Civil suits CAN work
Motocross Track Ruling
In 2003, a Montana family was dealing with a neighbor that installed a motocross track. The noise levels and dust from the motorcycles were so great that the family had to abandon their home during race meets. The neighbor chose to ignore complaints about the track.
The family of Leonard Moyers brought a civil action against the family of Lorraine Morin, in Flathead County, Montana which operated a motocross track on their property.
The attorney representing the Moyers family retained a consultant who created a report as evidence that included statements of individuals exposed to the track noise, photographs of the area, noise measurements, appropriate studies and references.
In district court, the judge found for the plaintiff. The conclusions of law were that the operation of the motocross track was determined to be a public nuisance. The defendant was prohibited from the operation of any type of motocross track in the vicinity and required to remove the track from the property. That included restoring the original contours of the property by removing the hills and jumps that were constructed as part of the track.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Racine police are cracking down on loud car stereos and finding people with
outstanding warrants and other violators in the process.
Big Island Police?
Racine News Video
outstanding warrants and other violators in the process.
Big Island Police?
Racine News Video
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
New York's Noise Code
From TimeOut New York:
The Green Issue
The silent killer
Pissed off by noise? So is the environment. And the city’s on your side.
By Daniel Holloway
In 1972, New York became the first city to arm itself with a noise code. But you’re forgiven if you didn’t even know we had one: It went without revision for more than 30 years, during which time the city saw more development, more people, more machines and more…noise.
It took the mayor to step things up, goading an inert City Council. “To his credit, Bloomberg said, ‘Get it…done…now,’ ” says Dr. Arline Bronzaft of the mayor’s 2005 push to revise. She’s chaired the noise committee for the Council on the Environment under four mayors and is one of the country’s foremost researchers.
The new rules, which took effect July 1, impact developers the hardest. The city demands they plan for the abatement of noise during construction, and even suggests new tools they can buy (e.g., noise-reducing mufflers for jackhammers) to make the erection of condo towers as quiet as a mathlete’s birthday party. The fine for ignoring the plan: $875–$1,400 for the first offense. But the code’s most vocal opponents have been what Bronzaft calls “nightlife people.”
“Before the code was passed, Bloomberg tried to deal with the people who objected most—the bar owners, the nightlife people,” she says, uttering the last two words in a tone that would make Andy Rooney quiver. She then slips into a mocking voice: “ ‘Oh, we’re getting such fines now. And people are picking on us already, and they’re going to be picking on us more.’ I turned to their spokesperson and said, ‘Okay, tell me how much these people pay in fines every year. Give me data. I’m a data-oriented person.’” She pauses for a moment. “I can never get that from their people.”
The point Bronzaft comes back to again and again is that the detrimental effects of noise pollution are legion—and obvious. She recalls one study she conducted in 1981 at an upper Manhattan school where sixth-graders on one side of the building—the side closest to a set of subway tracks—consistently tested one grade level lower in reading than their peers on the other side. The school installed sound-reducing tiles and convinced the MTA to place sound-reducing rubber padding on the tracks. The disparity vanished.
“If you can’t read a book, if you find you’re awakened during the night, you may not yet find you have the cardiovascular disorders or the gastrointestinal disorders, but your quality of life is being diminished,” Bronzaft says. “I don’t think we should ask, ‘What physiological disorders have noise created?’ We should ask, ‘What kind of life are people living?’ ”
Bronzaft is taking a wait-and-see approach on the new code. Like any good academic, she won’t be satisfied with the results until she sees concrete facts. But she hopes that environmentalists will come around to viewing her fight as theirs. After all, too much noise ruins everybody’s beauty sleep, and it endangers the love lives of birds—they can’t hear mating calls.
“With all due respect to the green world, they have not included noise pollution,” she says. “If you want a better environment, a sounder environment, a healthier environment, I think you need a quieter environment. And it should be part of this world of greening.”
From TimeOut New York:
The Green Issue
The silent killer
Pissed off by noise? So is the environment. And the city’s on your side.
By Daniel Holloway
In 1972, New York became the first city to arm itself with a noise code. But you’re forgiven if you didn’t even know we had one: It went without revision for more than 30 years, during which time the city saw more development, more people, more machines and more…noise.
It took the mayor to step things up, goading an inert City Council. “To his credit, Bloomberg said, ‘Get it…done…now,’ ” says Dr. Arline Bronzaft of the mayor’s 2005 push to revise. She’s chaired the noise committee for the Council on the Environment under four mayors and is one of the country’s foremost researchers.
The new rules, which took effect July 1, impact developers the hardest. The city demands they plan for the abatement of noise during construction, and even suggests new tools they can buy (e.g., noise-reducing mufflers for jackhammers) to make the erection of condo towers as quiet as a mathlete’s birthday party. The fine for ignoring the plan: $875–$1,400 for the first offense. But the code’s most vocal opponents have been what Bronzaft calls “nightlife people.”
“Before the code was passed, Bloomberg tried to deal with the people who objected most—the bar owners, the nightlife people,” she says, uttering the last two words in a tone that would make Andy Rooney quiver. She then slips into a mocking voice: “ ‘Oh, we’re getting such fines now. And people are picking on us already, and they’re going to be picking on us more.’ I turned to their spokesperson and said, ‘Okay, tell me how much these people pay in fines every year. Give me data. I’m a data-oriented person.’” She pauses for a moment. “I can never get that from their people.”
The point Bronzaft comes back to again and again is that the detrimental effects of noise pollution are legion—and obvious. She recalls one study she conducted in 1981 at an upper Manhattan school where sixth-graders on one side of the building—the side closest to a set of subway tracks—consistently tested one grade level lower in reading than their peers on the other side. The school installed sound-reducing tiles and convinced the MTA to place sound-reducing rubber padding on the tracks. The disparity vanished.
“If you can’t read a book, if you find you’re awakened during the night, you may not yet find you have the cardiovascular disorders or the gastrointestinal disorders, but your quality of life is being diminished,” Bronzaft says. “I don’t think we should ask, ‘What physiological disorders have noise created?’ We should ask, ‘What kind of life are people living?’ ”
Bronzaft is taking a wait-and-see approach on the new code. Like any good academic, she won’t be satisfied with the results until she sees concrete facts. But she hopes that environmentalists will come around to viewing her fight as theirs. After all, too much noise ruins everybody’s beauty sleep, and it endangers the love lives of birds—they can’t hear mating calls.
“With all due respect to the green world, they have not included noise pollution,” she says. “If you want a better environment, a sounder environment, a healthier environment, I think you need a quieter environment. And it should be part of this world of greening.”
Monday, May 14, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Cracking Down on Boom Cars has Fringe Benefit
Police in Georgia town are cracking down on noise and littering and nabbing crimnals in the process.
Check the video here:
Atlanta News
Police in Georgia town are cracking down on noise and littering and nabbing crimnals in the process.
Check the video here:
Atlanta News
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Here's yet another example of an enlightened community response to noise pollution.
The Hawaii County Council, Police Department and the Administration needs to take a hard look at incorporating legislative and enforcement avenues to address the issue.
San Antonio, Tx
Amended noise law could be costly
Web Posted: 04/23/2007 05:21 PM CDT
Chuck McCollough
Express-News Staff Writer
The party police have a warning - turn it down or pay up big time.
A newly amended city noise ordinance will hit repeat offenders hard in the
wallet when they disturb neighbors, rattle windows and make eardrums hurt
with loud music, usually late at night.
The amended noise ordinance was passed unanimously by City Council on April
5 and goes into effect June 5, city officials said.
When a police officer or Code Compliance officer investigates a noise
complaint at the same site twice in one night or "subsequent" times over the
following 60 days, the person or persons responsible for noise will be
liable for the cost of sending the officers, the amendment states.
Violators can be charged "reasonable costs" - the expense of sending police
or Code Compliance officers to the same location more than once. Those costs
also will include:
A $150 administrative fee
Any medical treatment for injured officers
Repair to any city equipment or property
"This could cost the person responsible for the party hundreds and hundreds
of dollars," said David L. Garza, director of the city's Housing and
Neighborhood Services Department.
The cost for each additional disturbance-call visit to the same location can
be as much as $1,000, according to the amendment. But that amount can be
waived if the person responsible for the party calls police and assists
officers in dispersing persons at the gathering, the amendment also says.
The $1,000 limit per incident applies only to the city's cost for sending
one or more officers to the same location multiple times, Garza said. It
does not include the administrative fee or costs for medical treatment or
damages to city property, he said.
"We've had 1,000 noise complaints through March 31, the first half of our
fiscal year, and 250 of those were for repeat offenders," Garza said.
Based on that percentage of repeat offenders and complaints from such groups
as the District 10 Neighborhood Alliance, the city pushed for revision of
the noise ordinance, he said.
Mike Gallagher with the District 10 Neighborhood Alliance praised the
amendment.
"We believe this strengthens the noise ordinance in a big way and gives
police and Code Compliance officers more power to solve the problem," he
said.
"Loud music is a problem all over the city, and especially in places where
people throw a lot of parties at the same place. The District 10 Alliance
will be watching implementation of this amended noise ordinance, and if we
find a weakness in it, we'll recommend additional changes to the city," he
said.
The amendment creates a special division called "party, gathering, event"
and defines those three terms as "five or more persons who have assembled or
are assembling in a manner so as to create substantial disturbance of the
quiet enjoyment of private or public property."
The amendment also addresses excessive traffic, fights or other disturbances
of the peace associated with parties, Garza said.
"And the party doesn't have to be at a house. It can be any place you have a
crowd (five or more people) making too much noise in a public or private
location that disturbs the area around it," he noted.
Northeast Side resident Gus Wieters first started talking to the city 14
years ago about loud noise near his house, especially at a self-service car
wash late at night.
Wieters said he and other Northeast Side residents met with City Manager
Sheryl Sculley and Police Chief William McManus about noise ordinance repeat
offenders, and that meeting helped lead to the new amendment.
Even though the amended ordinance doesn't go into effect until June, people
planning big Fiesta parties or other events should take heed, Garza said.
If officers go to an address or location multiple times before the amendment
kicks in, Code Compliance and the San Antonio Police Department will base
their actions on a record of any earlier calls to the location, he said.
The Hawaii County Council, Police Department and the Administration needs to take a hard look at incorporating legislative and enforcement avenues to address the issue.
San Antonio, Tx
Amended noise law could be costly
Web Posted: 04/23/2007 05:21 PM CDT
Chuck McCollough
Express-News Staff Writer
The party police have a warning - turn it down or pay up big time.
A newly amended city noise ordinance will hit repeat offenders hard in the
wallet when they disturb neighbors, rattle windows and make eardrums hurt
with loud music, usually late at night.
The amended noise ordinance was passed unanimously by City Council on April
5 and goes into effect June 5, city officials said.
When a police officer or Code Compliance officer investigates a noise
complaint at the same site twice in one night or "subsequent" times over the
following 60 days, the person or persons responsible for noise will be
liable for the cost of sending the officers, the amendment states.
Violators can be charged "reasonable costs" - the expense of sending police
or Code Compliance officers to the same location more than once. Those costs
also will include:
A $150 administrative fee
Any medical treatment for injured officers
Repair to any city equipment or property
"This could cost the person responsible for the party hundreds and hundreds
of dollars," said David L. Garza, director of the city's Housing and
Neighborhood Services Department.
The cost for each additional disturbance-call visit to the same location can
be as much as $1,000, according to the amendment. But that amount can be
waived if the person responsible for the party calls police and assists
officers in dispersing persons at the gathering, the amendment also says.
The $1,000 limit per incident applies only to the city's cost for sending
one or more officers to the same location multiple times, Garza said. It
does not include the administrative fee or costs for medical treatment or
damages to city property, he said.
"We've had 1,000 noise complaints through March 31, the first half of our
fiscal year, and 250 of those were for repeat offenders," Garza said.
Based on that percentage of repeat offenders and complaints from such groups
as the District 10 Neighborhood Alliance, the city pushed for revision of
the noise ordinance, he said.
Mike Gallagher with the District 10 Neighborhood Alliance praised the
amendment.
"We believe this strengthens the noise ordinance in a big way and gives
police and Code Compliance officers more power to solve the problem," he
said.
"Loud music is a problem all over the city, and especially in places where
people throw a lot of parties at the same place. The District 10 Alliance
will be watching implementation of this amended noise ordinance, and if we
find a weakness in it, we'll recommend additional changes to the city," he
said.
The amendment creates a special division called "party, gathering, event"
and defines those three terms as "five or more persons who have assembled or
are assembling in a manner so as to create substantial disturbance of the
quiet enjoyment of private or public property."
The amendment also addresses excessive traffic, fights or other disturbances
of the peace associated with parties, Garza said.
"And the party doesn't have to be at a house. It can be any place you have a
crowd (five or more people) making too much noise in a public or private
location that disturbs the area around it," he noted.
Northeast Side resident Gus Wieters first started talking to the city 14
years ago about loud noise near his house, especially at a self-service car
wash late at night.
Wieters said he and other Northeast Side residents met with City Manager
Sheryl Sculley and Police Chief William McManus about noise ordinance repeat
offenders, and that meeting helped lead to the new amendment.
Even though the amended ordinance doesn't go into effect until June, people
planning big Fiesta parties or other events should take heed, Garza said.
If officers go to an address or location multiple times before the amendment
kicks in, Code Compliance and the San Antonio Police Department will base
their actions on a record of any earlier calls to the location, he said.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Using "breach of peace" as an enforcement action for boom cars.
Lowering The Boom On Blaring Car Radios
Courant Staff Report
April 4 2007
NEW BRITAIN -- City police are warning motorists who like to cruise with
their car stereos blasting that they could end up with no music at all.
For the second year, police plan to enforce the city's noise ordinance by
charging violators with breach of peace and then seizing detachable
"faceplates" from their car stereos.
New Britain police spokesman Sgt. Gregory Wright said that, in previous
years, efforts to enforce the ordinance by ticketing violators have been
largely unsuccessful.
So last year, Wright said, police began charging violators with breach of
peace, a misdemeanor that requires a court appearance.
Police also began seizing faceplates from car stereos that were so equipped,
which makes the stereos inoperable.
"If you have that music cranked up, we're not just going to give you a
ticket and let you go on your way," Wright said. "Now we're going to make
sure you can't blast that music until your case is settled."
Wright said the department is warning motorists about the stepped-up
enforcement because the weather is getting warmer, which means people tend
to drive with their windows down and the music blaring.
"People don't want to hear the bass line from your favorite song rattling
their teeth," he said.
Lowering The Boom On Blaring Car Radios
Courant Staff Report
April 4 2007
NEW BRITAIN -- City police are warning motorists who like to cruise with
their car stereos blasting that they could end up with no music at all.
For the second year, police plan to enforce the city's noise ordinance by
charging violators with breach of peace and then seizing detachable
"faceplates" from their car stereos.
New Britain police spokesman Sgt. Gregory Wright said that, in previous
years, efforts to enforce the ordinance by ticketing violators have been
largely unsuccessful.
So last year, Wright said, police began charging violators with breach of
peace, a misdemeanor that requires a court appearance.
Police also began seizing faceplates from car stereos that were so equipped,
which makes the stereos inoperable.
"If you have that music cranked up, we're not just going to give you a
ticket and let you go on your way," Wright said. "Now we're going to make
sure you can't blast that music until your case is settled."
Wright said the department is warning motorists about the stepped-up
enforcement because the weather is getting warmer, which means people tend
to drive with their windows down and the music blaring.
"People don't want to hear the bass line from your favorite song rattling
their teeth," he said.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Yet another great idea to assist the victims of boom cars
4/3/2007 NEW BRITAIN - With winter over and spring finally showing itself, it's that time of the year when the temperature is just right for road trips and driving with the windows down.
However, the police department wants all drivers to be courteous to those around them and make sure to keep their music down.
The department's traffic-safety bureau will be initiating its Operation NABSSTER program (Noise Abatement by Seizing Stereos) to cut down on the noise complaints made by fed-up residents.
"It's annoying and it's a primary complaint of neighborhood watches," said Sgt. Gary Chute, supervisor of the traffic-safety bureau. "This program has been established in response to community requests."
Chute said sometimes music played in a car can be so loud that it rattles peoples' windows when the car drives by and disturbs those trying to sleep late at night.
He added that it also affects the quality of life in a neighborhood.
When an offender is pulled over, he or she can be charged with breach of peace and given a summons to appear in court. Officers can also seize various equipment from the offender - from the stereo face plate all the way up to the car itself, Chute said.
When the equipment is seized, police can ask the court to claim the seized items as a nuisance and have them destroyed.
To catch offenders, police use a laser measuring device to determine how far away the vehicle is in comparison to the decibels of the music.
Officers also use their own judgment when they hear unreasonably loud music coming from a vehicle.
Typically, music played in a car shouldn't be heard by those outside a 50-foot radius, Chute said.
Last year during their NABSSTER program, police arrested 10 people in an eight-hour time span for breaching the peace.
Chute said playing music too loudly in a car is dangerous because drivers are unable to hear what's going on around them, such as road-hazard alerts and other vehicles.
"It also inhibits your ability to hear emergency-vehicle sirens," he said.
4/3/2007 NEW BRITAIN - With winter over and spring finally showing itself, it's that time of the year when the temperature is just right for road trips and driving with the windows down.
However, the police department wants all drivers to be courteous to those around them and make sure to keep their music down.
The department's traffic-safety bureau will be initiating its Operation NABSSTER program (Noise Abatement by Seizing Stereos) to cut down on the noise complaints made by fed-up residents.
"It's annoying and it's a primary complaint of neighborhood watches," said Sgt. Gary Chute, supervisor of the traffic-safety bureau. "This program has been established in response to community requests."
Chute said sometimes music played in a car can be so loud that it rattles peoples' windows when the car drives by and disturbs those trying to sleep late at night.
He added that it also affects the quality of life in a neighborhood.
When an offender is pulled over, he or she can be charged with breach of peace and given a summons to appear in court. Officers can also seize various equipment from the offender - from the stereo face plate all the way up to the car itself, Chute said.
When the equipment is seized, police can ask the court to claim the seized items as a nuisance and have them destroyed.
To catch offenders, police use a laser measuring device to determine how far away the vehicle is in comparison to the decibels of the music.
Officers also use their own judgment when they hear unreasonably loud music coming from a vehicle.
Typically, music played in a car shouldn't be heard by those outside a 50-foot radius, Chute said.
Last year during their NABSSTER program, police arrested 10 people in an eight-hour time span for breaching the peace.
Chute said playing music too loudly in a car is dangerous because drivers are unable to hear what's going on around them, such as road-hazard alerts and other vehicles.
"It also inhibits your ability to hear emergency-vehicle sirens," he said.
Here is an example of proactive noise policy. Big Island Police Department-take note.
MPD Announces Zero Tolerance Policy for Noise Violations
undefined NaN, NaN NaN:NaN AM
MONTGOMERY, Ala., April 2, 2007 -- The Montgomery Police Department says Montgomery residents have had enough with noise pollution in the city of Montgomery.
In a statement on Monday, police spokesman Capt. Huey Thornton says the department "has received numerous complaints recently in reference to violations of the City's Noise Ordinance. We have started enforcing zero tolerance for violators of this law."
A special detail will work to "reduce the number of offenders of this ordinance. Last weekend officers cited 36 violators who were not in compliance with the Noise Ordinance."
Below is a copy of the ordinance. Residents are advised to be in compliance.
Sec. 18-175. Prohibited acts.
(a) No permit required by the provisions of this division shall be issued for any act prohibited by this section.
(b) It is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be unlawful to operate or play any radio, stereo system, musical instrument or similar device which produces or reproduces sound, whether from a motor vehicle or by a pedestrian, in such a manner as to be plainly audible to any person other than the player or operator of the device at a distance of 25 feet in the case of a motor vehicle or 25 feet in the case of a pedestrian.
(c) It is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be unlawful to operate or play any radio, stereo system, television, phonograph, musical instrument or other similar device which produces or reproduces sound, whether from a business or residence, in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet to any person inside a commercial, residential, multifamily dwelling or public place.
(Ord. No. 69-2001, § II(C), 11-20-2001)
The fines for violation of the noise ordinance (including court costs) are $211 for the first offense and $341 for each additional offense.
MPD Announces Zero Tolerance Policy for Noise Violations
undefined NaN, NaN NaN:NaN AM
MONTGOMERY, Ala., April 2, 2007 -- The Montgomery Police Department says Montgomery residents have had enough with noise pollution in the city of Montgomery.
In a statement on Monday, police spokesman Capt. Huey Thornton says the department "has received numerous complaints recently in reference to violations of the City's Noise Ordinance. We have started enforcing zero tolerance for violators of this law."
A special detail will work to "reduce the number of offenders of this ordinance. Last weekend officers cited 36 violators who were not in compliance with the Noise Ordinance."
Below is a copy of the ordinance. Residents are advised to be in compliance.
Sec. 18-175. Prohibited acts.
(a) No permit required by the provisions of this division shall be issued for any act prohibited by this section.
(b) It is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be unlawful to operate or play any radio, stereo system, musical instrument or similar device which produces or reproduces sound, whether from a motor vehicle or by a pedestrian, in such a manner as to be plainly audible to any person other than the player or operator of the device at a distance of 25 feet in the case of a motor vehicle or 25 feet in the case of a pedestrian.
(c) It is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be unlawful to operate or play any radio, stereo system, television, phonograph, musical instrument or other similar device which produces or reproduces sound, whether from a business or residence, in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet to any person inside a commercial, residential, multifamily dwelling or public place.
(Ord. No. 69-2001, § II(C), 11-20-2001)
The fines for violation of the noise ordinance (including court costs) are $211 for the first offense and $341 for each additional offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)