Bullhorns and Balance in D.C.
Sunday, February 24, 2008; B08
Washington Post
When the D.C. Council tabled the Noise Control Protection
Amendment Act of 2008 on Tuesday [Metro, Feb. 20], it dealt
a heavy blow to fairness for residents across the District.
I introduced the bill as a way to strike a balance
between the right to enjoy peace and quiet at home and the
right to make noise in public. The bill would close a
loophole that makes the District the only major U.S. city
with no limits on noncommercial amplified noise. I also
reached out to my colleague, council member Mary M. Cheh
(D-Ward 3), a constitutional law scholar, to carefully craft
the bill to ensure that it in no way, shape or form would
limit the right to free speech or the ability to organize.
As Cheh and I worked to fix the loophole, we listened to
complaints about noise from residents across the city.
Overwhelmingly, residents told us they did not want to limit
free speech, but they couldn't compete with amplifiers
outside their living room windows. They just asked for a
little fairness and protection of their rights, too.
The bill that came before the council has the support of
civic associations across the city that represent the many
neighborhoods that suffer as a result of this loophole -- as
well as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
representing many of our city's working men and women.
Under our proposal, amplified noncommercial speech could
reach levels of 70 decibels, or 10 decibels above the
ambient-noise level, whichever is greater. The ambient-noise
provision reflected a critical compromise with the SEIU to
ensure that protest is meaningful and never drowned out. In
practical terms, 10 decibels typically represents a doubling
of the noise level, guaranteeing that protest can always be
twice as loud as the noise around it.
This approach strikes the balance that protects one's
ability to make noise, but it also grants D.C. residents
some assurance of quiet within their homes. It uses tested
and constitutionally proven tools that would still leave
Washington with the nation's most liberal and permissive
rules on amplified noise.
In fact, New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles --
cities that embrace organized labor and protests -- already
have such controls on amplified speech; the rules protect
First Amendment rights to free speech and allow residents to
enjoy quiet within their own homes. I hope that with time,
the bill's opponents on the council will recognize the need
to provide the same reasonable protections enjoyed in most
every other major American city.
-- Tommy Wells
Washington
The writer is a member of the D.C. Council (D-Ward 6).
