Advertisement

Previous   Next

Should night-time and early-morning hours be considered a violation of the city noise ordinance?

Asked at Mr. Gatti's, 3514 Clinton Parkway on April 9, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Cheryl Atkinson

“I would say no, because the work has to be done. The sooner the better.”

Photo of Laken James

“No. I don’t think it should, because they are working to make our town a better place, not just to annoy us.”

Photo of Justin Ahrens

“I think they have to get the work done one way or the other, but it wouldn’t ever bother me because I’m already up early in the morning anyway.”

Photo of Kelly Ryan

“I don’t think the noise is that big of a problem right now. Most businesses want the construction done at night so that it doesn’t interfere with business. The construction season is pretty short, and they have to get it done fast.”

Comments

italianprincess 9 years, 6 months ago

This is a poorly worded question.

What exactly is this question asking? Is it a construction question like Kelly answered?, or is it about college kids partying all day and night? It could be about daylight savings time, or the effects of people who work during the day or at night.

The question should read......... " Should night-time and early-morning hours ( insert relevance here ) be considered a violation of the city noise ordinance? "

0

Hong_Kong_Phooey 9 years, 6 months ago

Italianprincess: Way to not answer any question whatsoever.

jt: I think Kline is referring to the areas directly around Mass Street.

I don't think that they should make them stop at 5 or 6pm, but I do agree that it's a little ridiculous that somebody has to listen to a jackhammer at 1am. I would say 10:00pm during the week and 11pm on the weekends. Starting before 7am shouldn't be allowed on any day.

0

jonas 9 years, 6 months ago

Italianprincess: Agreed. As it is, this asks whether the hours themselves are violations, and personally I think that they are, and that they ought to ban them. With the new city commission, the first priority should be the elimination of 4-7am and 9pm-12am. Then, secure in our 18 hour day, there would be no more problems at all.

0

Fangorn 9 years, 6 months ago

HKP: I tend to agree with italianprincess about the question. It is poorly worded. Taken at face value, I can't say that I've ever heard an "hour" itself make any noise whatsoever, whether night-time or early-morning. Try: "Should construction site activity during night-time and early-morning hours be considered a violation of the city noise ordinance?"

As for answering the question (or, rather, what the question was intended to ask), Kline adds relevant information and it becomes a trade-off, as are so many other situations. We could restrict construction to "normal" work hours, but forcing more work to be done during peak heat hours increases the risks of the job and thus the costs associated with it. On the other hand, early-morning-skip-the-afternoon-return-in-the-evening hours reduces the risks and (monetary) costs. But the costs are paid in other ways by the people who live near the sites and lose the tranquility of their evening or perhaps sleep time in the morning. Either way, it's a trade-off. One choice spreads a tangible (i.e. monetary) cost over the entire city. The other concentrates intangible costs on a relative few, those near the construction areas.

0

kansas 9 years, 6 months ago

I really don't care about construction in Lawrence, I just want to know why that KU dean got fired! I bet there's something "juicy" about that story! The article hints at some sort of "inappropriate behavior", but doesn't elaborate. Oh, well.

I'm sure a story (or two) will eventually leak out at some point.

0

ms_canada 9 years, 6 months ago

kansas - sounds like you can hardly wait for the 'juicy' bits to come out. Shame on you. Gossip mongering is a nasty business and should be avoided. One thing that really gets my goat is the phrase, 'the public has a right to know' who says?

0

ms_canada 9 years, 6 months ago

kansas - upon re-reading my post, I realize it sounds somewhat nasty, which was not my intent. I was trying to be sort of funny. Poor effort. Sorry

0

gccs14r 9 years, 6 months ago

Treat construction noise like some communities treat aircraft noise--not permitted from 22:00 to 06:00. A noise standard of so many db at so many meters could be established so that construction could continue unabated if no one is inconvenienced, with a companion vibration standard to ensure that people don't have to listen to their china rattle all night long.

By the way, while noise is the topic, can we ban Jake brakes inside the city limits? It's crazy that some semi drivers feel compelled to use the darn things in town--it's not as if they're running downhill at 60 in the Rockies.

0

Richard Heckler 9 years, 6 months ago

Dawn to dusk. When it gets hot, 95 plus, allow a variance. Productivity drops when working under extreme temperatures. The complaining party will probaly have the windows closed and the AC on when it's real hot. I'm sure Mayor Rundle or Mayor Highberger will work something out. The more they work the sooner it's a done deal.

Then again the complaining party may not be happy about the projects so this situation becomes more annoying...nothing unusual about that.

0

Hong_Kong_Phooey 9 years, 6 months ago

Dude...some people are just WAY too concerned with semantics. Quit worrying about whether or not the question is perfectly worded! You obviously know what the gist of the question was or you wouldn't be trying to argue for improvements.

As for one_more_bob's obsession with the term "jake brake" (and when your post is that long - it's an obsession), take it as a compliment. It's kind of like when people refer to soda pop as "Coke".

0

lunacydetector 9 years, 6 months ago

the City bans smoking because it saves the lives of the waiters/waitresses because they don't have to breathe in poison smoke

BUT

the City wants workers to get heat exhaustion by forcing them to work during the hot time of the day.

how clueless I MEAN "progressive."

sounds like a convoluted 'do-gooder' mentality.

0

Fangorn 9 years, 6 months ago

one_more_bob: I had no idea "Jake Brake" was a registered trade mark.

HKP: My first post referenced an earlier remark you made, so I'll assume I'm the one you exhort to worry less about semantics. Let me comment on that here, since today's question didn't generate much traffic (especially considering Wednesday and Thursday!).

When I first read the question, I had no idea what they meant. I had to read the relevant article and the earlier posts to get a clear idea. The gist of the question wasn't apparent right away and only became so after I'd done some "background" reading.

[Anyone who is really bored should keep reading. Others who have more important things to do, ensuring all the paint in your home is dry or counting the spoons in your kitchen for example, should stop here.]

In verbal communication, we all misspeak occasionally. We think faster than we talk (most of us) so our tongues sometimes trip us up. Not so when writing. When scribbling or typing, each of us has the opportunity to consider our words, re-read for content, and edit before publishing, printing, or posting. Wording that communicates poorly usually reflects a lack of time (haste, a frequent concern here as we try to thrust our thoughts into the dialog), a lack of training (one whose education slighted the second of the three "R's" rarely wields the written word deftly), a lack of thought (when the end product matters little, effort suffers), or a lack of trust (editors sometimes wreak havoc on otherwise well-constructed lines). My guess is that in a hasty effort to publish a question that wasn't too verbose (e.g. see about half of my posts ;) ), this question went to print without proofreading for clarity.

0

italianprincess 9 years, 6 months ago

Thank you Fangorn for the last post. I to reread the question a couple times, then read one of the answers to actually see what they were discussing.

A friend of mine was here also and he said that they had have told them " construction " or they may not have known what it was about.

I'm wonder what tomorrows question will be ( proof read and ready to go I hope. )

0

italianprincess 9 years, 6 months ago

The last line of my last post should read....... " I wonder ", and not " I'm wonder ".

Long day and I just noticed the typo I made.

0

Fangorn 9 years, 6 months ago

Speaking of proofreading, I should conform to the standard I advocate. ":each of us has the opportunity to consider our words:" is incorrect. The subject ("each") is singular and thus gets a singular verb ("has"). However, the possessive modifier for "words" should also be singular. Written correctly: Each of us has the opportunity to consider his words. Obviously, "her words" would also be correct.

0

Richard Heckler 9 years, 6 months ago

Or.....allow workers to begin at 4:30 or 5 AM on the extremely hot days. Perhaps the construction company will allow workers to take off at 2 or 3 PM. Let's face it worker attitudes on extreme days is rightfully not so good so send them home early.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.