He did leave wiggle room for a more closely written statute, one that narrowly defined the area of prohibition. But those who wish to indulge the one councillor whose issue this is, better read again that opinion of Judge Clifford.
For against the offer of a more restrictive area that might - and might is the operative word - pass muster, is Judge Clifford's clearly articulated principle of opposition to such an undertaking: "I am not persuaded that the measure is proportionate to the infringement of rights (to free expression)."
It's astonishing that the council continues to allow itself to be manipulated by one very loud member who freely declares he will not abide by its rules.
It's also discouraging to see this council waste further time and money on an exercise that only serves to plump up a rapidly fading celebrity who desperately seeks scandal to increase his marketability.
I don't think the word "irony" quite cuts it when a preposterous person claims his own right of free speech includes threats or advice to provoke bodily harm to others, but denies others a right to publicly proclaim their gang membership because that would be "intimidating".
The word to describe that is "chutzpah", a Yiddish word meaning unmitigated gall and illustrated by the murderer of his parents claiming the court's mercy on the grounds he's an orphan.
When the council first considered a do-over of this foolish enterprise, I provided a detailed breakdown of what it had already cost our city.
I hoped that, in view of our fiscal constraints and our indebtedness, such information would put the thing to rest.
After all, that indebtedness was largely due to the profligacy of a previous council essentially run as a one-man machine by the same councillor who now seeks to further commit our funds for his benefit.
It's obvious that the facts need re-telling.
External legal expense for Gang-Patch Bylaw and Judicial Review: $145,293.50; Additional costs for Judicial Review (estimated): $75,000; Cost of legal and other work done internally on bylaw and review (estimated) $60,000; Paid to Kensington Swan for legal work 2005-2011: $1,761,821.71; Estimated 50 per cent of KS figure for gang-patch bylaw: $880,915.85.
The direct outlay of costs of legal work on the gang-patch bylaw was $1,161,209.35 and costs awarded to plaintiff gangs were $100,000 for a total of $1,261,209.35.
The council spent $1,261,209.35 on legal fees in connection with the failed by-law. In addition, the community lost a minimum of $10 million in economic activity due to its falsified reputation as a gang-plagued city.
Ratepayers and renters, businesspeople and plain folk need to look at those figures as the council contemplates further expense. Particularly when the proposed bylaw, no matter how designed, will certainly be tested in court.
And predictably fail.
How much more money and council time shall we waste on this ego trip by one councillor?
There are real challenges that demand the council's attention. Immediately is the issue of a family forced out of Castlecliff by harassment that may have racial overtones.
Long term, there are buildings that need earthquake-proofing.
The hospital service is threatened by regionalisation. UCOL clearly intends to downgrade its presence here in favour of Palmerston North. New jobs need to be created to make up for those we lost.
There's plenty of work for the adults in the room at the council to do.
As for this redo of the gang patch misadventure, the council has asked for a public response.
You know what to do.
