Wednesday, August 04, 2004
So, I was part of the group that worked on the new sound policy enforcements...
an article in the Examiner attempted to explain it. The article didn't do a very good job. Here's my letter to the editor:
To the Editor,
As one of the community members who worked on the language of the sound policy for Sharon Meadow, I feel compelled to respond to your article from July 29th, “A Concerted Effort at Sharon Meadow”.
First, I’d like to point out that a group of neighbors, some of whom had been requesting a response for up to nine years had to force the Rec & Park Commission to even consider this issue. Once they did, they acted as though this was some new thing that had no history.
This group of neighbors discovered that there was in fact, a sound policy already in place that had been ignored for years, both by RPD employees and the concert promoters to the point where ‘the wrong way’ became the ‘way we always did it’. Further, this group of neighbors discovered that besides ignoring the rules about how loud the concerts could be – simple, plain rules that don’t need fancy sound equipment to check: ‘the sound should be inaudible 250 ft from the back of the concert area’—the monies that were to be paid to RPD had not been paid in full… for years! After doing the math, we figured RPD had squandered approximately $3 million in fees they should have received. This, however flabbergasting this was, was not our issue. We simply wanted the concert promoters to follow the rules that had been on the books.
We worked through much resistance from RPD, including their City lawyer telling us there would be Free speech issues if we asked the concerts to turn down the volume (!) to clarify the language of the sound policy. This clarification did include the promoters needing to acquire a bond that would be held in the case they did break the rules and get fined, RPD could collect the money. This would not constitute any sort of great financial burden to a promoter working with a couple hundred thousand dollars… unless of course, they were planning on breaking the rules.
The mandated ‘acoustical consultant’ came from the Rec and Park Commission, not the neighbors. And personally, I see no reason for it. The rules clearly state how to judge how loud it is, and they don’t need an expert for that. It would seem to me that promoters, with all their sound people, should be able to figure out how to have an enjoyable concert without blasting the neighbors.
The AIDS walk experience was a bad test run. RPD of course did nothing to let the surrounding community know how to contact the right persons if there was a complaint. The phone number the neighborhood committee was given went to an answering machine, and Park Police station seemed to know nothing about ANY of the new regulations, how to work with RPD, or the supposed ‘three sound-enforcement officers’.
The Now and Zen folks seem to be the only promoters following the payment rules, and, low and behold, they intend to keep going for next year. Whether they can follow the amplified sound rules is yet to be tested. However, the other promoters seemed to only be able to run an event at Sharon Meadow by under paying, or not paying at all. Mr. Levine, the promoter who runs ‘A La Carte’ told a Chronicle reporter he was moving due to lack of attendance and poor weather. He told an RPD employee that he was having financial difficulty well before the sound policy was changed. Your article seemed to blame the loss of sorely needed revenue for the park system on the neighbors’ desire to see the concerts adhere to a reasonable volume, which is incorrect. We need more research and accuracy in our media, not less.
Tys Sniffen
The Neighborhood
an article in the Examiner attempted to explain it. The article didn't do a very good job. Here's my letter to the editor:
To the Editor,
As one of the community members who worked on the language of the sound policy for Sharon Meadow, I feel compelled to respond to your article from July 29th, “A Concerted Effort at Sharon Meadow”.
First, I’d like to point out that a group of neighbors, some of whom had been requesting a response for up to nine years had to force the Rec & Park Commission to even consider this issue. Once they did, they acted as though this was some new thing that had no history.
This group of neighbors discovered that there was in fact, a sound policy already in place that had been ignored for years, both by RPD employees and the concert promoters to the point where ‘the wrong way’ became the ‘way we always did it’. Further, this group of neighbors discovered that besides ignoring the rules about how loud the concerts could be – simple, plain rules that don’t need fancy sound equipment to check: ‘the sound should be inaudible 250 ft from the back of the concert area’—the monies that were to be paid to RPD had not been paid in full… for years! After doing the math, we figured RPD had squandered approximately $3 million in fees they should have received. This, however flabbergasting this was, was not our issue. We simply wanted the concert promoters to follow the rules that had been on the books.
We worked through much resistance from RPD, including their City lawyer telling us there would be Free speech issues if we asked the concerts to turn down the volume (!) to clarify the language of the sound policy. This clarification did include the promoters needing to acquire a bond that would be held in the case they did break the rules and get fined, RPD could collect the money. This would not constitute any sort of great financial burden to a promoter working with a couple hundred thousand dollars… unless of course, they were planning on breaking the rules.
The mandated ‘acoustical consultant’ came from the Rec and Park Commission, not the neighbors. And personally, I see no reason for it. The rules clearly state how to judge how loud it is, and they don’t need an expert for that. It would seem to me that promoters, with all their sound people, should be able to figure out how to have an enjoyable concert without blasting the neighbors.
The AIDS walk experience was a bad test run. RPD of course did nothing to let the surrounding community know how to contact the right persons if there was a complaint. The phone number the neighborhood committee was given went to an answering machine, and Park Police station seemed to know nothing about ANY of the new regulations, how to work with RPD, or the supposed ‘three sound-enforcement officers’.
The Now and Zen folks seem to be the only promoters following the payment rules, and, low and behold, they intend to keep going for next year. Whether they can follow the amplified sound rules is yet to be tested. However, the other promoters seemed to only be able to run an event at Sharon Meadow by under paying, or not paying at all. Mr. Levine, the promoter who runs ‘A La Carte’ told a Chronicle reporter he was moving due to lack of attendance and poor weather. He told an RPD employee that he was having financial difficulty well before the sound policy was changed. Your article seemed to blame the loss of sorely needed revenue for the park system on the neighbors’ desire to see the concerts adhere to a reasonable volume, which is incorrect. We need more research and accuracy in our media, not less.
Tys Sniffen
The Neighborhood
