LOGIN | REGISTER AS A USER


Article/Archives | Advanced Search

Style Weekly - Cover StoriesStyle Weekly - News & FeaturesStyle Weekly - ArtStyle Weekly - MusicStyle Weekly - MoviesStyle Weekly - Food & DrinkStyle Weekly - CalendarStyle Weekly - OpinionStyle Weekly - Classifieds
TWITTER  |  FACEBOOK  |  RSS  | THE SCOOP HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  ABOUT US  |  ADVERTISE

Bookmark and Share

 
, Posted On: 3/9/2010

Noise Ordinance Backlash Cranks Up



by Don Harrison

The city’s newly minted noise law is causing quite a racket.

A Facebook page, “Richmond’s Noise Ordinance is Insane,” has attracted nearly 1,400 members since it was launched a week ago.

The page is filled with commentary on the new noise legislation that City Council passed unanimously Feb. 22. The online consensus is that the ordinance is unfair and will be selectively enforced.

“No doubt this law will just be conveniently used to persecute groups of people they want to place pressure on for other reasons,” one of the members writes. “Having an ordinance like this puts every crackpot grouchy neighbor in control,” posts another. “We need a reasonable ordinance.”

Jay Lindsey, an urban planning student at Virginia Commonwealth University, started the Facebook page. “I read the ordinance and it was frustrating,” he says. “I thought that the voice of a significant part of the population was missing in the conversation.” Particularly onerous to Lindsey and many of the Facebookers is that, under the new law, sounds heard from as close as 50 feet away could be cause for a misdemeanor charge, a $500 fine and potential jail time.

“Where and when can we write music, practice, or even listen to music with friends?” he asks. “It’s a large metropolitan area. I’ve been in other large cities and the concept of a radius of 50 feet of silence. … it’s impossible.”

Second District Councilman Charles Samuels, who crafted and co-sponsored the ordinance, could not be reached for comment by press time. A statement on his Web site indicates that he is feeling the noise: “I have heard these concerns and have committed to reviewing this ordinance with the goal of creating a noise ordinance that will last another 20 years.” Samuels, an attorney, has announced the formation of a work group of lawyers and law-enforcement officials who plan to meet March 18 to review the ordinance.

Lindsey, who plays bass in a band called the Hotdamns, doesn’t think that City Council was “trying to pull a fast one.”

Still, he doesn’t believe it’s good policy to pass bad laws with the goal of fixing them later.

“If nothing else,” he says, “I hope that the benefit of this [outcry] will be that the next time the people in charge enact this kind of law, that they remember that it is easier to do some outreach beforehand.”


Articles/Archives:
  • French Lick
  • Easy Credit
  • Cusack Becomes Poe, Just Not in Richmond
  • Cooch Loses Round One in U.Va. Probe
  • Double-Dip Recession? Blame the Unspent Stimulus Money

Comment:
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:23:56 PM by C. Wayne Taylor
I have posted a lot of information here:
http://cwaynetaylor.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, March 09, 2010 7:42:21 PM by anonymous2
I agree with anonymous. While the ordinance, might be a tad over the top, the fact that I am constantly being awaken by drunk idiots outside my window, makes me a supporter of less noise. Maybe if people were more considerate of their neighbors and those who pay lots of money to live in the fan, we wouldn't have to enact such strict regulations.

I, too, am remaining anonymous.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:14:22 PM by Unhappy in the Second
The fact that Charles Samuels is a lawyer and not only went along with this nonsense, but actually helped craft makes me want to vote for a different City Council representative next time election rolls around. What a silly, sad man ......Thank goodness for Don Harrison for realizing that this is a bad ordinance. Fifty-feet? If I am washing my car in the backyard and I have the car stereo on and someone can hear my music out front, I could be fined $500. Ridiculous. Samuels was a fool to go along with this.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:03:04 PM by Sam Carstairs
In what is now the western United States, some plains Native American Tribes had a cure for noisy dogs.

Whenever a dog in the village became too barkative they women of the tribe would mix up a batch of "barking dog soup" the chief ingredient of which was the barking dog.

Worked every time.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010 4:42:31 PM by anonymous
Where's the other side of the argument here? Is there any respect for the quiet?

http://www.noisefree.org/

What about boom care stereo ads that brag about being able to "Terrorize the neighborhood!"

What about working families who live in wooden row houses who are kept awake by college students partying at 4 am on a Tuesday night (and won't listen to pleas from neighborhors)?

What about outdoor concerts that echo bass sounds two miles away and next to wildlife areas?

And yes, I am signing this anonymous because I already know of good people who are being seriously harassed and threatened for daring to ask for more quiet. There are some real jerks out there.

Harrison is fighting a war on music already when what we need is mutual respect for both sides of the debate. Certainly Harrison has rightly been concerned in the past about the rights of musicians, but I think he is the one jumping the gun here.

This is less about free speech and music tastes and more about healthy, friendly communities.

I want to hear concrete, intelligent suggestions on how law can be reformed, not just noise about keeping an unacceptable status quo.




Comment Box
 
Choose an identity
Registered Blogger Other
 
Username 
Password 
No Registered Blogger account? Sign up here.
CAPTCHA Validation
Retype the code from the picture
CAPTCHA Code Image
Speak the code Change the code