On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:27:27 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:29 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud, then no
>>>>>one really cares why it's too loud.
>>>>
>>>> That's a non-starter.
>>>> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.
>>>
>>>How's this: "Noise level not to exceed X number of decibels at a distance
>>>of
>>>X feet/meters/yard from the source of the noise." Example: 65 db at 75'.
>>>It's just an example; don't jump on those numbers as gospel.
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with "unpleasantly loud". Instead, it's a
>> definition of a noise level that's illegal.
>> If you try to define "unpleasant" you are getting into a subjective
>> area. Measuring dB isn't subjective, it's objective.
>
>I addressed this issue in 2 other previous posts.

Then stick with it; don't continue to say that we should base laws on
subjective things.
>
>>>List exemptions, like military aircraft taking off from the airport,
>>>sirens
>>>on emergency vehicles on call, etc.
>>
>> What, they aren't "unpleasant"?
>
>The former can't be helped; the latter is necessary.

But "unpleasant" nonetheless.
>
>>>Include landscaping and construction equipment in the restrictions
>>>regarding
>>>time of day/length of noise duration.
>>>
>>>Sign it, stamp it, implement it. Many communities already have
>>>restrictions
>>>on the use of air brakes in residential neighborhoods, so it's not like
>>>there's no precedent.
>>>
>> But that's ot a definition of "unpleasantly loud".
>> You're ignoring that trying to use subjective terms as "unpleasantly
>> loud" has been already ruled as too vague.
>
>I ignored nothing, Bill. You're mistaken. This is an issue to be clarified
>in the house committee; assuming it gets that far. If a law is signed, the
>legislature has to find a way to implement it in a workable manner. What
>constitutes "Unnecessarily Loud" and enforcement (along with a fiscal impact
>statement; now there's a hope) will be defined then if it hasn't already.
>
No, the judicial branch has to find a way to implement it. The
legislature makes the rules, the judicial implements them.
The definitions must be in the rule/law. The judicial can't just make
it up as they go.
Wait, let me rephrase that; the judicial isn't supposed to make it up
as they go.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"