|
|
|
Articles
|
| D.C. Council passes weakened noise bill |
VOICE writes, "By IAN THOMS
Current Staff Writer
The D.C. Council voted 9-4 last week to adopt a stripped-down version of a proposed noise bill designed to quiet demonstrators in residential areas, after local labor leaders launched a no-holds-barred lobbying campaign against the proposal.
Though some council members chastised the unions' tactics as reprehensible, the legislative body ended up backing away from the stricter version of the Noise Control Protection Amendment Act of 2008 that it approved in May, which was spurred by a group of Hill residents on H Street NE who call the amplified speech of corner preachers hateful in content and disturbing in volume.
Instead, the bill now sets the permissible noncommercial noise levels at up to 80 decibels or 10 decibels above the ambient level as measured from inside the nearest occupied residence. The limitation applies only residential areas of the city from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
But essentially, protesters can still legally get as loud as they like when they are downtown or in other nonresidential areas."
|
The original legislation would have set the permissible noncommercial noise levels for residential areas at 70 decibels or 10 decibels above the ambient level as measured from 50 feet away. For nonresidential areas, an additional 10 decibels would have been permitted.
City law already controls commercial speech and other types of noise, such as that from construction and music. Noise of all types is controlled during the overnight hours.
Dissenters in last week’s vote were Ward 3 member Mary Cheh, Ward 6 member Tommy Wells and at-large members Carol Schwartz and David Catania.
Ward 5 Council member Harry Thomas Jr., who proposed the amended bill, said, "This amendment represents a balance in protecting residents in residential zones and appropriate time, place and manner restrictions to preserve noncommercial public speaking."
Thomas refused to accept a compromise proffered by Wells and favored by Ward 8 Council member Marion Barry that would have kept the original bill's restrictions for residential areas only.
Cheh and Wells together drafted the original bill. They vehemently opposed Thomas' amendment and ultimately voted against their own legislation. They suggested Thomas was attempting to enfeeble the bill to placate labor unions.
"To have to suffer 80 decibels inside your home is fairly ridiculous," Wells said. "You have to suffer the sound of a freight train in your house to get any relief."
Wells said the law will have no effect on residential areas or otherwise, because an enforcement agent would have to enter a person's home to determine whether noise violates the law and likely would not do so.
Cheh said the council would have been better off doing nothing. "This is a facade," she said. "Why go through this charade?"
Catania suggested the majority of the council was trying to give the appearance of protecting residents, while at the same time acquiescing to the pressure of labor unions. "What this body is saying is, 'You don't matter as much as the labor unions,'" he said.
Council members on both sides of the bill agreed the pressure from labor unions was intense. A group of unions joined together as the Speak and Be Heard Coalition and bought a radio advertisement that called out at-large Council members Kwame Brown and Ward 7 member Yvette Alexander, who face re-election this year. The unions also placed newspaper ads, and members protested prior to Tuesday's council meeting.
In the radio advertisement, Martin Luther King Jr.'s voice is heard, and then a male voice said: "The sound of free speech is powerful and priceless. ... But here in D.C. our right to protest and be heard in public is being snatched away by politicians looking to score cheap political points."
Chairman Vincent Gray and Barry both criticized the commercial, though they voted for the amended version of the law. Barry said, "I'm very upset with my friends in the labor union."
The majority of the council argued that the original bill overstepped its aim and ventured dangerously close to restricting free speech.
Ward 4 Council member Muriel Bowser said all the residents she spoke to mistakenly believed the bill would address noise from car stereos and construction.
"This affects speech," she said. "I, in fact, have never gotten a complaint about somebody who's talking on the corner."
Ward 1 Council member Jim Graham pointed out the legislation was born out of an attempt to stop a group of preachers on H Street NE who were using bullhorns to spout out what many residents said was offensive rhetoric. He said the original bill was overreaching. He likened it to "sewing a coat to a button" instead of sewing a button to a coat.
Ward 2 Council member Jack Evans accused the proponents of the original legislation of propagating misconceptions about the bill and said he expects media accounts to carry that misunderstanding to residents.
"We have a noise law," he said, adding that police already have the authority to stop the types of noise that most people complain about, such as loud music. He said that political demonstrations are not affecting many residents and that he has not heard anything from a Ward 2 resident.
Catania objected to that assertion and shared a story about a protest last year that affected city residents, including those in Ward 2, where he lives. He said students of Stevens Elementary at 21st and L streets NW lost most of their first semester because of the carpenters union's noisy protest near the school.
Catania said one day he approached a protester and found out that he was not a union member but rather a homeless man recruited by the union to bolster the protest's numbers. "When the labor union uses bullying," Catania said, "you have adopted the tactics you once fought against."
Cheh, a constitutional law professor, dismissed the suggestion that her bill would have impinged on free speech. She said all jurisdictions in the country, including New York City, have stricter restrictions on noncommercial speech. And she added that the bill would not have restricted sounds above 70 decibels, but rather set that as a limit for "safe haven." The "reasonable person standard," which takes into account the duration and circumstances of the speech and on which the remainder of the law hinged, would have kicked in for noncommercial speech above the levels set.
"Let me tell you, these loud noises in the form of protests, this isn't free speech. Free speech is protected, and it's more protected here even under the bill we were talking about than anywhere else in the United States. This is itself a dishonor to liberty, a dishonor to community, and you know what, I think it's a dishonor to union values."
Barry also said the original bill would not have affected free speech.
"This bill has nothing to do with your ability to say anything you want to say," he said.
In May, the council voted 9-4 to adopt compromise language proffered by Brown. Bowser, Evans, Graham and Thomas cast the dissenting votes at the time, saying Brown's version was still too stringent.
|
Posted on Jun 16, 2008 19:57pm.
(Return)
|
|
|
|
|
Categories
|
|
|
