Public comment Concerns with Downtown Traffic on Friday Nights from D. Wines Aimee Brunckhorst
From: dave w <gasman6655@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 9:24 AM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: EXTERNAL Public comment Concerns with Downtown Traffic on Friday Nights
Dear City Council/Board
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed anti-cruising ordinances. While I understand the concerns
regarding traffic congestion and public safety, these laws disproportionately target a form of social expression that has
long been a part of our community's culture.
Cruising is not merely a driving activity; it fosters social interaction, community engagement, and a sense of belonging.
Many individuals, particularly youth and young adults, use cruising as a safe space to connect with friends and express
themselves. Banning this activity could push these gatherings to less safe environments, ultimately increasing the risk of
accidents and crime.
Moreover, such ordinances can lead to profiling and discrimination, as certain demographics are often unfairly targeted
under the guise of public safety. Instead of punitive measures, we should focus on promoting responsible driving,
enforcing the traffic laws already on the books and creating inclusive spaces for all community members.
The bulk of the problems seem to stem from traffic infractions that are being committed and these can be enforced with
additional law enforcement presence. I have been in Kalispell on Friday nights during the summer and have witnessed
this first hand.
I believe in and I would support a lawsuit to challenge an ordinance of this type that violates my and others civil rights to
travel freely without restriction. These are public streets and paid for by taxpayers such as myself and as such I should
not have my rights violated and or restricted to use the street as i wish. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right
to travel as a fundamental right. I have sighted case law below that will be used to challenge any such ordinance or law to
restrict cruising by the City of Kalispell.
• City of Chicago v. Morales (1999): This case involved a Chicago ordinance that targeted loitering and cruising. The
U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law, ruling it was unconstitutionally vague and infringed on the right to free
movement. The Court emphasized that the law did not provide clear guidelines for enforcement.
• Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles (2003): This case challenged Los Angeles's anti-cruising ordinance. The court found
that the ordinance violated due process rights, as it did not provide adequate notice of prohibited behavior.
• People v. Velez (1998): In this California case, the court examined the constitutionality of a local anti-cruising law. It
ruled that such laws could infringe on the right to free movement and expression, especially if they disproportionately
targeted certain communities.
• Klein v. New York(2003): This case addressed New York City's anti-cruising law. The court ruled that the law infringed
on individuals' rights to travel and associate freely, leading to its eventual reconsideration.
I urge you to reconsider these ordinances and engage with the community to find solutions that enhance safety without
infringing on our civil rights to gather and express ourselves.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
D. Wines
Tax Payer Kalispell, MT
1
2