Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeda
Just wanted to mention that I heard some information yesterday from someone who was at Havana last Sunday night; and who said that according to the manager there it was one homeowner who complained.
On the other hand, about 100 or more people were there, enjoying the outdoor music on the patio on a lovely Sunday evening, and they all or mostly left when the music stopped. The suggestion that it should not be just 'about me' as was mentioned earlier should apply to these facts, too; and it's hard to see this as a 'trampling' of rights if only one person complained, particularly if the music's sound volume complied with ordinances; some earlier posts said that it did; but the point is that unless it was shown that it didn't, then there was nothing wrong with the music playing.
The fact that there are venues at the squares does not answer the issue of the rights of other businesses, and the rights of villagers who prefer different or other types of - or later - entertainment, and different settings for it, to have other options, as long as they are not shown to be violative of the law.
Those who are content with the offerings at the squares - which do offer great entertainment - are free to limit themselves to there; but that does not justify them in imposing their choices, and those limitations, on everyone else.
|
Freeda, you make some interesting and some valid points. However, let me comment on some of them:
1) Your first point about hearing from someone who heard from the manager is kind of like double hearsay, don't you think? Also, this was just one night. What about all of the other nights? Wouldn't a better metric of complaints be to sum up all of the complaints from unique individuals since the inception the late night entertainment?
2)Your assumption of the complainant being one person (whether this assumption is valid or not) being outweighed by the many people assumes that "loss" associated with each side is equivalent. In the case of the "many" the loss is no more than having to go a few minutes away to another venue. In the case of the homeowner(s) it is the nightly loss of the tranquility in their home and the limitation of the enjoyment of their home. Maybe it's just me, but I think the latter far outweighs a few minute's drive.
3) The claims that the legal limits on noise were met sound highly suspicious to me. As noted, the law talks about a quantitative measurement to be taken at 1,000 feet. Did the manager really do a complete analysis 1,000 feet in all directions? Not likely.
4) The law also seems to allow for a more subjective test based on a "reasonable person". As you indicated, this is somewhat arbitrary. However, I doubt very much that the sheriff's department would just accept a complaint from a single homeowner and then, without checking it out, go ahead and shut the music down. I would think that the deputy would first see how loud it was him or herself before taking any action. Given that the deputy would have to be assumed to be neutral in the issues (and hence a "reasonable person"), I have to think that the sound was pretty loud at the point(s) of complaint and failed the reasonable person test.
Oh, and F16, is this number 41? I need to know because the admins are paying me on a per-post basis to keep the view count up. This is sweeps month for internet advertising and this thread is going to let them jack their advertising rates way up.
