PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
DATE: June 10, 1999
SECTION: Features; Pg. 1D
BYLINE: Elizabeth Lee
DATELINE: Atlanta, Georgia
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution reports that restaurants in Atlanta are louder than they were ten years ago. Some venues are noisy by design in an attempt to convey an exciting atmosphere; these places may play louder music, and furnish their establishments with metal, cement, wood, tile and other smooth surfaces that tend to reflect sound. Some restaurants are noisy because they tend to draw larger groups, or because of the materials they are furnished with. Restaurants that want to be quieter can install carpets over smooth floors that reflect noise, and place sound-absorbing paneling in ceilings and walls.
The article continues, noting that quieter venues often tend to draw older crowds and vice versa; one restaurant owner said "Some people like a place that sounds like a lot's going on, and certainly we attract a younger crowd here as a result of it than we do at [our quieter restaurant]." Restaurant owners are better off designing for a louder or quieter restaurant at the start, since the cost of making changes after a business has opened can be staggering.
PUBLICATION: AFX News
DATE: June 9, 1999
SECTION: Company News; Statistics
DATELINE: London
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Harry Pusey, former aviation expert and concerned resident
AFX News reports that British Airways, in response to a two-year campaign by a resident in Cornwall, England, will slow its Concorde flights earlier in their approach to the shore. Harry Pusey, former aviation expert, has had his sleep disrupted by the Concorde's sonic boom just before 10:00 PM in winter along with many other residents living on the north coast. The Concorde will now slow from 1,920 to 96 kph 11 kilometers earlier, causing the boom while the aircraft is still out of sound range of land; the alteration will add less than a minute to the 3-4 hour trip between New York and London.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette
DATE: June 9, 1999
SECTION: News; A3
BYLINE: Mike King
DATELINE: Montreal, Canada
The Gazette reports that noise from the annual Formula One Grand Prix -- held on Montreal's Ile Notre Dame -- has been irritating residents in Saint-Lambert across the St. Lawrence Seaway for years. While the event brings in $80 million to the local economy, St. Lambert says it doesn't benefit. One resident said "It is so unbearable because usually it's hot but you have to close all the doors and windows, otherwise it sounds like someone using a power tool right next to your ear." Even the Mayor of Saint-Lambert says that he knows many people who leave town to avoid noise from the event.
The article continues, noting that although Montreal has noise ordinances, enforcement just won't happen at a city-sponsored event like the Grand Prix. Its noise ordinances cap daytime decibels at 60, well below the noise emanating from a Formula One racer.
PUBLICATION: The Indianapolis Star
DATE: June 9, 1999
SECTION: Metro West; Pg. W02
BYLINE: Tim Evans
DATELINE: Danville, Indiana
The Indianapolis Star reports that a noise ordinance passed last July in Hendricks County, Indiana was repealed by the County Commission because of difficulties with enforcement. The ordinance was watered-down from the original proposal by the Sheriff's Department, and vague language defined a violation only as "unreasonable noise which is clearly audible beyond the bounds of their personal property." Police officers were also unable to accurately measure the volume of alleged disturbances.
The article went on, saying that the ordinance imposed fines of $50 for a first offense and $200 for each subsequent offense within one year. Agriculture-related noise was exempt at all times and other noise -- such as noise from construction, commercial districts, and legal public assemblies -- was exempt at all times except between midnight and 5 AM. The commission will develop a new ordinance if they continue to get complaints.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: June 9, 1999
SECTION: Local & State; Pg. D1
BYLINE: by Sandra Pedicini
DATELINE: Pierson, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports that communities near Florida's Lake George are being disrupted by noisy airboats. An existing ordinance prohibits airboat noise from bothering residents, but the ordinance requires that the boat operator be caught being too loud too close to a residence. Volusia County Council member "Big John" wants to tighten enforcement of that ordinance, or alternatively ban airboats from the lake during the later hours of the day. Deputies have said they will patrol the lake more, but promise to evaluate each situation and not simply go after airboat operators.
The article notes that airboats are sometimes heard in the middle of the night, when people are trying to sleep. Robert Nolan, an airboat operator, says that a night-ban would be more than fair. He points out, however, that airboats function best when they are near the shallow shoreline of the lake; while this may subject residents to more noise, it also subjects the environment to less damage since propellers are not in the water tearing up vegetation and injuring wildlife. Officials say that even if airboats stay near the shoreline, they should be able to stay away from residents since 33 of the 37 miles of shoreline have houses. Also, mufflers can reduce noise up to 30 percent.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal
DATE: June 8, 1999
SECTION: News Pg.07b
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Rose Evans, president of the Airport Neighbors' Alliance
The Courier-Journal reports that a volunteer committees on airport noise -- sponsored by Louisville, Kentucky's regional airport authority -- is inviting the public to attend a meeting to discuss ways to reduce the noise's impact. The committees make up the Airport Noise Compatibility Study Group, which is working with the airport authority's consultants to recommend ways to measure and abate aircraft noise.
PUBLICATION: The Tennessean
DATE: June 8, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5B
DATELINE: Washington D.C.
The Tennessean reports that the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from seven environmental groups -- including the Grand Canyon Trust -- to more quickly reduce noise from planes flying over the Grand Canyon. In a similar case over helicopter landing pads -- used by tourism companies -- near Tennessee's Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the court similarly refused to hear arguments. In 1987, a federal law was passed that noted safety concerns and the negative impacts of noise from aircraft flying over the Grand Canyon; after years of study, a 1994 report said more noise reduction was needed. The FAA created flight-free zones and limited flights, to be in place by 2008. Air tour operators complained this was too fast, while environmentalists argued it was too slow.
PUBLICATION: Greenwire
DATE: June 8, 1999
SECTION: Spotlight Story
DATELINE: Washington D.C.
Greenwire reports that the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Environmentalists that said the Federal Aviation Administration's plan to reduce noise by 2008 violates Federal Law which requires noise-abatement steps. Air-tour operators had also filed suit, claiming the government was moving too quickly. The Supreme Court Decision agreed with a previous U.S. Court of Appeals decision, which said that it was unfair to say that no noise-abatement steps had been taken. Environmentalists claimed that "Under this approach, no delay is unreasonable."
PUBLICATION: M2 PRESSWIRE
DATE: June 8, 1999
DATELINE: India
M2 Presswire reports that the Government of India's Ministry of Environment and Forests will set regulations to control noise pollution. Noise sources targeted will include firecrackers, construction, P.A. systems, amplified music, generators, and loud vehicles. In the case of firecrackers, manufacturers will be targeted as well. The action is based on the understanding that noise has "an adverse effect on human health and affect[s] the physical and psychological well being of the people." Regulators will seek to insure that existing ambient noise standards are not exceeded, and will give police power to enforce these regulations.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: June 8, 1999
SECTION: Metro Chicago; Pg. 3; Zone: N
BYLINE: by Gary Washburn
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that a Chicago, Illinois City Council committee rejected a proposal to limit the hours that the noise ordinance against boom-cars would apply. Currently, car-owners who play excessively loud stereos can be fined up to $500, and have their car-impounded; getting their car back costs $115. The alderman claimed that violators were disproportionately minorities, and that they were unfairly hindered from going to work. The proposal would have limited the applicable hours of the ordinance to between 9 AM and 9 PM.
The article continues, noting that the city has seen a major drop in noise complaints since the ordinance was instated; in the three years that the ordinance has been in effect, 6,862 vehicles have been impounded. The Washington-based Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association told the committee that sales of the $1500-2000 "souped-up stereo systems" in the Chicago area has dropped by an average of 33 percent, and claimed that the penalties were unnecessarily severe -- especially for first time violators.
The article concludes, noting that before the ordinance, loud car stereos were often a sign of gang activity. Other violations that can result in car impoundment include prostitution, drug dealing, and gun possession.
PUBLICATION: AP Online
DATE: June 7, 1999
SECTION: Washington - General News
BYLINE: Laurie Asseo
DATELINE: Washington D.C.
AP Online reports that the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from environmentalists that claimed the government was moving too slowly to reduce aircraft noise from sightseeing flights over the Grand Canyon. The decision confirmed what lower appeals courts asserted: even the slow pace of progress is something, and it is unfair to say no steps have been taken. The appeal had claimed that at the current rate of action, "no delay is unreasonable." In contrast, a group of air tour operators have claimed the government is moving too quickly. Both claims have been rejected by appeals courts.
The article continues with a timeline of action (or lack thereof) by federal legislators and regulators. In 1987, the federal government passed a law that acknowledged the adverse effect that aircraft noise had to the natural state of the park and raised safety concerns as well. From that point, the Interior secretary had a month to make recommendations to the FAA, and the FAA had three months to issue a final plan to control Grand Canyon air traffic; after two more years, the Interior secretary was to give a report to Congress on whether noise had been reduced. The report actually came in 1994, four years late, and concluded that more noise reduction was necessary. In 1996, the FAA established flight-free zones, and limited the hours of flight and the number of planes that could be used over the park, saying that the law would be complied with by 2008.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: June 7, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Jackson, Wyoming
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports that the Federal Aviation Administration approved a terminal expansion and new parking garage at Jackson, Wyoming's Jackson Hole Airport. The 10,000 square foot terminal expansion will make room for additional gates. Plans to move rental-car company parking off-site may free up more parking for the public, eliminating the need for the new parking garage. The proposals were part of an environmental assessment presented to the FAA as part of a long-term plan for airport expansion. Other parts of the plan, such as noise-reduction initiatives, were rejected because costs involved were not clearly justified.
The article continues, explaining why some proposals were rejected. For example, a new radar system that would aid navigation in the mountainous area was said to have costs that outweighed the benefits. Also, proposed restrictions that would have limited noise over Grand Teton National Park were rejected; the restrictions would mean many small jets would be banned, resulting in lost revenue for the airport and airlines. New safety extensions for runways were considered separately and approved earlier in the year.
PUBLICATION: The Straits Times
DATE: June 7, 1999
SECTION: Forum; Pg. 34
BYLINE: Paula Christie
DATELINE: Singapore
The Straits Times prints a letter to the editor from a Singapore resident who is tired of having family life disrupted by construction noise. She says many of her friends are in similar situations, and asks why the government -- who claims to be trying to attract tourism and foreign talent -- isn't cracking down on noise of over 70 dBs as late as 10:30 PM.
"I READ with interest the article, "ENV trying to keep the noise down" (ST, May 28). It referred to a study by the Environment Ministry on ways to reduce the noise levels at various locations, including houses near MRT tracks and expressways.
What about the noise that engulfs our homes from construction sites?
We have lived in Singapore for over three years and I am continually appalled by the lack of respect given to individuals and families who are subjected to the constant noise and disruption to family life. I am also shocked by the leniency shown by ENV to developers and contractors who flout the noise regulations routinely.
One recent evening, my family could no longer endure the noise coming from cement trucks and steam shovels at 8.30 pm while we were attempting to enjoy our dinner. After we failed to get the workers to stop, we called the police and were told that such complaints are now being handled by ENV which, of course, was not open at night. The noise continued until 10.30 pm. While we did file a complaint with the ministry the next morning, we received no relief for our previous evening of misery.
The worse part about it was that we had a house guest -a family member who had been wanting to come to Singapore ever since we moved here. While the Singapore Tourism Board would like him to leave with glowing reports of a modern city-state, he left with his hands covering his ears.
Last year, I moved from a building that was surrounded by three major construction projects, each no more than 100 m away. I could not spend an afternoon by the pool without listening to pylons being driven into the ground. And I am not alone. Most of our friends have been or are currently in similar situations. Their stories are the same: a multi-storey condominium being built, a shophouse or condominium being renovated next door, a house being toppled nearby to create multiple residences, or cable works tearing up the street in the early hours of the night.
Something is seriously wrong with this place. In a civilised society, jackhammers and cement trucks would not be the norm in residential areas. At a time when Singapore is campaigning to attract international companies and foreign talent and families, has the Government considered its reputation with those already here?
Does Singapore realise that the attraction to relocate here goes beyond tax relief and good infrastructure? Quality of life is a major issue for expatriate families, and the noise from construction sites is a constant source of irritation.
Has ENV looked at the cumulative effect on individuals or families who are subjected to such high-levels of noise for so many hours a day?
Noisy work, that of above 70 dBA, is required to stop no later than 7 pm, but this rule has become little more than a joke in many neighbourhoods. When the developer or contractor is asked why he violated the rule, he always has some "story" that he had no choice but to work long beyond the permitted time.
Has ENV considered setting up an after-office hours hotline to deal with such complaints? How many such excuses are permitted before real action is taken?
Most developed countries have found solutions to reduce the construction noise in residential areas and to impose stiff penalties when rules are not followed. Why can't Singapore do the same and, in the process, enhance the quality of life for Singaporeans and expatriates alike? Create an environment in which one can truly enjoy living in Singapore."
PUBLICATION: Times Newspapers Limited
DATE: June 7, 1999
SECTION: Home News
BYLINE: Arthur Leathley
DATELINE: England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Andrew Davis, director of the Environmental Transport Association
Times Newspapers Limited reports that as England prepares for the upcoming National Car-Free Day, which encourages motorists to voluntarily give up their car for a day, Parliament is considering granting municipalities the right to close roads on car-free days. Ministers have been impressed by French successes with road-closings; thirty-five French towns closed roads last year, "cutting car traffic by up to a third, and reducing noise and pollution"; then, local councils create detailed reports about public response, and reductions in noise and pollution.
The article continues, noting that the Transport Bill will be proposed in the Fall. This year's car-free day in England, which involves no road closings, will include discounts by bus and rail companies encouraging drivers to use public transport, and encouragement from environmental groups to bike or walk when possible. "Andrew Davis, director of the Environmental Transport Association, a campaigning motoring organisation behind Car-Free Day, said: 'We have built up public awareness but we now need to go further. We want the Government to give financial and legal backing to the event to give it a higher profile.'"
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: June 7, 1999
SECTION: Trib West; Pg. 3; Zone: Dn
DATELINE: Bensenville, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that the Village Board of Bensenville, Illinois -- a Chicago suburb affected by aircraft noise from O'Hare airport -- will continue to select homes for soundproofing by block. The airport's noise contour lines sometimes designate only portions of a given block as eligible for soundproofing, but the Board holds that soundproofing only part of a block is arbitrary and can cause resentment among neighbors.
The article continues, noting that the Chicago Department of Aviation has created noise-contour maps that show which areas are subjected to a daily average of 70 dB each day. Treatment for each of the 84 homes eligible for soundproofing this year will cost about $25,000. In the past, Chicago officials have not objected to the village's selection methods, but that may change this year.
PUBLICATION: The Sunday Telegraph
DATE: June 6, 1999
SECTION: Pg. 34
BYLINE: David Stonebanks
DATELINE: London, England
London's Sunday Telegraph prints a letter to the editor, pointing out that loud motorcycles are not the fault of negligent motorists, but the fault of ambiguous law that allows two-stroke vehicles to be louder than four-stroke vehicles.
Roy Bailey (Letters, May 30) complains about the noise of motorcycles in the countryside and suggests they are breaking the law, but it is the law that is at fault. Two-stroke vehicles (that means small motorcycles) are allowed to be much noisier than four-stroke vehicles. They should all be subject to the same noise limits.
David Stonebanks
Stevenage, Herts
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: June 6, 1999
SECTION: Section 14; Page 6; Column 1; The City Weekly Desk
BYLINE: by Nina Sigal
DATELINE: Harlem, New York
The New York Times reports that East Harlem, New York residents are fed up with noise that registers up to 90 dB in their living rooms from the nearby Iglesia Pentecostal Abrigo del Altissimo church. Two summer's ago, the amplified services -- which include preaching and singing -- happened for several hours in the evenings, seven days a week, for two months; the church arrived with a tent and set it up in an empty lot with a public address system that faced the street. Residents say that Harlem has never been a quiet place, but also say that this church is excessively loud.
The article goes on to note that residents have tried to work with the church, the city, and the police to try and get the noise held to the legal 49 dBs. One woman secured 25 signatures from neighbors to reduce the noise and have services limited to several weeks in the summer. She has recently talked to a Councilman, who is working with police towards a compromise.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: June 6, 1999
SECTION: Section 1; Page 41; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk; Second Front
BYLINE: by Iver Peterson
DATELINE: Stamford, Connecticut
The New York Times reports that Stamford, Connecticut Police have taken over the job of enforcing the city's noise ordinance from the Department of Health. The ordinance, which says a $99 ticket may be issued for excessively loud noise, can be difficult to enforce for moving vehicles with loud stereos; the ordinance requires that a noise level be determined with and without the offending noise, which means most violators will be long gone before they qualify for a ticket. Other noise issues in the city include loud bars and nightclubs, and early-morning garbage trucks.
The article continues, noting that noise complaints have been on the rise with increasing numbers of high-class high-rise apartments in the city; the apartments draw suburbanites who have a different concept of acceptable noise levels. In the past, noise from clubs was limited by 'blue laws', which required bars to be 1/4 mile apart, but when the laws disappeared club density increased. The city has grown by 10,000 people in the last two decades.
PUBLICATION: News & Record
DATE: June 6, 1999
SECTION: Ideas, Pg. H3
BYLINE: Hildegarde Kuehn
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record prints an editorial which discusses problems with the proposed FedEx hub at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina. Beyond traditional problems with airports such as noise and air pollution, the proposed 9,000 foot runway and 300-acre FedEx building will prevent 84 million gallons of rainwater from permeating the ground; this comes after a summer when the community almost ran out of drinking water. In addition, water that did reach the ground would be more polluted with toxic de-icing chemicals and spilled fuel. Further, the author believes that the community, which will shoulder most of the burden of the airport while sharing its economic benefits with ten other counties, should have other financial priorities; growth should be encouraged by drawing tax-paying corporations, not by giving tax-breaks to wealthy FedEx and allowing it to decrease surrounding property values while local schools sit hopelessly overcrowded and lacking in funds.
The editorial continues, noting that a key County Commissioner who happens to be a member of the airport Authority and own a construction company; he says that the community was told it 'won' the FedEx hub, while other communities that were possible locations of the hub were holding public hearings and passing resolutions against the hub and it's accompanying noise, pollution, and traffic.
PUBLICATION: New Scientist
DATE: June 12, 1999
SECTION: Feedback, Pg. 93
DATELINE: England
New Scientist reports that firearm silencers work very differently from the way they are portrayed in movies. Noise from a firearm discharge comes from hot gas expanding rapidly behind the bullet, and from the bullet breaking the sound barrier. Silencers slow the expansion of the gas in several ways: providing an expansion chamber for the gas, breaking up the column of gas with baffles, dissipating and cooling the gas with wire mesh or liquid that acts as a heat sink, or slowing the bullet to sub-sonic speed.
The article continues, noting that the slowing of the bullet can be accomplished by including ports that divert gas from the speed-generating gas column, or by using elastic 'wipes' that the bullet must squeeze through to exit the chamber. Wipes may reduce the accuracy of a bullet, and wear quickly. One can also use sub-sonic ammunition to eliminate the sonic crack of the bullet.
The article goes on to say that it is generally not possible to fit a silencer to a revolver as seen in movies. The gap between the barrel and the silencer allows about 5% of the gas to escape. Also, silencers are usually harder to mount and remove. One alternative, used in Russia, makes use of a piston to drive the bullet, trapping all hot gases behind the piston in the chamber. Even then, silencers still allow production of a sound similar to a car door slamming.
PUBLICATION: The London Free Press
DATE: June 12, 1999
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion, Pg. F5, Letters To The Editor
BYLINE: Maks Zupan
DATELINE: (Lake Country) England
The London Free Press recently ran a letter to the editor complaining of the noise and smells generated by watercraft on England's lakes.
(NPC ed. Note -- The following is a letter to the editor from The London Free Press.)
Last summer, I competed in kayak and canoe provincial championships on one of the most popular lakes in cottage country. Unfortunately, the pollution caused by personal watercraft was almost unbearable. Even during the presentation, we could not hear the announcer. The noise wave was followed by a stench wave.
Residents of our world-famous cottage country should re-evaluate the meaning and real purpose of their beautiful natural environment. I simply see no reason why a dozen or so noise -and-stench addicts on a given lake should be allowed to spoil the enjoyment for the majority who seek some peace and tranquillity and would like to safely pursue clean and active sports such as swimming, canoeing, kayaking or sailing.
The air and noise pollution of jet skis exceeds that of conventional cars by several times. It is absurd that the most popular -- and, ironically, expensive -- lakes of cottage country are often more polluted than the residential areas of big cities.
Any partial restriction and regulation of personal watercraft has been proven useless so far. We are dealing with the obnoxious combination of technological garbage (an obsolete, highly polluting two-stroke engine) and human stupidity and arrogance. These dangerous, noisy and stinky machines simply do not belong to recreational public places. The restriction of personal watercraft to limited and private commercial areas -- something like dirt-bike racing tracks -- would be the only workable compromise.
It is also time for cottagers and cottager associations to give some honest thought to why they own cottages. Is it for some back-to-nature peace and active recuperation from urban noise, pollution, crowding and stress -- or is it just for sitting and drinking on docks, running obnoxious machines in circles and denying other people safe and enjoyable swimming or canoeing?
PUBLICATION: St. Petersberg Times
DATE: June 11, 1999
SECTION: Tampa and State; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Steve Huettel
DATELINE: Tampa, FL
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bart Tennant, Ybor City resident; Bett Shaffer, North Tampa resident
The St. Petersberg Times reports Tampa resident have long requested a stricter noise ordinance, but business-- particularly bar -- owners say they cannot exist under the proposed new limits.
According to the St. Petersberg Times, Tampa, FL officials spent 2 1/2 years creating a draft for a new noise ordinance, and residents and businesses will get to air their opinions next Wednesday.
The article states residents like Bart Tennant and Betty Shaffer have been urging City Hall to action for some time. Tennant sleeps with floor fans beside his bed to drown noise from Ybor City's Seventh Avenue bar strip two blocks away, and in north Tampa, Shaffer says stereos from cars stopped at the light outside her home make her vertical blinds "dance across the room."
The article says the city has had difficulty balancing everyone's rights while not outlawing innocent activity. The article quotes city council member Rose Ferlita as saying, "It's a hard, hard call." Ferlita, a drugstore owner who campaigned on her work in neighborhood and business organizations, explained, "We are going to have to protect against the noise disturbances in Ybor City but also protect people in neighborhoods from going after each other. We want to control unreasonable noise but not invade the privacy of neighborhoods under normal noise conditions."
The article says the current draft, which will be discussed at a 6 p.m. workshop Wednesday in council chambers, has two different sets of noise levels. In Ybor City, the Channel District and Tampa's downtown, business or residential noise can't exceed 85 decibels from 6 p.m. to 3 a.m., which is less than the sound you'd hear riding inside a bus but more than inside a car; at other times, the limit drops to 65 decibels. In the rest of the city, exterior noise can't exceed 60 decibels, that of a normal conversation, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The limit is 55 decibels at other times.
The article states fines are at least $250 for the first two offenses. Additional violations within 12 months could raise fines to $500 and result in the loss of a property's zoning to serve alcohol.
The article notes quite a few properties and activities would be exempt from the ordinance: airports, theme parks, parades, fireworks displays, church bells, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, the "reasonable and intermittent" barking of dogs, and children shouting on playgrounds.
According to the article, the current ordinance bans unreasonable noise, but is difficult to enforce without decibel limits. A 1995 ordinance on wet zonings in Ybor City includes deceibel levels, but does not apply to existing bars, and the only penalty is the revocation of the alcohol zoning.
The article says residents living south of Seventh Avenue, the police on the bar strip and even some bar owners feel the noise is too much.
The article says in general, though, bar owners worry about excessive citations under the proposed limits. "You might as well shut down every bar in Ybor City... Eight hundred people in a bar with no music make that much noise," said David Taylor, owner of Platforms and Kaos. Bar owner Frankie Ferreri says he built the outdoor area of Frankie's Patio in 1993 with the city's encouragement; he is contemplating litigation against what he feels are unreasonable restrictions.
The article also quoted lawyer Mark Bently, who studied the ordinance's drafts for the Ybor City Development Corporation. He said questions still exist on how fair and effective the ordinance would be: Busch Gardens, for example, is exempt; should thousands of residents around the park get less protection than a much smaller number of vocal Ybor people? Can someone measuring decibels from a bar prove the reading isn't increased by by noise from the bar next door? Can short-staffed police and code enforcement officers make the ordinance a priority, especially outside the bar district? "I think it will have more bark than bite," Bentley said.
Previous week: May 30, 1999
Next week: June 13, 1999
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index