At last Monday's Council meeting, a proposed new noise ordinance was discussed: but was ultimately layed over untill the next meeting. Council President Quinn opened the floor for public comments:
Citizen #1, a Volanta St. resident said her problem was with a nearby restaurant and suggested moving "bands" indoors. "Businesses have a considerable amount (money) . . . invested . . . but so do homeowners . . . don't want Fairhope to become a bar town."
Citizen #2 called the growing noise problem "shocking" for a retirement community; and "(Its) . . . astounding 5 or so establishments can disrupt a whole city . . . cause a public nuisance."
Citizen#3, a downtown Equality St. resident, lamented that "yelling and shouting" were not included in the new ordinance (a major neighborhood problem); and that officers would have to enter his residence (bedroom?)-- to determine if excessive noise levels existed inside: "(This) . . . seems to be an excessive burden on the resident."
[Police Chief Press interjected here that yelling/shouting was covered by other city/state laws (i.e. disorderly conduct)-- and that police routinely have to enter residences/businesses to investigate many other types of complaints as well]
Citizen #4, another Equality St. resident, agreed that live/recorded music (from near-by pubs) probably wasn't their worst problem: drunkenness and brawling were. "We're becoming just another a bar town."
Citizen # 5, a downtown pub-building landlord, said he thought that enforcement under the proposal would be too "subjective" ("plainly audible" ?) and would "put the police in the business of creating laws."
Citizen #6, a Fly Creek area business owner, also complained that the enforcement language was too vague-- and gave officers too much discretion. He offered to buy the officers "$50 noise meters"-- to make decibel measurements instead.
[Chief Press has said he opposes solely relying on noise meters, partly because they are not able to measure extremely low frequency ("boom box" type) sound and "vibrations" accurately]
Citzen #7, another Volanta Ave. resident, said the proposed ordinance doesn't address one big concern of his--it wouldn't apply to outside patios and decks-- and agreed that officers entering residences late at night "compromises privacy." "The ("smart growth") mixed-land-use concept can't exist under these circumstances."
[Attorney/Councilman Kingrea interjected that he too had enforcement concerns (no exact decibel levels mentioned), but said the new ordinance was to be sent to the State Attorney General's Office for review/approval before being enforced--to "make sure we're on solid ground."]
Police Chief Press (a member of the Noise Committee with Kingrea, Quinn} then observed: "We're not going to be able to completely please everybody . . . intent is to find an ordinance that's reasonable ("plainly audible within the confines of the structure") and enforceable. . . police officers use discretion . . . have to evaluate every crime . . ." Press said officers needed to go inside residences not only to verify the sound level there-- but also because "someone may just want to cause problems for an establishment (false report)." Penalties were to be increased for violators in the new ordinance as well.
Council President Quinn summarized: "This is a tough issue. . . no clear winners/losers . . . everybody has to be flexible . . . had many meetings . . . send comments to me, Rick (Kingrea) , and the Chief . . . we'll come back in 2 weeks."
[Publisher's Note: There is a great deal of information concerning noise reduction/mitigation available on the Web]
At last Monday's Council meeting, a proposed new noise ordinance was discussed: but was ultimately layed over untill the next meeting. Council President Quinn opened the floor for public comments:
Citizen #1, a Volanta St. resident said her problem was with a nearby restaurant and suggested moving "bands" indoors. "Businesses have a considerable amount (money) . . . invested . . . but so do homeowners . . . don't want Fairhope to become a bar town."
Citizen #2 called the growing noise problem "shocking" for a retirement community; and "(Its) . . . astounding 5 or so establishments can disrupt a whole city . . . cause a public nuisance."
Citizen#3, a downtown Equality St. resident, lamented that "yelling and shouting" were not included in the new ordinance (a major neighborhood problem); and that officers would have to enter his residence (bedroom?)-- to determine if excessive noise levels existed inside: "(This) . . . seems to be an excessive burden on the resident."
[Police Chief Press interjected here that yelling/shouting was covered by other city/state laws (i.e. disorderly conduct)-- and that police routinely have to enter residences/businesses to investigate many other types of complaints as well]
Citizen #4, another Equality St. resident, agreed that live/recorded music (from near-by pubs) probably wasn't their worst problem: drunkenness and brawling were. "We're becoming just another a bar town."
Citizen # 5, a downtown pub-building landlord, said he thought that enforcement under the proposal would be too "subjective" ("plainly audible" ?) and would "put the police in the business of creating laws."
Citizen #6, a Fly Creek area business owner, also complained that the enforcement language was too vague-- and gave officers too much discretion. He offered to buy the officers "$50 noise meters"-- to make decibel measurements instead.
[Chief Press has said he opposes solely relying on noise meters, partly because they are not able to measure extremely low frequency ("boom box" type) sound and "vibrations" accurately]
Citzen #7, another Volanta Ave. resident, said the proposed ordinance doesn't address one big concern of his--it wouldn't apply to outside patios and decks-- and agreed that officers entering residences late at night "compromises privacy." "The ("smart growth") mixed-land-use concept can't exist under these circumstances."
[Attorney/Councilman Kingrea interjected that he too had enforcement concerns (no exact decibel levels mentioned), but said the new ordinance was to be sent to the State Attorney General's Office for review/approval before being enforced--to "make sure we're on solid ground."]
Police Chief Press (a member of the Noise Committee with Kingrea, Quinn} then observed: "We're not going to be able to completely please everybody . . . intent is to find an ordinance that's reasonable ("plainly audible within the confines of the structure") and enforceable. . . police officers use discretion . . . have to evaluate every crime . . ." Press said officers needed to go inside residences not only to verify the sound level there-- but also because "someone may just want to cause problems for an establishment (false report)." Penalties were to be increased for violators in the new ordinance as well.
Council President Quinn summarized: "This is a tough issue. . . no clear winners/losers . . . everybody has to be flexible . . . had many meetings . . . send comments to me, Rick (Kingrea) , and the Chief . . . we'll come back in 2 weeks."
[Publisher's Note: There is a great deal of information concerning noise reduction/mitigation available on the Web]
Comments
Alabama state code requires emergency vehicles to usa an audible warning device (siren) when warning lights are used in an emergency. This applies to Police, Fire, and Ambulances.