It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


City considers ‘red-tagging’ problem houses

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link oc43c710ab048cc072966049.txt

Caudill got the idea from Tucson, Ariz., where police have the authority to stick red tags on what are considered disorderly houses — or properties where five or more people are gathered or where there’s excessive noise, traffic, obstruction of streets, littering, public drinking, fighting, disturbing the peace or minors drinking alcohol.


This is serious stuff. This is disgusting. This is an invasion of privacy like no other i can imagine. Beleive me, this has nothing to do with drugs or drinking. So you can get tagged for having lots of company. Those of you with kids know how it is. I certainly had a house full for years.

Red Tagging my ars.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:24 AM
Howdy, DG. I know we've agreed to disagree in the past. So here I go.
I think it's an invasion of privacy if I can't sleep at night because there are a bunch of drunk, noisy, and otherwise obnoctious children from a college running amuk next door, been there didn't much care for it.
However, I do think the redtags are more than a little over the top. The police need to do it in person, up close and personal, if you will. Almost every city has noise ordinances that need to be enforced, red tags ain't the way to do it.
Good post, though.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:53 AM
Seagull, you are right. For all the people who party at all hours of the night, have suspicious activities, on and on, whats wrong with banging on the door and saying, We'll see you in court on Monday and hand them a written citation...instead they go over the top and want to paste a huge red tag for all to see? This is not American. What is this?

Are noisy people in the same league as child molestors(who by the way would be deserving of this red flag)?

Where do you draw the line?

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:10 AM

Beleive me, this has nothing to do with drugs or drinking.

Proof please. It's hard to believe an opinion. This appear's to be more of an embarrasment factor then invasion of privacy.

I noticed you left this portion out of your post.

one Lincoln is considering using for houses continually in trouble for noise, parties or other violations.

In otherwords... you don't get red tagged on your first offense. While they could hand out citation's, I rather like the embarrasment factor approach. Would you be more behaved just because of a citation or would you be more behaved when you walk out of your house when someone drive's by and see's the tag and immediatly associate's you as a problem? I would imagine people facing such a situation would stop and think about their action's after such an experience.

Something does need to be done about people like this. Citation's obviously aren't working. There's no harm in embarrasing them. They need it.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:14 AM
I see this as the start of a good thing. It is not the american way to behave obnoxiosly and disturb the entire neighbourhood because of one rotten apple. America is built on the feeling of community and the responsibility that it involves, many a time their are neighbourhoods that are ruined due to the influence of one family or two and this results in the entire community relocating to more "appropriate" surroundings.
This kind of labelling would bring in a sense of shame to offenders and other unsavory charectors who bring disrepute or degenerate their neighbourhood. Obviouly this kind of tagging would be a stamp of " undesirability" and would force the "undesirables" to either move out or conform to the standards acceptable to the community. I feel instead of the police it should be the community leaders who should be allowed to reccomend houses for tagging and the police tagging such houses if the case is a justified.
I think this may bring about a level of standards to be followed in neighbourhoods and may actually raise the standards of many communities by identifing offenders and making their behaviour publicly shamefull. It may seem cruel but it is more cruel to let unacceptable behaviour go scot free.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:25 AM
I agree with what you all say, HOWEVER, i see this as just another move to start invading your privacy, a little bit at a time. Someone is going to be watching...more vigilantiism.
Do we now need permission from the neighbors or the town to have a birthday party?
Does this activity at home warrant a call to the FBI?

Think how far this could get. Really. Will "they" arrive in the middle of your party to check it out?

If you have a complain, do you call the police or do you go higher?

I certainly have nothing to hide, and my parties are just me and my hubby
- good luck to them.

My point is that this is a baby step towards bigger and more dangerous things.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by dgtempe

My point is that this is a baby step towards bigger and more dangerous things.

Uh huh.

Slippery slopes and all that. Like - Hitler started by copying a US Supreme Court ruling to legalize his concentration camps. Next thing you know, there's a world war!

Amazing the things that can happen.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:31 AM
Sounds like common sense to me, If you disturb the entire block because you fee like having parties every night, then you deserve to be bothered and in trouble.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sounds like common sense to me, If you disturb the entire block because you fee like having parties every night, then you deserve to be bothered and in trouble.
You chose to miss the point.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:50 AM
What was the point again?

Oh right.. Invasion of privacy, because you should be allowed to be a social degenerate if you really wanted to be.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:10 PM

Red Tag Blues

The ACLU takes the city to court over its practice of red tagging homes after noise complaints


Tim Vanderpool
Former City Councilman Mike Haggerty said his neighbors had every opportunity to tell his daughter her birthday party was too loud.

But occasionally, too much of a good thing is simply too much, says Mike Haggerty. Sometimes, his middle-class street near the UA is almost like a Bewitched re-run, with nosy neighbor Gladys Kravitz snooping through fluttering window shades.

For Haggerty, however, sneaky neighbors became more than a small-screen fantasy when the house he rented to his daughter and granddaughter received a latter-day scarlet letter--an infamous red tag pasted by police on party pads.

His granddaughter was recently killed in a car accident. But in happier times, only a year ago, Kinzie Haggerty was planning a 16th birthday bash. And she aimed to do the right thing. "Kinzie and (her mother) Shannon circulated a letter through the neighborhood, telling neighbors that they were going to have a party," Mike Haggerty says. "They gave everyone their phone number, asking that if there were any problems, to please call them."

The party kicked-off at 9 p.m. Ten minutes later, someone did call. But the number they dialed was 911.

"The cops didn't show up for a half-hour," says Haggerty, a former city councilman. "But they did show up."

And police proceeded to place a big red tag on the front window. That means no parties--or groups larger than five people--can occur on the property for 180 days. One would think this might preclude family dinners on Sunday, Haggerty says. "At least that's the way I read it."

As a result, the ACLU has filed suit on his behalf. The red tag is violation of Haggerty's right to due process, says Angie Polizzi, staff attorney for the ACLU of Arizona. In other words, he's being punished with a scarlet letter before enjoying his date in court. "And we think it's harassment,

"In our case, the neighbors had their choice. They could call my daughter or call 911." They chose the scarlet letter.

Exibit 1. Not a fairy tale- It does happen.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by dgtempe]

[edit on 14-1-2006 by dgtempe]

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:21 PM
Despite the sending out letter's there was still no need to hold a party at 9pm. Obviously someone, just as I would be was upset with this and decided to take advantage of the law to make sure this kind of action never happens again.

Not everyone is awake at 9pm. I myself am in bed at 10pm, 11pm at the latest. Thre used to be a family living next door who held a party every night for a WEKK straight. Sometime's going into 2am in the morning. Usually started at 6pm - 8pm. That's just ridiculous and if we had red tagging in my city you can bet your sweet bottucks I would've taken advantage of that rather then going over and asking them to shut up. It's about common decency my friend. If you don't have it, you deserve to be embarrased with a pretty red tag.

You got any more example's to defend people who lack common decency?

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:24 PM
Produk, you really, really dont get it. Have a great day.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:30 PM
That's the best defense you've got? ...ok

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:32 PM
What you don't get is that one example of a potential misuse of the law does not permit you nor the ACLU to demand it’s immediate ban. I for one think this is a necessary law so that my right to a peaceful night is not violated by a group of buffoons who have no self control.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:40 PM
Laws already exist to deal with these problems. And then there's always communication. No - it's not always easy.

But making more and more laws to "control behaviour" only will lead to more and more surveillance and even greater population control. Certainly not where I want to go.

I'd rather investigate other solutions, and lose the population control.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:48 PM

But making more and more laws to "control behaviour" only...

Actually these laws try and help those who have no self control and who don't know what's polite and what’s obnoxious. I for one don't feel I should have to suffer because someone may be offended by a red sticker on their door.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:55 PM
right, there are some law's against it and you could always talk to the person. Unfortunatly, some people lack common decency and respect for these law's which mean's we DO need something abit more strict, and if that mean's embarrassing the offending party, then so be it.

There was one couple living downstair's from me at my old apartment. They used to scream, fight, play loud music all the time. We've tried talking to them, didn't work. We've called the cop's well over a dozen time's, didn't work. They actually went into the basement, turned off my electricity at the circuit breaker because of all this. Landlord didn't do nothing, police didn't do nothing.

Are you starting to understand yet why we need more law's and surveillence? People just DON'T care anymore. If we don't do something it'll get worse. Would you like to live around people like that?


Your right, no one should have to. It's not our fault there's idiot's on this planet, and if they want to continue acting in such a manner they should get what they deserve.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Produkt

Are you starting to understand yet why we need more law's and surveillence? People just DON'T care anymore. If we don't do something it'll get worse. Would you like to live around people like that?

Nope. So lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. IMO, people do care about their civil liberties, and thats what the jest of this thread was meant to be.
I've called the cops on an obnoxious neighbor i had who persisted on playing his stereo all night long, i kept talking to him over and over and over and each night it was louder. So i called the cops. At 1am i heard the knock downstairs and heard him scrambling around before he opened the door to two cops. The stereo stopped, but he paid me a visit to tell me he could have gone to jail because he had parafanalia all over the place. Tough caca for him. The stereo playing did stop for good. I was able to sleep at night once again. I did it myself. He didnt need a sign that said "Here lives a known drug user who plays loud music and is a nuissance to the entire neighborhood."

How would June and Ward Cleaver have handled this one? hmmm...

The point is we dont need the higher ranks of government for EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:21 PM
Good for you, the system worked in your case. In mine it didn't so from my point of view we do need something like this. Not everyone is going to stop just because you called the cops. Also as I pointed out after I called the cops they turned off my electricity at the breaker... If it's not going to work RED TAG the bastards.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in