Proposed Countywide Noise Ordinance

[NotDeadYet]

SJ, all the technical questions you ask were asked and answered when the existing ordinance was adopted. There were many, many hearings, and the county hired a very good consultant specifically because it is a technical matter.
Grayton opted out and elected to keep its existing ordinance, which predated the ordinance for the rest of SoWal. The Grayton ordinance was a community effort, and at the time, the Grayton community felt like it was working well.
So I'll say it again - the county dropped the ball on enforcement, as you have pointed out in your post. And I don't know why we are going back again to the beginning and attempting to replace an ordinance that is not enforced with another ordinance that won't be enforced and probably would not stand up in court. It's a mystery to me. Why cover all the same ground over and over again? If the SO won't enforce a particular ordinance, whatever it is, and Code Enforcement either can't or won't, what is the point of it all?

 

[Smiling JOe]

It sounded like the Sheriff wants the Grayton ordinance (if he has to take one), b/c it will be easier on his deputies, and take less time away from important law enforcement issues. Why would law enforcement care whether or not the ordinance is Constitutional, as long as it handles the situation? Unless victims are willing to go to jail and hire an attorney ($$$), the ordinance (unConstitutional or not) will keep the noise down, and the arrests will in turn, keep the complaints to a minimum.

 

[NotDeadYet]

It sounded like the Sheriff wants the Grayton ordinance (if he has to take one), b/c it will be easier on his deputies, and take less time away from important law enforcement issues. Why would law enforcement care whether or not the ordinance is Constitutional, as long as it handles the situation? Unless victims are willing to go to jail and hire an attorney ($$$), the ordinance (unConstitutional or not) will keep the noise down, and the arrests will in turn, keep the complaints to a minimum.

I think you are getting the picture. And, I will add, a subjective ordinance more readily lends itself to subjective enforcement.

 

[Danny Burns]

I'm clueless when it comes to sound and decible meters. I'll leave that to John R and analogman. I'm curious, is it possible to set a decible meter to block out unamplified human voice (an exception from the proposed ordinance), wind noise, ocean waves, etc, and detect solely the amplified voice or instruments to see if someone is in violation?

These other components of the sonic spectrum will be in the same frequency range as the noise and music the ordinance will be addressing. A simple decibel (dB) meter isn't able to filter them out SJ.

 

[Will B]

These other components of the sonic spectrum will be in the same frequency range as the noise and music the ordinance will be addressing. A simple decibel (dB) meter isn't able to filter them out SJ.

True, but those sounds are not loud so they will have no impact. It's not like a dB meter adds sounds up for a total...

They're inconsequential...

 

[Smiling JOe]

I think I understand you both. I will say that many of the music acts around here play at a quieter volume than the people talking in the bars, and when the music stops for a break, the people tend to get even louder. My point is, if the db meter does as analogman suggests, a decent attorney would point out the obvious about the other noises, enough to make a jury question it.

 

[Will B]

I think I understand you both. I will say that many of the music acts around here play at a quieter volume than the people talking in the bars, and when the music stops for a break, the people tend to get even louder. My point is, if the db meter does as analogman suggests, a decent attorney would point out the obvious about the other noises, enough to make a jury question it.

Point taken!