vc318

Saggy pants law overwhelmingly approved in Riviera Beach

Saggy pants law overwhelmingly approved in Riviera Beach
By WILLIAM COOPER JR.
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

RIVIERA BEACH — Pull'em up or pay up! That's the order voters gave tonight by overwhelmingly approving Mayor Thomas Masters "saggy pants" law.

"I am thankful to the people who came out and voted their conscience and defined what is indecent in our city," said Masters after hearing the measure won 72 percent of the vote.

Earlier in the day, Masters feared the saggy pants law was going down in defeat based upon an informal exit poll. But that changed as more voters went to the polls, he said.

Masters believes Riviera Beach is the first large city to pass a saggy pants law through an election. Others have been approved by ordinance through a board vote.

Riviera Beach joins the city of Opa-Locka, the Atlanta school district and several small southern towns with "pull up your pants" laws.

Under the new law, anyone with droopy pants that show skin or underwear faces legal action. The first offense carries a $150 fine or community service. A second infraction carries a $300 fine or more community service.

Habitual violators could face up to 60 days in jail. The jail provision produced a last-minute backlash to the ordinance. But the law was popular among elderly voters who apparently turned out at the polls.

"It's not our intent to get rich off of fines or lock people up in jail," said an elated Masters. "It's about a simple message: pull up your pants."

Masters was also successful in campaigning against three of the 20 city charter amendments promoted by the city council. Voters said no to extending the mayor and city council terms from two to three years. They also rejected stripping the mayor of his power to suspend employees, a measure that Masters vigorously campaigned against.

Voters also choose to allow the leasing of the municipal marina, which is critical to the city's redevelopment plan. The vote paves the way for the community redevelopment agency to negotiate with master developer Viking Inlet Harbor Properties.

Viking's plan hinges on leasing the marina and upgrading the neighboring Bicentennial Park. The developer's goal is to turn the 13th Street corridor into an international destination for tourists and locals.

I know this law has been in effect for awhile but it was just brought recently on the radio so I wanted to know what you guys thought about it.

In my opinion, it's the most idiotic thing that could've been passed. Lawmakers actually thought this was the most important thing to waste taxpayer's money on instead of finding ways to improve our children's education or to improve the housing slump?! Only in Florida something so stupid would be in effect. This shows how much ignorance is out there. I can't even understand how this got passed - this is no different than someone's freedom of expression. Isn't it your business how you decide to dress? What does it matter that you have on baggy pants?! I could care less about that. If the person can read and write and perform a skills and/or has aspirations, what does anything else matter? It's stupid and I hope this law is removed someday.

sunnykerr

Not to mention that it's a violation of a person's rights to wear whatever it pleases them to wear. I'm not a fan of the saggy pants myself (they always give me a strong urge to yank them all the way down), but there's nothing actually indecent about them.

And to make the wearing of them liable to fines and legal actions in this way... it's a slippery slope. What will be deemed "indecent" next? Halter tops? Skirts that stop above the knee?

TheAngel

Well, it could be considered indecent exposure. After all, if you were caught walking around in your underwear you'd be arrested, why not for exposing your underwear/backside to the world. That's not my justification, just one that might possibly exist.
I think people that sag look like idiots. They're always walking around holding the crotch of their pants and I just want to go up and ask them if they really think they look cool doing that. I don't really care. If is your business to decide how you dress, but there are still certain laws in place about dress in certain areas, think of the "No shoes, No shirt, No service," rules in restaurants or schools that don't allow T-shirts with swear words. This is basically a generalized extension of that.

sunnykerr

Obviously I'm in no position to determine what is and what isn't generally (or officially) considered indecent exposure.

But I do see a difference between saggy pants and someone walking around in nothing but underwear. The way clothes are made these days, it's almost impossible to always completely cover one's underwear. If it's not the low rise of pants that leave a sliver of underwear to peak out the back, then it's tops that seem to be made to expose bra straps.

Now, there's a clear different between minimal exposure of underwear and someone wearing their pants halfway down their backsides. But then there's also a mile between that and someone wearing nothing over their underwear at all.

I find them pretty tacky myself, but I don't personally see indecency in saggy pants.

Of course, I say that and it's a case-by-case thing, isn't it? Lil Wayne at the VMAs a week ago. His pants were completely down his butt and he wasn't wearing any kind of shirt to cover anything. That, to me, could have been seen as more indecent.

But, usually, the saggy pants are accompanied with oversize sweaters, are they not?

vc318

Sure some styles looking disturbing (a few come to mind) but if we're going to ban one particular group that wears clothes a certain way then all fashion looks should be banned. But maybe this law won't stick around for long:

Judge rules "sagging pants" law unconstitutional - 09/15/2008 - MiamiHerald.com


Judge rules "sagging pants" law unconstitutional

RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. --
A judge in Riviera Beach has ruled a city law banning sagging pants is unconstitutional in the case of a 17-year-old who spent a night in jail for having his underwear exposed.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Paul Moyle said Monday that the law is unconstitutional "based on the limited facts" of the case.

Authorities charged Julius Hart last week when an officer spotted him riding his bicycle with 4 to 5 inches of boxer shorts sticking out of his pants.

In Riviera Beach, a first offense for sagging pants carries a $150 fine or a requirement of community service. Habitual offenders face the possibility of jail time.

Hart's lawyer, Carol Bickerstaff, said she wants the city to drop the law.

Jen Jaree

You got to be ****ing me they have laws against that whats next bra straps showing or nipples showing from your shirt. Silly prudish American goverment I doubt that will ever happen in Canada. Is it me or has America started to resemble a nazi camp in the last 8 years.

sunnykerr

Well, considering Nazi camps had forced labour, starvation and random mass murders... I'd say an emphatic "not quite."

Otherwise, I'd have to say that this seems to me to be yet more of this so-called issued that seem to arise only to create problems that lawmakers can pretend to solve. I understand the climate of panic in the United States. Heck, everything I watch American news, I start feeling antsy myself.

And, historically speaking, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that leaders drummed up pseudo-issues so as to distract people from the real problems they (the leaders) can't or won't face.

Jen Jaree

Agreed . There are way bigger things we should be worrying about than some kid with his Spongebob boxers poking out.

radiopassive

Necessary for what? To protect citizens? Hell no it's not necessary. It's a waste of resources. Passing that law is a crime itself.

vc318

I totally agree with you. This was the best thing they could cook up on their list to do? Sad.