Look, ma, CM Greg Phipps’ favorite mayor ever vetoed the fireworks ordinance.

As predicted, Mayor Deafley "Slick Jeffie" Gahan announced his veto (sorry, Susie, no capital 'V' on veto) of the city council's recent tepid fireworks ordinance in an insulting and poorly worded post at Payhan's propaganda site.

Weddings, birthdays and holidays ... and the time Gahan bulldozes a homeless encampment?

---

I hereby Veto recent action by the city council to ban legal fireworks in New Albany.

The proposed ban would limit the use of fireworks to only 4.5 days (107 hours) per year, without first obtaining a government permit.

The 5-4 split council vote to ban legal fireworks is an intrusion into the private lives of our citizens and could silence the joy of many important occasions, like weddings, birthdays, and holidays.

As written, the proposed ordinance is impossible to enforce and introduces confusion between New Albany police officers and the people of New Albany.

Indiana State Law has already addressed the use of fireworks in IC 22-11-14.

---

Previously:

Limiting fireworks is the easy part. Enforcement is New Albany's traditional Achilles heel.

Limiting fireworks is the easy part. Enforcement is New Albany's traditional Achilles heel.

Matt Nash, Greg Phipps, David Barksdale, Al Knable and Scott Blair voted in favor while McLaughlin, Dan Coffey, Bob Caesar and David Aebersold voted against.

A strange council configuration approved a symbolic ordinance that probably will be impossible to enforce; given forceful opposition by the police chief, Deaf Gahan might well veto it anyway.

Meanwhile, within eyesight of my front porch, there are a half-dozen visible and persistent ordinance violations missed weekly when the city works extra hard to enforce just that one ordinance pertaining to blocking the street sweeper.

Welcome to New Albany. It's not an intelligent place, presumably because most of you prefer it that way.

New Albany City Council passes ordinance limiting fireworks, by John Boyle (Bill Hanson's Evangelical Medicine Show)

Vote passed by a 5-4 margin

NEW ALBANY — Citizens of New Albany now have more restrictions regarding when they can shoot off fireworks.

At Thursday's sometimes tense New Albany City Council meeting, council members voted 5-4 in favor of passing an ordinance limiting when fireworks can be used.

The final version of the ordinance, which will be tied in with the current noise ordinance, was identical to that which passed on first and second readings at the Aug. 5 meeting, with an amendment adding two more days to the week after the Fourth of July.

Now, residents of the city can only use consumer fireworks from 5 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. June 29-30, July 1-3, and July 5-11. Fireworks are also allowed from 10 a.m. July 4 to 12:01 a.m. July 5. For New Year's celebrations, fireworks are legal from 10 a.m. Dec. 31 to 1 a.m. Jan 1.

Violations of the ordinance will result in a fine of $150 for the first offense, $300 for the second, and $500 for each thereafter. The ordinance also includes a clause that allows groups and organizations to acquire permits to shoot off fireworks outside of the set time frames.

Discussions of personal liberties took place in the lead up to the vote ...

ASK THE BORED: BOW to Pastime, "Long distance runaround / Long time waiting to feel the sound."

We've given the Board of Public Works and Safety a whole laundry list of street grid topics to consider at this morning's meeting -- not that any of them read the blog, seeing as it would be quality of life heresy, punishable by forced recitation of the teachings of Chairman Nash.


Grid Control, Vol. 7: What will the Board of Works do to rectify HWC's striping errors on the north side of Spring Street, apart from microwaving another round of sausage biscuits?


As we wait near the very rear of the Great Gahan Prioritization Queue, let's consider this exchange at last week's BOW meeting. Here is the party of the first part, with the punch line to follow.

It's at least the second time that Pastime Grill & Pub has come before the bored seeking an exemption to "make noise" via evening entertainment, and the second time (at least) Pastime has been told there is no such exemption, even if it seemed to be so at the conclusion of city council actions last year ostensibly designed to update the city's noise ordinance (reprinted in full below).

October 11, 2016
ASK THE BORED: Irv's latest proposal for trucking safety, noise non-exemptions, and a probable date for the two-way streets vote.

September 1, 2016
Caesar absent, Coffey abstains, Rickard fumes and city council unanimously approves a noise ordinance upgrade.

August 22, 2016
Noise ordinance 2016: Surveying the bedfellows, parsing the decibels.

The simple fact is that last year's upgrade would have been more honest had it been titled "The Pastime Noise Ordinance Reboot."

Mind you, it isn't that the bar's residential neighbors don't have valid noise complaints. Rather, noise in our urban area is a fiendishly complicated issue given the revival of a downtown business district and the proximity of residents to activity, whether in older neighborhoods or upstairs above a bar or restaurant, as at Brooklyn and The Butcher and Gospel Bird.  

Did city council intend to give businesses like Pastime a handful of annual exemptions? Was Pastime being trolled? Was there a communications breakdown?

I don't know the answers, but the advice given to the Pastime representative by Mickey Thompson last week is absolutely priceless.

That's right, Mr. Rickard. Go have a nice chat with your councilman, Greg Phipps.

I'd like to be a fly on THAT wall.

---

§ 96.01  REGULATING NUISANCES CREATED BY NOISE.

   (A)   It shall be unlawful for any person within the city’s corporate limits, to continue, or cause to be made or continued, any unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others, unless the making and continuing of the noise is necessary for the protection or preservation of property or the life, health, or safety of a person or persons. Any person who violates this chapter shall be subject to the penalties set forth in § 96.99.

   (B)   The following acts are hereby declared to be unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noises in violation of this chapter, but the enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive:

      (1)   The sounding of any horn or other such audible signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle on any right-of-way, parking lot or other public place, except as a danger warning, for an unreasonable period of time;

      (2)   The use or operation of any radio, stereo, or other machine or device for the producing, reproducing or amplification of sound in any vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonably loud, harsh, or excessive noise, that disturbs the peace, quiet or comfort of others;

      (3)   The use or operation of, or allowing the use or operation of, any radio, stereo, musical instrument, or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to create an unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noise which disturbs the peace, quiet, and comfort of others by creating or allowing a louder volume than is necessary for the convenient hearing of the person or persons who are voluntarily in the room, chamber, or vehicle in which any machine, device, or musical instrument described above is located;

      (4)   The use or operation of any vehicle in such manner as to produce any unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noise, or to discharge into the open air the exhaust of any vehicle, except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent any unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noises therefrom;

      (5)   The creation of any unreasonably loud, harsh, or excessive noise in connection with the loading or unloading of any vehicle, or by the operation of any such vehicle;

      (6)   The use of any mechanical loud speaker, amplifier, sound system, stereo or radio on any moving or standing vehicle for advertising, entertainment or any other purpose, in such a manner as to create an unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noise; and

      (7)   The unreasonably prolonged continuation of animal noises, as provided in § 91.07.

   (C)   The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

      (1)   The volume of the noise;

      (2)   The intensity of the noise;

      (3)   The volume and intensity of background noise, if any;

      (4)   The proximity of the noise to a residential area, place of public accommodation, such as a hotel, motel, inn, campground and the like, health care facilities, churches or schools;

      (5)   The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;

      (6)   The density of inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;

      (7)   The time of day or night the noise occurs;

      (8)   The duration of the noise;

      (9)   Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant; and

      (10)   Whether any applicable exemptions apply.

(Ord. A-03-53, passed 8-21-2003; Am. Ord. G-11-42, passed 12-15-2011; Ord. G-16-08, passed 9-1-2016)  Penalty, see § 96.99

§ 96.02  EXEMPTIONS.

   The following are exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

   (A)   Sounds emitted from authorized emergency vehicles;

   (B)   Lawn mowers, weed blowers, garden tractors, construction and repair equipment, go-carts, power tools, when properly muffled, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. only;

   (C)   Burglar alarms and other warning devices when properly installed, providing the cause for the alarm or warning device sound is investigated and turned off within a reasonable period of time;

   (D)   Events authorized by the Board of Public Works and Safety. However, there shall not be more than three events, totaling six days, in a calendar year authorized by Board of Public Works and Safety, granted to any individual or entity in a calendar year. Any additional annual exemptions will require Council approval;

   (E)   Noise associated with scholastic or athletic events;

   (F)   Sounds emitted for emergency purposes;

   (G)   Sounds associated with consumer fireworks permitted by state law under I.C. 22-11-14 et seq.;

   (H)   Sounds associated with the normal conduct of legally established non-transient businesses, organizations and governmental entities, when the sounds are customary, incidental and within the normal range appropriate for the use; provided, however, that, commercial enterprises shall not be entitled to this exemption between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, and 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. However, it is noted that §§ 156.078(B)(7) and 156.078(C)(7) are applicable for light industrial use and heavy industrial use, respectively;

   (I)   Garbage collection between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.;

   (J)   Sounds associated with equipment or animals lawfully utilized by disabled persons to accommodate their disability;

   (K)   Noise associated with an auction conducted by a licensed auctioneer;

   (L)   Noises resulting from any and all transportation, flood control, utility company maintenance and construction operations at any time on rights-of-way, and noises from situations which may occur on private real property, including in parking lots, deemed necessary to serve the best interest of the public and to protect the public’s health and well being, including but not limited to, street or hard surface sweeping or cleaning, debris and limb removal, removal of downed wires, restoring electrical service, repairing traffic signals, unplugging sewers, snow removal, house moving, vacuuming catch-basins, removal of damaged poles and vehicles, repair of water hydrants and mains, gas lines, oil lines, and sewers; and

   (M)   Noises from activities conducted on public parks or playgrounds and public or private school grounds, including but not limited to, school athletic and school entertainment events.

(Ord. A-03-53, passed 8-21-2003; Ord. G-11-42, passed 12-15-2011; Ord. G-16-08, passed 9-1-2016)

§ 96.99  PENALTY.

   (A)   A first violation of any section of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of $150 for the first offense. The date of the citation is the date for use to determine whether divisions (B) and (C) herein should apply.

   (B)   A second violation of any section this chapter by the same person or entity within a six-month period from the first violation shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of $300.

   (C)   A third or more subsequent violations of this chapter by the same person or entity within a six- month period from the first violation shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of $500 per violation thereafter;

(Ord. A-03-53, passed 8-21-2003; Ord. G-11-42, passed 12-15-2011; Am. Ord. G-16-08, passed 9-1-2016)

ASK THE BORED: Irv's latest proposal for trucking safety, noise non-exemptions, and a probable date for the two-way streets vote.

According to the Green Mouse, this morning at the Board of Public Works and Safety, Irv "Terminator" Stumler plans to unveil a compromise proposal from the Justice League of New Albany, a vigilante organization founded by New Albany's trucking company superduperheroes for the purpose of preserving their mechanized environment from the vile depredations (look it up, Shane) of stupid people too poor to own cars.

Stumler will explain to the bored that since street safety for trucks is the ultimate concern of the Justice League, and while heavy trucks never, ever operate above the speed limit when traversing the city, it still might happen on rare occasions when the radar cops are out having doughnuts, and so it's vitally important for precautions to be put into place in case of brake failure.

Specifically, one of these.

Stumler and the League already have the perfect site in mind.

BOW is expected to take Stumler's proposal under advisement. Meanwhile, something odd occurred at last week's meeting (October 4).

But didn't the ordinance include just such a provision? Councilmen who may be reading: Huh? What gives?

Finally, the Green Mouse has been told that BOW's vote on two-way streets will come at its first meeting AFTER the election, on Tuesday, November 15 -- that is, if the Justice League doesn't blockade Hauss Square with a fleet of Padgett's erections.

Caesar absent, Coffey abstains, Rickard fumes and city council unanimously approves a noise ordinance upgrade.

Not decapitated by decibels.

I have a feeling this ordinance's approval tonight won't be the end of the story.

New Albany City Council approves heftier fines for noise violations; Ordinance changes meant to crack down on repeaters, by Elizabeth Beilman (News and Tribune)

... Pastimes Pub and Grill owner Grant Rickard brought to the meeting a petition with 121 signatures opposing the changes.

"You're not going to just mess with my business," Rickard said. "You're going to affect all of New Albany."

New Albany resident Steve Price, a musician and former counciman, said he doesn't have a problem with the cut-off times. It's the fine increases that he takes issue with.

"I definitely have a problem if someone can just come and write you a ticket," he said. "You should at least be given a warning."

Noise ordinance 2016: Surveying the bedfellows, parsing the decibels.

This time he waved and omitted the middle finger.

“Soon silence will have passed into legend. Man has turned his back on silence. Day after day he invents machines and devices that increase noise and distract humanity from the essence of life, contemplation, meditation...tooting, howling, screeching, booming, crashing, whistling, grinding, and trilling bolster his ego. His anxiety subsides. His inhuman void spreads monstrously like a gray vegetation.”
― Jean Arp

For various reasons, none of them bad, the past few days have been disjointed for me. More than once I sat down and tried to begin writing about last week's city council meeting, and especially the reconstituted noise ordinance, which was approved unanimously on its first and second readings.

The results were uninspiring.

In short, there seemed to be something eluding me about the ordinance, perhaps a missing piece of information. It was almost as though the noise ordinance, while sensible, prompted more questions than it answered -- hence the most relevant joke I heard, that the most stringent noise ordinance on the planet can do nothing to curb the sheer volume of voices inside the heads of certain council members.

Just a few observations.

If the ordinance isn't targeting specific entertainment venues, then why did the commentary of all four citizens in attendance focus exclusively on specific entertainment venues?

This probably was coincidental, and there are fireworks, roosters, boom cars and dogs to consider, but downtown food and drink businesses, however law abiding, have reason to be wary of unintended slippery slopes as they pertain to the future enforcement of such an ordinance.

That's because City Hall has taken no steps to date to suggest that it intends to address the approaching friction, mild but palpable, of business district versus downtown residency needs, whether noise, parking or special events use.

Make no mistake, these constituencies absolutely need one another, and the city needs them both, but as with the example of Harvest Homecoming, it's not a perfect marriage without city government's active participation. Unfortunately, City Hall prefers ducking the tough questions, and so the noise ordinance is sure to arch more than a few eyebrows.

But the shock is this: The noise ordinance was not handed to the council from his majesty. Nor was it a Democratic Party creation. Furthermore, as citizen Peter Feimer (below) said, it can't be expected to succeed without enforcement being pried from the partisan hands of the mayor's hand-curated Board of Public Works.

Almost a shot across the bow, and yet, first and second readings were unanimous.

Strange days continue to find us. For the first time in forever, there is not a guaranteed majority for the Democrats on city council. The noise ordinance probably isn't all that controversial a measure, but soon enough there'll be one that is.

Then things are going to get interesting fairly quickly.

Coverage first from the C-J:

New Albany considers greater fines for noise violations, by Madeleine Winer (Courier-Journal)

... After two readings of the new ordinance, the council agreed unanimously to set the hours noise violations would be enforced to 10:30 p.m.-6:30 a.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on weekends. It also agreed that businesses can apply for permits to be exempt from the rules three times per calendar year totaling up to six days. If businesses want to apply for more exemptions, council members agreed it would have to meet their approval.

(David) Barksdale said in an interview Wednesday that the changes in the noise ordinance were not targeting a specific venue, and that council members have received noise complaints from residents around the city. Both he and (Al) Knable said they hope the changes can streamline the ordinance and better clean up the city.

And then HEN:

New Albany moves forward on new noise ordinance, by Jerod Clapp (Hanson Entertainment News)

NEW ALBANY — Though unanimously passed on second reading, an updated noise ordinance for New Albany drew a lot of debate at Thursday’s city council meeting.

Al Knable, at-large councilman, said after noise from bars, other establishments and fireworks generated complaints from residents, the outdated ordinance didn’t give police the authority to act on many of those issues. He also said the fines outlined in the old version weren’t harsh enough, coming in at $50 for the first and $100 for subsequent complaints.

Some of those residents came to the meeting. Peter Feimer, 68, said he lives on Main Street near an establishment that regularly has loud music. He said while the last ordinance did a good job of addressing the issue in general, it simply didn’t have any teeth. He said special permits issued by the Board of Works bypass the ordinance that already exists.

“[One establishment] gets permits for virtually every weekend the entire summer long," Feimer said. “For all of you who get my congratulations for writing a good ordinance in 2003, you made one terrible mistake. That is in the addendum to the ordinance, you gave your own Board of Public Works the authority to completely negate your law. That’s not right.”

Welcome to another fact Bob Caesar can't/won't grasp: "High-Traffic Arterial Roads Reduce Quality of Life, Even Blocks Away."

You know, like a futility flow chart.

At Tuesday evening's city council meeting, 2nd district internal combustion fetishist Bob Caesar spoke stridently in favor of the ruthless suppression of noise, but only insofar as noise pertains to certain taverns playing the wrong music.

Is there any more persistent hypocrite in the entire city?

Each day, heavy trucks thunder back and forth on New Albany's high-speed, one-way arterial streets, generating noise, shaking residential windows and inflicting mayhem, as joined by all manner of boom cars, redneck motorcyclists with high-decibel sound systems and drivers oblivious to their surroundings.

Through it all, Caesar's carefully cultivated privileged white guy propriety is unruffled. In his mind, forever and always, New Albany is so very degraded that no one would think of coming here unless they're able to do so under the same conditions as an interstate highway.

Caesar's the very same type of guy John Mahorney wrote about in LEO, eagerly rolling down his car window to verbally harass bicyclists as jobless deadbeats who are no better than dope-smoking, anti-establishment hippies.

I mean, if you didn't want to witness soul-crushing, neighborhood-sapping roadway behavior, why didn't you live in Silver Hills in the first place?

Has any single council representative in this city ever misunderstood so many facets of the modern urban world, all at once, without the faintest glimmer of a pulse?

Study: High-Traffic Arterial Roads Reduce Quality of Life, Even Blocks Away, by Angie Schmitt (Streetsblog)

... A new study from the University of Colorado Denver, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, builds on (previous) research — finding that high traffic on your street isn’t the only type of traffic affecting what you think of where you live. Researchers Wesley Marshall and Carolyn McAndrews found that living near, but not on, a wide, high-traffic arterial can also reduce residential satisfaction.

The research is a repudiation of the suburban style of traffic calming that dominated the U.S. for decades, where cul-de-sacs and lack of through streets limits traffic on residential streets by diverting cars to major arterials. It turns out, pouring traffic onto inhospitable arterial roads is negatively impacting nearby residential areas, too ...

Someone pry Bob's eyes open, will you? He's about to miss the best part -- again.

... Marshall and McAndrews recommend that neighborhoods try to improve quality of life by addressing shortcomings in arterial roads, focusing on reducing crime, adding more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and supporting land uses that encourage street life.

The bottom line is that sometimes, a neighborhood is only as strong as its weakest arterial road. “Livable cities require a network-level approach,” the authors wrote, “that looks beyond accounting for the livability of individual streets.”

Council to consider revised noise ordinance: Paving the way for randomly scattered "noise traps," or non-enforcement according to the New Albanian norm?

Big noise on one-way Spring -- will Irv flick his Bic?

To reiterate past news, I'd love to be able to take the twice-monthly council packet and cut 'n' paste with text, but it is available only as a .pdf, so this is the best I can do.

Tonight's marquee item is a revised noise ordinance, to be introduced by at-large councilmen Knable and Barksdale.

Here's a look-see. If you're a believer, please pray that some day, city communications will catch up to the Year of Our Gahan 2016.