|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 5 users and 42 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Laurian on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 11:28pm.
On Monday night the roughly 30 people showed up at Olympia city hall at a public hearing held by the Olympia Planning Commission to testify on a proposed noise ordinance specifically tailored for downtown Olympia. The move towards a quantified noise ordinance began in early February at the request of Councilman Kingsbury. Currently there are no guidelines for noise pollution and no laws that deal with noise complaints other than nuisance code found in the Olympia Municipal code 8.24.020(J) The emitting of loud and raucous noise, from whatever the source or location, in a manner which, under the circumstances, unreasonably disturbs others; The proposed ordinance is based on ordinances from a dozen cities medium and large cities in the Puget sound region and the Washington Administrative Code 173-60-040 and 173-60-050. Ruth Snyder a downtown Code Enforcement Officer presented the proposed ordinance that would set 60 to 65 decibels, approximately the level of a conversation, as measured at a property line as the allowable noise level during the day. The level would be 5 to 10 dbs lower at night. Of the 17 people who spoke, 15 opposed the ordinance. Bar owners were well represented. Owners of the Brotherhood, McCoy’s, Jakes, the Royal and the Vault all spoke against the ordinance fearing it would have a significantly detrimental effect on their businesses, their income, their employees and the economic health of downtown. Pit of the Brotherhood said the balance of the ordinance fell not on the side of those already downtown but for those who have yet to come. Josh Brown of Royal raised concerns about who could initiate a noise complaint and felt the current system to resolve noise problems are sufficient. Robert Cameron of Jake’s called the proposed ordinance idiotic and would kill downtown. Ian Able of McCoy’s rambled on for close to five minutes touching on close to a ½ dozen issues including briefly the question at hand. The three self-identified musicians and a concert promoter feared a noise ordinance would kill Olympia’s world renown and vibrant music scene. Other speakers spoke to economic concerns, all age venues, culture, free speech, and political protests. One woman wondered how the ordinance would impact events like Music in the Park, Procession of the Species, Art walk, and Lakefair until it was explained the ordinance as written would exempt those events. Of all the people who testified, only two, Keith Jewel and myself were actual downtown residents. He spoke against the ordinance and I spoke in favor. The next step will be for the Planning commission to review written and oral testimony and produce a report by May 5th for the Olympia city council’s review. The council can decide to adopt or reject the Planning commission report with or without further public hearing. Count on another hearing.
Perhaps they should encourage the developersSubmitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 11:00am.to build better sound-proofed buildings instead.
»
In other words...Submitted by Matthew Green on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 3:26pm.I was right. This is about housing. For the record, "Just another voice," when I was a councilmember, I was a strong advocate of getting more housing downtown. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't, because EVERY councilmember in my memory has supported more housing downtown. That is no longer an issue. The issue is, how do we get housing? Some people follow a chain of logic like this: the people who will buy condos (and, not coincidentally, will buy other stuff) are the relatively wealthy; and relatively wealthy people don't want to be bothered by poor and/or loud people; therefore, to get housing, we must get rid of poor and/or loud people. Hence, sidewalk sitting and noise ordinances. Matthew I am not a rich condo buyer.Submitted by Just another voice on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 8:18pm.I am not a rich condo buyer. I am a poor college student living downtown.
I am glad this is on the table now, even if it is for what you say are 'rich people', because if it were a bunch of poor folks downtown we probably wouldn't have much of a voice because we don't have the time to go to these meetings.
I find it interesting you compare poor people to loud people.
»
But I am Just Another Voice My point...Submitted by Matthew Green on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 5:51pm.My point was that some people (not me) put both poor people and loud people into the category of "undesirable if we are to attract downtown housing." Hence, as Jeff K says, they start proposing ordinances against both poor people and loud people. Matthew considerationsSubmitted by evan on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 1:28am.Here's the downtown businesses I can remember that hold shows regularly: Eastside Tavern, 4th Ave. Tavern, Artisan's Cafe, Le Voyeur, The Black Front Gallery, The Midnight Sun, The China Clipper, The Capitol Theatre, Traditions Cafe, and Jake's. I don't think any of those places have residential apartments part of the same building structure (maybe there's some above the 4th Ave. Tavern?). I also can't remember ever walking by any of these places and being able to hear the music at the same level as a conversation, the standard real-world analogue for 60db. If you can measure the music in your apartment at 60db, I would imagine it would have to be exceptionally loud in the venue. I'd be interested in finding a db meter and seeing what sort of levels we'd get around town on an average weekend night. indeedSubmitted by Katherine on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:09am.Talk about real citizen journalism- we could get a whole posse of olybloggers, armed with laptops, digital cameras and db meters. Perhaps t-shirts? Matching flasks? Could be a great excuse for an olyblog pub crawl.
»
I can't recall hearing anythingSubmitted by security_six on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 2:39pm.Horribly loud downtown. The loudest thing I ever heard was that horrible concert at Lakefair which kept me awake all the way over at Westbay Marina. Shut THAT thing down! "Don't try to out-weird me, three eyes. I get weirder things than you in my breakfast cereal."- Zaphod Beeblebrox "Beware the person who would take your guns. That person is your ENEMY." Olympia = MusicSubmitted by Bauermeister on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 7:16am.Hello all - Right now I think the biggest issue is that, as per Kingsbury's Answer, the city council is prepared to go forward with this without hearing any more public comment. Write to the planning commission BEFORE MAY 5TH when they make their presentation on the matter. Urge that this be brought before a full council meeting so that more than one or two representatives from each side can be heard. If you send an email to: olympiaismusic@gmail.com (that's, olympia-is-music as one word), you will automatically be sent back an email which contains a call to action, the address to which you can write the planning commission (Olympia Planning Commission, PO Box 1967, Olympia WA 98507), and links to the actual texts of the amendment, the ordinance, and the general WA ordinance upon which it's based. OLYMPIA=MUSIC=OLYMPIA=MUSIC=OLYMPIA=MUSIC=OLYMPIA=MUSIC Oly doesn't strike me as havingSubmitted by security_six on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 10:59pm.Much of a music scene, but then again maybe I'm home when it all happens. Or the marketing and PR for it is limited... Am I missing something here? "Don't try to out-weird me, three eyes. I get weirder things than you in my breakfast cereal."- Zaphod Beeblebrox "Beware the person who would take your guns. That person is your ENEMY." Well...it isn't 1994Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sun, 04/13/2008 - 10:50pm.Well...it isn't 1994 anymore...
»
CoolSubmitted by security_six on Sun, 04/13/2008 - 10:57pm.1994 was a so so year for me. Lets see, I was 14, it rained that year and I discovered I had the ability to teleport small furry animals with the powers of my mind. That was great until some shadowy government agency wanted me to use my power to launch an odd attack against Cuba where all the rats in New York City were dropped into Fidel Castro's kitchen and bathrooms. Nothing came of it though, because I accidentally dropped them into the kitchen of a major hotel in LA instead.... Oh well. Like I say, a so-so year. "Don't try to out-weird me, three eyes. I get weirder things than you in my breakfast cereal."- Zaphod Beeblebrox "Beware the person who would take your guns. That person is your ENEMY." You are missing somethingSubmitted by jlw on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 11:56pm.You are missing something here.
»
Thanks for the link...Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 12:10am....I never woulda found that. There are so many more bands for both lists that aren't mentioned. We do have a pretty good music scene in this town. Really something for everyone. Are you ribbing me, young man?Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 7:07am.nm
»
YES!!!Submitted by a.future.with.n... on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 2:14am."Much of a music scene, but then again maybe I'm home when it all happens. Or the marketing and PR for it is limited... Am I missing something here?"
»
Are you missing something? the answer is a resounding YES!!! Olympia has an INCREDIBLE music scene. It is, surprisingly, as major a player on the west coast as any major city. I've booked bands from all over the country here. Literally, and I am not kidding here, three days won't go by with out some kind of live music downtown. All. Year. Long. Check for flyers by the Capitol Theatre, The Voyeur, Cap City Guitars, Old School Pizza and The Reef. Most of the PR for shows is done through posted flyers and hand bills and maybe a little bit over the internet. If you're looking for it, the music scene here is easy to find but hard to keep up with. We've got absolutely everything here, from pagan black metal (Wolves in the Throne Room) to hip hop (Saints of Everyday Failures, Scream Club) to singer song writers (Paris McClusky). We've got electro dance (Joey Casio), folk punk (The Hail Seizures), psychedelic grunge (Sisters), pop punk (the Shorebirds). We've got western swing (The Tune Stranglers), punk rock (glue, son skull), post punk (Spider and the Webs), hardcore (Ancient Hed), soft core (Polka Dot Dot Dot)' We seriously have music coming out the wazzu. We've got K Records, Bicycle Records, 5 Rue Christine (I think they're still here) Yo-Yo Records, just to name a few record labels. We've got not one, not two, not three but FOUR independent radio stations, KAOS, 98.5 Free Radio Olympia and 87.7 (another pirate station) and KOWA. All this is just a small sample. We've got constant house show, self released records, street performers, special appearances, touring bands, secret cafes, renegade shows at the well. There is so much music in Olympia it's unreal. It's maybe 80% of why I stay in town sometimes. The noise ordinance threatens all this. Our music scene just isn't as profitable monetarily as a bunch of condo dwelling state workers. If the city council gets it's way, the coffers might fill up a bit, but our town will become culturally impoverished. Whew. That was a mouth full (a type full?) Rodeo Kill has broken up!Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 8:08am.Rodeo Kill has broken up! This is bigger than Unwound calling it quits.
»
All good things come to an end. That's why the Rolling Stones are still around. A finger full?Submitted by Meta Hogan on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 8:11am.Sorry, I can't let this stand. "A bunch of condo-dwelling state workers" is a little off. Most state workers could not afford the kind of condos the council is currently promoting. State workers would be great downtown residents, but it doesn't seem to be a priority to provide housing that's affordable to them (in new construction... granted, they can do like anyone else and get a 1- or 2-bedroom apt downtown). More like "Our local resident scene just isn't as profitable monetarily as a bunch of condo-dwelling out-of-towners". Not that I'm a xenophobe or anything, but I think we need to be really sharp about defining "market rate": which market? whose rate? We can't simultaneously argue that we are building housing for Olympians AND building housing "that most of us can't afford". The folks (in Olympia) that I talked to in the course of my campaign who were interested in buying condos were looking for the 200k-400k range. No one is talking about waiving impact fees for that kind of housing. I suppose there might be those who think that a 350k-condo-dweller would be just another "social service customer". And people accuse THE POOR of waging class warfare. Sheesh.
»
VERY good point, HoganSubmitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 8:34am.You beat me to it.
»
 point takenSubmitted by a.future.with.n... on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 10:21am.n/t
»
"condo-dwelling out-of-towners"Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 10:33am.What does that mean and where in the fact-based world does it come from? I know some people have the impression that these condos will just house rich people who teleport between here and Seattle, but do we have some data to back it up?
»
I'd like to see that data,Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 11:45am.I'd like to see that data, if it exists. Several people I've talked to about this have said, "There's no way the developer would spend this kind of money unless they had studied the market and knew those units would sell." But Bremerton recently put in some very similar "market-rate" waterfront condos, and they are now being sold cheap at auction, because they've been standing empty. Not exactly the boost the local economy needed. Can you imagine destroying the isthmus, the views, for expensive high-rise condos that don't sell? Geez. A lose-lose situation.
»
you're on to something i think, JSubmitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 3:01pm.Over and over in conversations around town about condos I hear the same argument: "There's no way the developer would spend this kind of money unless they had studied the market and knew those units would sell." I'm really beginning to think this is pure myth. The state our economy is in today leads me to believe that not a lot of people have been putting a lot of thought into long term financial stability. On any level. Why would the local developer/housing market be any different? American humans are known for living beyond their means, and if a developer can build them and sell them, even to people who don't know what they're getting into, it's not the developer's problem once the ink is dry. The mess, and the blame for it, falls squarely on the consumer.
»
This, and maybe only through my cynical lens, exposes a major flaw in our economic system. The consumer is blamed when a market fails. They shouldn't have taken out those loans, gotten those credit cards, should have saved money and spent wisely. But at the end of the day those lessons aren't taught to consumers until it's too late, and those certainly aren't the examples set for consumers by our government. This economic stimulus package is an example of our government telling the people that they can somehow spend their way out of recession. It just seems so backwards to me.
Well, it would be a developer's problemSubmitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 3:35pm.If their projects earn a reputation for not selling or selling at a significant loss, that doesn't bode well for future financing. There are some consequences to bad business decisions.
»
How is it their fault if the market takes a dive?Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 3:39pm.They're providing a service to the community by building the housing.
»
You changed the topicSubmitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 4:05pm.You were suggesting earlier that businesses do not need to examine the viability of their projects. Now you're talking about market-wide, macro-eonomic conditions that influence everyone. You just gave me whiplash. I'm suing! But, since you asked...not sure what finding "fault" has to do with it. But if the market tanks, businesses that do not plan well and who are not sufficiently solvent, tend to get "punnished" by that market (whether consumers are "blamed" for it or not).
»
I didn't suggest that at all.Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 4:52pm.I think in your scenario viability equals profitability, no?
»
I think I took this conversation away from where it should be. We should be talking about our downtown. Is Triway concerned with the vitalization of downtown? I don't really think so. My point before was that a developer comes here to make money, not to revitalize anything. Profit is the endgame for the developer. Those condos won't be anything close to the endgame for downtown vitalization. I'm even willing to concede that the developer knows they'll sell long before he builds, that part doesn't matter so much. Money in a developer's fat wallet doesn't do a thing for you or me. We both live and/or work downtown, are there every day and will continue to be for maybe the rest of our lives. The big point I want to make isn't anti-developer or anti-condo at all. The point I really want to drive home here is anti-myopia on the part of the council. They talk about condos, I'd like to hear them talk about condos and... By that I mean how are they going to encourage the life and culture downtown to fit around new housing? We have great art and music and theater and passionate local businesses and grassroots organizations all powered by a strong sense of community and identity in our downtown. I don't agree with those who complain about "loud anti-development minority stopping progress downtown". For one, it's a majority. It's the majority of the people who live, work, and play downtown that frequently stand up to be heard. For two, we aren't anti-development or anti-progress, we just want to be included in the visioning process. We didn't ask for condos, but I think the council would find that if they made us a part of a conversation about them, they'd have less of a "fight", and more understanding. It seems like this council alienates more and more people with every ivory tower decision it makes.
Gotcha...Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 5:29pm.And I agree. Unfortunately, what I tend to hear is people describing what they don't want instead of what they do want. "We don't need condos for rich folks blocking the view." We don't need parking." "We don't need housing in the lot next to Olympia Federal." That really seems like the dominant voice to me or at least that's how it comes across. I realize there are people who have a more nuanced, progressive vision for downtown and I share it. But if I didn't know some of those folks personally, I wouldn't know about it. I also don't think the current council is interested in facilitating a process that realizes that competing vision. I think it has to happen on its own.
»
I'm not convinced it can happen on it's own.Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 5:39pm.The cards are stacked against the people when the ball starts rolling. It would need a unified effort among all affinity groups in order to start talking solutions in a way that will affect downtown development. We're not even close to having that right now, and I don't see many working on it.
»
We need a motto to unify the affinitiesSubmitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 5:47pm."What happens in Kirkland stays in Kirkland." (To play off the Kirlandesque aesthetics of the development proposed for the isthmus.) Here's my vision forSubmitted by jlw on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 6:40pm.Here's my vision for downtown: Not too expensive, a diverse array of coffee places, public spaces, entertainment venues, stores, restaurants, public art. An unusual mix of people. Places with character, i.e., one-of-a-kind places, instead of cookie cutter places. Interesting buildings, beautiful views, a lot of nice parks. Good public transportation would be nice, bike lanes, walkability. Relative safety. Lots of acquaintances everywhere you go. Low cost of living. Low rents. The kind of place where you don't have to be a millionaire to open an organic foods restaurant or an art gallery. Interesting, unique public events -- how about a Pet Parade? Yoga studios and massage places that don't charge too much. Lots of politically engaged individuals. A free bus up to the Farmer's Market. Oh... and a running stream through the middle of downtown would be nice.
»
Where have you been all my life?Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 8:55pm.
wellness center on the lakeSubmitted by chad360 on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 1:48pm.I share alot of those "visions"... ...I'd certainly support a wellness center on the lake (like on the East shore)! I'm really "into" the idea of an aquatic center for our region as well- The City Hall project could act as a springboard for civic improvements, like the stream you mentioned... ...There is a park in Ashland, OR that is a central theme in the "downtown" area, so perhaps Oly could mimic that kind of development =) what is so great about downtown Oly?Submitted by chad360 on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 6:01pm.Just curious- I don't live here "for" any reason, I just do, and I'm curious what "really makes it happen" for folks about "downtown Olympia".
a sticker around townSubmitted by enpen on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 10:18pm.
Not around town, Downtown.Submitted by Laurian on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 5:49am.I'm real sick of seeing these thing suck to just about anything downtown that doesn't move. Not content with assaulting my ears the folks against the ordinance have opened a campaign against my eyes.
»
Laurian,Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 11:02am.I understand you are directly affected by the Urban Onion's shenanigans, so this is kind of personal for you. I know one of the organizers of this group, and to them it's not about opposing the ordinance, it's about wanting a conversation about it so that it turns out fair for all. How would you like to sit down with them and discuss it? I think a lot could be gained.
»
shout down = conversation?Submitted by emmettoconnell on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 11:07am.It doesn't. Just saying that if you want a conversation, its probably better to choose a different word than "shout."
»
This is propagandaSubmitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 11:16am.Meant to get people's attention. Their next step, as evidenced in the flyer I saw, is to educate people as to what the ordinance is about and which elected officials to contact with concerns and how to do so.
»
Yeah...Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 12:19pm.Gotta say it's not a very good invitation to a conversation. It's actually an invitaion for people opposed to the ordinance to organize themselves. Conflicting goals.
»
You understand,Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 12:40pm.of course, the role propaganda plays in organizing? You design a handbill to get the attention of your target audience, that means it has to be designed visually to catch their eye. Once you have their attention you can expand on your message. This is a call to organize, and then take that energy to the council.
»
I think that's Gug's point...Submitted by enpen on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 12:52pm."This is a call to organize, and then take that energy to the council." I guess I'm not communicating well here.Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 2:56pm.This flyer is an organizing tool. It is being used along with an infosheet to educated people about the noise ordinance and to empower them to act. The entire reason the organizers of this are doing this is because they feel like a large block of stakeholders are being left out, namely artists, youths and venue owners. The organizers understand that there is a compromise here somewhere, and were open to it. Compromise requires a conversation among stakeholders, that's what they're organizing people to ask for. From what I'm hearing this isn't a "no, No, NO" thing, it's a "let's talk" thing. The imagery of the flyer is meant to get youth and musicians stoked about getting involved in protecting their scene and getting involved in the future of Olympia.
»
You're communicating fine. ISubmitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 3:00pm.You're communicating fine. I think what's being missed is that the wording of the sticker is offending those in support of the ordinance - which is going to result in many of them reacting instead of communicating
»
I'm still not communicating well.Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 3:31pm.The wording and layout of the stickers and infosheets is not meant to attract supporters of the ordinance. It is meant to attract those who don't know about it or don't care about it. This is step one. Step two would be to educate them about the ordinance. Step three would be to urge them to reach out to "the other side", and ask for a conversation. Does that make more sense?
»
no that does not make sense-Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 6:17pm."It is meant to attract those who don't know about it or don't care about it." -well, the sticker sure does not work for me if that is what it is supposed to mean. I'm concerned that you seem to be missing all the points Gug and MerH (among others) are trying to make about the sticker in their comments- -I'd have thought that you'd be a bit more open-minded in hearing what they are trying to say (re-read this stuff, I'm pretty sure that everyone understands what you are trying to say, but is that a two-way street?). Go civic spirit! Compromises are possibleSubmitted by jlw on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 11:11am.There are a lot of ways noise ordinances can be structured. Some of those might be friendlier toward live music than the one proposed, yet still protect the rights of residents. I know there has been a suggestion of creating an "entertainment district" along 4th Ave with less stringent requirements. Also, there's been some talk of different standards (decibel levels and hours of restriction) for weekends. It may be possible to create some sort of protection against excessive noise for downtown residents without destroying live music in Olympia.
»
The Noise ordinace is the basis of compromise.Submitted by Laurian on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 4:58pm.By establishing a base of what is acceptable and what isn't that 'conversation' can be something other than repeated calls to the cops from sleep deprived working people that get nothing done. There are established forums for that conversation and so far the anti-ordinance community has made good use of them. The 'conversation' began a month ago at the Planning Commission hearing where bar owners, promoters and musicians outnumbered residents 20 to 1. That was a pretty one-sided 'conversation, don't ya think?'. The conversation has continued with comments addressed to the city council and will have another public session at a future city council meeting. I feel the 'conversation' the anti-noise ordinance organizers are proposing is little more another round of hyperbolic forecasts of the end of Culture as we know it with a pinch of class warfare thrown in. I believe what the anti-Ord folks really want is the continuation of the status quote in which residents have no effective tool to force any 'conversation', rationalized agiprop aside. Once again I ask how is it that your right to party or make a buck or even create culture trumps my right to have a good night's sleep? With a little consideration from amplified music performances we all will win. Respectively and in Peace, Laurian well,Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 7:18pm.I can tell you that your beliefs in regards to the "anti noise ordinance crowd" are incorrect. Or at least the ones behind the campaign we've been talking about. Your misconceptions of them would certainly be cleared up over coffee. Why not do it? At the very least you would understand where the "other side" is coming from. Let me know if you're interested.
»
Thanks Rob, but I'll passSubmitted by Laurian on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 6:08am.It feels like its time to agree to disagree on this. I feel it best for the community, and my position, this 'conversation' take place in a public forum such as Olyblog. P.S. I'm still waiting for an answer to my Rights question. Anybody? Legally? (just playing devil's advocate here)Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:20am.Right are a legal construct. Can you show me where the government gave you the right to a good night's sleep? In fact, commerce is usually protected by the government over individuals rights, i.e. sidewalk ordinances, eminent domain, etc.
»
Existing ordinancesSubmitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:35am.recognize a "right to peace" in your home after certain hours. If you're having a loud party next to my house and ignore my request to tone things down, the police might knock on your door and ask you to do so. So, yes, the people have acknowledged my right to a good night's sleep. As for "commerce is usually protected..." well, I guess if you ignore zoning laws, labor laws, ADA requirements, anti-discrimination laws, and a miriad of other restrictions on the activities allowed in the name of commerce, you might be right, but only then.
»
I'll keep them.Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:42am.Labor laws? Look at The Taft-Hartley Act for an example of our government's position on labor laws. It's May Day, Jim. Don't start messing with my fellow workers today.
»
So what you're saying is that there are existing ordinances that already cover this problem? So why do we need another?
Just sayin'Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:52am.its not quite as one-sided as you described. But I still think the captains of commerce have way too much power over the individual. So we still agree in spirit comrade. As for existing ordinances, I was just pointing out how there is an acknowledged right to peace and quiet in your own home, aA point which seemed to be under some contention by a wacky devils advocate. Which way did he go? Get a rope!Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:55am.I'm no commie, so don't call me comrade.
»
Please answer my Rights question RobSubmitted by Laurian on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 4:53pm.or tell me my question is moot. Double Dog Dare Ya. Now indulge me and let me turn your question on it's ear. Can you show me where any Govt. gave you the right to listen to amplified music so loud that it enters my domicile at the same level as conversation? Oh wait, there is a whole pile of case law that say you do not have that right. Many Govts. have regulated noise pollution whereas I have yet to read of Govt. regulation limiting my right to a restful night. As to Rights. Under our Federal Constitution Rights are asserted by citizens and defended by Govt. With 120 years of insight, the Wash State Constitution is even more explicit on this issue. I assert as self-evident my right to a good night's sleep. I just don't understand why a Downtowner's right to be free from excessive noise so contentious. I promise this is the last post I'll submit on this issue. Happy May Day!Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 5:35pm.
Perhaps Olympia needs aSubmitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 5:12pm.decible trading program so that noise can be more efficiently allocated amoung our downtown performance spaces. Downtown residents would be allocated a stock of decibles (we'll need to develop a measure the quantity fo noise over time) which may then be actioned off to performance spaces downtown. The people most affected by the noise would recieve the greatest compensation.
»
The numbers, PleaseSubmitted by Michael_C on Sat, 05/03/2008 - 6:23pm.There's a heck of a lot of assumptions going on about noise levels. Somebody go out and do some measuring and report back! Print yourself a google map, get a meter, set it to 'A' scale, walk around downtown marking dBA readings and the time on your map as you go, then scan it and publish the link for all to see!! There may be a lot more knee jerk reaction happening here than is warranted. (is that redundant?) Anyone's welcome to borrow my radio shack meter if they like. There's a fine line between participation and mockery -Dilbert |
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to | |
Great report. Thanks.
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 6:05am.Factually correct, but. . .
Submitted by Bauermeister on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 7:22am.I didn't see that at all
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 7:27am.I thought that for someone who went to the meeting representing a particular view, she did a good job presenting opposing views with respect.
That said, if you want to write up your own review of the meeting, pleasepleaseplease do so.
No, please, I thought he review was excellent!
Submitted by Bauermeister on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 8:56am.Although, I have to note that the concern which I and several others expressed (including a number neglected in Mr. Weisser's reveiw who were neither bar owners nor musicians) is that, in implementing a necessary ordinance, we consider the importance of live music venues to the music scene and the subsequent world renown of Olympia when choosing those specific Db levels which will constitute a violation of that ordinance.
Also, while Mr. Weisser's report is largely factually correct, his selective use of adjectives such as "self-proclaimed" and "lone" when referring to those of us representing Olympia's music scene does represent a bias. This is particularly true when we contrast it with the earlier implication that the only two people at the meeting who are "actual" downtown residents represent a more valid point of view - though, perhaps I am misreading this earlier implication, and I apologize to Mr. Weisser if I have misconstrued his statement.
Thank you for your time,
Chris Bauermeister
FYI Emmett I'm male.
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 9:12am.d'oh
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 1:51pm.Chris
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 9:20am.still hoping
Submitted by Just another voice on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 8:32am.But I am Just Another Voice
this ordinance will push music out of downtown
Submitted by rosscowman on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 9:27am.Oh gosh...
Submitted by Just another voice on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 9:58am.Let's get real here, this is the reality of the situation:
- People live downtown, some closer to music venues than others. Why should those people be 'punished' with putting up with hearing each lyric from the band two blocks away in their bed at night?
- We want downtown to grow with more housing, which means this problem is not going to go away.
- An ordinance saying that it is illegal for your 60dB "conversation" from 2 blocks away to enter into my bed is very reasonable, I think.
- The ordinance could actually help music venues, since it will prevent frivolous complaints against them.
For those of you who don't live downtown, you probably know how annoying it can be if your neighbors have a party and you can hear every single lyric from inside your bed. So, what do you do? In Bellingham, this problem has been ongoing for a while and music owners and community members have worked to enagage in coversations about how they can prevent police calls. And check out this, the consensus was to simply: "keep your music venue doors SHUT."
Living downtown, I can COMPLETELY agree! That is really all it takes! I know how hot it can get in your venue, but you need to respect people who live downtown. Soon, when we grow down here, low income housing will be introduced, perhaps through the housing authority, and it wont be a 'choice' to live downtown anymore. Which means you can't keep playing the 'you choose to live down here!' card that keeps getting brought up.
But I am Just Another Voice
Seems like what we need is a conversation.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:30am.Suppose a club is busy and the door keeps opening and closing as people come and go, that's not the fault of the venue, yet they could be punished for it. Or, if club owners, in anticipation of possible costs involved with this ordinance through taxes or fines, raise their prices at the door or at the bar, it could have an ill effect on downtown commerce.
We should look at the demographics also. Who lives in housing close to venues right now? All (and I mean all, I'm not exaggerating) of the people that I know who live close to venues with shows are out or up on Friday and Saturday nights (when most shows take place), or are otherwise not bothered by the noise from the shows. Why not exempt Friday and Saturday nights so that venues can have music on their busy nights and just enforce it on the "school nights" (Sunday through Thursday)?
I also think the db level shouldn't be checked at the property line but from the point of complaint. If you call about noise from your apartment, it makes sense that they check the decibel level from your apartment not the venue's front door or property line, which are the same thing downtown.
A Draconian measure would be to put heads on pikes
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:56am.OK, so I just like the word Draconian...
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:07pm.I'd really like to hear ideas on how to fund and enforce this ordinance before we get too far into arguing the details. Honestly, it seems a bit unenforceable, and I seriously question whether it would hold up in court if challenged.
Sounds like the word is "Byzantine"
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:18pm.exactly.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:23pm.Good Question
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 1:39pm.I failed to include a detail from the hearing that in light of your posting is clearly significant. Mrs. Snyder said at the hearing that enforcement of the proposed ordinance would fall under the aegis of Code Enforcement department rather than the police.
This suggests a possible method for enforcing the proposed ordinance. A code enforcement officer would be invited to the residence of a complainant and take readings with a certified sound pressure level reading device. There are several advantages to this enforcement method. 1, The noise level in the residence would be objectively quantified. 2. It would ensure that only chronic rather than transient, acute noise problems would be addressed. 3. It would be the begining of a noise abatement process, not the end.
I really think there is a whole lot less to fear about this ordinance that some vested interests might have us believe.
As a observation: When was the last time the City of Olympia moved agressively against any business, let alone a bar. Hell, it took a murder to shut down a bar that in a year and a half delevoped an extensive record of violence and liquor law violations.
Olympia has been a magnet for a certain type of person...
Submitted by jlw on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:11am.As a self identified musician
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 9:57am.I have a solution. Research says that 60 decibels is the equivilant of "talking".
Be quiet and listen to the music.
That could be fine for Jazz
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 10:38am.Why I gave up Rock concerts and shows
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 3:09pm.I always ended up in the seat where the people next to me didn't want to enjoy the show and were more content on being severely intoxicated and couldn't have told you who was on stage anyway.
At the Dr. John show at Jazz Alley, a table of 20-somethings whose mom bought them tickets for celebrating her daugher's birthday, started down that road. Management gave them one warning only.
I don't pay $28.50 to listen to people yell at each other and puke. I can do that for a cup of coffee at Denny's.
bellingham
Submitted by rosscowman on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 10:31am.No,
Submitted by Just another voice on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:09am.But I am Just Another Voice
bay st coffee
Submitted by rosscowman on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:39am.stewarts/bay st
Submitted by rosscowman on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:44am.similarity to pedestrian interference
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:50am.Will automotive traffic be exempted? That is one area of noise pollution that I would like to see clamped down on.
How about the 5 O'clock whistle? I sort of like to hear that thing go off.
A noise ordinance for parties and night clubs is tough. Would it be possible to enforce an ordinance consistently?
It would be sad if downtown music was targeted in the enforcement of this code, if it were to pass.
But by all means, please stop the noise pollution from automotive sources.
interested folks should really read the fine print
Submitted by hissyfit on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:29pm.I was also present at the meeting last night and found it interesting that most of the noises that folks complained about (cars, shouting, city works, the port, garbage trucks, etc.) will all be exempted from the proposed ordinance. As will festivals and protests, which are covered under a separate list of exemptions (so Lakefair and such can be as loud as ever). Thus, even though 2 people spoke in favor of the ordinance--and a letter read into the record also supported it, but asked for even lower levels, 45 db, if I recall correctly--most of the complaints that were made would NOT be covered by this ordinance (these included the annual marathon, Lakefair, the port, garbage collection, utility work, loud cars, the Toys for Tots motorcycle run, random drunkards shouting in the street, and others).
Basically, the proposed ordinance will only impact local music venues or any other business that makes noise after 10 pm. Maybe I'm missing something, but the last time I was in downtown Oly after 10 pm (uh, last night), the only businesses that were open were bars/clubs that make noise, so...
To be fair, a few bars (the Urban Onion is the one I recall being mentioned) were singled out by the 2 ordinance supporters, so, to my mind, it's still debatable how widespread or critical the current problems are. It seems, rather, that more evidence should be gathered (which is what I suggested in my public comments at the meeting last night) about the current levels of noise coming from downtown establishments, both those about whom complaints have been made and others on a more random, searching-for-average-levels basis.
I encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read the fine print of the proposed ordinance here (pdf). Most of the debate is centering on the db numbers and the exemptions, so be sure to check out the document attachments where these exemptions are listed.
The commission left the written record open, which means that they will accept and consider written comments from citizens up until their May 5th meeting, when they will decide on their recommendation to the City Council. Please let them know what you think, yea or nay.
Lucy
(sorry about the lack of formatting and such--it's just not my bag)
[formated by Rick]
I'll take off my journalist hat
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:21pm.and wade into the fray. As I said before anyone's right to party ends at my ear. The argument that well, if you live downtown you have to put up with our noise is akin to saying well, if you dress in a certain way you have to accept certain uncouth behaviors. In both cases the victim is getting blamed.
The mechanics of enforcement Rob and others are debating have yet to be discussed let alone decided on. Based on the WAC on which much of the actual noise ordinance would be drawn from transient noises such at the Fishtale Brewery whistle, the train horn, and emergency vehicle sirens would be exempt. Also exempt would be be such art events like Music in the Park, ArtsWalk, and god damn it the Toys for Tots biker run.
As to the comment the ordinance is a war on the arts let me say loud music used to attract people so a private business person can sell them alcohol is just on small part of Olympia's arts scene.
The underlying principle behind the noise ordinance is the notion a person has a right to be free of noise pollution in their home. I am disappointed by the bloggers who on other issues have supported an individuals fundamental right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the face of the majorities condemnation of their unorthodox beliefs and lifestyles now coming out in favor of screwing downtown residents so they can suck up a few while receiving permanent hearing loss.
music used to attract people
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:32pm.screwing downtown residents so they can suck up a few while receiving permanent hearing loss
I don't think many fans of Olympia's Music Scene - or patrons of Olympia's establishments - would care for your feelings on this after being dismissed in such a manner.
So?
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:50pm.You missed the point -
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 1:02pm.I asked questions about what you were experiencing, had no reason to disbelieve you, and felt that as far as we were concerned were moving forward with this discussion. I'm open to some of the ideas I've heard concerning Keeping Doors Shut, Strategic Placement of Speakers, Insulating Walls, etc.
I could have reacted more negatively to your insulting dismissal of Music and Musicians. Not only myself but my girlfriend and others in our circle have a passion for music that goes way beyond a desire to help put food on Pit's table.
Why would the events be exempted?
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 12:26pm.The damn beer garden at Lakefair is a noise polluter from the water tower to the westside.
I agree
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 1:02pm.Hopefully the ordinance can be drafted to address these issues as well, but argument 'others are doing it too' is as juvenile and illogical as it sounds. Remember Mom saying "If Johnny jumped off a cliff..."
For the record, I'd like to see Lakefair go away but a whole bunch of non-profits rely on it for most if not all their fundraising so I grudgingly support it though it is literally in my back yard. Carney and teenagers and elephant ears Oh My!!! My suggestion is to rotate Lakefair through Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater. Share the love, share the pain, share the beer gardens.
My question is...
Submitted by Matthew Green on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 3:50pm.Why is this ordinance under consideration now? The bars have been playing music for years, so what changed? Did someone complain? Did someone request an ordinance? Are noise problems up significantly?
A conspiracy theorist would suggest that this is part of a preemptive plot to get rid of people/elements that the owners of million-dollar condo might dislike. I don't generally go for conspiracy theories, but...sometimes they're true.
Seriously, has anyone explained how this issue came up? Note: The answer needs to come from councilmembers, not the planning commission or staff, because the council sets the planning commission agenda.
Matthew
Their are no definite plans
Submitted by Just another voice on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 4:24pm.This is why I am sick of the argument that it is just the 'yuppies' and 'old people' that are complaining.
If anything, we need MORE housing downtown, not more music venues, so that our core can grow. It doesn't matter if it is high end condos or low income housing authority condos, we need it all! Take Bellingham for example, they have been growing middle- to high-end condos in their downtown, as well as development a two major housing authority projects in the core.
Recently Bellingham revisited their code on noise, and they will be setting new decible standards so that both residents and venues can live together. The bar owners in Bellingham are happy to agree to these new standards because it will cut down on frivolous complaints, since they will monitor themselves.
But I am Just Another Voice
According to Laurian's original post
Submitted by Katherine on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 4:51pm.who's responsible & why now
Submitted by hissyfit on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 5:14pm.Kingsbury's answer to Matthew's question
Submitted by hissyfit on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 10:12am.I emailed Councilman Kingsbury to request that the Council consider time for public notification and hearing(s) once this ammendment reaches the Council (after May 5th), in particular that the Council does not introduce and vote on (pass) this all in one fell swoop. I believe that his reply in very "informative":
So, we're all forewarned that the Council may not have ANY public hearings or input on this.