“There is a terrible poetry in that sound at dead of night: but there was a day when the echo of that Bell awoke a world, slumbering in tyranny and crime!” –George Lippard, Ring, Grandfather, Ring!
Perhaps it is this quote that inspired Charles Samuels to exclude church bells from violating his utterly ridiculous sound ordinance. Of course, Lippard was writing on liberty, and Samuels intends to make sure the churches of his constituents can make noise to their heart’s content–certainly, the early-morning churchgoers can be counted amongst the loudest of his anti-art, anti-fun, anti-whippersnapper constituency. Lippard was also speaking out against “Priest-craft and all other crafts born of the darkness of ages, and baptized in seas of blood.” But this is not a rant about religion, churches, or priests. This is about science, and empirical proof that the recently washed and passed sound ordinance is in violation of the rule of law. Here’s the full copy that I’m pulling the below excerpts from.
I pulled up behind the Library of Virginia with a smirk on my face. After scores of complaints about the new sound ordinance (after all, it was thrown out as unconstitutional, then reintroduced, barely reworded, to remove religious exemptions), I had finally decided to throw some science at it. Collect data, analyze, and report.
“There is a terrible poetry in that sound at dead of night: but there was a day when the echo of that Bell awoke a world, slumbering in tyranny and crime!” –George Lippard, Ring, Grandfather, Ring!
Perhaps it is this quote that inspired Charles Samuels to exclude church bells from violating his utterly ridiculous sound ordinance. Of course, Lippard was writing on liberty, and Samuels intends to make sure the churches of his constituents can make noise to their heart’s content–certainly, the early-morning churchgoers can be counted amongst the loudest of his anti-art, anti-fun, anti-whippersnapper constituency. Lippard was also speaking out against “Priest-craft and all other crafts born of the darkness of ages, and baptized in seas of blood.” But this is not a rant about religion, churches, or priests. This is about science, and empirical proof that the recently washed and passed sound ordinance is in violation of the rule of law. Here’s the full copy that I’m pulling the below excerpts from.
I pulled up behind the Library of Virginia with a smirk on my face. After scores of complaints about the new sound ordinance (after all, it was thrown out as unconstitutional, then reintroduced, barely reworded, to remove religious exemptions), I had finally decided to throw some science at it. Collect data, analyze, and report.
Let’s turn back a year. It was in December that Charles Samuels’s sound ordinance was thrown out, rendered unconstitutional by Richmond General District Chief Judge Robert Pustilnik. It was too broad, and gave specific exemptions for religious organizations (namely, church bells). The version that passed recently had this exact same exemption, but doesn’t say anything about churches- it just lets any bell ring without consequence, no matter how hung over the neighbors are on a Sunday morning. If you know of any other organization or institution that regularly rings bells, please let me know.
Back to the Library of Virginia, back to 2011, and back to the interim time between the passage of the ordinance and the deadline for the police to announce how they will enforce it. Back to my boots on the ground one block away from City Hall itself–a beautiful structure. The observation deck on top is one of my favorite places in the entire city to gather my thoughts. But I had no time for contemplation. What I did do was walk around City Hall, twice, using two different decibel meters to measure sound, and to confirm what I already knew: that the sound ordinance’s bar for how loud is too loud is utterly and completely ridiculous.
Excessive sound is qualified here, in the ordinance, Section 1.b.vii:
“Excessive sound” means sound that exceeds 55 dBA during nighttime hours and sound that exceeds 65 dBA during daytime hours.
At no point during either of these walks did the decibel meters report anything below 70dB, and as such, these very streets are in violation of the new sound ordinance. As I was able to confirm, the ambient sound of downtown, Jackson Ward, and most of the mixed use areas in the city (Downtown, Shockoe Bottom, The Fan, anywhere that both businesses and dwellings exist in the same area), is above the sound level that the new sound ordinance claims is dangerous. To quote directly:
The City Council hereby finds and declares that excessive sound is a serious hazard to the public health, welfare, peace and safety and the quality of life; that a substantial body of science and technology exists by which excessive sound may be substantially abated; that the people have a right to and should be ensured an environment free from excessive sound that may jeopardize the public health, welfare, peace and safety or degrade the quality of life; and that it is the policy of the city to prevent such excessive sound.
And there we have it. The new sound ordinance has declared that walking one lap around city hall in the middle of the afternoon is a serious hazard to my health. A street lamp in the middle of the fan (I cannot recall the exact address) read 60dB last night, when it came on suddenly, pushing its sodium twilight and that eerie buzz that most of us are familiar with.
What we have here, clearly, is an ordinance that is designed for selective enforcement. If this ordinance were to become enforceable, we will have a state of law in which anything and anyone can be deemed in violation, at the whim of the individual officer. Surely, the police have no intention of demanding that the streets themselves turn down the volume? I kid you not that a ticket could be issued for merely walking down the damn street, talking with a friend in a normal conversational tone, after 9PM.
But surely, I have been told, the ordinance is not designed to prohibit things such as evening strolls, backyard bbq’s, or even band practices. This is not my point. My point is that it could. And a law that can only be selectively enforced is a clear violation of the rule of law. It would grant the powers that be the authority to shut down whatever activity they deemed inappropriate. And that, my friends, is the antithesis of law.
“…Let the Bell speak out the great truth.” –George Lippard, Ring, Grandfather, Ring!
