doc
09-14-2007, 12:45 PM
My home town is joining Atlanta and other cities trying to pull Americas youths pants up, something I applaud and hope gets passed. Of course the ACLU is opposing this :rolleyes:
DISSENTERS FEW FOR BAGGY PANTS ORDINANCE
By AmyJo Brown/OF THE COMMERCIAL STAFF
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:03 AM CDT
A proposed city law that would fine people wearing sagging pants $200 is facing little public opposition so far — despite a warning from the American Civil Liberties Union that the law could be unconstitutional.
The first reading of the proposed ordinance was read Tuesday at the Pine Bluff City Council meeting, and three people showed up to share comments with the city leaders. Only one was against the proposal.
Steven Mays, the president and chairman of the board of the Family Community Development Corp., said he thought a ban on sagging is a good idea.
“Most of the ones who wear pants that are sagging are thugs,” he said to some murmurs of disapproval. “They smoke weed all day. They steal.”
“Not all of them,” he added at the end of his comments as the murmurs grew louder.
Wanda Bateman, a resident in the 700 block of West Second Avenue, said she also feels that banning sagging would make the city a better place to live. She said she is a landlord and was getting ready to show property to a potential renter recently when she was attacked by a young man wearing sagging pants, after she asked him to go inside or leave the property.
“We need to have an ordinance for this and (have) a much better image for the city,” she said.
Barbara Blunt Muhammad, from the 1200 block of North Palm Street, was the only one who spoke against the proposed ordinance. She said she remembers when adults didn’t like the mini-skirts and hairstyles she used to wear.
“This is their fad,” she said. “I think it should not even be on the (city) agenda. Every city councilor should vote against it.”
She also said she believes a $200 fine would be too much of a hardship on young people.
Several aldermen, however, said they are in favor of the law, which was proposed by 3rd Ward Alderman Derwood Smith.
“Sagging is not appropriate,” said 1st Ward Alderman Irene Holcomb.
Fourth Ward Alderman Janice L. Roberts also said she was supportive of the idea — although she did ask the mayor to schedule an additional public hearing on the topic to draw more feedback from the community. No date for such a hearing was set Tuesday night.
“I’m in favor of it,” Roberts said, adding that she doesn’t want to violate anyone’s human rights. “I just want to be sure we aren’t violating any laws.”
First Ward Alderman Thelma Walker said she hadn’t yet made up her mind on the issue, but at the least the discussion on the topic could be good for the city.
“I think it’s good character-building overall,” she said about the debate.
The draft ordinance, as proposed, says that the display of undergarments creates an unnecessary distraction and “an offensive visual condition to others.” It also says that those who wear the style risk personal injury from tripping over their clothes.
It would make it illegal for any person to appear in public “attired in such a manner as to purposely or knowingly expose all or part of his or her underwear or undergarments,” which are defined as men’s briefs, long johns, boxers, women’s panties, briefs, bras and thongs — as well as any other item of attire designed as underwear and intended to be worn next to the skin while fully covered by other clothing.
People could also get in trouble if they “knowingly or recklessly expose (their) sex organs.”
The ordinance makes exceptions for people performing in the theater or in other artistic performances where an audience is present by choice. It also excludes legal exotic dancing.
Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU, said the ordinance is written too broadly to withstand a constitutional challenge.
The proposed law will be read publicly at the next two council meetings, where public comments will continue to be taken, before the eight members on the council cast their votes.
DISSENTERS FEW FOR BAGGY PANTS ORDINANCE
By AmyJo Brown/OF THE COMMERCIAL STAFF
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:03 AM CDT
A proposed city law that would fine people wearing sagging pants $200 is facing little public opposition so far — despite a warning from the American Civil Liberties Union that the law could be unconstitutional.
The first reading of the proposed ordinance was read Tuesday at the Pine Bluff City Council meeting, and three people showed up to share comments with the city leaders. Only one was against the proposal.
Steven Mays, the president and chairman of the board of the Family Community Development Corp., said he thought a ban on sagging is a good idea.
“Most of the ones who wear pants that are sagging are thugs,” he said to some murmurs of disapproval. “They smoke weed all day. They steal.”
“Not all of them,” he added at the end of his comments as the murmurs grew louder.
Wanda Bateman, a resident in the 700 block of West Second Avenue, said she also feels that banning sagging would make the city a better place to live. She said she is a landlord and was getting ready to show property to a potential renter recently when she was attacked by a young man wearing sagging pants, after she asked him to go inside or leave the property.
“We need to have an ordinance for this and (have) a much better image for the city,” she said.
Barbara Blunt Muhammad, from the 1200 block of North Palm Street, was the only one who spoke against the proposed ordinance. She said she remembers when adults didn’t like the mini-skirts and hairstyles she used to wear.
“This is their fad,” she said. “I think it should not even be on the (city) agenda. Every city councilor should vote against it.”
She also said she believes a $200 fine would be too much of a hardship on young people.
Several aldermen, however, said they are in favor of the law, which was proposed by 3rd Ward Alderman Derwood Smith.
“Sagging is not appropriate,” said 1st Ward Alderman Irene Holcomb.
Fourth Ward Alderman Janice L. Roberts also said she was supportive of the idea — although she did ask the mayor to schedule an additional public hearing on the topic to draw more feedback from the community. No date for such a hearing was set Tuesday night.
“I’m in favor of it,” Roberts said, adding that she doesn’t want to violate anyone’s human rights. “I just want to be sure we aren’t violating any laws.”
First Ward Alderman Thelma Walker said she hadn’t yet made up her mind on the issue, but at the least the discussion on the topic could be good for the city.
“I think it’s good character-building overall,” she said about the debate.
The draft ordinance, as proposed, says that the display of undergarments creates an unnecessary distraction and “an offensive visual condition to others.” It also says that those who wear the style risk personal injury from tripping over their clothes.
It would make it illegal for any person to appear in public “attired in such a manner as to purposely or knowingly expose all or part of his or her underwear or undergarments,” which are defined as men’s briefs, long johns, boxers, women’s panties, briefs, bras and thongs — as well as any other item of attire designed as underwear and intended to be worn next to the skin while fully covered by other clothing.
People could also get in trouble if they “knowingly or recklessly expose (their) sex organs.”
The ordinance makes exceptions for people performing in the theater or in other artistic performances where an audience is present by choice. It also excludes legal exotic dancing.
Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU, said the ordinance is written too broadly to withstand a constitutional challenge.
The proposed law will be read publicly at the next two council meetings, where public comments will continue to be taken, before the eight members on the council cast their votes.