Measuring the city’s new noise ordinance
Despite the legislation having fallen upon deaf ears, Richmond has passed a new noise ordinance. This new bill not only attempts to fix the issues with that the previous one, which was ruled unconstitutional, but uses new technology to make combating excessive noise easier for police officers. Will it work?
Richmond police have a new weapon in their arsenal: the decimeter. This sound level meter, which is commonly referred to as a decimeter, measures sound pressure levels and is the latest piece of equipment to be used by local police to curb unlawful noise. The city’s noise-ordinance both empowers and requires police officers to enforce the new noise standards using the device.
“You’re taking the subjectivity away,” says Major Scott Booth. “I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s needed.” Maj. Booth favors using sound level meters because they remove the need for an officer to use his or her intuition when assessing a noise complaint. In other words, what can be loud to one set of ears may not be loud for another set of ears. “This gives you a tool,” says Maj. Booth. “Gives you something that’s quantifiable.”
In November 2010, Richmond General District Chief Judge Robert A. Pustilnik ruled that the city’s previous noise ordinance was unconstitutional because, among other reasons, it contained exemptions for religious services or events. Another criticism that Pustilnik levied against the previous ordinance was that the parameters by which officers would use to define excessive noise were broadly defined. Maj. Booth agrees with that sentiment, calling the struck-down ordinance “very subjective.” The new ordinance, which was adopted on July 25, is “much more objective.”
Richmond attorney Stephen Benjamin, who argued in court that the previous noise ordinance–which he said “looked like it had been written by a second grader”–was unconstitutional, says that the new ordinance is a “fairly reasonable attempt to regulate noise.” He favors the inclusion of decibel levels as a criteria by which police and courts will judge noise offenses. “That’s an objective measurement,” says Benjamin.
The new ordinance has a daytime and nighttime differential. The daytime hours (7am – 11pm) prohibit noise exceeding 65 dBA (decibels) inside a structure and 75 dBA outside of a structure. The nighttime hours (11:01pm – 6:59am) cap decibel levels at 55 dBA and 65 dBA from indoor and outdoor areas, respectively (Decibels are logarithmic, meaning that 65 dBA is 100x more powerful than 55 dBA). Exceptions are made for emergency vehicles, permitted activities, events on school grounds, as well as gardening, lawn care, and tree removal projects.
Decibel (dBA) Comparison:
- 30 dBA – Library
- 40 dBA – Theater
- 50 dBA – Dishwasher in the next room
- 60 dBA – Large business office
- 70 dBA – Vacuum cleaner at 1o feet
- 80 dBA – Diesel truck at 50 feet traveling 50 mph
- 90 dBA – Food blender
- 100 dBA – Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
“If we find the decibel levels are set so low, “ said Benjamin, “that it continues to criminalize normal, every day sound…we have a constitutional problem.” That’s one of Benjamin’s principal concerns about the new ordinance: that the parameters of acceptable decibel levels are “unrealistically low.”
There are several ways to measure decibel levels. One method uses weighing filters. “A-weighting” is an international standard and the most common way of measuring environmental sound pressure levels, as well as sustained hearing damage that results from loud noises.
When someone submits a noise complaint to police, officers will use a sound level meter to measure the severity of the proposed infraction. Maj. Booth said that officers will take the measurement at the complainer’s location and not near the source of the sound. “We would respond based off who was complaining,” says Maj. Booth. So, for example: an apartment building tenant complains to police that a party held by his or her neighbors down the hall is excessively loud. Police will respond to the complaint by taking a sound level reading at the apartment of the complaining tenant and not outside the door of the apartment in which the party is taking place. “We have to give the offender the benefit of the doubt,” says Maj. Booth. “We want to be objective.”
The current noise ordinance is, as Maj. Booth describes it, “progressively enforced.” The first infraction warrants a Class 4 Misdemeanor. Should a second offense occur within a 12-month period, then the second offense becomes a Class 3 Misdemeanor. A third offense within a 12-month period following an individual’s second offense warrants a Class 2 Misdemeanor. The noise ordinance prevents any further and more severe criminal charges (a Class 2 Misdemeanor is a charge punishable by a sentence of up to 6 months in prison, and/or a $1,000 fine).
The progressive enforcement is another issue of the noise ordinance that concerns Stephen Benjamin—there is no language that specifically qualifies an “offense.” For instance: a person turns up their stereo to a level that greatly irritates his or her neighbors for several minutes, silences the stereo for several minutes, then repeats this behavior several times. The ordinance makes no clarification as to what constitutes an offense. The above hypothetical example could result in the individual being charged with either several offenses or merely one.
The ambiguity in qualifying offenses aside, any offense “has to be measured by a decimeter,” says Maj. Booth. Police officers, however, are still able to issue citations for excessive noise that comes from an automobile’s speaker without measuring the decibel levels. The city has purchased 15 sound level meters as tools to enforce the new noise ordinance. Each of the four precincts has three devices. The Special Operations division has two in their possession, and one device has been give to the city’s Community Assisted Public Safety (CAPS) program. Although unaware as to the cost of the sound level meters, Maj. Booth said that the devices are “not cheap.”
Related
- “After Legal Setback, City Council Prepares New Noise Ordinance” (Style Weekly)
- “Judge declares city noise ordinance unconstitutional” (Times Dispatch)
- “The Proposed Noise Ordinance” (Greater Jackson Ward News)
- New Richmond Anti-Noise Pollution Law (2011)
photo by seantoyer
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Nathan Cushing
Nathan Cushing is a writer, journalist, and RVANews Editor.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
youre going to send people to jail… and cause permanent job seeking difficulties for them over 3 loud parties?in a college city?
RVA city council needs to get its head out of its ass.
this city makes its budget every year on the backs of our tax,permit and fee dollars. how about you start appreciating our funds before we leave.
I have a decimeter, and those stupid talking GRTC buses already exceed the daytime sound limit inside my apartment.
Mr. Case,
Its the arrogance of folks like you that have helped make this such a big issue.
My neighbors, while pretty tolerant of college kids’ antics, have been overrun and had their tolerance tested too many times. Its either this or watch more neighbors, some of who have literally lived here for generations, be driven out by obnoxious brats who clearly have no interest in how to properly live in an urban area.
These students litter and disrespect the neighborhoods in ways that they would never allowed to do in their suburban neighborhoods back home. Just because mommy and daddy rented or even bought you a house does not give you the right to treat Richmond as your personal frat house. VCU administration should be ashamed by what has been done in recent years.
Thankfully, I will say that so far things have seemed better this school year, and I give the threat of the new noise ordinance at least some credit for that.
As for this article, it falls short in the same way all the other media coverage has whether it be Style or the Times Dispatch. There’s virtually no comparison to the noise laws of other cities. Austin, Seattle, Gainesville, and many other cities across the world have these noise ordinances- what has been their experiences? How have they improved or tweeked their initial legislation?
C’mon, Richmond, other cities have figured this out, without severely limiting their nightlife or music scenes. This can be done in a way that makes sense and protects our fragile, historic neighborhoods. But we need politicians, citizens, and media who are willing to do some research and present all the facts and possibilities.
Quote: Richmond police have a new weapon in their arsenal: the decimeter.
A “decimeter” is one-tenth of a meter. You mean “decibel meter.”
Quote: Decibels are logarithmic, meaning that 65 dBA is 100x more powerful than 55 dBA
65 dBA is twice a loud as 55 dBA.
Quote: That’s one of Benjamin’s principal concerns about the new ordinance: that the parameters of acceptable decibel levels are “unrealistically low.”
The City of Richmond ordinance decibel limits are extremely high compared to other municipal noise ordinances.
Quote: Maj. Booth said that officers will take the measurement at the complainer’s location and not near the source of the sound.
That is not in the ordinance. The correct location for measurement is at the source parcel boundary.
See, http://cityhallreview.com/ under “Noise.”
I’m so glad that someone mentioned the GRTC buses! Every single day I’m awoken by one announcing itself as the “airport express” at 6 am. The funny thing is, I can’t actually locate the airport route info on their site. At this point I’m convinced that it’s there just to annoy me. Absolutely no reason for such a loud announcement in an (urban) residential neighborhood.
Does this mean we can report our weed-whackin’ and gas-power-mowing-for-HOURS neighbors when they complain they heard our chickens cluck? WE WELCOME DECIBEL COMPARISON DATA.
(P.s. If you live near a university, frickin’ embrace the party. It’s kind of like buying timbered lots adjacent to a bicentennial farm and complaining about the cows.)
Copeland, what happens when your neighborhood is over a hundred years older than the university yet in the last twenty years, moves next to you?
Not everyone wants to be like you by moving out to the country, build a fancy new house, declare yourself green, and fight neighbors over chickens.
I think you need to take a good frickin’ look in the mirror.
@Anonymous.
its not a matter of arrogance. its a matter of the punishment fitting the crime. certainly i believe that increasing fines are in order for repeat violations.
should college kids be throwing loud ass raging keg parties till 4am on a tuesday….NO.
but they neednt be punished with damning criminal charges at a point when theyre supposed to be starting their adult life. community service and growing fines should be sufficient, hit these kids where it hurts…..their beer money.
hell, i have a fat lady living upstairs who thunders around like godzilla @ all hours of the day and night and her kid speeds around at full bore at about 5am every day.
do i think she should have to learn to discipline her kid into walking instead of stomping.yes.
do i think she should learn to walk softer. yes.
do i think she deserves an employment crippling misdemeanor for it… no.
in residential zones of the city this is certainly needed, though the punishments can be overly harsh.
my concern is the night life areas where these levels are absurdly low for and the unfortunate fact that many of these are mixed zoning areas with residential and nightlife.
loud raucous noise BELONGS in the night club areas. and people living there should EXPECT that. certainly if someone opens a nightclub next door to your house that sucks to be you, thats why you should be aware and active of the goings on around you so you can file protest against such business licenses.
please dont mistake my pragmatism for arrogance.
but this law, while well meaning, needs some serious work…
namely in the levels for which they issue citations and t he punishments for said citations.
furthermore the city needs to start working on clearly separating its zoning to prevent vibrant nightlife from being quashed by the concerns of the apartment above the bar.