemble with the point of petitioning), there wouldn't be the comma separating the two.



Bill of Rights Transcript Text


We are granted the express right to peaceably assemble.

The Bill of Rights only says Congress can't pass a law prohibiting peaceable assembly. It doesn't prohibit local authorities from doing so.

As to the meaning as implied by the punctuation, the Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you, as cited in the case above. But clearly, assembly and petition are linked; otherwise, they would have been separated by a semicolon and the word "or," as with the other items in the series.

And if you want to be a literalist, then laws against slander, libel, and "fire" in a crowded theater abridge the freedom of speech.

If you carry the "no restriction on assembly ever at any time" to its logical conclusion, I could hold a continuous, 24-hour outdoor barbecue at my home, so long as the attendees are "peaceable."

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by HokieFan

Coming off a weekend where my next door neighbor had a party on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights; loud, thumping music into the wee hours of each morning;

There is already a law against this....call the police to enforce the noise ordinance if it bothers you.

Curious as to why people seem to think this new law would be enforced, when the current laws clearly are not?

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by spencgr

We already have laws limiting the sound level. Just because they are not being enforced does not mean we should pass additional laws taking away freedoms. Enforce noise violations , parking violations, and enforce fire code violations!

Easier said than done. Even 25 party guests in a standard suburban neighborhood can create more noise and disturbance than most people would want to put up with on a daily basis. Occasionally? Sure. But every weekend? Talk to someone who has had to deal with this, and you'll see their point of view.

Originally Posted by spencgr

Do not enact new laws that take away our freedoms purely because we are inconvenienced.

But what about the freedom of the homeowner to enjoy his/her home in reasonable tranquility? Why does one person's "right" to host large parties unusually frequently trump someone else's right not to be continually subjected to excessive numbers of non-residents parking on a neighborhood street or unreasonable levels of noise?

Originally Posted by spencgr

I am against this law entirely, in principle. But I am also against it because it is arbitrary and nebulous. Why 50 people? Why three times in a 40 day period? If I owned a 10K SF home in Great Falls on 8 acres and space to park 60 cars; who would be bothered if I had 75 people over every single night? What logical reason is there for that be be illegal? Conversely, what if I owned a two bedroom condo on the 3rd floor in Annandale and brought 45 people into my condo every single night? Let's assume there were no other violations (noise, parking) broken. One can assume that the general congregate of the people would (presumably) exhaust all available guest parking and certainly annoy the heck out of the people in the condo below, as well as others. But this situation would be perfectly legal under the law.

You make a good point here, I admit. Perhaps the restriction on number of visitors should be based on square footage.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

But what about the freedom of the homeowner to enjoy his/her home in reasonable tranquility?

Unfortunately, the freedom to enjoy a reasonable tranquility in your home is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Many people are irritated by neighbors doing many different things, not just parties. What if my neighbor decides to park 5 work trucks, an old school bus, and two muscle cars in their yard? Whenever I look out the window to see the beautiful Loudoun countryside, all I see is this ugly parking lot? Because I am irritated, should there be a law against this?

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Why does one person's "right" to host large parties unusually frequently trump someone else's right not to be continually subjected to excessive numbers of non-residents parking on a neighborhood street or unreasonable levels of noise?

Only in America - our biggest problem is having to park farther away from our house because someone is legally, peacably assembling? Thank you, thank you, Founding Fathers!! You precise and pointed words creating our Constitution have held up wonderfully for 235+ years.