St. Patrick's celebrations

[ijmorlan]

This article sums things up reasonably well.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/...-1.2701387

I'm unclear what enforcement mechanism the city plans to use if someone refuses to produce identification, but from watching the council meeting it sounded like refusing would be a bylaw infraction with a separate fine in and of itself. I don't believe municipal enforcement officers should have the legal authority to compel people to produce identification on pain of fines, and I don't believe the city can legally grant itself that authority.

I finally read that.

It may surprise some to learn that I am not at all sure that a non-driving offence should have the possibility of causing a non-renewal of driving licence. Why should only drivers who are dumb enough to show their licence and/or give their real name to the officer have to pay a fine for violating a bylaw?

Also, what happens if somebody else gives my name, address, and birthdate, none of which are secret or even confidential, when they are stopped by an officer?

[jeffster]

Thanks for the clarification. I am inclined to believe your first sentence above, and I agree with the second. However, I do question whether actually being able to demand identification upon issuing a ticket is really a draconian authority. It seems obvious to me that there is no point in issuing a ticket to an unidentified individual. The only people who will ever be affected by being ticketed are people who aren’t used to lying to bylaw officers; routine offenders will quickly learn a false identity to give.

At least for the police, a person who chooses not to identify themselves, or who the police believe has given them a false identification, can be detained.

As for whether it is truly draconian, here's a question, what is the penalty for not carrying "papers"?

Unless you're driving or committing a crime, you don't have to provide anything to the police, yet alone by-law. At that point, the police have to arrest you, and they, the police, have to deal with the consequences of a false arrest, and whatever else SJW type lawyer can throw at them, hence why police just normally move onto the next idiot that will play ball with them.

The City of Waterloo is going down a very, very dangerous road here, and trying to strong arm a solution that is going to backfire in their face, with the real potential of inciting a riot and the consequences at that. I'm not the brightest bulb out there, but even I know this is all dimwitted thinking on their part.

As I mentioned before, if they really want to solve this without issues, construction season begins in the middle of March, as does water main maintenance and line painting and sidewalk work. As does fire alarm checking. Send out a notice to all those that will be affected by that maintenance work, to give them a head up, get a noise exemption, and start working a 5 am.

[jeffster]

This article sums things up reasonably well.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/...-1.2701387

I'm unclear what enforcement mechanism the city plans to use if someone refuses to produce identification, but from watching the council meeting it sounded like refusing would be a bylaw infraction with a separate fine in and of itself. I don't believe municipal enforcement officers should have the legal authority to compel people to produce identification on pain of fines, and I don't believe the city can legally grant itself that authority.

I finally read that.

It may surprise some to learn that I am not at all sure that a non-driving offence should have the possibility of causing a non-renewal of driving licence. Why should only drivers who are dumb enough to show their licence and/or give their real name to the officer have to pay a fine for violating a bylaw?

Also, what happens if somebody else gives my name, address, and birthdate, none of which are secret or even confidential, when they are stopped by an officer?

This is where it creates a mess: It wasn't me. It's easy to pick off names and birthdays off of FaceBitch, or even Instacrap, give a false name and birthday, and no one would know, as they cannot ask for photo ID. Officials would need some sort of video or photo evidence to prove who you are, and even if you give a fake name, how do they find you?

[ijmorlan]

As I mentioned before, if they really want to solve this without issues, construction season begins in the middle of March, as does water main maintenance and line painting and sidewalk work. As does fire alarm checking. Send out a notice to all those that will be affected by that maintenance work, to give them a head up, get a noise exemption, and start working a 5 am.

I thought I saw a letter to the editor suggesting that an important examination be scheduled for 08:00 March 18 or thereabouts. But honestly I think your idea is more practical. I’m not even sure I’m joking. It’s one of those humorous ideas that just might be the ticket. I’m pretty sure there is a long and honourable tradition of strategically scheduling road works for partisan advantage.

[jeffster]

As I mentioned before, if they really want to solve this without issues, construction season begins in the middle of March, as does water main maintenance and line painting and sidewalk work. As does fire alarm checking. Send out a notice to all those that will be affected by that maintenance work, to give them a head up, get a noise exemption, and start working a 5 am.

I thought I saw a letter to the editor suggesting that an important examination be scheduled for 08:00 March 18 or thereabouts. But honestly I think your idea is more practical. I’m not even sure I’m joking. It’s one of those humorous ideas that just might be the ticket. I’m pretty sure there is a long and honourable tradition of strategically scheduling road works for partisan advantage.

Thanks! And it is a little bit humorous, but in all honesty, I think Waterloo could hit it out of the park on this one and potentially save a lot of money by not getting involved in something that is likely to give them more headaches than the party itself.

It is thinking outside the box, though, and perhaps not sophisticated enough for the likes of their staff.

[danbrotherston]

I thought I saw a letter to the editor suggesting that an important examination be scheduled for 08:00 March 18 or thereabouts. But honestly I think your idea is more practical. I’m not even sure I’m joking. It’s one of those humorous ideas that just might be the ticket. I’m pretty sure there is a long and honourable tradition of strategically scheduling road works for partisan advantage.

Thanks! And it is a little bit humorous, but in all honesty, I think Waterloo could hit it out of the park on this one and potentially save a lot of money by not getting involved in something that is likely to give them more headaches than the party itself.

It is thinking outside the box, though, and perhaps not sophisticated enough for the likes of their staff.

You guys know an exam is 2.5 hours right? And right after an important exam, students often want to blow off some steam by having a drink?  As for planning it after the day, well, plenty of students have a few drinks the night before an exam. Moreover, there's only room for like 500 people or so to write an exam simultaneously, even if you got the entire school writing, that'd only be a fraction of the people who are at the party.

[Bob_McBob]

It's also in a part of the term where it's too late for a midterm and too early for a final, plus many of the attendees aren't even from the region.

Last night I asked the city by Twitter and email where I can find a copy of the updated public nuisance bylaw, but didn't receive a reply to either.

[ijmorlan]

Thanks! And it is a little bit humorous, but in all honesty, I think Waterloo could hit it out of the park on this one and potentially save a lot of money by not getting involved in something that is likely to give them more headaches than the party itself.

It is thinking outside the box, though, and perhaps not sophisticated enough for the likes of their staff.

You guys know an exam is 2.5 hours right? And right after an important exam, students often want to blow off some steam by having a drink?  As for planning it after the day, well, plenty of students have a few drinks the night before an exam. Moreover, there's only room for like 500 people or so to write an exam simultaneously, even if you got the entire school writing, that'd only be a fraction of the people who are at the party.

The exam idea is a joke. The idea we’re taking semi-seriously is the road works one.

Hmmm, maybe we could combine them by closing the road to put up a huge tent with tables for writing an examination.

And then sell beer immediately afterward.

I don’t know if they still do it but at least some UW Physics midterms in the Fall term were called “Oktobertest”.

[KevinL]

How many times can you do works on a given road? They can get away with it once, I imagine, but after that you'll need another excuse.

[ijmorlan]

How many times can you do works on a given road? They can get away with it once, I imagine, but after that you'll need another excuse.

Year 1: sidewalk replacement

Year 2: sewer replacement

Year 3: bury electrical cables

Year 4: water supply replacement

Year 5: gas main replacement

Year 6: telecoms cable replacement

Year 7: repave

At that point all the students who experienced the street party with the street actually useable are gone so you might not need to continue past that.

Of course the extra expense of ripping up the road every year for 7 years might outweigh the cost of policing etc. using the current strategy. So this probably isn’t really workable, but it sure would be funny. Well, until somebody falls in a hole, then not so much.

[Bob_McBob]

The new public nuisance noise provisions approved by council are supposed to take effect at midnight tonight, but there still doesn't appear to be a publicly available copy of the amended public nuisance bylaw. The city has ignored all my attempts to get a copy so far.

[Bob_McBob]

I reached out to Dave Jaworsky on Twitter and the city miraculously posted it 20 minutes later.

https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/re...ndment.pdf

3. Section 9 of By-law Number 2011-125 is hereby amended by adding subsections (b) and ©, as follows:

© Every person shall, upon request by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer or a Police Officer, for the purpose of commencing a proceeding pursuant to this by-law, provide identification, including full name and address, to the Officer.

(d) No person shall provide false, misleading, incomplete or inaccurate identification to a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer or Police Officer.

Failure to provide identification to a Waterloo municipal enforcement officer charging you with an offence under the public nuisance bylaw is now punishable by a fine of between $450 and $25,000 for a first offence.

[Rainrider22]

I reached out to Dave Jaworsky on Twitter and the city miraculously posted it 20 minutes later.

https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/re...ndment.pdf

3. Section 9 of By-law Number 2011-125 is hereby amended by adding subsections (b) and ©, as follows:

© Every person shall, upon request by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer or a Police Officer, for the purpose of commencing a proceeding pursuant to this by-law, provide identification, including full name and address, to the Officer.

(d) No person shall provide false, misleading, incomplete or inaccurate identification to a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer or Police Officer.

Failure to provide identification to a Waterloo municipal enforcement officer charging you with an offence under the public nuisance bylaw is now punishable by a fine of between $450 and $25,000 for a first offence.

How will they know who to fine ?

[Bob_McBob]

Good question. Unless this really is just for show they would have to involve WRPS. Arresting and fining people for not carrying ID would not be a good look for Waterloo.

[Rainrider22]

Good question. Unless this really is just for show they would have to involve WRPS. Arresting and fining people for not carrying ID would not be a good look for Waterloo.

Nor would it even be logistically prudent.  And, there is no authority for police to demand ID of a bylaw investigation.   There would have to be more to it, like a Trespass to Property Act, and even then, you can only arrest if they refuse to ID under the Provincial Offences Act.  Verbal ID is suffice under the POA and TPA...  So you could give a name and walk away.