-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop

We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
    Bill Me Now For: $

Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
Moses Clark
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062

Get your ad here

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author ------ Message
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:28 am 
Coming to a street near you, UTV's (side by side) and ATV's. A proposed ordinance 1251 making the use of UTV's and ATV's legal to drive on Silver City Streets will be discussed at the Silver City Town Council Meeting this Tuesday, September 27 at 6 pm.

The 5 page proposed ordinance, attached below for download, has a strict set of rules for making these off-highway-vdhicles street legal. Also a safety class will be required before an 18 years and older driver can be licensed.

If passed Tuesday this will be a "Notice Of Intent" to pass the actual ordinance at the next Council meeting. This is the time to suggest additions and/or changes and opinions to the Council.

Ord1251OffRoadVehiclesNOI.pdf [17.88 KiB]
Downloaded 219 times

 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:00 pm 
Just as things were starting to calm down thanks to the Buffalo Bar shutting its doors Councilor Jose came up with this brain child. Well here's a view from just outside the box.

We live a bit beyond the City line on Cottage San and regularly endure ATV's running up and down this road. They're totally illegal here, driven by unlicensed operators, unregistered, uninsured, off road equipment, driven as fast as their throttles allow, no mufflers, and drivers who COULD NOT CARE LESS. They frequently find their way onto people's private land, over somebody's front lawn; no problem, it's not like the Sheriffs make any effort to enforce the law, and if you complain about it you're treated as though you're the problem. And anyway since the offenders are long gone by the time the cops arrive as far as they're concerned it never happened. And note, this is the case where there are NO provisions for allowing ATV's, now Silver City wants to invite them downtown! Really! Are you people nuts? Is anyone really thinking this will go smoothly, quietly, that the terms of this ordinance will be observed, that the Silver City Police will effectively deal with resident's complaints, clamp down on any law breakers, and that this whole thing is a really good idea?

I predict the people of Silver City will rue the day this passes. Of course I don't live in the City so I have no say in the matter. Good luck.

 Author: GCResident
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:44 am 
Poor choice of pictures to use Mr. Crow. Is the Fire Department specifically backing this proposal, and is the retired Fire Chief involved, or did you just pick the picture for eye appeal for your article?

 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:59 am 
It's the only picture I had of an ATV/UTV, the fire department does not advocate either way and I don't know how Rudy stands on the issue.

 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:31 pm 
This is a letter I sent to councilors and the mayor:

I wouldn't necessarily oppose UTVs on the streets in a Town where ordinances are enforced,. But since Silver City has had so little enforcement of our noise ordinance and so much annoyance even during the day on the main streets of town, I can't support allowing noisy vehicles on our streets. I know that the ordinance has an allowed noise level, but I don't believe that police would enforce it. I have heard excuses from the police chief and other officials about how difficult it is to enforce noise levels, but when violations are at twice the allowed level of noise, it should be easy to enforce gross violations without high tech equipment. I'm sure that you like most citizens have had the experience of having to stop a conversation on Bullard or Broadway while a loud vehicle passes. As a result I am opposed to the proposed ordinance.

In addition to my overall objection to the proposed ordinance, I don't agree with the specifics of the proposal. If we were going to have a UTV and ATV ordinance, I would want a different one. First, this ordinance doesn't specify penalties. I would want to see a $1,000 fine for driving a vehicle without a muffler and other required features. Proponents have promised to fulfill safety and noise requirements, and if they fail to do so (as I expect) the fine should be heavy. In addition, the equipment requirement is for at least one headlight and tail light. What is the point of one tail light? The vehicles would need two turning signal lights, one on each side in the front and back. I also oppose any accomodation to ATVs, even for crossing roads. ATV users can transport their vehicle by truck or trailer to riding sites outside the town limits.

Finally, the ordinance makes an exception for using these vehicles on private land. ATVs should not be driven in the city limits. UTVs should only be driven on roads with the equipment specified. An exception for private land negates regulation of noise. Furthermore, the ordinance implies that it is OK to drive these vehicles on private land even without the owner's permission. I have a large problem with ATVs being driven on my land in my absence.

Please oppose this ordinance. If you disagree with my overall premise and believe that police will actually enforce the ordinance, please rewrite the ordinance to make it easier for them to do so.


 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:03 pm 
Thanks to both Kevin and Bruce for your analysis. And for another negative on the ordinance: Retired Fire Chief Rudy Bencomo, after reading the article and the comments called to say that if I wanted to I could say that he opposes the ordinance because of the extra burden it would place on an already busy police force, I ask if wanted me to publish that and he said "yes". In my asking people around town I mostly heard NO with a few "seems like it might be ok".

Rudy also said he liked my photo and article from May 2011, it reminded him of when he acquired the side-by-side for the fire department to provide equipment and supplies to otherwise inaccessible fire fighters.

 Author: Pat W
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:54 am 
I am wondering why this is even being considered in the first place? We all ready have too many distracted drivers and adding a smaller ATV, UTV, type vehicle poses real danger to the smaller vehicle, which, like motorcycles, have very little or no protection for the passengers. I agree with the notion that SCPD all ready has enough to deal with and wonder about enforcement.

 Author: saminsilver
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:58 pm 
I agree with Bruce.

The Town has clearly demonstrated a strong resistance to enforcing noise violations. The ordinance is a good ordinance and has per-se standards as well as the reasonable person standard, it is not hard to enforce. Several evenings I personally monitored boom boxes on Bullard near Broadway. On average one went by every 5 minutes (approximately). A police car went by every 20 minutes, with the windows up and a cell phone glued to the officer's ear. I never saw a citation issued.

One must assume that past performance will be the future norm. So no provisions should be made to add even more noise making contraptions downtown. Especially where there is a "canyon of noise", Bullard and Broadway. At the very least those streets should be excluded.

 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:28 am 
Councilors Bettison and Aiman-Smith voted no bringing the vote to a tie; Mayor Ladner, having spoken against the proposed ordinance placing OHV's on Town streets reminded everybody he was against this then said that local government is the cornerstone of democracy so he would vote yes to continue the debate for another 30 to 45 days.

Before the vote Councilor Ray had pledged to rewrite the ordinance to remove the references to ATV's and leave only side-by-sides. Two points of major concern were safety and the extra burden on an already strapped police force.

 Author: bdlb
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:57 am 
This ordinance -- #1251 -- is up for passage at tomorrow's Council meeting.
You may find instructions for commenting here:
http://www.townofsilvercity.org/r/town_ ... ,4hk3s#NOI

 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:36 am 
For those interested in Council and Commissioner meetings I always post the full agendas in the calendar a few days before each meeting. Also at the ToSC Council meeting tomorrow will be the GC Assessor talking about this years property tax.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Gila River Festival Ad

Silver City & Southwestern New Mexico Monthly Community Calendar

Click To Create A New Calendar Event

Community Events
Week of April 22, 2019


Short Takes on African History
Tech Workshop: Introduction to PowerPoint
Tech Workshop: Employment Skills

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group