Allentown's proposed ordinance contends that "excessive sound amplification" is a threat to public safety. Now, I doubt anyone would disagree that drunken drivers are a far greater threat to public safety than booming bass from a car stereo in the middle of the night. Yet, after a call to the Allentown police I discovered that drunken driving results in impoundment of the vehicle at the discretion of the police officer on the call "nine chances out of 10." The loud music ordinance calls for impoundment of the vehicle 10 out of 10.
"Wait ... So I'd be better off getting drunk and driving around than playing my stereo really loud?"
Sadly, if Allentown City Council passes the bill prohibiting "excessive sound amplification," the answer to my puzzled friend's question will be "yes." The volume will be permanently turned down on hi-tech stereo systems on city streets. If your car stereo can be heard 75 feet away, you will be stopped. But the punishment for violating the ordinance is not a warning, fine or even a summons. Adapted from a 2001 law in the city of Elgin, Ill., "This amendment provides for the impoundment of the vehicle if amplified sound is heard at a distance of 75 feet or more, a fine of $250, and towing and storage fees." And, according to an April 7 article in the local Elgin newspaper, they don't give warnings.
Allentown's proposed ordinance contends that "excessive sound amplification" is a threat to public safety. Now, I doubt anyone would disagree that drunken drivers are a far greater threat to public safety than booming bass from a car stereo in the middle of the night. Yet, after a call to the Allentown police I discovered that drunken driving results in impoundment of the vehicle at the discretion of the police officer on the call "nine chances out of 10." The loud music ordinance calls for impoundment of the vehicle 10 out of 10.
So what, then, is the real issue here? The ordinance would be an amendment to the General Offenses Code, entitled "Public Safety/ Traffic Hazards." The bill was drafted May 7, 2003. But in a memo to Councilman Tom Burke dated March 26, 2003, City Solicitor Robert Brown writes that the purpose of the ordinance is "improving the quality of life for Allentown residents by reducing loud stereo music emanating from motor vehicles onto Allentown streets particularly in the summer months."
This is an attempt by the city of Allentown to deny the phenomenon of the burgeoning, living city. It is an urban community of approximately 106,600 people attempting to maintain the feel of small town America. My contention is that the so-called "excessive sound amplification" poses no safety threat -- it is simply a nuisance. Therefore, the zero-tolerance policy is overzealous in its call for instantaneous impoundment of offending vehicles.
The impoundment clause is not only too stringent, I don't think it could withstand a legal challenge. According to an overarching Pennsylvania statute, impoundment is lawful only when a clear and present threat to safety is evident. In order to defend this piece of legislation, the city would have to present concrete evidence showing that drivers with their stereos cranked up truly are a public safety or traffic hazard. The evidence would have to convince a judge. The goal of simply quelling angry nuisance calls every time a loud stereo flies down the street isn't enough.
Generally, relishing the conveniences of the city also means sacrificing a modicum of peace and quiet. I just spent four years in the largest city in the United States, and I can sympathize. Certainly, there were times I wanted to chase down cars sharing their music at 3 a.m. (not to mention the ice cream truck at 10 a.m) with flamethrowers. But I chose to live in an urban environment, so I dealt with it.
Loud house parties fall into the category of nuisances, but offenders get a fine and possible summons when a neighbor calls to complain about music rattling the pictures on their walls. Laws governing car stereo volume laws exist across the nation in cities such as Albuquerque, N.M., and Nashville, Tenn. In fact, one already exists in Allentown, under the City of Allentown Noise Control Ordinance. But unlike the proposed vehicle ordinance, these bills make it clear that the issue is noise pollution. The punishment for blaring music is not seizure of your house, but fines.
If this ordinance passes, noise polluters will have no chance of keeping their cars. On the other hand, the "officer's discretion" will continue to provide drunken drivers at least a chance of not having to make a trip to the impound lot the next day. If city council wants to truly help cut down on "boom cars" while not causing car owners to throw away thousands of dollars they spent on systems for their vehicles in the midst of a strangling recession, they should consider enforcement of existing laws. And, if they want to show their concern for traffic safety, perhaps the zero- tolerance standard could be applied to drunken drivers instead of annoying music lovers.
Jessica Hemerly lives in New Tripoli.
No comments:
Post a Comment