 |
| Make sure those snowballs don't touch anything else before they hit the ground! |
When I jokingly proposed that cell and WiFi signals should be blocked at the beach, at least one reader took me seriously—and took me to task for it. Guess I should've put a little smiley in there somewhere.
What's not a joke, however, is the multitude of commonplace, everyday activities that are banned here in Charlestown.
As I wrote the other day, throwing snowballs is banned if they strike another person or thing. Isn't hitting someone the entire point of throwing a snowball? What's the fun of just throwing them at the ground?
Here's one that I would have been in violation of pretty much every weekday for the 16 years that I rode the D.C. Metro system to work (Chapter 162, Section 162-1, Actions unlawful: No person acting alone or in concert with others shall):
Here's one that I would have been in violation of pretty much every weekday for the 16 years that I rode the D.C. Metro system to work (Chapter 162, Section 162-1, Actions unlawful: No person acting alone or in concert with others shall):
I. Roughly or forcefully crowd, jostle or push any person in any public place.
If I hadn't done that, I'd probably still be standing somewhere on the platform, waiting to get on the train before the doors closed. Maybe some people wish that were true.
 |
| Don't do this in public! |
Spitting is also banned. When I saw that I just assumed it dated back to colonial times and was aimed at curbing tobacco chewers, but no, the ordinance was enacted in 1979. Go figure.
And here's another weird one, from the same chapter and section as the above:
K. By acts of violence, interfere with another's pursuit of a lawful occupation.Acts of violence are assault, which is already against the law. Is it somehow a greater crime if an act of violence interferes with someone's livelihood? Or conversely, is it somehow a lesser crime to be assaulted on the weekend rather than while you're working?
Further down in the same section, we find:
N. Maliciously or without good cause interrupt, harass or molest the speaker or speakers at any lawful assembly, meeting or gathering or impair the lawful rights of others to participate in such assembly, meeting or gathering when such conduct is calculated or likely to provoke disorderly conduct and procedure of the same or to cause turmoil or disturbance at home.
O. Act in a manner designed, likely or tending to cause or provoke a disturbance in any public building or place of business wherein matters affecting the public are being considered or deliberated and which is designed, likely or tending to interfere with the orderly conduct or procedure of such consideration or deliberation.
 |
| Charlestown notably did not participate in this event. |
And if friends or relatives come to visit you in an RV, you have no choice but to let them sleep in your house; you can't let them sleep in the RV anywhere in town, because it's illegal under Chapter 162, section 162-2, Sleeping at night in public places, and you can even be busted for aiding or assisting them to do so:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to sleep in the nighttime in any automobile or motor vehicle of any description parked on any highway, public beach, parking lot, picnic grounds or on any other public or semipublic area or in any automobile or motor vehicle of any description parked upon the grounds of any other person in the town [emphasis mine]; or for any person to aid, assist, encourage or promote the same to be done by any other person or persons.
Though apparently it's A-OK as long as they sleep in the daytime. But don't let anyone sleep in a tent in your yard at night, either, because section B states:
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to sleep in the nighttime on any highway, public beach, parking lot, picnic ground or on any other public or semipublic area or upon the grounds of any other person in the town [emphasis mine]; or for any person to aid, assist, encourage or promote the same to be done by other person or persons.
 |
| Violates both the Platner principle and the tree ordinance. (photo by BuildanArk.net) |
In fact, the way it's worded, I'm not even sure if we're allowed to sleep overnight in our own yards if we wanted to, though apparently naps in daytime are permitted, depending on what you're sleeping in or on. Hammocks, it appears, are illegal; the word "hammock" appears nowhere in the town code, and according to the Platner principle, "any use that's not permitted is prohibited." Probably best to lie on the ground to be on the safe side. Better not let the kids camp out in the yard overnight either.
But lest you think our town fathers completely heartless, they have carved out special permission for us to temporarily use a mobile home on our own property if our house were to become uninhabitable. Chapter 218, Article VI, Section 218-38, Subsection B(32) states:
When fire or natural disaster has rendered a single-family residential unit unfit for human habitation, the temporary use of a mobile home located on the single-family lot during rehabilitation of the original residence or construction of a new residence is permitted subject to the following additional standards:
There doesn't seem to be any indication of what those "additional standards" are, however; the section ends right there at the colon. But at least the town is willing to give us a little wiggle room in the event of disaster. Then again, there are no hotels or boarding houses in town, so it's not like there's any place for anyone to stay if their house were destroyed. And this only applies in the event of fire or natural disaster; you can't stay in a mobile home during home renovations.
Now, I kind of get the intent behind the prohibitions on sleeping outdoors. Charlestown is after all a vacation paradise, and someone might, like Clark Griswold, have a cousin (on their spouse's side, of course!) who might just show up in an RV and announce that they're staying for the summer. But then why the scorched-earth policy? Why not just create restrictions on the maximum number of allowable days per year, like the yard sale ordinance? Chapter 213, Sections 213-2 and 213-4, state:
Though given that at yard sales, folks sell stuff they've purchased retail for pennies on the dollar, I somehow just don't see that as a path to riches.
Now, I kind of get the intent behind the prohibitions on sleeping outdoors. Charlestown is after all a vacation paradise, and someone might, like Clark Griswold, have a cousin (on their spouse's side, of course!) who might just show up in an RV and announce that they're staying for the summer. But then why the scorched-earth policy? Why not just create restrictions on the maximum number of allowable days per year, like the yard sale ordinance? Chapter 213, Sections 213-2 and 213-4, state:
No person shall conduct a yard sale, tag sale, garage sale, estate sale, moving sale or any such sale so called without a permit issued by the Town Clerk.
…
The Town Clerk shall issue a license permit to a person applying for the permit required herein. Such person shall pay to the town the fee of $5.00 per day; provided, however, that no more than six permits shall be issued in any one calendar year to any one person for any one location.I realize there are those who get a hair up their ass (if you'll pardon the expression) about giving the appearance of "running a business in a residential zone." To which I say, if you can pay your property taxes by running six yard sales a year, Mazel Tov! Assuming you don't have a mortgage, don't use electricity (but don't generate any using a wind turbine!), chop your own firewood to heat with (which may or may not violate the tree ordinance), and grow your own food, you're golden!
Though given that at yard sales, folks sell stuff they've purchased retail for pennies on the dollar, I somehow just don't see that as a path to riches.
 |
| There's a private swimming club at this quarry in Hopewell, New Jersey, but here in Charlestown, don't even attempt to swim in a quarry! (photo by iandavid) |
Oh, and don't go swimming in a quarry; that's illegal too under section 162-3:
No person shall bathe or swim, or attempt [emphasis mine] to bathe or swim, in any granite quarry hole or abandoned granite quarry hole in the town and the violator shall be fined in the amount not to exceed $50. Enforcement of this section shall be through the Charlestown Police Department.
Don't even think about doing it! If your kids want to do it, make sure to tell them to save up their allowance first in case they get busted. Though I would think our police department has more important things to deal with. And unless the town owns some quarries that I don't know about, quarries are private property and would be covered under the trespassing laws.
And here's one I see being violated virtually every time I go to the beach (Chapter 162, Section 162-4):
No person shall stand [emphasis mine], fish or crab on Creek Bridge, or the abutments thereof, or any other part of said bridge, on Charlestown Beach Road, which bridge is over the channel connecting Charlestown Pond and Green Hill Pond.
Creek Bridge can't possibly be so fragile that merely standing on it would cause it to fall, because I drive over it in my Silverado practically every day. So what gives here?
Now if anyone can give me a logical explanation for why any of these things should be verboten, please tell me in the comments. And by "logical explanation," I don't mean "I don't want to see campers in other people's yards." Your highly refined sense of aesthetics is not a reason to restrict the property rights of your neighbors. If it were, the Pepto-Bismol house would've been painted a neutral color as soon as I moved to town. (Joke! Just kidding!)
If any members of the town council or the various commissions are among our readership, I challenge you to explain the intent behind these ordinances,† because I'm just not seeing it. Seems like the town is attempting to act in loco parentis, and I for one am not a child.
If any members of the town council or the various commissions are among our readership, I challenge you to explain the intent behind these ordinances,† because I'm just not seeing it. Seems like the town is attempting to act in loco parentis, and I for one am not a child.
To be continued.
*Anonymous commenter on "A modest proposal: Block cell and WiFi signals at the beach" at 11:01 a.m. on August 15, 2011.
†If you feel squeamish about commenting publicly, please send an e-mail to progressivecharlestown@gmail.com.
Author: Linda Felaco †If you feel squeamish about commenting publicly, please send an e-mail to progressivecharlestown@gmail.com.