|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 8 users and 31 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: Who's new
Upcoming events Favorite Olympia Blogs Bread and Roses of Olympia The Canaanite's Call Clubside Breakfast Time decorabilia Dark Woods Casino Party E. Side Neighborhood Assoc. Flummel, Flummer, Flummo In the Course of Events John G Bell's Blog Jon's Random Acts of Geekery judimendoza Last Word Blog Nafblog No Talking Heads Olympia Dumpster Divers Olympia Time One Pissed-Off Veteran Papa November Peregrinate Pirate Papa Plan B Olympia The Raccoon Arts Collective The Rambling Taoist Trees and Water Word on the Street What This Town Needs Yelley's Photo Blog Oly Public Bloglines |
Submitted by rosscowman on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 9:49am.
This is a transcript of a conversation I've been having with jeff about the noise ordinance, I'm posting it here because I think it will help to clarify where Jeff's position which was a little unclear to me before. -ross hello jeff, I had a few questions for you regarding the noise ordinance you support. I am curious what your vision of downtown olympia is, and if it is your intention to push live music out of downtown? If this is not the case how do you see the music community and this ordinance living side by side? thanks for your time. -ross Hi Ross, This has nothing to do with "pushing" live music out of downtown. Have you read the proposed amendment? It is considerably more liberal with regard to decibel level than Seattle's ordinance. Seattle continues to have a lively and thrving music community. My own business engages in music, sometimes quite loud, that continues after 10:00 PM, so I can assure you the music community is not in jeopardy. (We are a musical theatre venue, with fully amplified productions, including numerous rock operas.) The city has been, for some time, attempting to bring a rich array of housing options downtown. Our first housing project is slated to break ground quite soon adjacent to Olympia Federal Savings. Over 100 units. This ordinance addresses the concerns that have been brought to us by a handful of current downtown residents, regarding their ability to live in quiet enjoyment after reasonable hours. Certainly those in the music and nighclub industry woud support similar ideals in their own neighborhoods. I would encourage you to read the proposed amendment, research what other cities have done, and see if you come to the same conclusions I have. The council would enjoy hearing from you, as well as others, regarding concerns. Please feel free to address us at any time. Best regards, Jeff Kingsbury Hi Jeff, thank you for your quick response. I agree that folks living downtown deserve a degree of peace and quiet. My understanding of the ordinance amendment is that it would prohibit sound in excess of 60-65db (about the volume of a normal conversation) as measured from the property line of the sound source during the daytime and lower then that at night. Is this correct? I have worked as the building manager of the eagle's hall and a festival organizer for what you got fest last year. The events at the eagle's hall, what you got fest, and almost every music venue downtown all fall well within that range. I would like the chance to meet with you and the council and share some of my concerns in person. I also have some first hand knowledge of the adverse effects of similar ordinances in seattle and bellingham as well as some successful models in redmond, kirkland, and bellevue. thanks for your time -ross hi jeff, I was curious if you had time to read the last message I sent you. I am unclear about the specifics of the ordinance you have proposed and would appreciate some clarification. It seems to me like expecting a city center used by thousands of people each day and each night to maintain a volume level of two people having a conversation is pretty unrealistic. 65 db? and 5-10 db quieter at night? I can hear downtown all day from the east side neighborhood, there's planes, construction, kids at recess, the school bell, and music from the neighbors. these are all signs of a busy and healthy community. Let me know if there is a time we can get together and discuss this in person. thanks! -ross Hi Ross, I've been on vacation. (I actually answered the first time from CA!) The planes, construction, kids, school bells, etc that you hear would have to register CONTINUOUSLY at 65 db for 15 minutes at a time to be in violation. AND, the sound must be measured from the location of the complainants property. So, for example at the Eagles. I have stood (many times, by the way) on the street in front of the Eagles during events...wedding receptions, battle of the bands, etc...and the sound directly adjacent to the building would NOT be in violation. (Our ordinance, is 65db at its strictest, I believe, but I'll check that to be sure) I seem to recall a neighbor a few blocks away complaining about an Eagle's event a year or so ago...that was quite loud well into the wee hours of the morning. Our police actually responded to that gentleman and concurred that it was too loud, and extended for longer than a 15 minute period. I don't recall the resolution, but there haven't been more complaints, so I'm assuming it's been resolved. If a nightclub is BELOW residences and it's summer and all the doors and windows are open, as was the case several times last summer, then that would likely result in a violation. People who live in the downtown might reasonably have their windows open in the summer heat, just for airflow...a relatively common practice. At night, when violations would most likely occur, this would only be an issue where there are residences, or other businesses that are in operation. I know of only a handful of those. I would be happy to discuss it in person, but I'm not likely to change my mind. Reasonable level of sound bothers me not one whit...infringing on a neighbor's quiet enjoyment does. JK
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Olyblogger of the Month: Docents are fellow citizen journalists who volunteer to be at your service in order to help with any blog-related issues. They are: Rob RichardsInterests: community building; participatory art, democracy and economics; local politics; citizen journalism. emmettoconnell Interests: City Council, developing a local issues forum. enpen Interests: OlyBlog poster calendar, Olympia public art, local artist interviews, his family, poetry and stuff. Robert Whitlock Interests: peace, justice, nature, nonviolence, media, environment Rick Interests: citizen journalism, hyperlocal media, the knowledge commons. Docent email list Latest Classified Ads Books & Collections ›Blog Local |
Thanks for posting this.
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 10:04am.venue in the Port
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 11:21am.I'd like to see a venue situated out near the Port.
Yes!
Submitted by Katherine on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 2:15pm.Anyone have the text of the ordinance?
Submitted by Logarithm on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 12:43pm.been looking
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 8:20pm.never mind
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 8:38pm.By all indications council
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 2:03am.By all indications council member Kingsbury is certainly a reasonable person.
Reasonable?
Submitted by Bauermeister on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 10:37am.I don't know about you, but when I read:
"I would be happy to discuss it in person, but I'm not likely to change my mind"
it bothers me that Mr. Kingsbury values his own opinion more than that of his constituents. I mean, aren't elected officials supposed to . . . oh, wait, this is George Bush's USA, now isn't it, where those with power or money don't really need to listen to the rest of us.
If we hadn't made a ruckus about this, I don't believe he'd even be pretending that he cares (see the earlier posting of hissyfit's discussion with him, in which he says that the council doesn't even need to listen to input on the issue because it's only and "amendment").
He's willing to discuss it
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 3:59pm.He's willing to discuss it in person! Maybe he will come away with a difference of opinion, but he's acknowledging that it's unlikely.
Mr. Kingsbury appears reasonable enough that - if provided a piece of evidence that was so ground-breaking he couldn't ignore it - he would reconsider his own opinion.
The statement "but I'm not likely to change my mind" is simply being upfront in that unless the person he's meeting with has something significant to offer, they'll simply agree to disagree.
Elected officials are supposed to listen to their constituents - which is what he's doing by meeting with the person - but make their own decisions based on a number of factors including the opinions of the people. This is a republic, not a democracy. We elect people to make reasonable and rational decisions for us based on our core principles. If they're not doing a good job you either remove them from office or vote them out in the next election.
Notably, I was at that
Submitted by zeet on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 12:03pm.