Labor successfully waters down noise bill

Government

by David Alpert • June 3, 2008 2:21 pm

The DC Council just passed a revised version of the much-debated bill on non-commercial noise. Since I don't know all the arguments well enough to have a strong opinion, I'll just report the arguments that were made at the hearing.

Photo by Malingering on Flickr.

Originally, DC's noise law defined a "noise disturbance" as that which a "reasonable person" would find excessive. A few years ago, the Council exempted "non-commercial speech" between 7 am and 9 pm. But loud and annoying religious proselyter/protesters in the H Street area prompted legislation. Last month, the Council approved a bill on first reading that would restore the "reasonable person" standard, limiting high-volume protests. However, that bill would still have permitted anything under 70 decibels in residential areas, 80 decibels downtown, or anything up to 10 decibels over the ambient noise level.

Today, Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. (ward 5) introduced an amendment to change to a different standard. In residential-only areas, the rule would become 80 decibels (instead of 70), and only as measured inside a house as opposed to outside. Second, in non-residential areas, there would be no restrictions on non-commercial speech. Residential areas for the purposes of this bill are R-1 through R-4 zones; higher density residential areas, such as Dupont Circle, are R-5 zones and would also have no noise limits on non-commercial speech.

Unions have lobbied heavily for the changes. Since the first reading, they ran ads against many of the Councilmembers, a practice which some members roundly condemned for their harshness. But it worked, and by a vote of 9 to 4 the Council approved the amendment and passed the bill. David Catania (at large), Mary Cheh (ward 3), Carol Schwartz (at large), and Tommy Wells (ward 6, including the H Street area that triggered the debate) opposed the change and voted against the final bill, while all others voted for the amendment and the bill.

Supporters of the change argued that very few noise complaints have involved protests, with Jack Evans (ward 2) claiming that there has never been such a complaint in his ward. Opponents argued that the change does not sufficiently protect the rights of residents.

Tommy Wells made a last-ditch effort to adjust the standard downward, back to 70 decibels in residential areas and to measure the noise level from outside rather than inside the houses. That change also failed, with Marion Barry (ward 8) joining Cheh, Catania, Schwartz, and Wells on that modification but also supporting Thomas's amendment and the bill.

9 comments Share	— tags: Carol Schwartz, David Catania, DC Council, Jack Evans, labor, Marion Barry, Mary Cheh, politics, public spaces, Tommy Wells

Have DC Councilmembers ever tried to park downtown on a Saturday? (Dec 17, 2008)
Council passes fine for blocking bike lane (Sep 16, 2008)
Council balks at bike lane parking fines (Jul 16, 2008)
Klingle Road dead, dead, dead; bike trail alive (Jun 3, 2008)
Where do DC's at-large Councilmembers live? (Jun 3, 2008)

Comments

That the unions are superceding the rights of taxpaying residents with the Coucil is disappointing.

Kudos to Wells, Cheh, Catania and Schwartz for standing firm on this.

Now the protests should begin at the residences of the others.

by William on Jun 3, 2008 2:41 pm

What bastards! how horrible!

by Tom on Jun 3, 2008 3:54 pm

The vote on the noise bill has nothing to do with noise. I am sure the unions saw this as an easy fight to pick and win (their adversary being a bunch of residents with real day jobs and real responsibilities) merely to put on the illusion of their so-called strength, as a chit when a real election comes up. "You want to fire people at [insert incompetent city agency here]? We'll raise such a stink it will make the Noise Bill look like child's play..."

The fact is that union pickets (that is, the homeless people they hire to walk the picket line in the name of the union) hardly ever use amplification typically. Media friendly images like the inflatable rat are much more effective. Plus, ask any actual rank-and-file union member who lives in the District--not the guys who commute in from Maryland to pull the levers at the local offices or the internationals--and they couldn't give a rat's jack about being able to use amplification. They're too happy collecting overtime pay, apart from the fact that they tend to be sympathetic and LIVE HERE.

There's a reason unions represent a diminishing percentage of the workforce. Their leaders are out of touch. Like the majority of our leaders, it looks like.

I love DC as a city, but it makes me ill that we have to fight so hard for basic, basic standards that the rest of the apparently first-amendment hating country gets gratis. Is it any wonder why most DC residents move someplace where they can get these basic standards without the strife?

by Rosie the Riveter on Jun 3, 2008 4:00 pm

Harry Thomas, Jr., we will remember thee on election day.

by DCPist on Jun 3, 2008 4:05 pm

The original bill sounds like it would have seriously stiffled the ability to have any kind of protest Downtown, union or not. Am I interpreting that wrong? Was there an exception for permitted protest? The "non-commercial speech" clause is very important for addressing 1st Amendment issues.

by mfs on Jun 3, 2008 6:12 pm

The original bill would have not impacted a protest unless it used high amplification and went on for a prolonged period of time in a manner that disturbed residents trying to live in peace in their homes. It would not have touched the unamplified voice (as many people can shout as loud as they possibly can). The decibel level of 70 in the original bill is still higher than what is permitted in most major cities. DC is the only major city in the country with no limit on daytime noncommercial noise.

What passed was a bill that allows enforcement only if (1) you don't live in the downtown/commercial area; and (2) if you live in a purely residential area, that the noise level is that of a freight train when measured from INSIDE your house.

Today, Ward 2 residents had representation on the Council, but not from their current Ward 2 Council Member -- At Large Council Member David Catania, himself a Ward 2 resident, expressed his outrage as to how children in Stevens Elementary (Foggy Bottom/West End) lost a semester of classes because their teacher could not teach over the noise that went on outside for months from a protest by hired hands across the street. Council Member Mary Cheh of Ward 3, herself a constitutional lawyer and ACLU member, defended the rights of Penn Quarter residents (in Wards 2 and 6) who are under attack by street preachers as well. They exposed the myth perpetuated by the Ward 2 Council Member that this is about one corner in Ward 6. It is a clear quality of life issue for the entire city. How can the Council pretend to promote downtown living when they exempt downtown DC from reasonable noise limits? (The Ward 2 Council Member also today attempted to exempt the central business district from the higher tax placed on vacant property, but that is a post for another day).

by Cary Silverman on Jun 3, 2008 11:11 pm

Who wants to live in a mixed use area when bullhorns are allowed all day long outside your window? We have to start thinking about noise pollution and how damaging it can be.

by Laurence Aurbach on Jun 4, 2008 12:23 am

Can you say gutless - how sad it is that Harry Thomas, Kwame Brown, and Yvette Alexender caved to the Union Special Interest instead of the residents. Pathetic for Barry and Gray to condemn the Unions for their tactics only to vote for the proposal.

Thomas and Brown in particular need to be replaced. What a waste of two council seats.

by DC Freedom on Jun 4, 2008 9:50 am

Cute- The noise legislation protects G'Town but not Downtown. I guess the Ward 2 council member and his G'Town neighbors can now arrest any protesters that dare speak up in his neck of the woods.

by downtowner on Jun 4, 2008 11:08 am