Labor Ads Blast Citizens’ Quiet Rights

The Washington Post reports several labor union groups have banded together in a three-day advertising blitz to kill a bill that would protect D.C. residents at home from unreasonable amplified noise. The bill also would bolster free speech.

I can’t say labor’s effort was unexpected.

Some unions have an everyone-be-damned obsession with the citywide noise loophole they sneaked into a 2004 Georgetown street construction bill—a process of which residents at that time were not made aware.

Other labor groups, like SEIU 32BJ and SEIU 500, can empathize with residents and support the noise bill. Thank you.

The reality is labor unions have the money to buy advertising, retain lobbyists and lawyers, hire protesters, and employ amplifiers as weapons of unrelenting noise.

Meanwhile, the hopes of the District’s working families—moms and dads, grandmothers and grandfathers, retirees and children—rest with the elected councilmembers.

Politics obviously does not lack money. But sometimes it takes a little courage to do the right thing for the people of this great city.

Noise Bill Will STRENGTHEN Free Speech

As a journalist and former card-carrying member of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (Local 39), I’m rabidly protective of free speech rights and complete transparency in our government processes.

That’s why I back a noise bill that actually enhances our democratic process. Here’s how:

The current law contains this provision, which the pending bill will NOT change:

DCMR § 20-2704.8 “The unamplified voice shall be exempt at all times.”

Unamplified voices are and would remain exempt from the District’s noise ordinance. When large numbers of people are energized about an issue, they should dominate the public debate--not one person with a big amplifier.

What does this mean? It means 100, 1,000, or 100,000 people marching in D.C. will have NO (zero, nada, nothing) restrictions on how loud their unamplified voices can be. And that’s the way it should be.

As a matter of fact, D.C.’s current law violates the right to free speech for those without—or with smaller—amplifiers.

Let’s let the people prevail--not special interest groups who, when lacking real voices, resort to artificial bullying to get their way.

Video Shows Workings of the Rumbler Siren

"It's a public safety issue when our society is so loud that public safety officials need to up the ante in order to get someone's attention."

Those are among my comments the Boston Globe included in its Sunday edition. Read the entire story online.

Watch the online video here.

The Text of Councilmember Brown's Amendment

Here's the text of the amendment offered by At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown and adopted by the D.C. City Council during its first reading on May 6.

It's important to note that the unamplified voice IS and WILL REMAIN exempt from the D.C. noise ordinance at all times.

AN AMENDMENT
#__1__
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date: May 6, 2008
Amendment offered by: Councilmember Kwame Brown

to: Bill 17-0177 "Noise Control Protection Amendment Act of 2008 "

Version:
Introduced _____
Committee Print _____
First Reading __x__
Amended First Reading _____
Engrossed _____
Enrolled _____
Unidentified _____

A. Long Title Page 1 Line(s) 20-22

The long title is amended by striking “district;” and inserting the phrase “district, or exceeds the greater of 80 decibels, or 10 decibels above the ambient noise level, when measured at a distance of 50 feet in districts not zoned residential;” in its place.

B. Section 2 Page 1 Lines 28-34

Section 2 is amended by striking:

“A noise shall not be considered a noise disturbance if it is made during noncommercial public speaking during the daytime and does not exceed the greater of 70 decibels, or 10 decibels above the ambient noise level, when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the source of the noise, or inside the nearest occupied residence in districts zoned R-1A, R-1B, R-2, R-3, or R-4.”

and inserting in its place:

“A noise shall not be considered a noise disturbance if it is made during noncommercial public speaking during the daytime and does not exceed the greater of 70 decibels, or 10 decibels above the ambient noise level, when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the source of the noise, or from the nearest occupied residence in districts zoned R-1A, R-1B, R-2, R-3, or R-4. A noise shall not be considered a noise disturbance if it is made during noncommercial public speaking during the daytime and does not exceed the greater of 80 decibels, or 10 decibels above the ambient noise level, when measured at a distance of 50 feet in all other zoned districts. Except as it may otherwise conflict with the provisions of this act, all measurements of noise levels shall be performed and verified by qualified inspectors of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in accordance with the requirements specified in Chapter 29 of Title 20 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations.”

Rationale:

To accommodate the increased noise in downtown neighborhoods, a greater threshold is created for non-residential zoned districts. This provision guarantees, as a matter of right, that amplified noise downtown can be twice as loud as the noise around it, while also providing residential neighborhoods greater noise protections. In addition, this amendment clarifies the original intent of the legislation that the noise provisions be enforced properly and by trained and qualified DCRA inspectors, not Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers.

WTOP Offers Retrospective on Noise Saga

WTOP Investigative Reporter Mark Segraves in his weekly column, "Malcontent Minute," offers a retrospective look at the ongoing D.C. battle for quiet rights.

I never would have imagined the simple act of asking someone to please lower the volume would result in such drama. Kudos to the common-sense citizens of this fine city who care enough to enact change.

As Segraves says, "score one for the little guy." Read his complete story here.

News Roundup: Council Vote

D.C. Council Gives Preliminary Approval to Noise Bill [Washington Post]
After intense and loud debate, the D.C. Council gave initial approval yesterday to noise legislation that would quiet demonstrators in residential neighborhoods but allow them to pump up the volume downtown and in front of hotels. [READ MORE]

Council backs noise restrictions; area unions furious [The Examiner]
The D.C. Council on Tuesday narrowly backed an effort to limit daytime noise levels on city streets, a measure heralded by community leaders but condemned by local unions as a crushing blow to their First Amendment rights. [READ MORE]

Shhhh! Everybody Calm Down [Washington Post’s D.C. Wire blog]
The D.C. Council is set to vote today on a noise bill that has been tabled, tweaked and revived. But the council appears to still be divided despite amendments offered by Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). There was pouting and at least one audible curse word at this morning's council breakfast, where council members discussed the bill. [READ MORE]

Noise Bill Passes [Washington City Paper]
The noise bill has passed its initial test on the D.C. Council. [READ MORE]

D.C. Council Adopts Noise Measure [WTOP]
The D.C. Council has given preliminary approval to restrictions on noisy demonstrations. [READ MORE]

NOISE BILL PASSES! (Shhhhh! Quietly.) [dcist blog]
Earlier this year it looked like a measure pushed by some Ward 6 residents to impose volume limits on protests in residential neighborhoods was destined for failure. As we briefly mentioned yesterday, though, the D.C. Council endorsed an amended version of the legislation. [READ MORE]

Council Adopts Anti-Noise Measure [WJLA ABC 7]
The D.C. Council has given preliminary approval to restrictions on noisy demonstrations. [READ MORE]

Council Votes to Protect Citizens from Noise

A majority on the D.C. City Council was looking out for the Little Guy today. The "Noise Control Protection Amendment Act of 2008 (Bill 17-177) passed its initial test on the D.C. Council, 8-5.

After more than an hour of heated debate, a compromise offered by At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown was adopted that put an 80 decibel cap on downtown amplified speech in addition to a 70 decibel cap on residential amplified speech, measured at the property line. Also included was a provision to allow amplified speech to exceed ambient noise by 10 decibels.

Voting for the bill (my infant daughter is just now smiling in her sleep...I'm not kidding): Councilmembers Mary Cheh, Tommy Wells, Yvette Alexander, Marion Barry, Kwame Brown, Carol Schwartz, David Catania, and Chairman Vincent Gray.

Voting against: Councilmembers Jim Graham, Jack Evans, Muriel Bowser, Henry Thomas, Phil Mendelson.

In a touch of added drama, a Jack Evans' amendment--which would have effectively gutted the bill--was narrowly defeated, 7-6. His change would have allowed anyone to push their amplified speech into homes at 80 decibels as measured INSIDE one's home. That's a freight train in your bedroom, folks!

The second reading still looms next month, so this still isn't over, but this is a big step.

All Councilmembers on Equal Footing During Debate

The District of Columbia City Council this afternoon currently is debating merits of the "Noise Control Protection Amendment Act of 2008 (Bill 17-177).

Whatever your position on this bill, its refreshing to hear and see both sides duel in the free marketplace of ideas--especially when one side's voice is not smothered by the other's domination with an amplifier.

You can watch on Cable Channel 13 or via the Internet. The Washington Post's D.C. Wire also offers some tidbits.

Oh, and hey...if you don't want to watch or hear it, you have the power to not tune in--unlike many D.C. residents forced to endure hours of amplified noise inside their own homes.