Spring Break
City Council revives noise ordinance
Issue date: 10/11/07
- Page 1 of 2 next >
A new Baltimore City Council bill seeks to revive a noise ordinance, which had stalled in committee last spring. Bill 07-0717, first introduced on June 11, redefines the parameters of an older bill that sought to add excessive noise to a list of neighborhood nuisances.
Support for the original bill, introduced in 2005 by Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, current City Council president, increased following Phi Kappa Psi's housing battle in April. However it soon stalled.
"Noise criteria was hard to fit in [the original bill]," said Shaun Adamec, Rawlings-Blake's communications director. "The Council found there would be a lot of difficulty in measuring noise objectively."
This past summer, Councilwoman Helen Holton proposed a new bill that would have the noise ordinance be complaint-driven. The bill states that for residents who are cited twice for acting as "neighborhood nuisances" there is a possibility that the offenders could be evicted from their homes.
In addition, any activity that the legislation defines as a local "nuisance" - including, "the unreasonable use of profanity, cursing, or swearing" - could be cited by law enforcement officials with the same penalty applying.
"Unlike the last bill, which would have added to a preexisting law, Councilwoman Holton's bill will create a new law," Adamec said.
"It will solve the original bill's problems."
So far, the council has reported the bill favorable, Adamec explained. On Oct. 15, the council will vote on a second reader for the bill.
"I don't think the bill is constitutional," commented Matthew Crenson, professor of Political Science at Hopkins. "I don't know if this will constitute due process of law."
According to Crenson, the opportunities to appeal the decision for eviction could very easily take longer to achieve than the actual length of the punishment. In addition, the bill barely relies on police involvement, rather calling for the community to take action.
Support for the original bill, introduced in 2005 by Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, current City Council president, increased following Phi Kappa Psi's housing battle in April. However it soon stalled.
"Noise criteria was hard to fit in [the original bill]," said Shaun Adamec, Rawlings-Blake's communications director. "The Council found there would be a lot of difficulty in measuring noise objectively."
This past summer, Councilwoman Helen Holton proposed a new bill that would have the noise ordinance be complaint-driven. The bill states that for residents who are cited twice for acting as "neighborhood nuisances" there is a possibility that the offenders could be evicted from their homes.
In addition, any activity that the legislation defines as a local "nuisance" - including, "the unreasonable use of profanity, cursing, or swearing" - could be cited by law enforcement officials with the same penalty applying.
"Unlike the last bill, which would have added to a preexisting law, Councilwoman Holton's bill will create a new law," Adamec said.
"It will solve the original bill's problems."
So far, the council has reported the bill favorable, Adamec explained. On Oct. 15, the council will vote on a second reader for the bill.
"I don't think the bill is constitutional," commented Matthew Crenson, professor of Political Science at Hopkins. "I don't know if this will constitute due process of law."
According to Crenson, the opportunities to appeal the decision for eviction could very easily take longer to achieve than the actual length of the punishment. In addition, the bill barely relies on police involvement, rather calling for the community to take action.
Be the first to comment on this story