No Noise?!? | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

Phil Owen
JMK
chad360

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

LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart
eristalis
Hillguy

No Noise?!?

Submitted by Nicki on Mon, 05/26/2008 - 12:34pm.

sound ordinance

Maybe I missed a blog, but does anyone have something to say on this noise law? If, according to the article in the zero, 'normal conversation' is between 55-65 decibels, and the ordinance would make it illegal to make more than 65 decibels of sound between 7a.m. and 10p.m., and 65 decibels from 10p.m. to 7a.m., what are we going to do??? Do we all have to whisper now when we are in the downtown area?

Nicki's blog
Login or register to post comments

as i understand it, someone would have to

Submitted by DSnyder on Mon, 05/26/2008 - 1:14pm.

make a complaint first. then the noise level would be measured from the property line of the person complaining.

so if you can hear something that sounds like a "normal conversation" from your property line, that'd be violation. there's lots of problems with it.

http://olyblog.net/search/node/noise+ordinance

You bet there are!

Submitted by Nicki on Mon, 05/26/2008 - 2:04pm.

It is just a slippery slope. Along the lines of the sidewalk blocking ordinance. Which didn't really work, as I still see so many 'undesireables' downtown. What they are afraid of is having too many young, noisy, potentially, rowdy people running amuck downtown. They are worried that if they don't get everyone under control before the condos go up, they won't be able to entice the big bucks downtown. After all, who wants to spend millions on a condo and have to listen loud music, and watch rowdy teens and young adults in the streets on Fri. and Sat. nights. Don't get me wrong, I don't particulary crave that scene either, but I am just saying this is their mind set. And, who knows where it could go from here.

The ordinance has to pass, first

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 05/26/2008 - 2:16pm.

Don't panic, Nicki! The ordinance has to pass before code enforcement has the right to roam around downtown shushing you. And the ordinance's prospects at this point aren't looking too rosy: the Planning Commission didn't recommend it -- only one of the eleven commissioners was ready to recommend it in its present form. And the Olympian came out against it in an editorial. It would be surprising if the Council passed it in its present form, considering the lack of public support.

In addition, as DSnyder noted above, if someone did complain, code enforcement would have to come out to investigate. And although, as the ordinance is currently written, decibel measurements could be taken at the complainant's property line, according to code enforcement's Ruth Snyder, measurements would more likely be taken from wherever the complainant was being disturbed. Even if you were found to be in violation, you would first receive a "courtesy letter" from Code Enforcement before you were actually fined.

At a recent Planning Commission meeting, there was a lot of back and forth about where the measurements should be taken. Most of the commissioners wanted the ordinance to specify where measurements would be taken, and wanted it to specify that they would be taken interiorly from the residence of the complainant. Code enforcement insisted that most measurements would be taken in that manner, but wanted to keep the vague language, in case someone was bothered by noise on their patio or deck.

By the way, I oppose the noise ordinance as currently written. And I have been very gratified to see that the Planning Commission and the Olympian are refusing to support it, as well.

But...!

Submitted by Nicki on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 6:34am.

The very problem stems from the fact that they are even talking about this. I agree that everyone should be mindful of their noise projections, ie. bars and such, and I realize that sometimes it's hard to get people to be respectflul, but I do not think it's a good idea to have the City Council messing with this. Especially when you talk about keeping vague language. That's where they can really go to town, if they want to. Maybe they could say that if there are so many, say 5 or more, official registered complaints by separate, unrelated, individuals, in a 30 day period then they might have to pay a fine. Then they'd be able to pick up some small change as well. They'd love that!

There's already a nuisance

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 2:35pm.

There's already a nuisance noise ordinance on the books that the police can use if they get a complaint, but it doesn't have decibel levels written into it. I heard a city employee comment that cities whose noise ordinances contain decibel levels tend to fare better in law suits; i.e., if someone sues the city for infringing on his or her right to free speech, the defendant (the city) tends to win if they can counter with "well, you were exceeding our decibel level."

I wholeheartedly agree that this ordinance, if it passes as written, could be used in sinister ways. And the line that it protects businesses like bars is hogwash... sort of like "toxic sludge is good for you," and "condos on the isthmus will IMPROVE the views."

Ok lets get the real facts

Submitted by Just another voice on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 8:15am.

Ok lets get the real facts on the table. First off your conversation would have to be prolonged at 65dBs for at least 15 minuets. Second, someone would have to make a complaint. You would have to come back to the same location and do the same thing at a time when code enforcement was around to even have a talking to. And lastly, you conversation would have to be louder then ambient noise.

What this all comes down to is that you are not going to get even talked to because of this noise ordinance. As the nusinces ordinance is written now, if I thought you were being loud and I called the Police they would have to come out and tell you to quite down...there is nothing that gives levels in the current ordinance.

Nicki this is not a slippery slope it is a way for current downtown residents and venue/bar/club owners to protect themselves from frivolous complaints. The way the ordinance is written is to make a solution -not a fine- the proper solution for on going problems.

But I am Just Another Voice

Why now?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 9:01am.

...

ok, as long as we're being factual

Submitted by hissyfit on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 1:23pm.

... the proposed amendment to the noise ordinance does not cover unamplified human voices, only amplified noise.

I totally agree that if the city chooses to change the noise ordinance, this could benefit both sides (downtown businesses and residents), but only if there are clear rules about numbers and where measurements are taken.

As it is now, city enforcement wants the leeway to measure as they see fit, claiming that they will "probably" or "usually" take measurements inside buildings, but saying that they don't want to be required (by the law) to do so because they may want to apply the law differently in some cases.

This isn't a clear standard, in my book, and won't really improve upon the existing nuisance standard.

s

Submitted by Just another voice on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 7:43am.

Actually, the ordinance will

Submitted by Just another voice on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 7:42am.

Actually, the ordinance will cover all noise that is not exempted in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). It is also talking about continual not intermittent or extraneous, like a plane flying overhead or an engine back-firing.

Here is the link to the WAC. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-60-050

But I am Just Another Voice

The noise Ord. is about pollution, noise pollution

Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 4:10pm.

The hysterical hyperbole of people opposed to the noise ordinance reminds me of the hysterical hyperbole polluting industries use to fight environmental regulation. It isn't a problem, regulaton will destroy our industry and put people out of work, it will end a way of life, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, tough. To venues that leak more than 65dbs into my and other downtown resident's apartment on weeknights; invest in sound proofing and/or develop a sound mitigation program.

The other argument I hear is people who live downtown have to expect and live with noise pollution. This is a variation of blaming the victim. She wore provocative clothes. What did she expect. She's so poor she has to live in the Olympian Hotel. She deserves sleepless nights. I hope everyone sees both propositions are BS.

Projecting that the noise ordinance is all about bringing the rich downtown onto the wishes of moderate and low income residents who already live there is the definition of perverse. Even if the ordinance is passed the onus for seeking amelioration from noise pollution still lies on the victim, not the establishments polluting. Really folks, the next Sleater Kinney will not be killed by the noise ordinance.

Relax. Bar owners, another slice of Olympia's petite bourgeoisie that paid for the current city council, will not get screwed by the council.

PS SK practiced outside city limits and played less than a 1/2 dozen shows downtown. Then they moved to Portland and later California.

Meanwhile somewhere over Iraq...

With all due respect, you're

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 5:53pm.

With all due respect, you're engaging in a bit of hysterical hyperbole yourself. Most of the people on this thread have been discussing the nuts and bolts of the ordinance, whereas you've compared people who disagree with you to apologists for rape. Perhaps you could lead by example.

Sorry, your're right

Submitted by Laurian on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 4:53am.

In my defense I was comparing the structure of arguments, not branding anyone anything.

"hysterical hyperbole?"

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 8:44pm.

Good thing we don't have an irony ordinance.

In the interest of accuracy...

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 7:43am.

Double-check who paid for the current city council. Some bar owners supported the opposition (thank you, Pit).

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

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. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: