I didn't have time to update the site last night, but here's a bit more info.
Reaction from Quest For Quiet. Quest For Quiet's news round-up.
Press Release: February 19, 2008
Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells
Immediate Release Contact: Charles Allen
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 408 (202) 724-8072
Washington, D.C. 20004
Legislation to Provide Resident Relief from Amplified Noise Tabled Indefinitely by Council
(Washington, DC) – The Council voted 7-5 today to table indefinitely the “Noise Control Protection Amendment Act of 2008.” The legislation, co-introduced by Councilmembers Tommy Wells, Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown, would have created reasonable protections for residents within their homes from amplified noise. Unlike other major cities, DC law does not regulate the volume and intensity of non-commercial amplified noise in the day-time.
“I’m disappointed. It’s tough to stand up against special interests,” commented Mr. Wells. “We worked hard with residents and labor leaders open to a solution to find a fix that is fair and provides some neighborhood protections. I’m disappointed more of my colleagues didn’t side with fairness for our residents, but I’ll continue working to change their minds.”
The proposed bill would maintain Washington, DC as one of the most liberal and permissive jurisdictions in the country. A review of noise ordinances for the cities of New York, Boston, San Diego, Maimi and Los Angeles showed that each has more restrictive laws that what had been proposed in this legislation.
The Noise Control Protection Amendment Act of 2008 seeks to balance First Amendment rights and protections, with the rights of residents to enjoy quiet in their homes and protect their hearing from lasting damage. Going above and beyond First Amendment protections found in other jurisdictions, with this bill, non-commercial public speech measured above 70 decibels, or 10 decibels greater than ambient noise, would only constitute a noise disturbance if it were also found to be excessive under the “reasonable person” standard as defined by DC law. DC’s Attorney General has reviewed this proposal and believes it represents a Constitutionally sound approach that balances the protection of free speech and protection for residents.
The proposed measure had the support of ANC 6A and 6C, the Hillcrest Civic Association in Ward 7, the Penn Quarter Civic Association and Downtown Neighborhood Association in Wards 2 and 6, the Woodland Normanstone Neighborhood Association in Ward 3, and labor unions SEIU 32BJ and SEIU 500, representing thousands of working men and women in DC.
Councilmembers Tommy Wells, Mary Cheh, David Catania, Marion Barry and Carol Schwartz voted against tabling the bill.
5 comments:
I completely side with the Quest for Quiet guy, but I have to admit that the ACLU/Unions angle does have a good point. If you can't protest in front of buildings, it's a sad state of free speech.
I thought the larger issue was that these guys on the corner are just hate-filled assholes. The things they say about gays in particular are bad enough. Has anybody ever thought about anti-hate speech laws against them?
the bill isn't proposing that people can't protest or exercise free speech. the bill proposed that there be limits on the level of amplification. It's a sad state when the free speech of all residents isn't protected. It's now only protected for those with the loudest amplifiers. I guess the select members of the council want us to all go out and get one in order to be heard.
We are disappointed with Alexander and Brown's vote to table the Noise Bill. By tabling the bill, Alexander and Brown voted to deny any discussion of the bill. It is hard to understand why Alexander voted to table the bill given her publicly stated support at the January 5, 2008, Hillcrest Community Civic Association meeting. At that meeting, she told approximately 100 Ward 7 residents that she would support this bill.
More perplexing is Brown's support of Evan's motion to table as he was a co-sponsor of the bill. Brown has participated in many Capitol Hill community meetings over the last few months as part of his re-election campaign. At no time did he indicate to the residents that he was anything less than 100% behind the bill.
Yesterday, Alexander and Brown failed to support the residents of Ward 6 and Ward 7. After the vote, Alexander and Brown both mentioned they still supported the bill, but that it needs to be "worked out" before it comes to the Council again.
I am personally prepared to debate the merits of this bill with Alexander and Brown in a public forum over the next three weeks. I would welcome that opportunity.
We have worked over two years to develop this bill to balance the concerns of all parties. Perhaps a public debate will provide the opportunity for Alexander and Brown to highlight what changes are needed to garner their support.
Our goal is to get this bill back in front of the council in early March in order to protect the residents from unrestricted levels of noise in their homes. Every resident should have the right to peace and quiet within the confines of their own home. By voting with Evans, Alexander and Brown appear not have that same goal.
If the debate doesn't materialize quickly, I suggest interested parties might want to demonstrate the current limits on decibel levels at Alexander and Brown's residences ...If it's anything like 8th and H St NE on any given Saturday, that certainly should inspire a reasonable hearing of this issue.
There was a picture of Brown's reelection van in the Post this morning with a caption that stated he called it "the people's mobile". Yeah sure. I saw Brown at the ANC meeting on the H Street corridor....my impression: the only thing he is interested in is getting reelected. And that he will say or do anything to that end(I don't think he can be trusted). The unions are probably a big help...and many say the unions control the council.
Post a Comment