Posts about Noise

Government

Labor successfully waters down noise bill

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.

Development

Where to put the noise?

by David Alpert   •   March 27, 2008 10:20 am

Mixed-use development is the best kind for so many reasons, like enabling people to live near where they work, and maintaining "eyes on the street" all day. However, it does create a few problems, like noise. There's a big market for restaurants, bars, nightclubs and live music, but it can also be disruptive to residents.

Photo by Capannelle on Flickr.

At yesterday's Retail Strategy meeting, Barbara Kahlow of the West End Citizens' Association spoke of noise concerns as a primary issue for the community. Residents along 17th Street in Dupont have been at odds with the local restaurants over noise for many years. The property owner of the corner store at 14th and T told the Dupont Circle Conservancy that they can't find a tenant because the ANC is preventing any new liquor licenses in that area. Sometimes the residents have a point, other times they might be demanding too much.

The usual solution is to put restaurants and bars in less residential, less developed areas, like the new Ballpark district, which was mostly warehouses and parking lots until recently, and whose few residents would welcome stores and restaurants to improve the neighborhood. But eventually, the numbers of residents increase and so do the bars, and the amount of noise, and complaints rise. This is happening in the Gallery Place and Mount Vernon Triangle area, where the neighborhood's own success is now an obstacle to further growth.

Neighborhood blog The Triangle reports on the controversy over what kind of retail to put at 5th and I. One proposal includes a small jazz club. One commenter on Penn Quarter Living wrote, "I don't think clubs of any type directly next to housing works," while FourthandEye, author of the Triangle post, disagrees. "Do people really want this area to be 15 blocks of highrises, Quiznos and dry cleaners? ... This is downtown city living!"

If we build mixed-use, then every club is going to be near housing. We can avoid having too many clubs in one place, to spread the noise around; on the other hand, districts like Adams Morgan and U Street draw more people because of the wealth of choices and proximity of one to the other. Soon there won't be a place for a bar that's not next to a residential neighborhood, meaning every one will generate complaints. Yet we need them. It's not a debate that will go away.