Like the alcohol issue that we covered last week, this issue of the noise ordinance appears be dividing the city’s residents from the student population.
From the students’ perspective, the changes that they are proposing are not ones that weaken the current ordinance or ask for leniency. They believe that it will simply streamline the process and reward those students that plan ahead, work with their neighbors and contact the police.
A request from the city by the Vanguard shows seven specific proposals brought forward this month by ASUCD President Adam Thongsavat and ASUCD City and County Affairs Director Jeanna Gindi.
The changes are as follows:
1. Reduce the time in advance that a permit has to be requested from 16 to 7 days before the event.
2. Change the radius of where written notices have to be provided to residents from 200 yards to 150 yards.
3. Reduce the time in advance that neighboring residents have to be notified from 12 to 7 days before the event.
4. Change the amount of time that the Permit Resident Notification List can be returned to the Davis Police Department from 12 to 7 days prior to the event.
6. Change Police Department policy “If the permit is over 85 decibels the permit is automatically revoked and normal procedures for handling a noise complaint takes effect, however, if a complaint is filed and the decibel level is below 85, then the party hosts are allowed to continue if the party is still in accordance with the original permit.”
7. Change permitted time from 12 midnight to 1 am for events on the weekends and holidays.
(Note: there was no No. 5 in the enclosed proposal).
The students are arguing that, by reducing the requirements in terms of permit request, notice radius and other requirements, it will encourage students to go through the permit process which requires notification of neighbors and police about parties.
One thing that has come out of this debate is something that we have actually known for quite some time due to the Montessori issue, and that is that the police are no longer using decibel meters to measure noise level.
In a November Davis Enterprise article, Davis Police Sgt. John Wilson said that the police do not go around looking at decibel readings nor do they go around looking for loud parties.
He told the paper, “We don’t take any action; we don’t go looking around for violations of the noise ordinance . We react to people calling us and saying, ‘Look this is disturbing me.’ “
Instead, “If no one complains about your party or if you talk to your neighbors and they’re willing to live with it for the night, then there’s no harm, no foul.”
However, neighbors are concerned about the proposals. Both the Civic Center Park Neighborhood Association and the Oeste Manor Neighborhood Association wrote a letter to the City-Student Liaison Commission regarding ASUCD’s proposed changes to the city of Davis noise ordinance.
They said that, while they have “extensively reviewed the ASUCD proposal to change the city of Davis noise ordinance and noise permit requirements presented by ASUCD President Adam Thongsavat and City and County Affairs Director Jeanna Gindi at our Dec. 5 joint meeting,” and “appreciated the chance to have this discussion with ASUCD,” both “neighborhood associations object to all changes proposed, including extending party ending times, increasing noise level limits and reducing advance notice time for party permits.”
They write: “We believe these changes will degrade the quality of life in our neighborhoods and our city, and worsen the noise problems we are already enduring.”
They add: “We hope to find common ground in the future with ASUCD and look forward to working collaboratively on issues that are mutually beneficial and improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods, for all residents.”
What is clear is that many in the community think that noise requirements are actually too lax.
One December letter to the Davis Enterprise said, “I am dismayed by the proposal, reported recently in The Enterprise, to loosen Davis’ noise ordinance . The present noise limit of 80 decibels is already the volume of a typical alarm clock. It’s clear that the authors of this proposal have never tried to get a 9-year-old to sleep with music blaring into his window, or tried to get him to school the next morning.”
They continue, “I am even more dismayed by the numbers games being played by the proponents of this idea. An increase in the maximum noise level from 80 to 85 decibels sounds small. But decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale – 85 decibels is more than three times as loud as 80. According to the National Institutes of Health, sustained exposure to 85-decibel noise can cause hearing loss; children are especially at risk.”
The students believe that by reducing these requirements they can get more students to work with their neighbors and the police on parties. However, it is also clear from some of the responses that the neighbors are not going to be keen on reducing the restrictions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
#5 was forgotten after a HUGE bong rip.
At one time, in our neighborhood we had a severe noise problem from a nearby apartment complex full of students. It was so loud, that the noise would literally drown out my television set. I never complained because fortunately it didn’t happen that often. However, some neighbors even nearer to the noise did lodge complaints with the police. At some point, the students started notifying neighbors and turning their amplifiers down, and there really hasn’t been a problem since. It is critical that students work with neighbors and vice versa, rather than getting law enforcement involved. The police have enough to do without worrying about loud parties…
I would be for these changes on the caveat that there is zero tolerance if they don’t get a permit. No permit, neighbor complains, end of party, possible fine.
I replaced my 1980’s era windows in my house last year with modern triple-panes and I can’t hear a thing except when some kid drives down the street with a subwoofer blaring his rap music loud enough to broadcast his developing manhood.
Maybe the fraternities and sororities should consider making a deal with their adjacent neighbors to help subsidize a window upgrade.
I would also consider hanging flyers around the neighborhood that says:
“IF YOU ARE HYPER SENSITIVE TO THE SOUND GENERATED BY COLLEGE PARTIES, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER NOT LIVING IN A COLLEGE TOWN.”
Jeff, two points:
1. When I had my issues with parties, I was renting. Not going to pay to upgrade the windows in a house that I am renting. I am sure the landlords would see this as a needless expense on their part.
2. I never expected to be living between homes with ~6 college students each in Mace Ranch. I would have expected it next to campus. In fact, when we moved in to the house, one side was a family, and the other side was two older graduate students who were very respectful of their neighbors. And yes, we moved to Woodland to escape what the neighborhood had become. We have now relocated back to the area.
David:
Good points. I have all had my share of too loud college kids in my neighborhood, but in all cases they were reasonably respectful and responsive to my requests to turn down the music or take down the noise level. I have actually had more experience with hyper-sensitive neighbors that complain about noise I consider to be normal for people living in residential neighborhoods with houses 10-foot apart from each other.
Good windows really do help though. I could not believe the difference after we replaced ours. Prior to this I wold actually go outside to scare away owls hooting from a light pole a block away… because the noise impacted my concentration working from my home office. Now the bird could be right outside my house and I would not be bothered. I would encourage even renters to demand this of their landlords. I would be willing to pay a bit higher rent.
All of the suggestions sound very good . As a musician, I am perhaps less sensitive to “loud” parties . My big gripe is with neighborhood gardeners who fire-up their damned edgers and blowers Saturday mornings and Sundays .
As a long-term Neighborhood Watch Captain, I have the following comments:
(1) If the numerous property managers and absentee landlords within Davis are not involved with the process, the noise problem will continue no matter how the Ordinance is modified/enforced; and,
(2)The property managers and absentee landlords should be plugged into the enforcement process, and not just kept in the loop by being provided with information. The property managers, in particular, should be more than a convenient rent check drop for tenants, and should be aggressive in preventing their managed properties from suffering from noise, visual blight, and maintenance issues. I can speak from experience when I say that taxpaying homeowners living next to these “managed” properties would sincerely appreciate this!
I hope this helps!
“IF YOU ARE HYPER SENSITIVE TO THE SOUND GENERATED BY COLLEGE PARTIES, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER NOT LIVING IN A COLLEGE TOWN.”
On other issues I might applaud this sentiment, but I think unless you want to drive the rest of families out of town there has to be some sort of compromise. Defining hyper sensitive of course is an imperative.
@ Mr Obvious: Classic!
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch)
Get rid of the noise ordinance or at least amend it. How? Register the students to vote and they will no longer be ignored and subjected to oppression. Until the students in this town start to organize and vote being subjected to the enforcement actions of the police who represent the voting population is your fate. As for being respectful of your neighbors you shouldn’t need a law for that just good manners.
Unfortunately, most of society is lacking good manners.
Since you bring up the voting issue, I would support a bill that requires students to absentee vote in the town that their parents live in if they are still claimed as a dependent on their parents’ taxes.
[i]”Unfortunately, most of society is lacking good manners.”[/i]
Boy do I agree with that statement.
On the subject of noise, to this day I have still not figured out the marketing benefit for playing music so loud in a restaurant or bar (without a dance floor) that you cannot have a conversation with the people sitting at the same table. Even when I was bar-hoping age and playing in a rock band I didn’t understand the no-dance/loud music thing.
Maybe somewhat related to this, I have noted that my 20-something kids, and their 20-something friends… when they are together the volume grows exponentially… especially when the two sexes are present. However, I can poke my head in and say “the noise level is a ten, can I have a seven please?”, and most of the time that is all it takes. Certainly there are more rude people these days, but I think there are also more cluless people and some of them just need to be asked nicely.
“Since you bring up the voting issue, I would support a bill that requires students to absentee vote in the town that their parents live in if they are still claimed as a dependent on their parents’ taxes.”
Of course you would because you are more interested in control than democracy. Hey it works in China. Never mind the 24th Amendment. And if they blow .01 lock em up. But don’t worry students have internalized their oppression and don’t vote. They know they will be pepper sprayed if they speak up, fined if they get too loud and are disenfranchised by a refusal to annex the campus even if they organize to participate in the electoral process here in Davis.
Register to vote students. Stop letting people like the oppressors writing here run your life!
Mr.Toad
[quote]Of course you would because you are more interested in control than democracy. Hey it works in China. Never mind the 24th Amendment. And if they blow .01 lock em up. But don’t worry students have internalized their oppression and don’t vote. They know they will be pepper sprayed if they speak up, fined if they get too loud and are disenfranchised by a refusal to annex the campus even if they organize to participate in the electoral process here in Davis. [/quote]
No, it is not good for the community to have so many students come in and vote on legislation that will not likely affect them. The long-term citizens of the community are left to deal with laws that the transient population puts forth. The transient population is not likely to care about the long-term effects on the community. Now, if I was interested in control rather than democracy, as you so rudely stated, then I would say they should have no vote at all. I didn’t say that. I think they should vote and be heard. In fact, I encourage them to vote. I think the students that are on their own should be heard in the local community. However, the students that are still on their parent’s dime should be heard in the community where their parents live. How is that not favoring democracy? How is that oppression? The fact that you resort to baseless attacks with the rhetoric you choose tells me that you don’t have a decent argument to make.
And the 24th Amendment?
You miss what everyone misses about the students in Davis which is that while the individuals are ephemeral the population is permanent. You want them to vote but not where you live. How is that undemocratic? Let me count the ways…
Do you want 10 year olds to vote? What does the 24th amendment say about where you vote?
[quote]As a long-term Neighborhood Watch Captain, I have the following comments:
(1) If the numerous property managers and absentee landlords within Davis are not involved with the process, the noise problem will continue no matter how the Ordinance is modified/enforced; and,
(2)The property managers and absentee landlords should be plugged into the enforcement process, and not just kept in the loop by being provided with information. The property managers, in particular, should be more than a convenient rent check drop for tenants, and should be aggressive in preventing their managed properties from suffering from noise, visual blight, and maintenance issues. I can speak from experience when I say that taxpaying homeowners living next to these “managed” properties would sincerely appreciate this!
I hope this helps![/quote]
Excellent suggestions, Steve!
To Mr. Toad and David Grundler: I prefer a compromise between your two positions, a separate city commission that represents our youth. It is about time students/youth had a meaningful voice in the community…
ERM,
I agree.
” I prefer a compromise between your two positions, a separate city commission that represents our youth. It is about time students/youth had a meaningful voice in the community…”
Sure for kids under 18.
For those over 18 they just need to vote. Annex the campus and add to their political power. All this commission nonsense is so patronizing. If they vote their voices will be heard. If you cared about them at all you would be for annexing the campus.
Rise up and vote students. Stop letting people like Musser and Gundler decide what is in your interest.
When you insult people, you might have the common decency to spell their name correctly…
Did I insult you? Sorry. I was just being passionate. You argue against people having the right to participate in the electoral process where they live. You want to exclude a constituency who has interests in obvious conflict with views you have advocated based on some weird financial reasoning that harkens back to Jim Crow or worse. Its like you want each student to count as 3/5 or something. You are bothered by insults when you take the most insulting positions about basic freedoms. Who should have the right to vote or be subject to search are so fundamental yet you fail to see their importance. Then you are upset when someone points out how obnoxious are your positions. When you post such offensive stuff you might have the decency to not put your name on it.
Mr.Toad,
I do not argue against people having the right to vote where they live. I said that students that are on their own should vote where they live. Students that are essentially only temporarily located for school should vote absentee for the area in which they are from. Not much different than a military person on TDY voting absentee. We have laws that govern where you can vote. For example, as a resident of Yolo county, I cannot arbitrarily decide to vote in Sutter county. Ask yourself why that is. Residents have a vested interest in their community. Non-residents have very little vested interest in the community. If transient voters are allowed to participate in local elections with no vested interest in the community, then they often vote in a manner that puts them at odds with the best interest of the community. Case in point, many students were upset about the vote by prior students to transition UCD to NCAA division I-AA while passing the financial burden to future students (the current students). Obviously these students understand the dilemma.
We have a different understanding of how, why, and where voting should work, and what is the ultimate goal. Just because I disagree with you on these points in no way means that I am somehow for oppressing students and suppressing votes. You contention that this somehow equates to Jim Crow and 3/5 count is just absurd. I don’t fail to see anything here; we just have a difference of opinion. I get your point. The only thing obnoxious is your attitude. I guess not using your real name gives you license.
But the students do live here and while they live here they have the right to vote here. Exercising that right is not only in their interest while they are here it is in the interest of the students who will follow them. Some weird notion about their finances is so insulting and arbitrary that it sets me off because arguments such as yours may be persuasive in suppressing their participation. Arguing that people who you generally disagree with should not vote in a jurisdiction where they are eligible to vote and where their votes would be in opposition to your own is not harmless. Keeping students from voting in city elections through the failure to annex the campus is not harmless to student interests and I find the defense of such exclusion reprehensible. So please excuse my tone. I feel strongly that arguments such as your are undemocratic and contribute to the internalized sense of oppression that many students feel here in Davis.
I often tease kids who are having a good time and doing no harm by telling them, “Sorry that much fun is prohibited in Davis.” Never have they been insulted or misunderstood that I was criticizing the way they are treated here rather than their behavior. So the shameful voice of oppression you articulate is not some harmless opinion and the best way for students to begin to overcome it is by exercising their right to vote!
[quote]Sure for kids under 18.
For those over 18 they just need to vote. Annex the campus and add to their political power. All this commission nonsense is so patronizing. If they vote their voices will be heard. If you cared about them at all you would be for annexing the campus.
Rise up and vote students. Stop letting people like Musser and Gundler decide what is in your interest.[/quote]
Why is the suggestion to have a commission for youth, including students 18-22, in any way patronizing? If you truly believe that, then I would suggest you do not understand how city commissions work. If youth had a city commission of its own, it could advocated for students (all the way up through age 22) to the City Council. As it stands now, students are not really heard in this town, even though they contribute greatly to the economy of this city. And I have to wonder if the Bicycle Hall of Fame would have been able to take over the Teen Center had there been a Youth Commission to represent our young adults in this town. The entire Teen Center issue pretty much flew under the political radar screen, and was a product of city staff decisions without much in the way of input from the kids who were directly effected.
[quote]Arguing that people who you generally disagree with should not vote in a jurisdiction where they are eligible to vote and where their votes would be in opposition to your own is not harmless.[/quote]
Who says I don’t agree with them? I agree with them on many issues, and have even benefitted from votes where the students made a difference. You are arguing against a view that you seem to believe I have and not what I am actually saying. You insist on making this a personal attack on me based on your own perceptions of my view and not on reality.
A commission would be fine if the barriers to them exercising their power at the ballot box were not suppressed
by both physical barriers i.e. failure to annex UC, and, psychological ones, such as those expressed by Mr. Grundler
Grundler, I did qualify it with generally. So let me see you want to change the noise ordinance and oppose making it a crime for them to blow a .01. I must have read you wrong. My apology.
You did read me wrong. Apology accepted.