> I don't think that this proposed ordinance is as
> dumb as Jason claims.
What I think is dumb would be banning leaf blowers
rather than banning excessive generation of noise
pollution or air pollution. I did neglect to consider
particulates in my original post.
> If I understand his argument correctly, the
> ordinance is dumb because
> it should REALLY be addressing either
>
> 1. noise pollution or
> 2. air pollution or
> 3. both
It appears that we already have laws in place to deal
with #1. For noise pollution, then, isn't it an
enforcement issue rather than a "new law" issue?
> He proposes as a reductio ad absurdum for #2 that we
> have an ordinance banning petroleum fueled internal
> combustion engines. This is rhetorical overkill and
> just plain silly; it's like saying we should
> either ban all boats on Lake Calhoun, or allow
> supertankers.
I said: "For a pollution based concerns, perhaps
consider outlawing petroleum fueled internal
combustion engines?"
This wasn't trying to over simplify the solution. This
was expressing my desire to see fewer petroleum fueled
internal combustion engines in the city. This would
be a much greater improvement to health and air
quality than banning smoking.
A narrower law could be passed banning unliscensed use
of equipment generating over a certain amount of air
pollution. It would cover many two stroke engines
including some chainsaws, some lawnmowers, some
leafblowers, some gas powered scooters, etc. Many
people would probably find this more acceptable than
all gas engines, and it still wouldn't suffer the over
specification of banning "leaf blowers".
Or one could go broader and simply ban the unliscensed
generation of over a certain amount of pollution, but
I'd hate to see fires completely banned.
> Now, as for #1, noise pollution, I can think of an
> easy, strong, feasibility argument for the
ordinance.
> We simply cannot afford to start sending out squad
> cars with their own decibel meters, much less
> keep them all adjusted and calibrated (along the
> lines of radar guns), much less have them
> cross-examined in court. The question "is this
> person using a leaf-blower?" or "is this person
> using a leaf blower outside permitted hours of
> operation?" is a slam-dunk to answer. "is
> this person producing more than X decibels,
> measured at a distance of not less than Y feet"
> is a LOT harder to answer, and to deal with in
> the courts.
>
> The question of enforcement feasibility makes this
> ordinance sound a lot less dumb to me than others
> have claimed.
I do wonder why we have to rely on police for
enforcement of minor civil infractions. It seems like
littering, meters, noise violations, and a plethora of
other small problems could be checked and handled by
other civil employees, freeing the police force up for
the tougher stuff.
As far as enforcing noise laws, it is pretty straight
forward as I learned after a few unfortunate incidents
with a neighbor taking issue with the volume level of
my band practices.
A simple way to test it is: If at the sidewalk, the
noise generated is over normal conversation level, it
is too loud. I believe the same would be at the
property lines.
The first time the police were called, we were on
break, but we went inside and played at the levels whe
had been playing while the officer stood outside. He
let us know that it was too loud and gave us a
warning.
Before our next practice, we had a friend stand at the
sidewalk and give us thumbs up and thumbs down as we
adjusted our amps. While this didn't satisfy our
neighbor, it more than satisfied the police the next
time they were called.
If a civil employee can't be there when the problem is
happening, a tape/video recorder with a bit of "normal
conversational level talking" included as a baseline
might be sufficient. For that matter a photo of the
person using a device that might generate a greater
degree of noise or air pollution than allowed by law
should be enough to at least have the device checked.
- Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE, Minneapolis, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, United States of America, North
America, Earth, etc.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
